Bhashya
भूर्भुव सुवरिति ।इतीत्युक्तोपप्रदर्श-नार्थं ।एतास्तिस्र इति च प्रदर्शितांना परामर्शार्थं परामृ-ष्टा स्मर्यन्ते वै इत्यनेन ।तिस्र एता प्रसिद्धा व्याहृतयस्मर्यन्त इति यावत् ।तासाम् इयं चतुर्थी व्याहृतिर्मह इति ,तामेतां चतुर्थीं महाचमसस्यापत्यं माहाचमस्य प्रवेदयते,उ ह स्म इत्येतेषां वृत्तानुकथनाथत्वात् विदितवान् ददर्शे-त्यर्थः ।माहाचमस्यग्रहणमार्षानुस्मरणार्थम् ।ऋष्यनुस्मरण-मप्युपासनाङ्गमिति गम्यते, इहोपदेशात् ।येय माहाचमस्येनदृष्टा व्याहृति मह इति, तत् ब्रह्म ।महद्धि ब्रह्म , महच्चव्याहृति ।कि पुनस्तत् ? स आत्मा, आप्नोतेर्व्याप्तिकर्मणआत्मा, इतराश्च व्याहृतयो लोका देवा वेदा प्राणाश्च महइत्यनेन व्याहृत्यात्मना आदित्यचन्द्रब्रह्मान्नभूतेन व्याप्यन्तेयत , अत अङ्गानि अवयवा अन्या देवता ।देवताग्रहणमुपलक्षणार्थं लोकादीनाम् ।मह इत्यस्य व्याहृत्यात्मनो देवालोकादयश्च सर्वे अवयवभूता यत अत आह-- आदि-त्यादिभिर्लोकादयो महीयन्त इति ।आत्मना ह्यङ्गानि मही-य ते ।महन वृद्धि उपचय ।महीयन्ते वर्धन्त इत्यर्थ ।अय लोक अग्नि ऋग्वेद प्राण इति प्रथमा व्याहृतिभू , अन्तरिक्ष वायु सामानि अपान इति द्वितीया व्या-हृति भुव , असौ लोक आदित्य यजूंषि व्यान इतितृतीया व्याहृति सुव , आदित्य च द्रमा ब्रह्म अन्नम्इति चतुर्थी व्याहृति मह इत्येवमेकैकश्चतुर्धा भवन्ति ।मह इति ब्रह्म ब्रह्मेत्योकार , शब्दाधिकारे अन्यस्यासम्भवात् ।उक्तार्थमन्यत् ।ता वा एताश्चतस्रश्चतुर्धेति ।ता वै एताभूभुव सुवर्मह इति चतस्र एकैकश चतुर्धा चतु प्रकारा ।धा शब्द प्रकारवचन ।चतस्रश्चतस्र सत्य चतुर्धा भव-न्तीत्यर्थ ।तासा यथाक्लृप्ताना पुनरुपदेशस्तथैवोपासनानियमाथ ।ता यथोक्ता व्याहृती य वेद, स वेद विजा-नाति ।कि तत् ? ब्रह्म ।ननु, 'तद्ब्रह्म स आत्मा' इति ज्ञात ब्रह्मणि, न वक्तव्यमविज्ञातवत् 'स वेद ब्रह्म' इति , न, तद्विशेषविवक्षुत्वाददोष ।सत्य विज्ञात चतुर्थव्याहृत्या आत्मा ब्रह्मेति, न तु तद्विशेष -- हृदयान्तरुपलभ्यत्व मनोमयत्वादिश्च ।'शान्तिसमृद्धम्' इत्येवमन्तो विशेषण- विशेषरूपो धर्मपूगो न विज्ञायत इति, तद्विवक्षु हि शास्त्र- मविज्ञातमिव ब्रह्म मत्वा 'स वेद ब्रह्म' इत्याह ।अतो न दोष ।यो वा वक्ष्यमाणेन धर्मपूगेण विशिष्ट ब्रह्म वेद, स वत्त ब्रह्म इत्यभिप्राय ।अतो वक्ष्यमाणानुवाकेनै कवाक्यता अस्य, उभयोह्यनुवाकयोरेकमुपासनम् ।लिङ्गाच्च ।भूरि त्यग्नौ प्रतितिष्ठति' इत्यादिक लिङ्गमुपासनैकत्वे ।विधाय- काभावाच्च ।न हि वेद उपासीत वेति विधायक कश्चिच्छ- ब्दोऽस्ति ।व्याहृत्यनुवाके 'ता या बद' इति तु वक्ष्यमा णार्थत्वान्नोपसनाभेदक ।वक्ष्यमाणार्थत्व च तद्विशेषविव- क्षुत्वादित्यादेनोक्तम् ।सर्वे देवा अस्मै एवविदुषे अङ्ग- भूता आवहन्ति आनयन्ति बलिम्, स्वाराज्यप्राप्तौ सत्या- मित्यर्थ ॥
In plain words
The utterances Bhūḥ, Bhuvaḥ, and Suvaḥ are cited here to recall what has already been established—namely, that these three are renowned mystical formulas. Beyond them is the fourth utterance, Mahas, which the seer Māhācamasya directly realized and beheld. Mentioning the sage's name serves to honor his memory, which itself aids contemplation. That utterance Mahas is Brahman itself, for both Brahman and this formula are infinite. What is that reality? It is the Self, whose very nature is all-pervading. Through this all-encompassing vyāhṛti-Self—manifested as the sun, the moon, Brahman, and food—all other utterances, worlds, deities, Vedas, and vital breaths are pervaded. Because they are thus pervaded, all other divine powers serve as limbs of this supreme whole. As the text declares, the worlds are magnified through the luminous bodies; for limbs derive their greatness entirely from the Self. 'Mahas' signifies growth and expansion. The first utterance, Bhūḥ, comprises this earth, fire, the Ṛgveda, and the upward breath. The second, Bhuvaḥ, comprises the atmosphere, the wind, the Sāma-samhitas, and the downward breath. The third, Suvaḥ, comprises the distant heavens, the sun, the Yajur-formulas, and the pervading breath. The fourth, Mahas, comprises the sun, the moon, sacred knowledge, and food. Thus each of the four expands into a fourfold manifestation. 'Mahas' is Brahman, and Brahman is the sacred syllable Oṃ, since no other meaning fits the linguistic context. The remaining portions of the text are already clear. These four vyāhṛties—Bhūḥ, Bhuvaḥ, Suvaḥ, and Mahas—each unfold in four distinct ways. Repeating these formulas in their established order serves to prescribe the proper mode of meditation. Whoever truly comprehends these utterances as described comes to know the supreme Brahman. Should someone object: 'If Brahman as the Self has already been known, why does the text speak of knowing Brahman as if it were still unknown?'