Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The first Adhikaraṇa or or Vedic syllogism of Vedānta begins the inquiry into the Absolute [Brahman or the Universal Quantum Wave Function]. Everyone should inquire very seriously about the Absolute. Why? Because knowledge of the Absolute—the science of consciousness and spiritual life—is the only source of unconditional happiness. There is no other means to obtain perfect, uninterrupted, endless happiness, because consciousness is the fundamental existential fact of life.
This statement is confirmed by the following statements of Vedic scripture:
ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo maitreyi
“O Maitreyī, one should see, hear, remember, and inquire about the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.5]
yo vai bhūma tat sukhaṁ nānyat sukham asti bhūmaiva sukhaṁ bhūmatveva vijijñāsitavyaḥ
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead (bhūma) is the source of genuine happiness. Nothing else can bring one actual happiness. Only the Supreme Personality of Godhead can bring one happiness. For this reason one should inquire about the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 7.25.1]
Such exalted happiness is possible only through understanding and practicing the recondite truths of Vedānta in regard to one’s personal relationship with the Absolute. Because without happiness life is not worth living, one should inquire extensively about the Absolute until one reaches a conclusive practical understanding. In other words, one should dedicate a significant portion of one’s time and resources to inquiring about the science of consciousness and practicing this transcendental knowledge until one attains self-realization, the source of unlimited happiness. This will bring the greatest satisfaction obtainable in human life.
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Students of religion and science often think that they have no need to inquire about the Absolute or investigate the esoteric teachings of the Vedas.
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: “The ordinary pleasures of material existence and the intellectual rewards of the pursuit of ordinary learning are enough,” materialistic people say. “There is no need to waste our time with abstruse philosophical matters, which are like a dream.” Others say, “We are satisfied with the opulences of morality and prosperity attained by the ritualistic functions of religion. What need do we have for this mysticism? Who knows, it may be irreligion in disguise. There are even statements in the Vedas that seem to contradict the necessity of inquiry into Brahman and advocate other spiritual processes.
apāma somam amṛtā abhūma
“We have attained immortality by drinking the soma juice.” [Ṛg Veda 8.18.3]
akṣayyaṁ ha vai cāturmāsyājinaḥ sukṛtaṁ bhavati
“They who follow the vow of cāturmāsya attain an eternal reward.”
“These texts indicate that one can attain spiritual perfection by performing religious ceremonies and rituals and consuming their sacramental remnants [soma juice], or by performing austerities during the four months of the rainy season [cāturmāsya]. Thus there is no need specifically to inquire into Brahman.”
Such conventional materialistic people think that there is no need to inquire into the Absolute. They think that anyone can enjoy life with full satisfaction by enthusiastic engagement in material work; and if one has any interest in spiritual things, simply by discharging ordinary pious duties described in various religious scriptures, one can attain immortality and an eternal reward. There is no doubt that cultivation of knowledge and performance of the pious duties given in various religious scriptures leads to favorable results. However, Adhyāya 3 of Vedānta-sūtra, along with many other passages in the Vedic scriptures, describe in detail the ultimate uselessness of the temporary benefits obtained by material work and religious piety.
Materialists may criticize Vedic culture and religion, but the conclusive truths revealed to the sincere student of Vedānta are outside of their experience. If they were to inquire even superficially into the Vedic teachings, they would be able to understand the difference between the temporary results of material fruitive activities and the eternal results of the authentic Vedic spiritual path. Material and transcendental activities, and their respective results, are in completely different ontological categories.
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: One who is in knowledge of the Absolute, and thus personally familiar with the incomparable benefits of practicing this transcendental knowledge, feels that he has attained the highest benefit possible in human existence. Out of a genuine desire to help, he endeavors to convince others to inquire into the truths of the Absolute for their own benefit. Therefore, in the very first sūtra of Vedānta, the author Bhagavān Vyāsadeva encourages the student:
athāto brahma-jijñāsā
athā–now; ataḥ–therefore; brahma–about Brahman; jijñāsā–there should be desire to inquire.
Now, therefore, one should desire to inquire about the Absolute.
Athā [now]: This word indicates the conditions that apply to inquiry into the Absolute. Inquiring into the Absolute, although open to everyone, does have a number of prerequisites. When one has properly studied both material science and ordinary religion, understood their meanings and successfully applied their principles, observed ethical practices of truthfulness, nonviolence and other good moral qualities, purified one’s mind and heart through prayer, mantras and other spiritual exercises, enjoyed the prosperity and material happiness resulting from virtuous activities, and still remains unsatisfied, one is a fit candidate for inquiring into the Absolute. As soon as such a person attains the association of a self-realized person, he or she becomes qualified to study Vedānta and inquire about the Absolute. It is best if the student associates with an enlightened person personally, but one may also obtain such association indirectly through a book or other information medium on the subject of knowledge of the Absolute.
Also, ‘now’ refers to the present time, when the depth and scope of scientific investigation has brought it face-to-face with the same issues discussed in Vedānta, namely the science of consciousness and the Absolute, which science terms the Universal Quantum Wave Function. Consciousness has become an inescapable obstacle to the progress of empirical science, because consciousness cannot be weighed nor measured, nor observed with certainty in anyone but oneself. The ineluctably subjective nature of consciousness means that it is not amenable to conventional objective empirical methods of scientific exploration.
Nevertheless, the role of consciousness in Quantum Mechanics is crucial; for as Schrödinger found, without exact knowledge of consciousness it is impossible to predict the outcome of any quantum transformation with better than probabilistic accuracy. The actual quantum state remains a mystery until decoherence of the Quantum Wave Function occurs when a conscious entity interferes with it by measuring a quantum phenomenon, either with the bodily senses or a technological extension of those senses. Thus it is impossible to understand the ontological implications and actual mechanism of quantum decoherence without extensive, detailed and deep knowledge of consciousness. In addition, Quantum Mechanics has no clear information on the Universal Quantum Wave Function itself, because like consciousness, it is empirically unobservable and therefore immeasurable by definition, being outside the ontological domain of manifested objective existence. Science knows of its existence and can estimate its properties only by mathematical inference.
However, any sane and thoughtful person can immediately observe that he is conscious, and that consciousness has many subtle qualities. There is a definite cause-and-effect relationship between the quality of our consciousness and the quality of our experience in life. However, Western materialistic science refuses to accept evidence from subjective sources, therefore it has no robust theory or accurate functional model of consciousness. This is a great weakness, because of the central importance of consciousness to everyday experience. The scientific theory of consciousness is the specific contribution and importance of Vedānta. Vedānta provides a detailed theory of consciousness that is completely compatible with Quantum Physics.
Vedānta philosophy and practice provide an ideal experimental model and ontological platform for experiential exploration of the subjective mysteries of consciousness and the Absolute. The motivation for writing this work on Vedānta came from realizing the potential of Vedāntic model to deepen our understanding of the profound mysteries of consciousness and the Universal Quantum Wave Function. We have extracted this model from the original Vedic sources, formalized it using international standards for formal ontological notation, and explained it in our writings on Transcendental Ontology.
Ataḥ [therefore]: Material work and religious piety bring results of material happiness. Because material happiness is based on the material bodily senses, it is inevitably imperfect, limited and temporary. It is imperfect because material happiness is always mixed with distress; it is limited because no matter how much happiness we enjoy, we always desire more; it is temporary because everything that has a beginning has an end: the vehicles of material happiness, the material body and senses, as well as the experience of happiness itself, are subject to termination. These are existential limits brought about by the very nature of material existence.
Nevertheless everyone desires perfect, unlimited and unending happiness. Direct knowledge of the Absolute, realized by proper practice of directed consciousness as described in Vedānta and other Vedic works based upon it, is full of imperishable, limitless transcendental knowledge, eternity, bliss, and all transcendental qualities and attributes. Direct contemplation of the Absolute brings eternal bliss to the beholder. Therefore, instead of spending one’s entire time and energy pursuing temporary material sense gratification, one who wants substantial, permanent happiness should set aside a substantial amount of time and resources to inquire about the Absolute by studying and practicing the truths of Vedānta-sūtra.
At this point, someone may object: “Simply by studying material science, one attains knowledge of everything worth knowing. What is the use of slogging through this hoary old myth? What is the value of mysticism? What if, as a result of studying this knowledge, one abandons the reliable traditional path of religious piety and fruitive work, and instead takes to the practice of meditation and a lifestyle of simplicity and renunciation? This seems very risky. If we can obtain happiness simply by ordinary religion and material work, what need is there to give it up and study the arcane theories of Vedānta-sūtra?”
To this objection I reply: “Even if one carefully studies all the scientific literature and religious scriptures of the world, nowhere will one encounter a complete, practical theory of consciousness except in Vedānta-sūtra and allied literature. Without this knowledge, misunderstanding and doubt will lead us away from the complete exercise of the power of enjoyment inherent in our consciousness. Because of this lack of transcendental knowledge, one’s actions and their results will default to the conventional material platform, which, as we have already pointed out, is temporary and limited. Thus in order to attain the unconditional, unending happiness we all desire, it is necessary to study Vedānta-sūtra and other Vedic works of transcendental knowledge to strengthen our understanding of consciousness and gain full practical application of its natural but latent spiritual powers.”
This is not to say that the study of Vedānta is for everyone. In fact, it is a great and rare privilege reserved for the most astutely intelligent and morally advanced human beings. Vedānta does not argue against ordinary material science and religion, but complements and extends them into the realm of transcendental knowledge of the Absolute. Material knowledge and skill is necessary for earning our livelihood and maintaining our existence. Performing the moral duties of religion helps to purify the heart, and ordinary religious faith provides a preliminary platform for approaching transcendental reality. The glorification of the Supreme as part of the practices of any religion helps qualify religious people to comprehend the Absolute. Similarly, study of mathematics, logic, philosophy, scientific theory and the rigor of scientific method provide a disciplined framework and valuable background experience for the study of transcendental knowledge. For although it builds on the statements of the transcendental scriptures, Vedānta philosophy encourages—and in the higher stages, requires—individual exploration, critical analysis and practical applications. Any pious and intelligent person who rigorously applies scientific method to the study and practice of Vedānta will attain its profound rewards very quickly.
Association with people who understand and practice this transcendental knowledge is a vital factor in apprehending the truth of Vedānta. In the long history of the esoteric teachings of Vedānta, almost all successful aspirants initially attain interest to inquire about the Absolute from personal association with a self-realized person. By constant practice of the principles of Vedānta in that association, they quickly became eligible to cognize the Absolute for themselves. Advanced Vedāntists, being free from envy and competitiveness, gladly help students attain self-realization through their personal association. Thus, any contact with a self-realized person is extremely valuable. If one somehow gets the great good fortune of personal association with a person who knows the complete science of individual consciousness and its relation to the Absolute, just try to learn Vedānta by humbly approaching him as a student. Bhagavad-gītā states:
tad viddhi praṇipātena
paripraśnena
sevayā
upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ
jñāninas
tattva-darśinaḥ
“Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.” [Bhagavad-gītā 4.34]
Certainly the student must have a broad background in conventional religious and scientific knowledge, and some practical experience in life. This will convince an intelligent person that these traditional sources of knowledge are incomplete, and that when doubts arise, he does not have sufficient personal realization of spiritual consciousness to adequately counteract them. Thus one with a conventional religious background will inevitably experience a crisis in faith. Study of the transcendental arguments and logic of Vedānta-sūtra is necessary to expose all possible doubts and strengthen the student’s faith, so he may proceed to realize these spiritual truths for himself.
The ordinary duties of religion are necessary prerequisites, but they are not sufficient to bring the student to complete realization of Brahman. The usefulness of the brahminical duties such as truthfulness, austerity, and mantra chanting is described in the following scriptural statements:
tam etaṁ vedānuvacanena brāhmaṇā vividisanti yajñena dānena tapasānaśanena
“By Vedic study, sacrifice, charity, austerity, and fasting, the brāhmaṇas strive to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.22]
The above quote states that they strive, but does not indicate that they reach the understanding they seek by those means. The actual means of attaining transcendental realization of the Supreme will be discussed below.
satyena labhayas tapasā hy eṣa ātmā samyak jñānena brahmacaryeṇa nityam
“By constant truthfulness, austerity, transcendental knowledge, and austerity, one becomes eligible to associate with the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.5]
Notice here again, the verse says “one becomes eligible;” it does not say that one attains the association of the Lord by these methods.
japyenaiva ca saṁsiddhyad
brahmaṇā
nātra saṁśayaḥ
kuryād anyan na vā kuryān
maitro
brāhmaṇa ucyate
“Whether he performs other rituals and duties or not, one who perfectly chants mantras glorifying the Supreme Personality of Godhead should be considered a perfect brāhmaṇa, eligible to understand the Supreme Lord.” [Manu-saṁhitā 2.87]
Association with those who understand the truth also brings one transcendental knowledge. By this association Nārada and many other spiritual aspirants attained interest to ask about spiritual life and were finally eligible to see the Supreme Personality of Godhead face-to-face. Sanat-kumāra and many other great sages have also helped many devotees by giving their association in this way. The great value of contact with a self-realized soul is described in the following statement of Bhagavad-gītā [4.34]:
tad viddhi praṇipātena
paripraśnena
sevayā
upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ
jñāninas
tattva-darśinaḥ
“Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.”
