Garuda Purana

पूर्वरूपं च पूर्णं च पूर्णं पदवितारगम्? । रूपं तदात्मन्यादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥ ३,३.

The previous form is complete, and the complete form spreads to the highest realm; when that form is taken within the self, only completeness remains.

लौकिकव्यवहारोयं भूभारक्षपणादिकः । तस्य दृर्ष्टि विना नान्यो लयः कृष्णादिना क्वचित् ॥ ३,३.

This worldly conduct, such as the removal of the earth's burden, occurs; without his vision, there is no dissolution by Kṛṣṇa or others anywhere.

तत्त्वे पीडा न कर्तव्या तया दुः खानि विन्दति । अत्यन्तपीडनात्तस्य रोगस्तस्य न संशयः ॥ ३,३.

In truth, affliction should not be inflicted; by it, one finds suffering. Excessive affliction brings disease, of this there is no doubt.

ज्ञातव्यांशे तु पीडा तु कर्तव्या गुरुणा सह । तमन्तेवासिनं चाहुः स एव चु गुरुः स्मृतः ॥ ३,३.

But in the aspect of knowledge, affliction should be performed together with the teacher; that disciple is called so, and he alone is remembered as the teacher.

ये कुर्वन्ति हरेस्तत्त्वविचारं तु परस्परम् । तावेव गुरुशिष्यौ तु विनतानन्दसंयुत ॥ ३,३.

Those who mutually inquire into the truth of Hari are indeed teacher and disciple, joined in the joy of Vinatā.

गुरुणापि समं हास्यं कर्तव्यं कुटिलं विना । हर्षामर्षयुतः शिष्यो गुरुः कौटिल्यसंयुतः ॥ ३,३.

Even with the teacher, laughter should be shared, except with crookedness; the disciple is filled with joy and anger, the teacher with crookedness.

उभौ तौ निरयं यातो यावदाचन्द्रतारकम् । साक्षाद्धरिः पुरुषः पिङ्गलाक्षः स्वमायायां गुणमय्यां महात्मा । स्वपौरुषेणैव सुमङ्गलेन अधात्तु वीर्यं भगवान्वीर्यवांश्च ॥ ३,३.

Both go to hell until the moon and stars endure. Directly, Hari, the person with tawny eyes, the great soul, in his own māyā composed of qualities, by his own auspicious power, imparted his vigor, being full of vigor.

गरुड उवाच । वीर्यस्वरूपं ब्रूहि मे वासुदेव वीर्ये त्वदीये संशयो मे विभाति । किं वीर्यमीशस्य स्वरूपभूतं किं वा विभिन्नं वद साधु वेत्सि ॥ ३,३.

Garuda said: Tell me the nature of vigor, O Vāsudeva; a doubt arises in me regarding your vigor. Is the vigor of the Lord inherent in his nature, or is it distinct? Speak well, for you know.

श्रीकृष्ण उवाच । यद्वीर्यमाधत्त हरिः स्वयं प्रभुर्मायाभिधायां विनतातनूज । तद्वीर्यमाहुर्नृहरेः स्वरूपं विपश्चितो निश्चिततत्त्वदर्शिनः ॥ ३,३.

Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: The vigor that Hari himself imparted to the māyā called Vinatā's son, that vigor, say the wise who see the truth, is the very nature of Nṛhari.

भिन्नं तदाहुः प्राकृतमेव चाहुः स्वनाभिपद्मादिकवच्च बोध्यम् । नैतावता ज्ञानरूपस्य विष्णोर्न वीर्यहानिरिति चिन्तनीयम् ॥ ३,३.

Others say it is distinct, and some call it natural, to be understood like the lotus arising from his navel. By this, there is no loss of Viṣṇu's knowledge-form or vigor; this should be considered.

वीर्यस्वरूपी भगवान्वा सुदेवः सर्वत्र देशेपि च सर्वकाले । सर्वार्थवान्यदि न स्यात्खगेन्द्र तर्हीश्वरः पुरुषो नैव स स्यात् ॥ ३,३.

