This verse addresses the apparent duality of the unmanifest (sambhava) and manifest (asambhava) as mere conceptual frameworks that the dualistic mind imposes on the singular Absolute. In the non-dual view, 'manifestation' and 'non-manifestation' are not two separate ontological states but different descriptions of the same undivided Reality, Brahman. The wise (dhīrāṇāṁ) who 'looked upon the non-dual' (nadivaciccakṣire) realized that the source of existence does not split into two categories. What is called 'coming from manifestation' refers to the world appearing as name and form, while 'coming from non-manifestation' refers to the underlying substratum, but both are waves in the same sea of Consciousness. The hearing of the wise is not adding new information but a confirmation of the self-knowledge that transcends these binary distinctions. The verse serves as a reminder that intellectual speculation about origins—whether cosmic or individual—is irrelevant to the direct realization of the Non-dual. The two forms are only apparent from the perspective of ignorance (avidya). True wisdom lies in recognizing that the manifest world is non-different from the unmanifest ground, which is the Self alone, present in all without division. The dichotomy dissolves in the unity of the witness consciousness.

From a devotional perspective, this verse highlights the infinite creative power of the Supreme Lord, who is both the source of the manifest and the unmanifest. The two distinct descriptions—one from manifestation and one from non-manifestation—are not contradictions but reveal the Lord’s playful energy (līlā). The unmanifest (asambhava) represents His latent, internal potency (antaranga śakti), where the entire cosmic blueprint rests in a state of potentiality, awaiting activation. The manifest (sambhava) represents His external material potency (bahiranga śakti), where these potentials are expressed as the diverse universe. The 'wise' mentioned here are those who have cultivated reverence and transcendental knowledge through devotion, recognizing that these two aspects are not separate entities but different facets of the same Divine Personality. They 'heard' this truth not merely through logic but through the grace of the Guru and the Lord’s mercy. Understanding that all existence, whether subtle or gross, originates from the Divine will prevents the worshipper from confusing the source with the effect. It reinforces the idea that the Lord is not limited to the visible forms but pervades the invisible substratum as well, sustaining all creation through His presence in both states of density and subtlety.

This verse can be interpreted as an early philosophical meditation on the nature of causality and the limits of human cognition regarding origins. The distinction between 'manifestation' (sambhava) and 'non-manifestation' (asambhava) mirrors modern scientific and philosophical debates about observable phenomena versus underlying quantum fields or singularities. The 'wise' are presented not as divine authorities but as experienced observers who recognize the futility of reducing complex existence to a single linear cause. The verse suggests that reality may operate on multiple levels of description that are all valid simultaneously. What appears as 'coming from non-manifestation' might refer to the pre-structural or conceptual frameworks we use to parse reality, while 'coming from manifestation' refers to the empirical data we observe. The command to 'hear' from the wise implies that insight comes from synthesizing these perspectives rather than choosing one over the other. It challenges the reader to move beyond binary thinking—such as existence versus non-existence—and embrace a more nuanced, multi-dimensional understanding of reality. The verse serves as a heuristic for engaging with the paradoxes of consciousness and matter without demanding immediate resolution, encouraging a contemplative approach to the unknown sources of being.

More from this source