The material benefits obtained by following the pious rituals of ordinary religion are temporary. This fact is confirmed by the following statement of Chāndogya Upaniṣad [8.1.3-6]:
tad yatheha karma-cito lokāḥ kṣiyante evam evāmutra puṇya-cito lokaḥ kṣīyate...
“By performing good works [karma] one is elevated to the celestial material world after death. One is not able to stay there forever, however, but one must lose that position after some time and accept another, less favorable residence. In the same way, by amassing pious credits [puṇya] one may reside in the upper planets. Still, he cannot stay there, but must eventually relinquish his comfortable position there, and accept a less favorable residence somewhere else. One who gives up his body without having realized the Self and his true nature will not be free, wherever he goes. But one who departs from this world after having discovered the Self and realized his true desire, for him there is freedom in all the worlds.”
The following statement of Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [1.2.12] affirms that only transcendental knowledge will help one approach the Supreme Brahman:
parīkṣya lokān karma-citān
brāhmaṇo
nirvedam ayan nāsty akṛtaḥ
kṛtena
tad-vijñānārtham sa gurum
evābhigacchet
samit-pāṇiḥ śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham
“Seeing that the celestial material planets, which one may obtain by pious work, provide only temporary benefits, in order to understand the truth the of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, an intelligent brāhmaṇa should humbly approach a bona-fide spiritual master learned in the scriptures and full of faith in the Supreme Lord.”
The material benefits obtained by material work and following the rituals of ordinary religion are all temporary. By having faith and performing good works, one may attain an exalted position in this material world. One may not remain there forever, however, but after some time must lose that position and accept a less favorable one. The rewards of material activities are impermanent, if only because the material body with which one enjoys these rewards is itself subject to decay and death. In contrast to the temporary material benefits obtained even in the celestial material planets, the Supreme Brahman is the reservoir of eternal, limitless bliss. Therefore, material work and piety are inferior to the practice of transcendental knowledge, which provides unconditional enjoyment beyond the deficiencies of the material body and senses. This is confirmed by the following statement of Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.1.1]:
satyaṁ jñānam anantaṁ brahma
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is limitless, eternal, and full of knowledge.”
ānando brahmeti vyajanāt
“He then understood that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of transcendental bliss.”
The Supreme Brahman is eternal, full of knowledge and endowed with all transcendental qualities. This is confirmed by the following statements of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad:
na tasya kāryaṁ karaṇaṁ ca
vidyate
na tat-samaś cābhyadhikaś ca dṛśyate
parāsya
śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate
svā-bhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā
ca
“He does not possess bodily form like that of an ordinary living entity. There is no difference between His body and His soul. He is absolute. All his senses are transcendental. Any one of His senses can perform the action of any other sense. Therefore, no one is greater than Him or equal to Him. His potencies are multifarious, and thus His deeds are automatically performed as a natural sequence.” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.8]
sarvendriya-guṇābhāsaṁ
sarvendriya-vivarjitam
asaktaṁ
sarva-bhṛc caiva
nirguṇaṁ guṇa-bhoktṛ ca
“The Supersoul is the original source of all senses, yet He is without senses. He is unattached, although He is the maintainer of all living beings. He transcends the modes of nature, and at the same time He is the master of all modes of material nature.” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.17]
bhāva-grahyam
anidākhyaṁ
bhāvābhāva-karaṁ śivam
kāla-sārga-karaṁ
devaṁ
ye vidus te jahus tanum
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the creator and destroyer of the entire material cosmic manifestation. He is supremely auspicious, and He does not possess a material body, for His body is spiritual in all respects. He may be reached and understood only by loving devotional service. Those who thus serve Him and understand Him may become free from having to repeatedly accept various material bodies for continued residence in the material world. They become liberated from this world, and obtain eternal spiritual bodies with which to serve Him.” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.14]
That the Supreme Personality of Godhead grants eternal transcendental bliss to His devotees is confirmed by the following statement of Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [1.5]:
taṁ pīṭha-sthaṁ ye tu yajanti
dhīrās
teṣāṁ sukhaṁ śāśvataṁ netareṣām
“The saintly devotees who worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead seated on the throne of the heart attain eternal transcendental bliss. Except for them no others can attain this eternal bliss.”
Since transcendental knowledge of Vedānta will help one approach the Absolute and gain these benefits, one should inquire about it immediately from a qualified teacher. Material work, and the faith which one may obtain by pious activities, provide only temporary benefits. In contrast, the Absolute is the reservoir of eternal, limitless consciousness and bliss. As the infinite source and reservoir of consciousness and being, the Absolute is supreme, limitless, eternal, and replete with the fullness of all knowledge and consciousness. Thus in order to understand the science of the Absolute, an intelligent person should humbly approach a bona fide teacher learned in Vedānta who is also experienced in its practical application.
Anyone who even begins to approach the Absolute by proper direction of consciousness experiences that our small individual consciousness can manifest ecstatic bliss and other wonderful qualities simply by the preliminary purification and concentration. When consciousness is liberated from the limitations of the body and mind, and concentrated by one-pointed contemplation on a transcendental object, it automatically manifests transcendental qualities such as compassion, bliss, unconditional love and transcendental knowledge. The Absolute is eternal, full of knowledge and consciousness, and endowed with unlimited wonderful transcendental qualities. The Absolute does not possess material form like a material living entity. There is no difference between the form and the consciousness of the Absolute. There is nothing greater than or equal to the Absolute, which has multifarious and immense potencies. Therefore if our limited consciousness is capable of experiencing causeless happiness simply by contemplation of its own transcendent qualities, the Absolute, the unlimited fount of all consciousness, certainly is full of unlimited transcendental bliss.
According to Vedānta philosophy, the Absolute is the original source of all senses, yet has no material senses. The Absolute is detached from everything, although the source and maintainer of everything and all living beings. The Absolute transcends the material universe, and at the same time is the creator and controller of material nature. The Absolute is the creator, maintainer and destroyer of the entire material cosmic manifestation, but is beyond the control of material laws. The Absolute is supremely auspicious, but does not possess a material body, for the Absolute is noumenal in all respects. These paradoxical attributes are part of the essential nature of the Absolute as both the cause and ingredient of creation.
One can understand and reach the Absolute only by practicing directed consciousness as taught in Vedānta. Approaching the Absolute grants the student eternal transcendental bliss. Except for sincere students of Vedānta, no others can attain this eternal bliss. Those who approach and understand the Absolute also become free from repeatedly accepting material bodies for continued residence in the material world. They attain liberation from this world, and obtain eternal residence in the transcendental world of the Absolute, where they automatically attain complete fulfillment of their desires in the personal company of the Absolute. All this is described in detail in Vedānta-sūtra.
In summary, an intelligent person with good moral character who has studied and understood both religion and material science, who clearly understands the ontological difference between the temporary and the eternal, who has lost all attraction for the temporary and chosen the eternal, and who gets the opportunity to associate with a self-realized person, becomes a sincere student of Vedānta-sūtra. It is not a fact that simply by the study and practice of material science and religion one will naturally get the same benefits as the study of Vedānta-sūtra provides. We see that those who have studied material science and religion, but have not associated favorably with self-realized teachers of Vedānta, do not become eager to understand the Absolute, but attempt to adjust their expectations to the limited happiness offered by material knowledge and work. It is also untrue that simply by understanding the philosophical difference between the temporary and the eternal, and attaining the moral qualities and renunciation of saintly persons, one will become able to understand and realize the Absolute. These qualifications are necessary, but not sufficient to attain the platform of transcendental knowledge.
On the other hand, those who are not expert scientists or pious religionists, but who have come into favorable personal association with a self-realized person, naturally become attracted to understanding the Absolute. We have seen that in general, three kinds of persons become qualified to inquire into the nature of Brahman: 1. Saniṣṭha—pious people who faithfully perform their material and religious duties; 2. Pariniṣṭha—those who spontaneously act philanthropically for the benefit of all living entities; and 3. Nirapekśa—those who are already rapt in meditation and aloof from the activities of this world. All these persons understand the nature of the Absolute according to their respective qualifications. If they gain the association of a self-realized person and follow his instructions, that higher study compensates for whatever they lack in qualifications. Even if they lack a broad background in religion, the arts, sciences and philosophy, or if their character or behavior is flawed, still they automatically obtain all prerequisite qualifications simply by studying Vedānta with a qualified teacher. Over time they gradually become more and more advanced in the discipline of Vedānta, and eventually they attain direct contact with the Absolute as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
In conclusion, at a particular point in life, after certain understandings and realizations, a fortunate person may become eager to inquire about the nature of the Absolute. The Absolute is not merely a philosophical conception; nor is it a projection of an artificial philosophical construct or the consciousness of the individual on reality. All living entities have taken their birth because of the Absolute. They remain alive because they are maintained by the Absolute, and at the time of death they again enter into the Absolute. Please try to understand that the Absolute is the eternal ground of Being, the universal fount of consciousness, existence and life.
The nature of the transcendental knowledge of the Absolute imparted by study of Vedānta is unlike any other kind of knowledge. It is not knowledge of a kind of material activity, because that kind of knowledge and activity can give only temporary, mundane results. It is not discursive knowledge like ordinary literature or mathematics, because such ordinary symbolic knowledge cannot free us from the materialistic realm it represents. Even if it were possible to impart an understanding of transcendental existence through language, this would not necessarily cure the deficiencies of our consciousness. For example, if a person who needs glasses sees the moon as double, simply hearing that the double vision is not a quality of the moon but of his vision may correct his understanding but not his astigmatism, even if he is firmly convinced that it is a fact. Thus, simply understanding the philosophical difference between mundane and transcendental categories of knowledge, consciousness and existence will not and cannot cure the disease of material suffering and rebirth.
Rather, the transcendental knowledge imparted by study of Vedānta is a direct experience that our common perception of the world and ourselves is an illusion based on ignorance. When the subjects in Aristotle’s cave break free from their bonds and see clearly that the entire world of their experience, upon which all their knowledge was based, is actually false and contrived, their awakening is similar to that experienced by the aspirant who contacts the Absolute during Vedāntic meditation. When we see that all along we have been imagining the world, ourselves and life to be one thing, when actually they are something completely different, we awaken to a new reality, one that was there all along but remained latent and unsuspected, covered and hidden by our imaginative substitute reality.
The Kaṭha Upaniṣad [1.2.23] states:
nāyam ātmā pravacanena labhyo
na
medhayā na bahudhā śrutena
yam evaiṣa vṛṇute tena
labhyas
tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanuṁ svām
“That Self cannot be gained by the study of the Veda, nor by thought or meditation, nor by much hearing. Whom the Self chooses, by him it may be gained; to him the Self reveals His being.”