—we reply that there is no flaw here. Although the general truth that the Self is Brahman is known through the fourth utterance, the specific attributes of Brahman—such as being perceived within the heart, being mind-formed, and abounding in supreme peace—are not yet fully understood. Wishing to reveal these intricate qualities, the scripture treats Brahman as if it were unfamiliar and declares 'He knows Brahman.' Therefore, whoever knows Brahman as qualified by these forthcoming attributes is the true knower. This section is thus harmoniously linked with the following anuvaka, for both share a single object of meditation. This unity is further confirmed by textual signs, such as the statement that Bhūḥ finds its footing in fire, and by the absence of any separate injunctive command to initiate a new meditation. The phrase 'Whoever knows those' simply points toward the teachings that follow rather than creating a distinct practice. All divine powers willingly bring their offerings of homage to the sage who possesses this profound realization.
Close to the Sanskrit
The utterances Bhuh, Bhuvah, Suvar—this is for showing what has been spoken. These three are remembered as well-known vyahritis by 'By this'. That is, these well-known vyahritis are remembered. Of those, this fourth vyahriti is Maha; that same fourth Mahachamasya cognizes as Mahachamasya, because it is of the nature of recounting past events, meaning he knew and saw it. The mentioning of Mahachamasya is for remembering the seer. It is understood that remembering the seer is also a limb of meditation, because of the instruction here. That vyahriti seen by Mahachamasya, which is Maha, that is Brahman. For Brahman is great, and the vyahriti is great. What again is that? That is the Self, the Self from the root ap meaning pervasion; and the other vyahritis, worlds, gods, Vedas, and breaths are pervaded by that vyahriti-Self, manifested as sun, moon, Brahman, and food, since they are pervaded, therefore other deities are limbs, components. The mention of deities is illustrative of worlds and others. Since the gods, worlds, and others are all component parts of that vyahriti-Self, therefore it says—worlds are magnified by the sun and others. For limbs are magnified by the Self. Mahana means growth, increase. They are magnified, meaning they grow. This world is fire, Rigveda, breath—this is the first vyahriti Bhuh; atmosphere, wind, Samans, apana—this is the second vyahriti Bhuvah; that world, sun, Yajuses, vyana—this is the third vyahriti Suvar; sun, moon, Brahman, food—this is the fourth vyahriti Maha; thus each becomes fourfold. Maha is Brahman, Brahman is Om, because of the appropriateness in the context of words. The rest has its meaning stated. Those indeed are these four fourfold. Those indeed are Bhuh, Bhuvah, Suvar, Maha, these four, each separately fourfold. 'Dha' is the word for manner. They become fourfold, four of each kind being true. The re-instruction of those as established is to prescribe meditations accordingly. Whoever knows those vyahritis as stated, he knows, discriminates. What is that? Brahman. If it be asked, 'That Brahman is that Self' being known in Brahman, it should not be stated like something unknown as 'He knows Brahman'—no, there is no fault, because of the desire to state its particulars. Though the Self as Brahman is known through the fourth vyahriti, its particulars—such as being cognizable within the heart, being constituted of mind, ending with 'abounding in peace', and possessing the multitude of qualities forming qualifiers and qualified—are not known; desiring to express those, the scripture treats Brahman as if unknown and says 'He knows Brahman'. Therefore there is no fault. The intention is that whoever knows Brahman qualified by the attribute-group to be spoken of, he is the knower of Brahman. Therefore this has syntactic unity with the subsequent anuvaka, for both anuvakas have a single meditation. And because of the indicative sign, such as 'Bhuh establishes itself in fire', which indicates oneness of meditation. And because of the absence of an injunctive word, for there is no injunctive word such as 'He should know' or 'He should meditate'. In the vyahriti section, 'Whoever knows those' has the sense of subsequent teaching and does not divide meditation. And that it has the sense of subsequent teaching has been stated by the desire to specify its details. All gods bring tribute to this knower, when attainment of self-sovereignty is realized.