The Lord Vāsudeva, whose nature is vigor, is present everywhere, in every place and at all times. If he were not the source of all things, O king of birds, then the Lord, the Person, would not exist.

अचिन्त्यवीर्यैश्चिन्त्यवीर्यैर्द्विरूपः स्त्रीरूपमेकं पुरुषं तथा परम् । उभे रूपे वीर्यवती खगेन्द्र तयोरभेदश्चिन्तनीयो हि सम्यकू ॥ ३,३.

With powers both inconceivable and conceivable, the Supreme assumes a dual form: one as a woman, one as a man; O king of birds, both forms are endowed with potency, and their essential non-difference must be rightly contemplated.

स्त्रीरूपवान्यदि न स्यात्खर्गेद्रस्त्रीणां कथं प्रतिबिंबत्वमेव ॥ ३,३.

If the Supreme did not possess the form of a woman, O king of birds, how could there be any reflection of women at all?

स्त्रीरूपमस्माद्ब्रह्मजं (द्वास्तवं) चिन्तनीयं स्वरूपमेतन्नान्यथा चिन्तनीयम् । स्त्रीरूपवन्नैव विचिन्तनीयं नपुंसकं त्बस्य जन्यं हि विद्धि ॥ ३,३.

The feminine form arises from Brahman; this alone should be contemplated as its true nature, not otherwise; it should not be conceived as neuter, for know that the neuter is its offspring.

नपुंसकं नवैव स्वरूपभूतमतो हरौ नास्ति विचिन्तनीयम् । स्त्रीबिंबभूते हरिरूपे खगेन्द्र श्रीरूपमस्तीति विचिन्तनीयम् ॥ ३,३.

The neuter is not the essential form; therefore, in Hari there is nothing to be considered as neuter. When Hari appears as the reflection of the feminine, O king of birds, then the form of Śrī must be contemplated.

गरुड उवाच । स्त्रिया स्त्रियश्च संयोगं व्यर्थमहुर्मनीषिणः । स्त्रीरूपभूते विंबे तु स्त्रीरूपाः सन्ति सर्वदा ॥ ३,३.

Garuḍa said: The wise declare the union of woman with woman to be fruitless; yet, in the reflection of the feminine form, feminine forms always exist.

स्थितौ तत्र निमित्तं च ब्रूहि कृष्ण मम प्रभो ॥ ३,३.

Tell me, Kṛṣṇa, my Lord, what is the cause for this existence there?

श्रीकृष्ण उवाच । स्त्रीबिंबभूतस्त्रीरूपे लक्ष्मीर्न स्यात्खगेश्वर । नित्यावियोगिनी देवी कथं स्यात्परमात्मनः ॥ ३,३.

Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: If Lakṣmī did not exist in the form of the feminine reflection, O lord of birds, how could the goddess be eternally inseparable from the Supreme Self?

हरेरनन्तरूपाणां स्त्रीरूपाणां खगेश्वर । अनन्तानन्तरूपेण नित्यं शुश्रूषणे रता ॥ ३,३.

Of Hari's countless forms, O lord of birds, the feminine forms are endless, and in those endless forms, she is ever devoted to service.

अतो लक्ष्म्या वियोगस्तु शङ्कनीयः कथञ्चन । नारायणो नाम हरिः स्वतन्त्रः श्रिया विना नास्ति कदापि तार्क्ष्य । हरेर्मुकुन्दस्य पदारविन्दे शुश्रूषमाणा परमादरेण ॥ ३,३.

Therefore, separation from Lakṣmī is never to be suspected in any way; Nārāyaṇa, called Hari, is never independent of Śrī, O Tārkṣya. With utmost reverence, she serves at the lotus feet of Hari, Mukunda.