And what kind of person does the Self choose?
teṣāṁ satata-yuktānāṁ
bhajatāṁ
prīti-pūrvakam
dadāmi buddhi-yogaṁ taṁ
yena mām
upayānti te
“To those who are constantly devoted and worship Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.” [Bhagavad-gītā 10.10]
nāhaṁ vedair na tapasā
na
dānena na cejyayā
śakya evaṁ-vidho draṣṭuṁ
dṛṣṭavān
asi māṁ yathā
“The form which you are seeing with your transcendental eyes cannot be understood simply by studying the Vedas, nor by undergoing serious penances, nor by charity, nor by worship. It is not by these means that one can see Me as I am.” [Bhagavad-gītā 11.23]
bhaktyā tv ananyayā śakya
aham
evaṁ-vidho 'rjuna
jñātuṁ draṣṭuṁ ca
tattvena
praveṣṭuṁ ca parantapa
“My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.” [Bhagavad-gītā 11.24]
Therefore the actual practice of Vedānta is complete in the form of bhakti-yoga, the devotional service of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There are many preliminary stages, each with its appropriate philosophical understanding, spiritual practices and realizations; but the stage of perfection is pure, undivided devotional service:
anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ
jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam
ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānu-śīlanaṁ
bhaktir uttamā
“When first-class devotional service develops, one must be devoid of all material desires, knowledge obtained by monistic philosophy, and fruitive action. The devotee must constantly serve Kṛṣṇa favorably, as Kṛṣṇa desires.” [Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 19.167]
The Vedic literature contains many scriptural passages on different levels, meant to appeal to people in various stages of self-realization. Vedānta-sūtra specifically addresses people on the cusp between the impersonal understanding of the Supreme and beginning to realize the personal nature of Brahman. Philosophical speculation and silent meditation may be an adequate method for addressing the impersonal aspect of the Supreme, but bhakti, or a direct personal service relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is necessary to realize the highest benefits attainable by study of Vedānta-sūtra.
Vedānta-sūtra is not an ordinary book, but transcendental sound vibration emanated by the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. Śrīla Vyāsadeva, the author of Vedānta-sūtra, is the incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is confirmed by the following statement of the smṛti-śāstra:
kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyana-vyāsaṁ
viddhi
nārāyaṇaṁ prabhum
“Please understand that Kṛṣṇa Dvaipayana Vyāsa is actually the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Nārāyaṇa.”
That Vedānta-sūtra is a product of greater than human intelligence will become self-evident to the sincere reader upon deep contemplation of the extremely elevated subjects contained herein.
In conclusion, we have described here how at a certain point in time [athā], after tasting the experiences of life, contemplating their meaning and reaching certain conclusions about the existential condition of human existence in the material world, person should therefore [ataḥ] become eager to inquire about the nature of Brahman. Vedānta-sūtra is an opportunity to enter into the understanding of the Absolute Truth taught by the greatest sages, and attain personal, direct consciousness of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This bestows the highest spiritual perfections of full transcendental knowledge, immortality and eternal bliss upon the sincere student of Vedānta philosophy.
The saṅgati [continuity with the previous Adhikaraṇa] here is ākṣepa [objection].
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The Vedic tradition asserts that the source or origin of everything in the creation is Brahman, who is an unlimited, all-powerful transcendental person different from the jīva [individual soul].
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Someone may doubt: “In this Vedānta-sūtra does the term ‘the Absolute,’ ‘Brahman,’ ‘the all-pervading Infinity’ [bhūmā] or ‘the Self’ [ātmā] refer to the individual conscious living entity or the Supreme?” Some schools of Vedānta interpretation indeed claim that the word Brahman in Vedānta-sūtra refers to the individual conscious living entity, and to support this view they quote statements like the following from Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.5]:
vijñānaṁ brahma ced veda
tasmāc cen na pramadyati
śarīre pāpmāno hitvā sarvaṇ kāmān
samāśnute
“If one understands the true nature of Brahman who lives in the body and uses the senses of the body to perceive the material world, then such a knower of Brahman never becomes bewildered by illusion. Such a knower of Brahman in the body refrains from performing impure actions, and at the time of leaving the body at death, he attains an exalted destination where all his desires are fulfilled at once.”
Some unauthorized traditions of Vedānta speculate that Brahman and similar terms indicate the individual conscious living entity. They say, “Here the word brahma is applied to vijñānam, which is one of the names of the jīva, and therefore the verse teaches that the jīva is to be meditated upon.” Because they do not properly understand the difference between the unlimited Brahman and the tiny jīva, they confute the Sanskrit terms brahman and ātmā with jīva, and mistakenly identify the individual living entity as the Absolute. For example, in the following passage Śrī Sanat-kumāra, after describing the Lord’s Holy Names and qualities, was asked a question by Śrī Nārada Muni [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 7.23.1-7.24.1]:
bhūmā tv eva vijijñāsitavya iti bhūmānaṁ bhagavo vijijñāsa iti. yatra nānyat paśyati nānyac chṛṇoti nānyad vijānāti sa bhūmā. atha yatrānyat paśyaty anyac chṛṇoty anyad vijānāti tad-alpam
“ ‘One should ask about Bhūmā.’ ‘My lord, I wish to know about Bhūmā.’ ‘When one attains Him one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, and knows nothing else. That is Bhūmā. When one sees something else, hears something else, and knows something else, he knows that is very small. The Bhūmā is immortal, but that which is small is mortal.’ ”
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: The context of the verse from Chāndogya Upaniṣad quoted above shows that the jīva is the topic of discussion there. As Sūtra 1.1.1 refers to this text and says that this Bhūmā is to be enquired into, the words brahma-jijñāsā of Sūtra 1.1.1 refer to the individual soul and not to the Supreme. Even the Sanskrit dictionary explains: “The word brahma means that which is big, the brāhmaṇa caste, the individual spirit soul, and the demigod Brahmā who sits on a great lotus flower.” The word ātmā also means the individual soul.
For example, the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.5.6] states:
ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyaḥ.
“It is the Self [ātmā] which must be observed, heard about, thought of and meditated upon with fixed concentration.”
The complete text of this passage [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5.1-6] is:
“And he said, ‘Verily, a husband is not dear, that you may love the husband; but that you may love the Self [ātmā], therefore a husband is dear.
‘Verily, a wife is not dear, that you may love the wife; but that you may love the Self [ātmā], therefore a wife is dear.
‘Verily, sons are not dear, that you may love the sons; but that you may love the Self [ātmā], therefore sons are dear.
‘Verily, wealth is not dear, that you may love the wealth; but that you may love the Self [ātmā], therefore wealth is dear.
‘Verily, the brāhmaṇas are not dear, that you may love the brāhmaṇas; but that you may love the Self [ātmā], therefore the brāhmaṇas are dear.
‘Verily, the kṣatriyas are not dear, that you may love the kṣatriyas; but that you may love the Self [ātmā], therefore the kṣatriyas are dear.
‘Verily, the worlds are not dear, that you may love the worlds; but that you may love the Self [ātmā], therefore the worlds are dear.
‘Verily, the devas are not dear, that you may love the devas; but that you may love the Self [ātmā], therefore the devas are dear.
‘Verily, the living entities are not dear, that you may love the living entities; but that you may love the Self [ātmā], therefore the living entities are dear.
‘Verily, every thing [that is dear] is not dear, that you may love every thing; but that you may love the Self [ātmā], therefore every thing [that is dear] is dear.
‘Verily, it is the Self [ātmā] which must be observed, heard about, thought of and meditated upon with fixed concentration, O Maitreyi! When we see, hear, perceive and know the Self then all this is known.”
Someone may indeed claim that the word Brahman here refers to the individual spirit soul, and to support his view he may quote the following statement of Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.5]:
vijñānaṁ brahma ced
veda
tasmāc cen na pramadyati
śarīre pāpmāno hitvā
sarvaṇ
kāmān samāśnute
“If one understands the true nature of the Brahman who lives in the body and uses the senses of the body to perceive the material world, then such a knower of Brahman will never become bewildered by illusion. Such a knower of the Brahman in the body refrains from performing sinful actions, and at the time of leaving the body at death, he attains an exalted destination where all his desires become at once fulfilled.”
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: Our philosophical opponent may claim in this way that the words Brahman and ātmā should be interpreted to mean the individual spirit soul. To clear away the misunderstanding of this objector, the following scriptural passages may be quoted:
bhṛgur vai varuṇir varuṇaṁ pitaram upasasāra adhīhi bho bhagavo brahma... yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante yena jātāni jīvanti yat prayānty abhisaṁviśanti tad brahma tad vijijñāsasva
“Bhṛgu asked his father Varuṇa: ‘My lord, please instruct me about the nature of Brahman.’ Varuṇa replied: ‘All living entities have taken their birth because of Brahman. They remain alive because they are maintained by Brahman, and at the time of death they again enter into Brahman. Please try to understand the nature of Brahman.’ ” [Taittirīya Upaniṣad 3.1]
idaṁ hi viśvaṁ bhagavān
ivetaro
yato jagat-sthāna-nirodha-sambhavāḥ
“The Supreme Lord Personality of Godhead is Himself this cosmos, and still He is aloof from it. From Him only has this cosmic manifestation emanated, in Him it rests, and unto Him it enters after annihilation.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.5.20]
ya etad vidur amṛtās te bhavanty athetare duḥkham evāpiyanti
“Those who know this Supreme Brahman become immortal, and those who do not know Him suffer the miseries of the material world.” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.10]
To refute this misinterpretation, Śrīla Vyāsadeva, the author of Vedānta-sūtra, gives the actual definition of Brahman in the second sūtra:
janmādy asya yataḥ
janma–birth; ādi–beginning with; asya–of that; yataḥ–from Whom.
Brahman is He from Whom everything emanates.
The compound word janmādi is a Sanskrit compound expression technically known as tad-guṇa-samvijñāna-bahuvrīhi-samāsa, here meaning ‘the sevenfold material cycle of conception, gestation, birth, growth, production of byproducts, diminution and death.’ The word asya means ‘of this material universe with unlimited planetary systems inhabited by various creatures, who all enjoy and suffer the results of their various fruitive actions, but who cannot understand the astonishing structure of the universe where they live, nor the Supreme Person who has created it.’ The word yataḥ means ‘from Whom,’ and it clearly refers to Brahman as a transcendental person. This Absolute Person, who manifests the universe from His inconceivable potency, is the Brahman about whom one should inquire.
According to etymological analysis of Sanskrit word roots, Brahman means ‘the person who possesses boundless exalted qualities,’ and therefore cannot be applied to the insignificant jīva. Both Brahman and bhūmā also mean all-pervading; this will be fully explained in Sūtras 1.3.7 and 1.4.19. Brahman thus refers only to the Personality of Brahman, who possesses unlimited transcendental qualities, and this is clearly confirmed in the following words of the Vedas:
atha kasmād ucyate brahmeti bṛhanto hy asmin guṇāḥ
“From Whom has this universe become manifest? From Brahman, who definitely possesses an abundance of exalted transcendental qualities.”
Brahman therefore primarily refers to the Personality of Brahman, and only secondarily to the individual conscious living entities, who although they emanate from Brahman and are composed of Brahman, can manifest the qualities of Brahman only to a very small degree. The individual living entities can be called Brahman, just as sons are called by their father’s family name, because their substance and qualities derive from their relationship with the Supreme Brahman. Although they are from Brahman and are eternally related to Brahman, the individual living entities are suffering the unwanted miseries of material life, such as birth, old age, disease and death, because of ignorance. This is the proof that they are not identical with the Supreme Brahman.
The Supreme Brahman is never subject to ignorance or suffering. Therefore the actual object of inquiry in Vedānta-sūtra is the Supreme Brahman, or the Personality of Brahman. Vedānta-sūtra is not an imaginary speculative description of Brahman’s qualities; it is the Absolute Truth about Brahman. To attain ultimate liberation from all suffering, the individual living entities should inquire about the Supreme Brahman, who is very merciful towards those who take shelter of Him.
It is not possible for Brahman to be impersonal, for the same Brahman is the source of innumerable individual living beings, who are themselves persons. Can a product or emanation have more qualities than its source? We are persons, therefore our children and parents are also persons. Their parents were also persons, and so on back to the original Personality of Godhead. No one has ever observed persons coming from something impersonal; indeed, our everyday experience is that persons come from persons. Therefore the idea that persons come from something impersonal, or can be the result of some mechanistic or random process, is completely impossible and nonsensical.
The impersonal theory also is lacking from other perspectives. Later on in the text, we will present and elaborately discuss the theory that the individual living entity determines the type of universe, planetary system, environment and body in which he finds himself by the qualities of his consciousness and activities, and of his relationship with the Supreme Brahman. This so-called Anthropic Principle holds true because the living entity collapses or decoheres the Universal Quantum Wave Function in a particular way, depending on how his consciousness, energy and desires interfere with it.
To imagine the Supreme Brahman as impersonal drastically limits the range of possibilities of this decoherence, and forces the living entity into denser environments and less intelligent embodiments. After all, it is not possible to have a personal relationship with something impersonal. Therefore an impersonal conception of the Supreme Brahman does not permit normal personal relationships like communication, worship and the exchange of service, affection and love. Would anyone really want to spend eternity in relationship with something impersonal?
