Bhashya
य इमेऽर्णवादयो ब्राह्मलौकिकाः संकल्पजाश्च पित्रादयोभोगाः, ते किं पार्थिवा आप्याश्च यथेह लोके दृश्यन्ते तद्व-दर्णववृक्षपूःस्वर्णमण्डपानि, आहोस्वित् मानसप्रत्ययमात्राणी-ति ।किञ्चातः ? यदि पार्थिवा आप्याश्च स्थूलाः स्युः,हृद्याकाशे समाधानानुपपत्तिः ।पुराणे च मनोमयानि ब्रह्म-लोके शरीरादीनीति वाक्यं विरुध्येत ; 'अशोकमहिमम्'इत्याद्याश्च श्रुतयः ।ननु समुद्राः सरितः सरांसि वाप्यःकूपा यज्ञा वेदा मन्त्रादयश्च मूर्तिमन्तः ब्रह्माणमुपतिष्ठन्तेइति मानसत्वे विरुध्येत पुराणस्मृतिः ।न, मूर्तिमत्त्वे प्रसि-द्धरूपाणामेव तत्र गमनानुपपत्तेः ।तस्मात्प्रसिद्धमूर्त्तिव्यतिरेकेण सागरादीनां मूर्त्त्यन्तरं सागरादिभिरुपात्तं ब्रह्मलोकगन्तृ कल्पनीयम् ।तुल्यायां च कल्पनायां यथाप्रसिद्धा एव मानस्यः आकारवत्यः पुंस्त्र्याद्या मूर्तयो युक्ताः कल्पयितुम् , मानसदेहानुरूप्यसंबन्धोपपत्तेः ।दृष्टा हि मानसस्य एव आकारवत्यः पुंस्त्र्याद्या मूर्तयः स्वप्ने ।ननु ता अनृता एव; 'त इमे सत्याः कामाः' इति श्रुतिः तथा सति विरुध्येत ।न, मानसप्रत्ययस्य सत्त्वोपपत्तेः ।मानसा हि प्रत्ययाः स्त्रीपुरुषाद्याकाराः स्वप्ने दृश्यन्ते ।ननु जाग्रद्वासनारूपाः स्वप्नदृश्याः, न तु तत्र स्त्र्यादयः स्वप्ने विद्यन्ते ।अत्यल्पमिदमुच्यते ।जाग्रद्विषया अपि मानसप्रत्ययाभिनिर्वृत्ता एव, सदीक्षाभिनिर्वृत्ततेजोबन्नमयत्वाज्जाग्रद्विषयाणाम् ।संकल्पमूला हि लोका इति च उक्तम् 'समकल्पतां द्यावापृथिवी' इत्यत्र ।सर्वश्रुतिषु च प्रत्यगात्मन उत्पत्तिः प्रलयश्च तत्रैव स्थितिश्च 'यथा वा अरा नाभौ' इत्यादिना उच्यते ।तस्मान्मानसानां बाह्यानां च विषयाणाम् इतरेतरकार्यकारणत्वमिष्यत एव बीजाङ्कुरवत् ।यद्यपि बाह्या एव मानसाः मानसा एव च बाह्याः, नानृतत्वं तेषां कदाचिदपि स्वात्मनि भवति ।ननु स्वप्ने दृष्टाः प्रतिबुद्धस्या-नृता भवन्ति विषयाः ।सत्यमेव ।जाग्रद्बोधापेक्षं तु तदनृतत्वं न स्वतः ।तथा स्वप्नबोधापेक्षं च जाग्रद्दृष्टविषयानृतत्वं न स्वतः ।विशेषाकारमात्रं तु सर्वेषां मिथ्याप्रत्ययनिमित्तमिति वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयमनृतम्, त्रीणि रूपाणीत्येव सत्यम् ।तान्यप्याकारविशेषतोऽनृतं स्वतः सन्मात्ररूपतया सत्यम् ।प्राक्सदात्मप्रतिबोधात्स्वविषयेऽपि सर्वे सत्यमेव स्वप्नदृश्या इवेति न कश्चिद्विरोधः ।तस्मान्मानसा एव ब्राह्मलौकिका अरण्यादयः संकल्पजाश्च पित्रादयः कामाः ।बाह्यविषयभोगवदशुद्धिरहितत्वाच्छुद्धसत्त्वसंकल्पजन्या इति निरतिशयसुखाः सत्याश्च ईश्वराणां भवन्तीत्यर्थः ।मत्सत्यात्मप्रतिबोधेऽपि रज्ज्वामिव कल्पिताः सर्पादयः सदात्मस्वरूपतामेव प्रतिपद्यन्त इति सदात्मना सत्या एव भवन्ति ॥
In plain words
Are the oceans, ancestral enjoyments, and other phenomena of Brahmaloka gross earthly and aquatic entities like those seen in our physical world—such as physical oceans, trees, cities, and golden halls—or are they merely mental cognitions? What follows from this question? If they were gross physical and watery forms, it would be impossible for them to be contained within the subtle space of the heart, and this would directly contradict scriptural statements in the Purāṇas declaring that bodies in Brahmaloka are mind-born, as well as Vedic texts speaking of 'sorrowless majesty.' An objection is raised: if oceans, rivers, lakes, sacrifices, and Vedas approached the creator Brahma with physical forms, traditional lore describing their embodiment would be contradicted. We reply: this is not so, because physical entities as known in the world cannot travel to that realm. Therefore, one must postulate a subtle form for the oceans and other phenomena enabling them to reach Brahmaloka. Since the need for hypothesis is equal, it is entirely reasonable to conceive of mental forms endowed with male and female shapes—just like those familiar in dreams—because they correspond naturally to mental bodies. Indeed, we observe well-formed male and female apparitions in dreams. If someone objects that dream objects are false and that the scriptural text declaring 'These indeed are true desires' would thereby be contradicted, we reply that mental cognitions possess their own operational reality, taking the shapes of men and women within dreams. If it is argued that dream objects are merely residual waking memories and that actual women do not exist in dreams, this objection is superficial. Waking objects are themselves fully produced by mental cognitions, since the gross elements of the waking world originate from the divine will. Scripture declares that worlds are rooted in mental resolve, as in the Vedic verse 'Heaven and earth formed by will,' and all shrutis teach that the origin, sustenance, and dissolution of the inner Self occur within that very consciousness, just as spokes are fixed in the hub of a wheel. Hence, a reciprocal cause-and-effect relationship between mental and external objects is fully accepted, exactly like the cycle of seed and sprout. Although external objects are fundamentally mental and mental objects are manifested outwardly, they are never completely unreal in terms of their underlying substratum. It is true that objects seen in a dream appear unreal to an awakened person, but