हरिं विना श्रीरपि देशकाले नास्तीति मोक्षेच्छुभिरेव वेद्यम् । यस्यामधाद्वीर्यमनुक्षणं च सा मामिका चेन्द्रजाला त्मिकेति ॥ ३,३.

Without Hari, even Śrī does not exist in any place or time; this should be known only by those who seek liberation. In whomsoever she places her power at every moment, that one is my own, possessed of magical power.

वदन्ति ये असुरा मूढरूपा अधंमतः प्रविशन्त्येव सर्वे । माया नाम प्रकृतिस्त्वेमाहुः सुसूक्ष्मरूपा न तु चेन्द्रजालिका ॥ ३,३.

Those who are demons, of deluded form and base understanding, all enter into degradation. This nature is called Māyā, of most subtle form, not merely a conjurer's illusion.

तस्याभिमानः श्रीरिति वेदितव्यो वीर्याधानं तत्र तेषां च मेलः । कार्योन्मुखं मेलनं चाहुरार्या इतो रूपं नाहुराय्याश्च विष्णोः ॥ ३,३.

Her self-conception is to be known as Śrī; the bestowal of power is there, and their union is the meeting of those two. The noble say that union is for the sake of action; but this form of Viṣṇu is not called so by the wise.

सानादि नित्या सत्यरूपा च विष्णोर्मिथ्या रूपा सा कथं स्यात्खगेन्द्र । सत्या तनुः प्रकृतेस्तन्निगूढा सत्यत्वमाहुर्व्यवहारार्थरूपम् ॥ ३,३.

She is beginningless, eternal, and of true form; how could she be a false form of Viṣṇu, O king of birds? Her body is real, though hidden by nature; her reality is said to be for the sake of worldly dealings.

व्यवहाररूपा सत्यता चेत्प्रकृत्यास्तदा कथं स्याद्यदनादिभूता । अनादिनित्या यदि न स्यात्खगेन्द्र सुशूक्ष्मरूपेण न कारणं स्यात् ॥ ३,३.

If reality is only conventional, then how could nature be beginningless? If she were not beginningless and eternal, O king of birds, she would not be the subtle cause.

सूक्ष्मेण रूपेण च कारणं स्यात्तर्हि प्रपञ्चस्य च कारणं वद । अविद्याया वशतो विष्णुरेव नानारूपैर्दृश्यते विष्णुरेव ॥ ३,३.

By her subtle form, she is the cause; therefore, tell me, how is she the cause of the manifest world? By the power of ignorance, Viṣṇu alone appears in many forms; it is Viṣṇu alone who is seen.

शास्त्रज्ञानान्नाशमेति ह्यविद्या न संशयो हरिणा चैक्यमेति । एवं ब्रूषे यदि वादत्खगेन्द्र वक्ष्येहं ते तत्र युक्तिं शृणु त्वम् ॥ ३,३.

Ignorance is destroyed by knowledge of scripture, without doubt, and one attains unity with Hari. If you say so, O king of birds, I will tell you the reasoning for this; listen now.

सर्वज्ञरूपस्य हि मे मुरारेः कथं हरेर्घटते ह्यज्ञता च । सूर्ये यथा तमो नास्ति तथा नारायणे हरौ । अज्ञानं नास्ति पक्षीद्र कथं तत्वं ब्रवीष्यहो ॥ ३,३.

How could ignorance exist in me, the form of all-knowing Murāri? Just as there is no darkness in the sun, so in Nārāyaṇa, in Hari, there is no ignorance, O bird; how do you speak of this?

अतो नाहं ब्राह्मणस्त्वादिकालादुपाधिसंबन्धवशादज्ञताचेत् । सर्वज्ञोसौ कुत्र पक्षीन्द्र विष्णुरल्पज्ञजीवो ज्ञानशून्यश्च कुत्र ॥ ३,३.

Therefore, I am not a brāhmaṇa from the beginning of time, due to association with limiting adjuncts, if there is ignorance. Where is the all-knowing Viṣṇu, O king of birds, and where is the limited, ignorant individual soul?