Different computer network configurations and protocols allow vastly greater communication bandwidth and computational throughput than others. Similarly, the impersonal conception greatly reduces the possibilities of communication with the Supreme Brahman. But when the living entity chooses a personal terminal configuration for interfacing with the Supreme Brahman, his communication bandwidth is greatly enhanced. Thus, as one inquires into Brahman, it is critical to keep an open mind on the issue of whether the Brahman discussed in Vedānta is impersonal or personal.
The following quotes from the Vedas indicate the real standard of success in the inquiry into Brahman:
tam eva dhīro vijñāya prajñāṁ kurvīta brāhmaṇaḥ
“An intelligent equipoised person who has realized Brahman must endeavor to know the Supreme Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead, and surrender unto Him with loving devotion.” [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.21]
vijñāya prajñāṁ kurvīta
“After learning about the Personality of Brahman, one should become able to see Him directly.”
The word jijñāsā in the first sūtra means ‘the desire to know, or acquire jñāna.’ Knowledge is of two kinds: theoretical and conceptual, or practical and empirical. Theoretical knowledge of Vedānta helps bring us closer to the Supreme Brahman, and practical knowledge or realization of Vedānta should lead to the Supreme Brahman personally manifesting before us. If someone claims to be a teacher of Vedānta, yet does not display the symptoms of one who is rapt in ecstatic direct personal contact with the Supreme Brahman, we can understand that he has not yet attained perfection in the practice of Vedānta.
If one understands one’s real identity as an individual conscious living entity, that is certainly very helpful in understanding Brahman, because the transcendental qualities of the spiritual living entity are similar to those of Brahman. Nevertheless that does not mean that the individual conscious living entity is identical to Brahman. The individual living entity is always different from Brahman, and even after liberation from material existence, he remains eternally different from the Supreme Brahman.
The difference between the individual living entity and Brahman is clearly described in Sūtras 1.1.16, 1.1.17, 1.3.5, 1.3.21 and 1.3.41. Because an error in this fundamental concept can completely derail the student’s progress in inquiring into Brahman, it is necessary to discuss this point in some detail before going further. Students who already accept the personal nature of the Supreme should also study these arguments to help them defeat the misinterpretations of Vedānta recently fabricated and introduced by the impersonalist school of Śaṅkara.
The impersonalist school misinterprets Vedic references to Brahman to force out the false conclusion that the individual living entity and the Supreme Brahman are identical. They take Vedic statements out of context, and use word jugglery to misinterpret them to convince the weak-minded that the authority of the Vedic scriptures supports their imaginary theory. This is not only illogical but also unethical. The Vedic literature is not open to unauthorized speculative misinterpretation to support our pet theories; it gives the following guidelines for interpretation of difficult or ambiguous Sanskrit verses:
upakramopasaṁhārāv abhyāso
‘pūrvata-phalam
artha-vādopapattī ca liṅgaṁ
tātparya-nirṇaye
“The beginning, the ending, what is repeated again and again, what is unique and novel, the general purpose of the book, the author’s statement of his own intention, and appropriateness are the factors to consider in interpretation of obscure passages.”
If we apply these criteria to interpreting difficult passages in the Vedic literature, we clearly see that the Vedas consistently describe the Personality of Brahman and the individual conscious living entity as two distinct entities. For example, let us analyze the following passage from Śvetāśvatāra Upaniṣad [4.6-7] in the light of the above six criteria:
dvā suparṇā sayujā sakhāyā
samānaṁ vṛkṣaṁ pariśaṣvajāte
tayor anyaḥ pippalaṁ
svādv atty anaśnann anyo ‘bhicakāśīti
“The individual living entity and the superconscious living entity, Brahman or the Personality of Brahman, are like two friendly birds sitting on the same tree. One of the birds [the individual living entity] is eating the fruit of the tree [the sense gratification afforded by the material body], and the other bird [the superconscious living entity] is not trying to eat these fruits, but is simply watching His friend.”
samāne vṛkṣe puruṣo nimagno
‘nīśāya śocati muhyamānaḥ
juṣṭaṁ yadā paśyati
anyam īśam asya mahimānam iti vīta-śokaḥ
“Although the two birds are on the same tree, the eating bird is fully engrossed with anxiety and moroseness, bewildered by his own ignorance as the enjoyer of the fruits of the tree. But if in some way or other he turns his face to his eternal friend Brahman and knows His glories, at once the suffering bird becomes free from all anxieties.”
In this passage, the upakrama [beginning] is dvā suparṇā [two birds]; the upasaṁhāra [ending] is anyam īśam [the other person, who is Brahman or the Personality of Brahman]; the repeated feature is the word anya [the other person], as in the phrases tayor anyo ‘śnan [the other person does not eat] and anyam īśam [he sees the other person, who is the Supreme Brahman]. The apūrvata [unique feature] is the relationship between the individual conscious living entity and the Supreme Brahman, which cannot be understood without the revelation of the Vedic scripture; the phalam [object or general purpose of the passage] is vīta-śokaḥ [the individual conscious living entity becomes free from suffering by seeing Brahman]. The artha-vāda [author’s statement of his own intention] is mahimānam eti [one who understands the Supreme Brahman becomes glorious] and the upapattī [appropriateness] is anyo ‘naśan [the other person, the Supreme Brahman, does not eat the fruits of material happiness and distress].
By carefully analyzing this passage, we see that in all six points of interpretation, it teaches the difference between the jīva and Brahman. One can analyze many other passages from Vedic literatures in the same way, and one may clearly understand the difference between the Personality of Brahman and the individual living entity. Later on in the text, we will analyze this topic in detail, providing a wealth of detailed quotations from the original Vedic literature and showing their correct interpretations.
At this point, the impersonalist may raise an objection similar to the following: “A text is useful when it teaches something unknown to its readers; but when a text simply repeats what its readers already know, it simply wastes time uselessly. People in general already think they are different from the Supreme Brahman, and therefore if the Vedas were to teach them something new, it would have to be that the Personality of Brahman and the individual living beings are completely identical. For this reason, it should be understood that the individual conscious living entities are identical with Brahman.”
To this objection I reply: “This view is not supported by the Vedic scriptures.” For example, the Śvetāśvatāra Upaniṣad [1.6] states:
pṛthag-ātmānaṁ preritaṁ ca matvā juṣṭas tatas tenāmṛtatvam eti
“When one understands that the Personality of Brahman and the individual conscious living entities are eternally distinct, then he may become qualified for liberation, and live eternally in the spiritual world.”
What people in general do not understand is the precise way in which the jīva and Brahman are different is in their contrary attributes: Brahman is almighty, the jīva is limited; God is all-pervading, the jīva is atomic; the Lord is the controller, while the jīva is controlled at every step. Nor does the average person know that the Lord and the jīva have an eternal spiritual relationship based on transcendental love. Therefore the scriptures of all religions teach the differences between the Lord and the jīva, while the doctrine of oneness remains inscrutable and inconceivable, even according to its proponents; therefore it is not a true philosophy, but simply an exercise in mental speculation. The impersonalist conception of the identity of the individual and the Supreme is a preposterous phantasmagoria, like the horn of a rabbit. It has no reference to reality, and is completely rejected by anyone with a grain of common sense. Those few texts of the Upāniṣads that apparently teach the impersonalist doctrine are interpreted in a personalist way by their author, Vyāsadeva himself. This will be described in Sūtra 1.1.30.
The saṅgati [continuity with the previous Adhikaraṇa] here is ākṣepa [objection].
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The Personality of Brahman is the unlimitedly powerful creator, maintainer and destroyer of the material universes. Because He is inconceivable to the tiny brains of the conditioned living beings, He must be understood by studying Vedānta philosophy and similar Vedic scriptures. This is confirmed by the following statements of the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad and Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [3.9.26]:
taṁ tv aupaniṣadaṁ puruṣaṁ pṛcchāmi
“I shall now inquire about the Personality of Brahman, who is revealed in the Upāniṣads.”
sac-cid-ānanda-rūpāya
kṛṣṇāyākliṣṭa-kāriṇe
namo vedānta-vedyāya gurave
buddhi-sākṣiṇe
“I offer my respectful obeisances to the Supreme Brahman whose form is eternal, full of knowledge and bliss, who is the rescuer from distress, who is understood by Vedānta, who is the supreme spiritual master, and who is the witness in everyone’s heart.”
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Western thought is very much enamored by logic and reason. We derive many technological and economic advances from the logic of science and mathematics. But here we are being told that we cannot understand Brahman with these tools, but must seek this understanding from the authoritative scriptures, and this may make us doubt: “What is the best method for understanding the Supreme Brahman: the mental speculation of the logicians, or the indications of Vedānta? Maybe He is so far beyond our intelligence that it is impossible for us to understand Him at all.”
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: The impersonalist school of Vedānta argues that the sage Gautama and other authorities, especially Śaṅkara, prove that Brahman can be understood by logical speculation to be impersonal. Sometimes they quote the Vedic aphorism ātmavāre mantavya: “The Self is to be considered and reasoned about.” [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5] They take this as proof that Brahman can be known through dialectic reasoning. This viewpoint agrees with the predisposition of the Western mind to inductive logic. Therefore, the impersonalist Vedāntists are widely known in the West, while the much older and more authorized traditional Vedic personalist bhakti school is not taken so seriously.
The trouble with this viewpoint is that Brahman, or the Universal Quantum Wave Function, is by definition completely beyond objective empirical observation and speculative logic. Empirical reason and logic certainly have their scope of appropriate application, but they fail when approaching the Absolute, which has no obligation to conform to the limitations of human reason. In addition to universes with rules of physics similar to our own, the Universal Quantum Wave Function contains an unlimited number of universes with different rules, or perhaps with no rules at all. Do we really think that our fragile logic, based on our limited experience and scope of observation, can accommodate Brahman?
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: Our only hope of knowing anything about Brahman is if Brahman reveals Himself to us. Fortunately, Brahman has appeared in numerous avatāras or incarnations just for this purpose. In fact, the history of these avatāras comprises the bulk of the Vedic literature, and narrations of the teachings and pastimes of the avatāras form most of the Purāṇas [Vedic histories]. Therefore in the next sūtra, Śrīla Vyāsadeva explains that Vedic scriptural revelation is the only way to understand the Supreme Brahman. He says:
śāstra-yonitvāt
śāstra–the scriptures; yonitvāt–because of being the origin of knowledge.
[The inferential speculations of the logicians are unable to teach us about the Personality of Brahman] because He may only be known by the revelation of the Vedic scriptures.
In this sūtra the word “not” should be understood, even though it is unexpressed, to remain consistent with Sūtra 1.1.4. The actual language of the sūtra simply emphasizes the positive conclusion that one must take shelter of the revelations of the Vedas. Those who aspire after impersonal liberation are unable to understand the Personality of Brahman simply by logic and speculation. Why? Because logic is not the correct process for understanding the Supreme Brahman; He is known only by the revelation of the Vedic scriptures.
Among the Vedic scriptures known as śruti-śāstra, the Upaniṣads especially describe the Supreme Person. For this reason it is said, taṁ tv aupaniṣadaṁ puruṣaṁ pṛcchāmi: “I am inquiring about the Supreme Person, who is understood through the revelation of the Upaniṣads.” The process of logic and speculation described by the word mantavya in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.5], “to be understood by logic,” definitely has its place: it should be employed to understand the revelation of the scriptures, and not independently in philosophical speculation. This is confirmed by the following statement of śruti-śāstra [Mahābhārata, Vana-parva and Kūrma Purāṇa]:
pūrvāpara-virodhena ko ‘rtho
‘trābhimato bhavet
ity ādyam uhanaṁ tarkaḥ śuṣka-tarkaṁ
vivarjayet
“Logic is properly employed to resolve apparent contradictions in the texts of the Vedas by harmonizing each statement with its context. Speculative logic without reference to scriptural revelation should be abandoned.”
For this reason the dry speculative logic of Gautama, Śaṅkara and others, including the modern materialistic scientists, should be rejected in favor of applying logic to Vedic scriptural analysis. This is also confirmed in Sūtra 2.1.11. After understanding the Supreme Person by study of the Upāniṣads, one should become rapt in meditation on Him and see Him face-to-face. This will be explained later in Sūtra 2.1.27.
