11:15 The expression of the text is rather obscure; 'All was pervaded (or comprehended) by that chief principle before (recreation), after the (last) destruction.' The ellipses are filled up by the commentator. This, he adds, is to be regarded as the state of things at a Mahá Pralaya, or total dissolution; leaving, therefore, crude matter, nature, or chaos, as a coexistent element with the Supreme. This, which is conformable to the philosophical doctrine, is not however that of the Puráńas in general, nor p. 12 that of our text, which states (b. VI. c. 4), that at a Prákrita, or elementary dissolution, Pradhána itself merges into the deity. Neither is it apparently the doctrine of the Vedas, although their language is somewhat equivocal.

12:16 The metre here is one common to the Vedas, Trishtubh, but in other respects the language is not characteristic of those compositions. The purport of the passage is rendered somewhat doubtful by its close, and by the explanation of the commentator. The former is, 'One Pradhánika Brahma Spirit: THAT, was. The commentator explains Pradhánika, Pradhána eva, the same word as Pradhána; but it is a derivative word, which may be used attributively, implying 'having, or conjoined with, Pradhána.' The commentator, however, interprets it as the substantive; for he adds, 'There was Pradhána and Brahma and Spirit; this triad was at the period of dissolution.' He evidently, however, understands their conjoint existence as one only; for he continues, 'So, according to the Vedas, then there was neither the existent (invisible cause, or matter) nor the non-existent (visible effect, or creation),' meaning that there was only One Being, in whom matter and its modifications were all comprehended.

12:17 Or it might be rendered, 'Those two other forms (which proceed) from his supreme nature;' that is, from the nature of Vishńu, when he is Nirupádhi, or without adventitious attributes: ### 'other' (###); the commentator states they are other or separate from Vishńu only through Máyá, illusion,' but here implying false notion;' the elements of creation being in essence one with Vishńu, though in existence detached and different.