Karika verse 2.5

5. (K¹³) The Jīvas who have reached the Prājña or the Turīya are both equal in so far as they have risen above the illusion of duality (which consists in thinking that they are independent of the Lord).—(The difference, however, between them is) that those in Prājña are covered by the Primeval Nescience, but not so those who are in Turīya.—20.

Notes.

[Note.—Dvaitasya—the duality, the false notion that the bodies, etc., are independent of the Lord.]

[Note.—Prājña-turyayoḥ (Prājñaturya)—of Prājña and Turīya. Those who have reached the Prājña or the Turīya Brahman have this point in common, that both have discarded the illusion or dvaita or the notion of being independent agents or that they and their bodies are not under the control of the Lord. The souls here never fall into the delusion of free-will.]

[Note.—Bīja-nidrā-yutaḥ Prājñaḥ—seed-sleep accompanied (i.e., bījanidrāyuta) (is) Prājña, i.e., associated with the seed or root of sleep or ignorance: the mulā [mūlā?] avidyā. Prājña is always associated with this Root Nescience. As He is the Lord of this mulā [mūlā?] avidyā called also the bīja-nidrā, He is said to be joined (Yuta) with her: as we say bhṛtya-yutaḥ svāmī, the master accompanied by the servant.]

Madhva’s commentary called the Bhāṣya:

Viśva and the rest are said to be joined (yutaḥ), with sleep; because she (the Sleep-Primeval Nescience) is under the Lord, and is His handmaid, in these three states. The force of yutaḥ here is the same as in the sentence “bhṛtya-yutaḥ svāmī”—the master joined with the servant, i.e., the master under whose control is the servant. The phrase nidrā-yutāḥ prājñaḥ does not mean that the Lord Prājña is overpowered by the Sleep or Nescience for there can never be want of knowledge, in the case of the Supreme Self.

Note.—The Nidrā or Mulā Avidyā is the associate of the Lord in three states of Viśva, Taijasa and Prājña. He works through Her in those states.

Though these four forms of the Lord are identical, yet Brahman is said to do a thing in a certain form, and not to do a thing in another form, from the point of view of practical reality, and according to the particular power that He wields for the time being. The different aspects of Brahman are identical (abheda) yet as different sets ofactiviti.es appertain to different forms, they are said to bo different, (therefore it is said that as Turīya He does not do something which He doos as Viśva, &c. It only moans that some particular powers are used in one form and not used in another form).

(The word sarva-dṛk has been explained as “He who shows all” and not as “He who sees all,” though both would be appropriate epithets of the Lord. The objection, however, to the second meaning is as follows:—

If the word sarva-dṛk in not construed as a causative and is not interpreted as ‘He causes the perception of all’ then sarva-dṛk must bo interpreted as “He sees all” and not “Ho shows all.” This would go against the statement that in Prājña and Turīya the non-acceptance of dvaita is the common ground. (For then the pharse turīyam sarvadṛk would mean the Turīya is omniscient and sees everything. What is then the force of saying that the Turīya does not see (grahaṇa) the duality: for by the very fact of His seeing all he would see the dvaita also, and know it to bo an illusion. Sarva-dṛk, therefore, must mean “shows all” and not “sees all”).