The Supreme Brahman, Hari, is identical with His own transcendental form. He and His form are not two separate identities. He is the witness of all living entities, He is the abode of an unlimited ocean of transcendental qualities, He is the creator of the material universes, and He remains unchanged eternally. One may worship Him perfectly simply by hearing about His transcendental glories from a person who has realized them.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: “The Vedānta philosophy does not give either positive orders or negative prohibitions, but simply descriptions, as the sentence ‘On the earth there are seven continents.’ Men need instruction in how to act. Therefore, what is needed is a series of orders to guide men. Men need clear instructions such as, ‘A man desiring wealth should approach the king,’ or ‘One suffering from indigestion should restrict his intake of water,’ or the orders of the Vedas, such as svarga-kāmo yajeta—“One desiring to enter the celestial material planets should worship the demigods with sacrifices”—or sūraṁ na pibet: “No one should drink wine.” In fact no one speaks without some object, either positive or negative, in mind. But the Upāniṣads do not give us a string of orders and prohibitions, but merely describe the eternally perfect Brahman. For example, the Upāniṣads tell us satyam jñānam: “The Personality of Brahman is truth and knowledge.” This is of small help in the matter of orders and prohibitions, because it does not teach any particular action. Sometimes the Upāniṣads’ descriptions may be a little useful, as for example when they describe a certain demigod, the description may be useful when one performs a sacrifice to that demigod; but otherwise these descriptions afford us little practical benefit, and are more or less useless. This is confirmed by the following statements of Jaimini Muni [Pūrva-mīmāṁsā 1.2.1 and 1.1.25]:
tad-bhūtānāṁ kriyārthena samāmnāyo ‘rthasya tan-nimittatvāt
“The scriptures teach us pious duties. Any scriptural passage that does not teach us our duty is a senseless waste of our time.”
āmnāyasya kriyārthatvād anārthākhyam atad-arthanam
“Just as a verb gives meaning to a sentence, in the same way instructions for action give meaning to the statements of the scriptures.”
To this objection I reply: Do not be bewildered. Even though the Upāniṣads do not give us a series of orders and prohibitions, still they teach us about the Supreme Brahman, the most important and valuable object to be attained by any living entity. Therefore even though this knowledge does not specify any definite action, it is not at all useless, for it teaches about the existence and qualities of the Supreme Being. If there were hidden treasure in your house, and a description of its location were spoken to you, those words would not be useless simply because they were a description. Understanding the existence and location of the treasure makes the means of recovering it self-evident.
Similarly the Upāniṣads’ description of the Personality of Brahman—who is the greatest treasure to be attained by any living being, whose form is eternal, full of knowledge and bliss, who is perfect and beyond any criticism, who is the friend of all living entities, the Supreme Brahman who is so kind that He gives Himself to His devotees, and who is the supreme whole of all existence, of whom I am a tiny part—is not useless, but of great value to the conditioned living entity. The descriptions of the Supreme Brahman in the Upāniṣads are valuable, because they produce a conviction in the existence of the Supreme, leading to the remission of fear and the experience of transcendental happiness. The description “your son is now born” is useful because it is a source of great joy, and the description “This is not a snake, but only a rope partly seen in the darkness,” is also useful because it is a great relief from fear.
Similarly, by understanding the knowledge of Brahman given in the Vedic scriptures, the means of attaining Him become self-evident. The specific benefits attained by understanding the Supreme Brahman are described in the following statement of Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.1]:
satyaṁ jñānam anantaṁ brahma yo veda nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ so ‘śnute sarvān kāmān
“The Personality of Brahman is limitless. He is transcendental knowledge, and He is the eternal transcendental reality. He is present in everyone’s heart. One who properly understands Him becomes blessed and all his desires are completely fulfilled.”
So the knowledge of Brahman is not useless, but leads to the attainment of the highest blessings.
No one can say that the Upāniṣads teach about ordinary fruitive action [karma]. Rather, one may say that the Upāniṣads teach one to give up all material fruitive work. The Vedānta philosophy in particular teaches the value of transcendental knowledge. No one can say that the Upāniṣads and Vedānta describe anything other than the Personality of Brahman, who is the original creator, maintainer, and destroyer of all the universes, whose spiritual form is eternal, who is a great ocean of unlimited auspicious transcendental qualities, and who is the resting place and object of service of the goddess of fortune. Therefore the scope and focus of Vedānta is on matters relating to Brahman, and not karma or fruitive action according to Vedic principles.
In fact Jaimini was a disciple of Vyāsadeva, the author of Vedānta, and a faithful devotee of Brahman. He could not have taught a doctrine in conflict with that of his master. His apparent criticisms of Vedic texts that do not give specific directions are actually not meant to apply to the jñāna-kāṇḍa sections of the Vedas, such as the Upāniṣads and Vedānta-sūtras of Vyāsadeva, but to the karma-kāṇḍa portions of the Vedas describing ritualistic sacrifices. The two sūtras by Jaimini quoted above simply mean that passages teaching karma or action must either command something to be done or prohibit something from being done.
In conclusion, Jaimini’s description of the importance of karma has no bearing on the Upāniṣads, because the temporary benefits obtainable from material work are insignificant compared with the eternal benefits of self-realization. They are a hint to us that there is far more than pious fruitive work in the instructions of the Vedas. In this way it may be understood that the Supreme Brahman is the actual subject matter described in the Vedic scriptures.
The saṅgati [continuity with the previous Adhikaraṇa] here is ākṣepa [objection].
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: That the Personality of Brahman is described in all Vedic scriptures is confirmed in the following scriptural quotations:
yo ‘su sarvair vedair gīyate
“The Personality of Brahman is glorified by all the Vedas.” [Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad]
sarve vedā yat-padam āmananti
“All the Vedas describe the lotus feet of the Personality of Brahman.” [Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.15]
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: But some philosophers doubt that Brahman or Viṣṇu is the subject matter described in all the Vedas. Is this statement true or false?
Especially the impersonalist philosophers who want to deny the very existence of the Personality of Godhead argue in this way. Even the great transcendentalist Prahlāda Mahārāja stated in the presence of Lord Viṣṇu Himself:
dharmārtha-kāma iti yo 'bhihitas
tri-varga
īkṣā trayī naya-damau vividhā ca vārtā
manye
tad etad akhilaṁ nigamasya satyaṁ
svātmārpaṇaṁ
sva-suhṛdaḥ paramasya puṁsaḥ
“Religion, economic development and sense gratification—these are described in the Vedas as tri-varga, or three ways to salvation. Within these three categories are education and self-realization; ritualistic ceremonies performed according to Vedic injunction; logic; the science of law and order; and the various means of earning one's livelihood. These are the external subject matters of study in the Vedas, and therefore I consider them material. However, I consider surrender to the lotus feet of Lord Viṣṇu to be transcendental.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 7.6.26]
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: Modern materialists in the guise of empirical scientists and speculative philosophers want to imagine that God does not exist. Unfortunately to do this, they must also imagine that the soul or conscious self does not exist, and that consciousness, personality etc. are just epiphenomena of the human nervous system and brain. The existence of a large body of impressive ancient literature such as the Vedas, describing the transcendental qualities of the soul and the Supreme Personality of Godhead in detail, is as embarrassing to them as it is to the orthodox theologists competing to prove the superiority of their respective religious sects. They cannot defeat the Vedic philosophy because of its inherent superiority, therefore they resort to various devices, including outright disinformation, propaganda and lies, to convince others that the Vedas are inconsequential. Somehow or other they brand the Vedas as ‘mythology,’ while promoting their own schools as the real truth. Of course, this subterfuge reveals far more about their lack of integrity than it does about the actual value of the Vedas.
Our philosophical opponents in various pseudo-Vedic lineages without a direct initiatory link with Vyāsadeva also maintain that it is not true that the Vedas teach only about the Personality of Godhead or the Supreme Brahman. They like to bring up the undeniable fact that the bulk of the Vedic literature describes various fruitive karma-kāṇḍa sacrifices, such as the kariri-yajña for bringing rain, the putra-kāmyeṣṭi-yajña for gaining a son, and the jyotiṣṭoma-yajña for traveling to the material heavenly planets [Svarga-loka]. For this reason, they say, it is not possible to accept the assertion of Vedānta that Brahman or Viṣṇu is the only topic discussed in the Vedas.
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: Vyāsadeva, the author of all the principal Vedic scriptures including Vedānta-sūtra, replies to this objection in the following sūtra:
tat tu samanvayāt
tat–this fact; tu–but; samanvayāt–because of the agreement of all the Vedic scriptures.
But that [Brahman or Viṣṇu is the sole topic of discussion in the Vedas] is confirmed by all scriptures.
The word tu [but] in this sūtra is used to rebut the previously stated opposing argument. It is proper to say that Brahman or Viṣṇu is the sole topic of discussion in all the Vedas, in the jñāna-kāṇḍa and even in the karma-kāṇḍa section. Why? Samanvayāt: “Because the scriptures themselves bring us to this conclusion.” The word anvaya means “understanding the actual meaning according to the six maxims of Vedic interpretation given in the explanation of Sūtra 1.1.2,” and the word samanvaya means “perfect understanding after careful deliberation.” When we apply the above-mentioned rules of interpretation [beginning with upakrama and upasaṁhāra] to the texts of the Vedas, we will come to the conclusion that Brahman or Viṣṇu is the sole topic of discussion in all the Vedas. If it were not so, then why should the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad state that Brahman or Viṣṇu is glorified by all the Vedas? This is also confirmed by the lotus-eyed Personality of Brahman Himself, who says:
vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham
“By all the Vedas I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of the Vedānta [Vyāsadeva], and I am the knower of the Vedas.” [Bhagavad-gītā 15.15]
kiṁ vidhatte kim ācaṣṭe kim
anūdya vikalpayet
ity asyā kṛdayaṁ lokī nānyo mad veda
kaścana
māṁ vidhatte ‘bhidhatte māṁ vikalpyāpohyate hy
aham
“What is the direction of all Vedic literatures? On whom do they set focus? Who is the object of all speculation? Outside of Me no one knows these things. Now you should know that all these activities are aimed at ordaining and setting forth Me. The purpose of Vedic literature is to know Me by different speculations, either by indirect understanding or by dictionary understanding. Everyone is speculating about Me.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.21.42-43]
The Vedic literatures also state:
sākṣāt-paramparābhyām veda brahmaṇi pravartate
“Either directly or indirectly, the Vedas describe Brahman.”
In the karma-kāṇḍa section of the Vedas, Brahman is indirectly described in the discussion of fruitive action and various divisions of material knowledge, and in the jñāna-kāṇḍa section of the Vedas the transcendental forms and qualities of the Personality of Brahman are directly described. Material Vedic knowledge is a necessary prerequisite to the more advanced topics of transcendental knowledge and realization. Therefore the Vedas discuss both mundane and transcendental subjects, just as a course in any subject begins with preliminaries and fundamentals, and only gradually exposes the more advanced topics once the student has sufficient preparation.
That the Personality of Brahman is the sole topic of discussion in the Vedas is also confirmed by the following scriptural passages:
tam tv aupaniṣadaṁ puruṣam pṛcchāmi
“I shall now ask about the Personality of Brahman, who is described in the Upaniṣads.” [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 9.21]
tam etam vedānuvacanena brāhmaṇa vividiśanti
“Brāhmaṇas study the Vedas to understand the Personality of Brahman.” [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.22]
As for the various fruitive results that are offered to the followers of the karma-kāṇḍa rituals in the Vedas, such as the attainment of rain, a son, or residence in the celestial material planets, these benefits are offered to attract the minds of ordinary men who are attached to material fruitive activities. When ordinary men see that these material benefits are actually attained by performing Vedic rituals and chanting prayers such as the viṣṇu-sahasranāma-stotra [the Thousand Holy Names of Lord Viṣṇu], they become attracted to study the Vedas. By studying the Vedas they gradually become able to discriminate between what is temporary and what is eternal, what is illusory and what is real. Thus after prolonged study and practice of Vedic truth, they become averse to the temporary things of this world and come to hanker after Brahman. In this way it may be understood that all the sections of the Vedas actually describe the Personality of Brahman.
In other words, the Vedas’ descriptions of various religious practices and rituals assist the spiritual aspirant in becoming purified, so that his elevated character allows him to inquire into Brahman as described above. The preliminary process of worship and purification based on scriptural rules and regulations called naimittika-dharma helps establish the worshiper in pious credits, so he may pursue the actual eternal goal or sanatana-dharma. That the majority of the contents of the Vedic literature consists of such preliminary topics is no disqualification of the transcendental status of the Vedic literature in any way, because the final object of such preliminaries is becoming qualified to study and attain the actual transcendental goal of the Vedas: the personality of Brahman, or Viṣṇu.
