Devanagari
एतास्ते कीर्तिता: सर्वा: सङ्क्षेपेण विभूतय: ।
मनोविकारा एवैते यथा वाचाभिधीयते ॥ ४१ ॥
Verse text
etās te kīrtitāḥ sarvāḥ
saṅkṣepeṇa vibhūtayaḥ
mano-vikārā evaite
yathā vācābhidhīyate
Synonyms
etāḥ
—
these
;
te
—
to you
;
kīrtitāḥ
—
described
;
sarvāḥ
—
all
;
saṅkṣepeṇa
—
briefly
;
vibhūtayaḥ
—
spiritual opulences
;
manaḥ
—
of the mind
;
vikārāḥ
—
transformations
;
eva
—
indeed
;
ete
—
these
;
yathā
—
accordingly
;
vācā
—
by words
;
abhidhīyate
—
each is described .
Translation
I have briefly described to you all My spiritual opulences and also the extraordinary material features of My creation, which are perceived by the mind and defined in different ways according to circumstances.
Translation (Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura)
I have briefly described to you all my vibhūtis. But ordinary objects are also designated in the same way with words because of sentiments in the mind.
The Lord summarizes everything. All vibhūtis, in general and particular, have been described. But vibhūtis well-known among people are identified through transformations of mind like affection and hatred. Those are not my vibhūtis. Out of affection, a transformation of the mind, someone will designate others, saying “This is my son, this is my father, this is my uncle, this is my nephew, this is my friend.” These are not vibhūtis of the Lord. Where there is hatred, another transformation of mind, one says, “This person is offensive to me, this person should be offended, this person hates me, this person should be hated, this person kills, this person should be killed.” These are not vibhūtis of the Lord. Thus, though Indra is my vibhūti, if Śacī says “This is my husband,” or if Aditi says “This is my son,” if Jayanta says “This is my father,” or Bṛhaspati says “This is my disciple,” if the demons say “This is our enemy,” those also are not vibhūtis of the Lord.
My devotees without possessiveness can say for all things “This is the Lord’s vibhūti.” However, the spiritual vibhūtis may be thought of as son, brother etc. without any harm. The avatāras and devotees listed among the vibhūtis can be treated in this way.
One should not take the meaning of the verse to be “All these vibhūtis are mere mental transformations (illusory).” Among the vibhūtis, Vāsudeva and impersonal Brahman also are listed. Brahman and Vāsudeva would then become imaginary entities. This would not be acceptable to the Śūnyavādīs and thus they would have to be excluded for the list. But then the word ete (all these) would become meaningless in the verse.
Purport
According to Sanskrit grammar, and as confirmed by Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī, the words
etāḥ
and
ete
describe two distinct sets of the Lord’s opulences. The Lord has described His opulent plenary expansions, such as Vāsudeva, Nārāyaṇa, the Supersoul, etc., and further the Lord has described the outstanding features of the material creation, which are also included among the glories of the Personality of Godhead. The plenary manifestations of the Lord, such as Vāsudeva, Nārāyaṇa, etc., are all eternal, unchanging transcendental features of the Lord and are indicated by the term
etāḥ.
The extraordinary aspects of material creation, however, are circumstantial and dependent on individual perception, and they are therefore described here by the words
mano-vikārā evaite yathā vācābhidhīyate.
Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī explains that by consistent logical application of synonyms,
etāḥ
refers to the Lord’s eternal spiritual manifestations, beyond the perception of the material senses, whereas
ete
refers to those opulences that can be perceived by conditioned souls. He gives the example that the paraphernalia and intimate associates of a king are all considered to be part and parcel of the king and are therefore granted royal status. Similarly, the opulent features of material creation are reflected expansions of the Lord’s personal opulences and thus may be considered nondifferent from Him. One should not, however, wrongly assume that such insignificant material opulences occupy the same status as the Lord’s plenary features as the Personality of Godhead, which are qualitatively and quantitatively equal to the Lord.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments as follows on this verse. “The Lord’s external opulences are called
mano-vikārāḥ,
or ‘related to mental transformation,’ because ordinary people perceive extraordinary features of the material world according to their personal state of mind. Thus the word
vācābhidhīyate
indicates that conditioned souls describe the Lord’s material creation according to specific material circumstances. Because of the circumstantial relative definitions of material opulence, such opulence is never to be considered a direct plenary manifestation of the Lord’s personal form. When one’s state of mind is transformed into a favorable or affectionate state, one defines a manifestation of the Lord’s energy as ‘my son,’ ‘my father,’ ‘my husband,’ ‘my uncle,’ ‘the son of my brother,’ ‘my friend,’ and so on. One forgets that every living entity is actually part and parcel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and that whatever opulences, talents or outstanding features one may exhibit are actually the potencies of the Lord. Similarly, when the mind is transformed into a negative or inimical state, one thinks, ‘This person will be the ruin of me,’ ‘This person must be finished by me,’ ‘He is my enemy’ or ‘I am his enemy,’ ‘He is a killer’ or ‘He should be killed.’ The negative state of mind is also expressed when one is attracted to the extraordinary material aspects of particular persons or objects but forgets that they are manifestations of the potency of the Personality of Godhead. Even the demigod Indra, who is quite obviously a manifestation of the Lord’s material opulences, is misunderstood by others. For example, Indra’s wife, Śacī, thinks that Indra is ‘my husband,’ whereas Aditi thinks that he is ‘my son.’ Jayanta thinks that he is ‘my father,’ Bṛhaspati thinks that he is ‘my disciple,’ whereas the demons feel that Indra is their personal enemy. Thus different personalities define him according to their mental state. The Lord’s material opulences, being relatively perceived, are therefore called
mano-vikāra,
which means they are dependent on mental states. This relative perception is material because it does not recognize the Supreme Personality of Godhead as the actual source of the particular opulence. If one sees Lord Kṛṣṇa as the source of all opulences and gives up all desires to enjoy or possess the Lord’s opulences, then one can see the spiritual nature of these opulences. At that time, even though one may continue to perceive the variety and distinctions of the material world, one will become perfect in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. One should not conclude, as do the voidist philosophers, that the Lord’s spiritual manifestations in the
viṣṇu-tattva
and liberated
jīva
categories are also products of relative perception and mental states. This useless idea is contrary to the entire body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead’s teachings to Śrī Uddhava.”
According to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, the word
vācā
also indicates the various Vedic literatures that describe the particular processes by which the Lord manifests His spiritual and material opulences, and in this context
yathā
indicates the specific procedures of manifestation and creation.