FolioCorpusŚrīmad-Bhāgavatam

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.22.26

श्रीउद्धव उवाच प्रकृति: पुरुषश्चोभौ यद्यप्यात्मविलक्षणौ । अन्योन्यापाश्रयात् कृष्ण द‍ृश्यते न भिदा तयो: । प्रकृतौ लक्ष्यते ह्यात्मा प्रकृतिश्च तथात्मनि ॥ २६ ॥
śrī-uddhava uvāca
[shree-uddhava uvaacha]
prakṛtiḥ puruṣaś cobhau
[prakritih purushash chobhau]
yady apy ātma-vilakṣaṇau
[yady apy aatma-vilakshanau]
anyonyāpāśrayāt kṛṣṇa
[anyonyaapaashrayaat krishna]
dṛśyate na bhidā tayoḥ
[drishyate na bhidaa tayoh]
prakṛtau lakṣyate hy ātmā
[prakritau lakshyate hy aatmaa]
prakṛtiś ca tathātmani
[prakritish cha tathaatmani]
śrī-uddhavaḥ uvāca — Śrī Uddhava said prakṛtiḥ — nature puruṣaḥ — the enjoyer, or living entity ca — and ubhau — both yadi api — although ātma — constitutionally vilakṣaṇau — distinct anyonya — mutual apāśrayāt — because of shelter kṛṣṇa — O Lord Kṛṣṇa dṛśyate na — it does not appear bhidā — any difference tayoḥ — between them prakṛtau — within nature lakṣyate — is apparently seen hi — indeed ātmā — the soul prakṛtiḥ — nature ca — and tathā — also ātmani — in the soul.
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
śrī-uddhava uvāca
śrī-uddhavaḥ uvāca
Śrī Uddhava said
prakṛtiḥ puruṣaś cobhau
prakṛtiḥ
nature
puruṣaḥ
the enjoyer, or living entity
yady apy ātma-vilakṣaṇau
anyonyāpāśrayāt kṛṣṇa
dṛśyate na bhidā tayoḥ
prakṛtau lakṣyate hy ātmā
prakṛtiś ca tathātmani
ca
and
ubhau
both
yadi api
although
ātma
constitutionally
vilakṣaṇau
distinct
anyonya
mutual
apāśrayāt
because of shelter
kṛṣṇa
O Lord Kṛṣṇa
dṛśyate na
it does not appear
bhidā
any difference
tayoḥ
between them
prakṛtau
within nature
lakṣyate
is apparently seen
hi
indeed
ātmā
the soul
prakṛtiḥ
nature
ca
and
tathā
also
ātmani
in the soul.
Śrī Uddhava inquired: Although nature and the living entity are constitutionally distinct, O Lord Kṛṣṇa, there appears to be no difference between them, because they are found residing within one another. Thus the soul appears to be within nature and nature within the soul.

Śrī Uddhava here expresses the doubt that arises in the heart of an ordinary conditioned soul. Although the Vedic scriptures declare that the material body is a temporary fabrication of the material modes of nature, the conscious living entity within the body is actually an eternal spirit soul. In Bhagavad-gītā Lord Kṛṣṇa has declared the material elements constituting the body to be His separated, inferior energy, whereas the living entity is the superior, conscious energy of the Lord. Still, in conditioned life the material body and conditioned soul appear inseparable and thus nondifferent. Because the living entity enters the womb of a mother and gradually comes out in a developed body, the soul appears to have entered deeply within material nature. Similarly, by the soul’s identification with the material body, the body appears to enter deeply within the consciousness of the soul. What is more, the body cannot exist without the presence of the soul. By this apparent mutual dependence, the difference between the body and soul is obscured. Śrī Uddhava therefore questions the Lord in order to clarify this issue.

— A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda
Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura Gauḍīya
Translation
Uddhava said: O Kṛṣṇa! Although prakṛti and the Lord are intrinsically distinct, there appears to be no difference between them because they are mutually dependent. The Lord appears to be within the body and the body appears to be within the Lord. Another doubt arises from this discussion. Prakṛti or māyā and the Lord (puruṣaḥ) are intrinsically different, since prakṛti is unconscious and the Lord is conscious. Though this is shown in the scriptures, because the two depend on each other in the body, they do not appear different. That mutual dependence is described. The Lord is seen in the body (prakṛtau), the product, and the product, the body is seen in the Lord. Because both are based on each other, they are mutually dependent.
Uddhava observes that nature and the living entity, though distinct, appear non-different — soul in nature, nature in soul. The question is precise.
Reflection Questions
  • Where in my own life do I see this mutual residence?
  • What does it suggest about the limits of my categories?
📝 My note

← Read full Chapter 22