Vedic rituals give material benefits only when the performer of the ritual is filled with material desire. If the performer is materially desireless, then he does not gain a material result, but rather he obtains purification of the heart and the manifestation of causeless spiritual knowledge. Therefore, the meaning of the previously quoted text from Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.4.22] is that the demigods are considered to be the various limbs of the Personality of Brahman, and by worshiping them, one actually worships the Supreme Brahman, and the result of such worship is that one gradually become pure in heart and awake with spiritual knowledge.
The saṅgati [continuity with the previous Adhikaraṇa] here is ākṣepa [objection].
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: So far we have applied ourselves to understanding the qualities and position of Brahman as described in Vedānta-sūtra and other Vedic scriptures, especially the Upaniṣads. The descriptions of Brahman or the Supreme Absolute are sometimes vague, because they are meant to be studied in the context of the Vedic system of disciplic succession.
evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ
“This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way.” [Bhagavad-gītā 4.2]
In that environment, the student approaches, serves and hears from a self-realized soul who has already understood the message of the Vedas and Upaniṣads.
tad viddhi praṇipātena
paripraśnena sevayā
upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ jñāninas
tattva-darśinaḥ
“Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.” [Bhagavad-gītā 4.11]
Thus there is no chance of misinterpretation because the Master is always ready to give the correct meaning of the text from his own realization.
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Problems arise, however, when people of lower character refuse to accept the role of a disciple and try to interpret the Vedas and Upaniṣads independently, on their own authority, instead of accepting the original version of the Vedic authorities like Vyāsadeva and his disciples. Generally people are attached to sense gratification, and so they try to make the Supreme impersonal. The Personality of Brahman has established certain rules for human life; these are described in the Vedic scriptures, and if we violate them we have to accept the karmic reaction. People who do not want to follow these rules theorize that if Brahman is impersonal, then He cannot impose His will on the creation, hence anyone can do whatever they like without any consequences. So the impersonalists, who are generally atheistic and possess a demoniac character, try to prove that Brahman is not a person to justify their aggressive lifestyle of material exploitation and illicit activities of sense gratification.
Thus the impersonalist philosophy of the demons tries to establish that the Vedas and Upaniṣads describe the Supreme Brahman as impersonal and ultimately void. Their chief strategy is to take certain statements of the Vedas and Upaniṣads out of context and twist the meaning to support their impersonal misinterpretation. They claim that Vyāsadeva, the compiler of the Vedas and the author of the Upaniṣads and so many other scriptures, made a mistake. Yet they quote freely from his writings to support their philosophy when it suits them. Thus the impersonalists’ entire argument is based on the authority and writings of a person they consider to be mistaken. That it is very difficult to get them to admit this contradiction speaks volumes about their level of intelligence and integrity.
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: One of the main arguments of the impersonalists is that “Brahman is so high, so transcendent, so much beyond human intelligence, that our words and symbols cannot describe it.” However, if we accept this argument, then as a consequence we will doubt the authority of all the religious scriptures in the world. Of course, the impersonalists also use many words to describe their own views, but somehow they want us to accept their arguments and pet quotations at the same time as we reject the words of the scriptures as a whole. Thus the unspoken part of their argument is that it does not apply to themselves. This Adhikaraṇa of Vedānta-sūtra defeats the hypocritical argument of the impersonalists in detail.
Simply by the use of logic and scriptural quotation, we certainly have already refuted the misconception that Brahman cannot be described, since we have doing exactly that for many pages already, and also showing many vivid examples of how He is described in the Vedas. Nevertheless no amount of verbiage can give a complete description of Brahman, who is by definition infinite. Impersonalists argue, therefore, that many scriptural passages support the theory that it is impossible to describe Brahman by words. For example:
yato vāco nivartate aprāpya manasā saha
“The mind cannot understand the Personality of Brahman, and words cannot describe Him.” [Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.4.1]
yad vacanābhyuditaṁ yena vāg
abhyudyate tad eva
brahma tad viddhi nedaṁ yad idam upāsate
“No one has the power to describe Brahman with words, even though everyone’s speech occurs by the power granted by Brahman. Know that this Brahman is not material. Worship this Brahman.” [Kena Upaniṣad 1.5]
Many people doubt whether spiritual life in general, and Brahman in particular, is expressible by words. The śruti-śāstra quoted above states that Brahman cannot be described by words. That Brahman cannot be described with words is also explained in the following statement of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [3.6.40]:
yato ‘prāpya nyavartanta vacaś
ca manasā saha
ahaṁ cānya ime devās tasmai bhagavate namaḥ
“Words, mind and ego, with their respective controlling demigods, have failed to achieve success in knowing the Personality of Brahman. Therefore, we simply have to offer our respectful obeisances unto Him as a matter of sanity.”
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes the argument of the impersonalists that Brahman cannot be described in words in the following sūtra:
īkṣater nāśabdam
īkṣateḥ–because it is seen; na–not; aśabdam–indescribable by words.
Because it is seen [that Brahman is vividly described in the Vedic scriptures, it should be understood that Brahman] is not indescribable by words.
Here the word aśabdam means “that which cannot be described by words.” In this sūtra Brahman is described as not [na] indescribable by words [aśabdam]; on the contrary He is śabdam, describable by words. Why is this so? Because īkṣateḥ, it is seen that Brahman is described in the passages of the scriptures. We may also note that the word īkṣateḥ in the sūtra is bhava [passive], and it is formed by adding the affix tip-pratyaya. The unusual usage here is ārṣa, a certain degree of grammatical liberty allowed to an exalted author. For example, Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [9.21] states:
taṁ tv aupaniṣadaṁ puruṣaṁ pṛcchāmi
“I shall now ask about the Personality of Brahman, who is described in the Upaniṣads.”
We may note in this connection that the word aupaniṣada means “that glorious person who is described in the Upaniṣads.”
That the Personality of Brahman may be described in words is also confirmed by the following statement of Kathā Upaniṣad [2.15]:
sarve vedā yat-padam āmananti
“All the Vedas describe the lotus feet of the Personality of Brahman.”
There are many beautiful passages in the scriptures eloquently describing the Supreme Brahman in detail. For example:
“Brahmā could see that on the water there was a gigantic lotus-like white bedstead, the body of Śeṣa-nāga, on which the Personality of Godhead was lying alone. The whole atmosphere was illuminated by the rays of the jewels bedecking the hood of Śeṣa-nāga, and that illumination dissipated all the darkness of those regions. The luster of the transcendental body of the Lord mocked the beauty of the coral mountain. The coral mountain is very beautifully dressed by the evening sky, but the yellow dress of the Lord mocked its beauty. There is gold on the summit of the mountain, but the Lord's helmet, bedecked with jewels, mocked it. The mountain's waterfalls, herbs, etc., with a panorama of flowers, seem like garlands, but the Lord’s gigantic body, and His hands and legs, decorated with jewels, pearls, tulasī leaves and flower garlands, mocked the scene on the mountain. His transcendental body, unlimited in length and breadth, occupied the three planetary systems, upper, middle and lower. His body was self-illuminated by unparalleled dress and variegatedness and was properly ornamented. The Lord showed His lotus feet by raising them. His lotus feet are the source of all awards achieved by devotional service free from material contamination. Such awards are for those who worship Him in pure devotion. The splendor of the transcendental rays from His moonlike toenails and fingernails appeared like the petals of a flower. He also acknowledged the service of the devotees and vanquished their distress by His beautiful smile. The reflection of His face, decorated with earrings, was so pleasing because it dazzled with the rays from His lips and the beauty of His nose and eyebrows. O my dear Vidura, the Lord's waist was covered with yellow cloth resembling the saffron dust of the kadamba flower, and it was encircled by a well-decorated belt. His chest was decorated with the śrīvatsa marking and a necklace of unlimited value. As a sandalwood tree is decorated with fragrant flowers and branches, the Lord's body was decorated with valuable jewels and pearls. He was the self-situated tree, the Lord of all others in the universe. And as a sandalwood tree is covered with many snakes, so the Lord’s body was also covered by the hoods of Ananta. Like a great mountain, the Lord stands as the abode for all moving and nonmoving living entities. He is the friend of the snakes because Lord Ananta is His friend. As a mountain has thousands of golden peas, so the Lord was seen with the thousands of golden-helmeted hoods of Ananta-nāga; and as a mountain is sometimes filled with jewels, so also His transcendental body was fully decorated with valuable jewels. As a mountains is sometimes submerged in the ocean water, so the Lord is sometimes submerged in the water of devastation. Lord Brahmā, thus looking upon the Lord in the shape of a mountain, concluded that He was Hari, the Personality of Godhead. He saw that the garland of flowers on His chest glorified Him with Vedic wisdom in sweet songs and looked very beautiful. He was protected by the Sudarśana wheel for fighting, and even the sun, moon, air, fire, etc., could not have access to Him.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.8.24-31]
When it is said in the Vedic literature that Brahman cannot be described in words, the intention is to assert that He cannot be completely described in words. This is evident by the fact that there are so many passages like the one quoted above, where Brahman is described vividly. In the same manner of speaking one could say that “No one can see Mount Meru,” because no one can see the entire mountain, but only small parts of it at any one time. Without accepting the understanding that Brahman is, at least to some degree, expressible by words or understandable by the mind—just not completely so—we would miss the real meaning of scriptural statements like yato vāco nivartate: “Words cannot describe Brahman;” aprāpya manasā saha: “The mind cannot understand Brahman;” and yad vacanābhyuditam: “No one has the power to describe Brahman with words.” These statements simply explain that Brahman cannot be completely described in words; they do not indicate that He cannot be described by words at all.
śrī-drumila uvāca
yo vā
anantasya gunān anantān
anukramiṣyan sa tu
bāla-buddhiḥ
rajāṁsi bhūmer gaṇayet kathañcit
kālena
naivākhila-śakti-dhāmnaḥ
Śrī Drumila said: “Anyone trying to enumerate or describe fully the unlimited qualities of the unlimited Supreme Lord has the intelligence of a foolish child. Even if a great genius could somehow or other, after a time-consuming endeavor, count all the particles of dust on the surface of the earth, such a genius could never count the attractive qualities of the Personality of Godhead, who is the reservoir of all potencies.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.4.2]
If this were not so, it would not be said that the Supreme Brahman is self-manifested. That Brahman can be described with words to some extent does not contradict the fact that Brahman reveals Himself by His own wish. The Vedas are actually the sound incarnation of Brahman, and therefore Brahman may reveal Himself in the words of the Vedas. In fact, only Brahman has the power to reveal Himself with words, because only He knows Himself fully. This same question is discussed in detail in the Tenth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam:
śrī-parīkṣid uvāca
brahman
brahmaṇy anirdeśye
nirguṇe guṇa-vṛttayaḥ
kathaṁ
caranti śrutayaḥ
sākṣāt sad-asataḥ pare
Śrī Parīkṣit said: “O brāhmaṇa, how can the Vedas directly describe the Supreme Absolute Truth, who cannot be described in words? The Vedas are limited to describing the qualities of material nature, but the Supreme is devoid of these qualities, being transcendental to all material manifestations and their causes.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.87.1]
We should consider that words have three kinds of expressive capacities, called śabda-vṛttis. These are the different ways a word refers to its meaning, distinguished as mukhya-vṛtti, lakṣaṇā-vṛtti and gauṇa-vṛtti. The śabda-vṛtti termed mukhya is the primary, literal meaning of a word; this is also known as abhidhā, a word’s denotation or dictionary meaning. Mukhya-vṛtti is further divided into two subcategories, namely rūḍhi and yoga. A primary meaning is called rūḍhi when it is based on conventional usage, and yoga when it is derived from another word's meaning by regular etymological rules.
For example, the word go [cow] is an example of rūḍhi, since its relation with its literal meaning is purely conventional. The denotation of the word pācaka [chef], on the other hand, is a yoga-vṛtti, through the word's derivation from the root pac [to cook] by addition of the agentive suffix -ka.