that unreality is relative to the waking state, not intrinsic. Similarly, the unreality of waking objects evaluated from a dream standpoint is not intrinsic. The specific configuration of every object is a product of false perception, as scripture states: 'Modification is a mere verbal designation, an unreal name; the three elemental forms alone are true.' Even those elements are illusory in their specific shapes, but real in their intrinsic nature as pure existence. Prior to the realization of the absolute Self, all objects within one's sphere of experience appear real, just like dream objects, so there is no logical contradiction. Therefore, the forests and enjoyments of Brahmaloka are indeed mental creations. Because they are entirely free from the flaws and impurities of gross sensory enjoyment and are generated from pure sattva resolve, they manifest for the liberated masters as unsurpassable, blissful, and truly real. Just as a rope mistakenly seen as a snake realizes its true identity as a rope when the illusion is dispelled, even projected phenomena recover their true nature as pure existence upon the direct realization of the absolute Self.
Close to the Sanskrit
Those which are these oceans and others belonging to brahmaloka and enjoyments like ancestors born of will, are they earthly and aquatic just as they are seen here in the world, like oceans, trees, cities, golden pavilions, or else purely mental cognitions? What follows from this? If they were gross, earthly and aquatic, the impossibility of accommodation within the subtle space of the heart follows. And the scriptural sentence in the purana that bodies and so on in brahmaloka are mind-born would be contradicted; and shruti texts like 'sorrowless majesty' and others. Now, if oceans, rivers, lakes, stepwells, wells, sacrifices, Vedas, mantras and others approach Brahma possessing physical forms, that purana smriti text would be contradicted in the case of mental nature. No, because if they possessed well-known physical forms, their reaching there would be impossible. Therefore, apart from their well-known physical form, another form of oceans and others assumed by oceans and capable of reaching brahmaloka must be hypothesized. And when the need for hypothesis is equal, mental forms possessing shapes like males and females, just as they are well-known in dreams, are reasonable to conceive, due to the possibility of relation conforming to mental bodies. For mental forms possessing shapes like males and females are indeed seen in dreams. Now, those are unreal; the shruti text 'These indeed are true desires' would be contradicted if that were so. No, because the reality of mental cognition is tenable. For mental cognitions having the forms of women, men, and others are seen in dreams. Now, dream sights have the form of waking impressions, but women and others do not exist there in dream. This is asserted trivially. Waking objects are also fully produced by mental cognitions, because waking objects consist of fire, water, and food produced by the will of the existent. And it has been said that worlds are rooted in will, in the text 'Heaven and earth formed by will.' And in all shrutis the origin, dissolution, and sustenance of the inner self are spoken of right there, as in 'Just as spokes are fixed in the hub.' Therefore, the mutual cause-and-effect relationship between mental and external objects is indeed accepted, like seed and sprout. Although external objects are indeed mental and mental objects are indeed external, their unreality never occurs at any time in their own self. Now, objects seen in dreams become unreal to an awakened person. That is true. But that unreality is relative to waking consciousness, not intrinsic. Similarly, the unreality of objects seen in the waking state relative to dream consciousness is not intrinsic. The specific form alone of all objects is caused by false perception, as stated: 'Modification is a mere verbal designation, an unreal name; the three forms alone are true.' Even those are unreal in respect of their specific shape, but true in their nature as pure existence. Prior to the realization of the real self, everything is true even in its own sphere, just like dream sights, so there is no contradiction. Therefore, the forests and other objects belonging to brahmaloka and desires born of will are mental indeed. Because they are free from impurity like the enjoyment of external objects, they are generated from pure sattva resolve, and thus they are unsurpassable, blissful, and real for the lords, is the meaning. Even upon the realization of the true self as reality, serpents and other objects imagined like a snake in a rope attain their true nature as the real self, and thus become truly real as pure existence.