Beside its mukhya-vṛtti, or primary meaning, a word can also be used in a secondary, metaphorical sense. This usage is called lakṣaṇā [indirect definition]. The rule is that a word should not be understood metaphorically if its mukhya-vṛtti makes sense in the given context; only after the mukhya-vṛtti fails to convey a meaning suitable to the context may lakṣaṇā-vṛtti be justifiably presumed. The function of lakṣaṇā is technically explained in the kāvya-śāstras as an extended reference, pointing to something in some way related to the object of the literal meaning. Thus, the phrase gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣaḥ literally means “the cowherd village in the Ganges.” But that idea is absurd, so here gaṅgāyām should rather be understood by its lakṣaṇā to mean “on the bank of the Ganges,” the bank being something related to the river. Gauṇa-vṛtti is a special kind of lakṣaṇā, where the meaning is extended to some idea of similarity. For example, in the statement siṁho devadattaḥ [“Devadatta is a lion”], heroic Devadatta is metaphorically called a lion because of his lionlike qualities. In contrast, the example of the general kind of lakṣaṇā, namely gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣaḥ, involves a relationship not of similarity but of location.
In the verse quoted above, Parīkṣit Mahārāja expresses doubt as to how the words of the Vedas can refer to the Absolute Truth by any of the valid kinds of śabda-vṛtti. He asks, kathaṁ sākṣāt caranti: How can the Vedas directly describe Brahman by rūḍha-mukhya-vṛtti, literal meaning based on convention? After all, the Absolute is anirdeśya, inaccessible to designation. And how can the Vedas even describe Brahman by gauṇa-vṛtti, metaphor based on similar qualities?
The Vedas are guṇa-vṛttayaḥ, full of qualitative descriptions, but Brahman is nirguṇa, without material qualities. Obviously, a metaphor based on similar qualities cannot apply in the case of something that has no qualities. Furthermore, Parīkṣit Mahārāja points out that Brahman is sad-asataḥ param, beyond all causes and effects. Having no connection with any manifest existence, subtle or gross, the Absolute cannot be expressed by either yoga-vṛtti, a meaning derived etymologically, or lakṣaṇā, metaphor, since both require some relationship of Brahman to other entities.
The answer to this doubt is given in the next śloka:
śrī-śuka
uvāca
buddhīndriya-manaḥ-prāṇān
janānām asṛjat
prabhuḥ
mātrārthaṁ ca bhavārthaṁ ca
ātmane 'kalpanāya
ca
Śukadeva Gosvamī said: “The Supreme Lord manifested the material intelligence, senses, mind and vital air of the [conditioned] living entities so that they could indulge their desires for sense gratification, take repeated births to engage in fruitive activities, become elevated in future lives and ultimately attain liberation.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.87.2]
When the conditioned living entities lay dormant within the transcendental body of Lord Viṣṇu at the dawn of the material creation, He initiated the process of creation by sending forth the coverings of intelligence, mind and so on, only for the living entities’ benefit. As stated here, Viṣṇu is the independent Lord [prabhu], and the living entities are jana, His dependents. Thus the Lord creates the cosmos entirely for the living entities’ sake; as the creator and eternal Friend of the living entities, compassion is His sole motive.
The Supreme Lord enables the living entities them to pursue sense gratification by providing them with with gross and subtle bodies, and in the human form, the preliminary Vedic principles of religiosity, economic development, sense gratification and liberation. In each body the conditioned soul utilizes his senses for enjoyment, and when he comes to the human form he must also discharge various duties assigned by the Vedic scriptures at the different stages of his life. If he faithfully discharges his duties, he earns more extensive and refined enjoyment in the future; if not, he is degraded by karmic reactions. And when the soul eventually hankers for freedom from material conditioned life, the path of liberation is available through the transcendental instructions of the Vedas.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī comments that in this verse the repeated use of the word ca [and] indicates the importance of all of what the Lord provides—not only the path of liberation, but also the paths of gradual elevation through religious life and appropriate sense enjoyment. Thus the living entities depend on the Lord’s mercy for success in all their endeavors. Without intelligence, senses, mind and life energy, the living entities cannot achieve anything—neither elevation to heaven, purification through knowledge, perfection of the eightfold meditational yoga, nor pure devotion through following the process of bhakti-yoga, beginning with hearing and chanting the transcendental sound vibration of the Holy Names of God.
If the Supreme Brahman arranges all these facilities for the conditioned souls’ welfare, how can He be impersonal? Far from presenting the Absolute Truth as ultimately impersonal, the Upaniṣads actually speak at great length about His personal qualities. The Brahman described by the Upaniṣads is free from all inferior material qualities, yet He is omniscient, omnipotent, the master and controller of all, the universally worshipable Lord, He who awards the results of everyone's work, and the reservoir of all eternity, knowledge and bliss. Therefore He is actually a transcendental person. The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [1.1.9] states,
yaḥ sarva-jñaḥ sa sarva-vid yasya jñāna-mayaṁ tapaḥ
“He who is all-knowing, from whom the potency of all knowledge comes—He is the wisest of all.”
In the words of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.4.22, 3.7.3, and 1.2.4],
sarvasya vāśī sarvasyeśānaḥ
“He is the Lord and controller of everyone"
yaḥ pṛthivyāṁ tiṣṭhan pṛthivyā āntaraḥ
“He who resides within the earth and pervades it”
so 'kāmayata bahu syām
“He desired, ‘I will become many.’”
Similarly, the Aitareya Upaniṣad [3.11] states,
sa aikṣata tat tejo 'sṛjata
“He glanced at His potency, who then manifested the creation,”
while the Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.1.1] declares,
satyaṁ jñānam anantaṁ brahma
“The Supreme is unlimited truth and knowledge.”
The phrase tat tvam asi, “You are that [Brahman]” [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8.7], is often cited by impersonalists as a confirmation of the absolute identity of the finite jīva soul with his creator. Śaṅkarācārya and his followers elevate these words to the status of a mahā-vākya, a key phrase they imagine to express the essential purport of Vedānta. The leading thinkers of the authorized Vaiṣṇava schools of Vedānta strongly disagree with this misinterpretation. The phrase mahā-vākya does not appear anywhere in the Vedas themselves. Ācāryas Rāmānuja, Madhva, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa and others have offered numerous alternative explanations according to a systematic study of the Upaniṣads and other śrutis.
The question Mahārāja Parīkṣit has submitted in the sloka quoted above—namely, “How can the Vedas directly refer to the Absolute Truth?”—has been answered as follows by Śukadeva Gosvāmī: “The Lord created intelligence and other elements for the sake of the conditioned living beings.” A skeptic may object that this answer is irrelevant. But Śukadeva Gosvāmī's answer is not actually irrelevant. Answers to subtle questions must often be phrased indirectly. As Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself states in His instructions to Uddhava:
parokṣa-vādā ṛṣayaḥ parokṣaṁ mama ca priyam
“The Vedic seers and mantras deal in esoteric terms, and I also am pleased by such confidential descriptions.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.21.35]
The impersonalists on whose behalf Parīkṣit Mahārāja asked his question cannot appreciate the direct answer, so instead Śrīla Śukadeva gives an indirect reply: “You assert that Brahman is indescribable by words. But if the Supreme Lord had not created the intelligence, mind and senses, then sound and the other objects of perception would all be just as indescribable as your idea of Brahman. You would have been blind and deaf since birth, and would know nothing about physical forms and sounds, what to speak of the Absolute. So, just as the merciful Lord has given us all faculties of perception for experiencing and describing to others the sensations of sight, sound and so forth, in the same way He may give someone the receptive capacity to realize Brahman. He may, if He chooses, create some extraordinary way for words to function—apart from their ordinary references to material substances, qualities, categories and actions—that will enable them to express the Supreme Truth. He is, after all, the almighty Lord [prabhu], and He can easily make the indescribable describable.”
This is exactly the case. The Lord has created a special category of terminology—transcendental sound vibration—whose meaning is completely spiritual and has nothing to do with the material world. The Supreme Brahman describes to Citraketu,
ahaṁ vai sarva-bhūtāni
bhūtātmā
bhūta-bhāvanaḥ
śabda-brahma paraṁ brahma
mamobhe śāśvatī
tanū
“All living entities, moving and nonmoving, are My expansions and are separate from Me. I am the Supersoul of all living beings, who exist because I manifest them. I am the form of the transcendental vibrations [like oṁkāra, Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Rāma and other Holy Names], and I am the Supreme Absolute Truth. These two forms of Mine—namely, the transcendental sound and the eternally blissful spiritual form of the Deity, are My eternal forms; they are not material.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.16.51]
Lord Matsya, who saved the Vedas at the time of universal devastation by assuming the form of a gigantic fish, assures King Satyavrata that the Absolute Truth can be known from the words of the Vedas:
madīyaṁ mahimānaṁ ca
paraṁ
brahmeti śabditam
vetsyasy anugrahītaṁ me
sampraśnair
vivṛtaṁ hṛdi
“You will be thoroughly advised and favored by Me, and because of your inquiries, everything about My glories, which are known as paraṁ brahma, will be manifest within your heart. Thus you will know everything about Me.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 8.24.38]
Because śabda-brahma [transcendental sound vibration] is originally spoken by the Supreme Brahman Himself, it perfectly describes His spiritual forms, qualities and activities. It is very difficult to understand Brahman, but when He describes Himself in the words of the scriptures, then it becomes not only possible, but easy. If we take shelter of the authoritative statements of the Vedic scriptures with our intelligence, then very soon we will attain conclusive understanding of the Supreme Brahman through this transcendental sound vibration.
The fortunate soul who has been blessed by the Supreme Lord with a spirit of inquisitiveness into the nature and qualities of Brahman naturally will ask questions about the nature of the Absolute, and by hearing the answers given by the Supreme Himself and recorded in the Vedic literatures, he will come to understand the Lord as He is. Thus only by the special mercy of the Supreme Person does Brahman become śabditam, “denoted by words.” Otherwise, without the Lord’s exceptional grace, not even the words of the Vedas can reveal the Absolute Truth.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī suggests that the word buddhi in the sloka above spoken by Śukadeva Gosvāmī can indicate the mahat-tattva, from which evolve the various expansions of ether [such as sound], which are designated here as indriya [sense objects]. Mātrārtham, then, means “for the sake of using transcendental sound to describe Brahman,” since the Supreme Lord inspired prakṛti to evolve ether [space or air] and sound—the medium and object, respectively, of the sense of hearing—for that precise purpose.
A further understanding of the purpose of creation is given by the words bhavārtham and ātmane kalpanāya [if the reading kalpanāya instead of akalpanāya in some recensions of the text is taken]. Bhavārtham means “for the good of the living entities.” Worship [kalpanam] of the Supreme Self [ātmane] is the means by which the living entities can fulfill the divine purpose for which they exist. Intelligence, mind and senses are meant to be used for worshiping the Supreme Lord, whether or not the living entity has yet brought them to the stage of transcendental purification.
How both purified and unpurified devotees use their intelligence, mind and senses in worshiping the Lord is described in reference to the following quote from the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [Pūrva 12]:
sat-puṇḍarīka-nayanaṁ
meghābhaṁ
vaidyutāmbaram
dvi-bhujaṁ mauna-mudrāḍhyaṁ
vana-mālinam
īśvaram
“The Supreme Lord, appearing in His two-armed form, had divine lotus eyes, a complexion the color of a cloud, and garments that resembled lightning. He wore a garland of forest flowers, and His beauty was enhanced by His pose of meditative silence.”
The transcendental intelligence and senses of the Lord’s perfect devotees correctly perceive His purely spiritual beauty, and their realizations are echoed in the Gopāla-tāpanī-śruti's comparison of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s eyes, body and clothing to a lotus, a cloud and lightning. On the other hand, devotees on the level of sādhana, who are in the process of becoming purified, have only barely realized the Supreme Lord’s boundless spiritual beauty. Nonetheless, after hearing scriptural passages such as this one from the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad, they engage in contemplating Him to the best of their ability.
arthāśrayatvaṁ śabdasya
draṣṭur
liṅgatvam eva ca
tan-mātratvaṁ ca nabhaso
lakṣaṇaṁ
kavayo viduḥ
“Persons who are learned and who have true knowledge define sound as that which conveys the idea of an object, indicates the presence of a speaker screened from our view and constitutes the subtle form of ether.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.26.33]
The Vedic sound vibration conveys the idea of the Supreme Brahman and since in our materially conditioned state, we cannot see Him, it also reveals his presence. Although the neophyte devotees have not yet learned how to fully realize the Lord or even meditate steadily on the effulgence surrounding His body, still they take pleasure in presuming, “We are meditating on our Lord.” And the Supreme Lord, moved by the waves of His boundless mercy, Himself thinks, “These devotees are meditating on Me.” When their devotion matures, He draws them to His feet to engage in His intimate service. Thus it is concluded that the followers of the Vedas have access to the personal identity of the Supreme only by His mercy in the form of the transcendental words of the Vedas.
saiṣā hy upaniṣad
brāhmī
pūrveśāṁ pūrva-jair dhṛtā
śrraddhayā
dhārayed yas tāṁ
kṣemaṁ gacched akiñcanaḥ
“Those who came before even our ancient predecessors meditated upon this same confidential knowledge of the Absolute Truth. Indeed, anyone who faithfully concentrates on this knowledge will become free from material attachments and attain the final goal of life.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.87.3]
That this confidential knowledge concerning the Absolute Truth can be expressed in words should not be doubted, since it has been passed down through authoritative lines of learned sages from time immemorial. One who cultivates the science of the Supreme with reverence, avoiding the distractions of fruitive rituals and mental speculation, will learn to give up the false designations of material body and mundane society, and thus he will become eligible for perfection.
The skeptics may admit that Brahman is describable by words to some extent, but still they may object that the Supreme Person described in the words of the Vedas may be saguṇa—a false, temporary manifestation of Brahman according to the modes of material nature—and not the perfect, complete, eternal and pure original Brahman, who being completely transcendental, remains indescribable by words. If this doubt were to arise, Śrīla Vyāsadeva answers it in the following sūtra.
gauṇaś cen nātma-śabdāt
gauṇaḥ–Saguṇa Brahman, or Brahman’s potencies; cet–if; na–not; ātma–ātma; śabdāt–because of the word.
If [one says that the Brahman described in the Vedas as the creator is] Saguṇa Brahman [a manifestation of the modes of material nature, and not the original Supreme Brahman Himself, then I say] this cannot be true, because Brahman is described in the Vedas as ātmā [the Supreme Self].
Two words in the revealed scriptures often applied to the Lord—saguṇa (“with qualities”) and nirguṇa (“without qualities”)—are very important. The impersonalists argue that when Brahman appears in the material world, He assumes a form made of material energy, and that only the Brahman in the spiritual world remains pure and without qualities. However, the word saguṇa does not imply that when the Lord appears with perceivable qualities He must take on a material form and be subject to the laws of material nature. Because He is supreme, He is always spiritual and the source of all energies; therefore He is always the cause, and never the effect of His energies.
mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ
“This material nature is working under My direction.” [Bhagavad-gītā 9.10]
As the controller of all energies, He cannot at any time be under their influence, as we are. The material energy works according to His direction, so He can use material energy for His purposes in creating the universe and living beings, etc. without being influenced by the qualities of that energy. Thus even when He appears in the material universe for the purpose of creation or pastimes, He is always nirguṇa because He is never affected by material qualities. Nor does the Lord become a formless entity at any time, for His eternal form as the primeval Lord is full of spiritual qualities. His impersonal aspect, the Brahman effulgence, is but the glow of His personal form, just as the sun’s rays are the glow of the sun-god.
Therefore the Brahman described in the Vedas is not merely a saguṇa manifestation of the mode of goodness. Why? Because the Vedas use the word ātmā, the Supreme Self, to describe Him. For example:
ātmaivedam agra āsīt puruṣa-vidhaḥ
“The Supreme Self [ātmā], who is a transcendental person, existed before this material world was manifested in the beginning.” [Vājasaneya-saṁhitā]
ātmā vā idam eka evāgra āsīt
nānyat kiñcana
miṣāt sa īkṣata lokān nu sṛja
“Before the material world was manifest, the Supreme Self [ātmā] alone existed. Nothing else was manifested at that time. The Supreme Self then thought, ‘Let me create the material planets.’” [Aitareya Āraṇyaka]
aham evāsam evāgre
nānyad yat
sad-asat param
paścād ahaṁ yad etac ca
yo 'vaśiṣyeta so
'smy aham
“Brahmā, it is I, the Personality of Godhead, who was existing before the creation, when there was nothing but Myself. Nor was there the material nature, the cause of this creation. That which you see now is also I, the Personality of Godhead, and after annihilation what remains will also be I, the Personality of Godhead.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.9.33]
These texts clearly refer to the Supreme Self [ātmā] who existed before the creation of the material world. Also, in the commentary on Sūtra 1.1.2, we discussed that the word ātmā primarily refers to the perfect Supreme Brahman, and not to anyone or anything else. For all these reasons the word ātmā used in the scriptures should be understood to refer to the transcendental Personality of Brahman, and not to any material manifestation of the mode of goodness. The transcendental Supreme Person is described in the following statements of Vedic literature:
vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvaṁ
yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti pāramātmeti bhagavān iti
śabdyate
“Learned transcendentalist who know the Absolute Truth call this non-dual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.2.11]
śuddhe mahā-vibhūtākhye pare
brahmaṇi śabdyate
maitreya bhagavac-chabdaḥ
sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇe
“O Maitreya, the word Bhagavān refers to the Supreme Brahman, who is full of all powers and opulences, the original cause of all causes, and the supreme transcendence, pure and always untouched by matter.” [Viṣṇu Purāṇa]
In this way the supremely perfect and pure Brahman is described by the statements of the smṛti-śāstras. Therefore the scriptures can and do describe Him, and such Vedic transcendental sound vibration or śabda-brahma is qualitatively equivalent to the Lord Himself. Sound vibrations describing the Lord’s form, qualities and pastimes, and especially the Holy Names of the Lord, are identical with Him. One can realize this when one’s consciousness is situated on the absolute platform. Realization of transcendental sound vibration means that one clearly understands that the Holy Name and other descriptions of the Lord cannot be identified with any material sound. If this is true of the Lord’s Holy name and other descriptions of Him, how much more it must be true of the Lord Himself.
If it were not possible to describe Him with words, then the scriptures would not have been able to describe Him in the above quotations. Vedānta-sūtra will point out many instances of words in the Vedas that describe the Supreme Brahman. All these words are śabda-brahma or transcendental sound vibration, and as such are qualitatively equal to the Supreme Brahman Himself. This point is reinforced by the following Sūtra.
tan niṣṭhasya mokśopadeśāt
tat–that; niṣṭhasya–of the faithful devotee; mokśa–of the liberation; upadeśāt–because of the instructions.
[The Brahman described in the scriptures is the transcendental Supreme Brahman, and not a temporary manifestation of the mode of goodness, because the scriptures] teach us that His dedicated devotees attain liberation.
The word “not” is understood in this sūtra and the following three sūtras as well. The liberation of those devoted to Brahman is described in the following statement of Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.7]:
asad vā idam agra āsīt tato vai sad ajāyata tad ātmānaṁ svayam akuruta. . . yadā hy evaiṣa etasminn adṛśye anātmye anirukte ‘nilayane abhayaṁ pratiṣṭhaṁ vindate ‘tha so ‘bhayaṁ gato bhavati yadā hy evaiṣa etasminn udāram antaram kurute atha tasya bhayaṁ bhavati
“Before the material cosmos was manifested, it existed in a subtle form. At a certain time it became manifested in a gross form, and at a certain time the Supreme Brahman manifested as the Universal Form. When an individual conscious living entity takes shelter of that Supreme Brahman, who is different from the individual conscious living entities, invisible to the gross material senses, indescribable by material words, and self-effulgent, then the individual conscious living entity attains liberation and is no longer afraid of the cycle of repeated birth and death. If one does not take shelter of this Supreme Brahman, he must remain afraid of taking birth again and again in this world.”
This non-material, transcendental Supreme Brahman is described in the following statements of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [10.88.5] and Bhagavad-gita [14.26]:
harir hi nirguṇaḥ sākṣāt
puruśaḥ prakṛteḥ paraḥ
sa sarva-dṛg upadraṣṭā taṁ
bhajan nirguṇo bhavet
“Śrī Hari, the Personality of Brahman, is situated beyond the range of material nature; therefore He is the supreme transcendental person. He can see everything inside and outside; therefore He is the supreme overseer of all living entities. If someone takes shelter at His lotus feet and worships Him, he also attains a transcendental position.”
māṁ ca yo
'vyabhicāreṇa
bhakti-yogena sevate
sa guṇān
samatītyaitān
brahma-bhūyāya kalpate
“One who engages in full devotional service, unfailing in all circumstances, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman.”
The Brahman described in these passages of the Vedic literature must be the Supreme Brahman who is beyond the limitations of the material world, who is the creator of the material universes and yet is transcendental to them. These passages could not describe a Brahman that is actually a manifestation of the modes of material nature; for if this were so, then it would not be possible for those who become devoted to this Brahman attain liberation from material existence. People who are devoted to the manifestations of the modes of nature do not attain liberation by that material devotion. Therefore, the Brahman mentioned here must be the transcendental Supreme Person, who is beyond the modes of nature and completely non-material in nature, because the devotees who worship Him attain liberation. And how do they attain this liberation?
satataṁ kīrtayanto māṁ
yatantaś
ca dṛḍha-vratāḥ
namasyantaś ca māṁ bhaktyā
nitya-yuktā
upāsate
“Always chanting My glories, endeavoring with great determination, bowing down before Me, these great souls perpetually worship Me with devotion.” [Bhagavad-gītā 9.14]
śrī-prahrāda uvāca
śravaṇaṁ
kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ
smaraṇaṁ pāda-sevanam
arcanaṁ
vandanaṁ dāsyaṁ
sakhyam ātma-nivedanam
iti puṁsārpitā viṣṇau
bhaktiś
cen nava-lakṣaṇā
kriyeta bhagavaty addhā
tan manye
'dhītam uttamam
Prahlāda Mahārāja said: “Hearing and chanting about the transcendental holy name, form, qualities, paraphernalia and pastimes of Lord Viṣṇu, remembering them, serving the lotus feet of the Lord, offering the Lord respectful worship with sixteen types of paraphernalia, offering prayers to the Lord, becoming His servant, considering the Lord one’s best friend, and surrendering everything unto Him (in other words, serving Him with the body, mind and words)—these nine processes are accepted as pure devotional service. One who has dedicated his life to the service of Kṛṣṇa through these nine methods should be understood to be the most learned person, for he has acquired complete knowledge.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 7.5.23-24]
Hearing and chanting the Holy Name, pastimes, qualities and instructions of the Supreme are the principal methods of worship that bestow liberation. If these Holy Names and other words describing the Supreme Brahman were not transcendental, then how could they bestow liberation from material existence? Therefore the descriptions of the Lord in the Vedic literature are identical in quality with the Lord Himself, because their regular hearing and chanting are celebrated throughout the Vedas as the prime means for attaining liberation from material existence.
heyatva-vacanāc ca
heyatva–worthy of being abandoned; vacanāt–because of the statement; ca–also.
[The Brahman described in the Vedic scriptures is not a manifestation of the modes of material nature,] because no scriptural passage advises one to abandon [Brahman in order to attain someone higher].
If the Brahman described in the scriptures were enmeshed in the modes of material nature, then why do the scriptures not direct us to abandon the worship of Brahman and worship someone higher? If this Brahman were under the spell of the modes of nature, then why do those aspiring after liberation worship this Brahman to become free from the grip of the modes of nature? Clearly, the Brahman described in the scriptures is not entangled in the modes of material nature, and for this reason the scripture states:
anyā vāco vimuñcātha
“Give up talking about things that have no relation to the Supreme Brahman!”
rājya-kāmo manūn devān
nirṛtiṁ
tv abhicaran yajet
kāma-kāmo yajet somam
akāmaḥ puruṣaṁ
param
“One who desires domination over a kingdom or an empire should worship the Manus. One who desires victory over an enemy should worship the demons, and one who desires sense gratification should worship the moon. But one who desires nothing of material enjoyment should worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.3.9]
Because worship of the Supreme Brahman does not grant material benedictions but leads to complete liberation from material entanglement, it should be understood that the Brahman described in the Vedic scriptures is not a product of the modes of material nature. Those who aspire for liberation should meditate with pure faith on this Supreme Brahman, who is eternal, filled with all transcendental qualities, and the original creator of the material universes, for this is the way to the highest attainment of eternal happiness. Therefore we advise that one should give up materialistic science, fruitive activity and speculative philosophy, and apply oneself to the scientific study of Vedānta and the cultivation of transcendental consciousness.
A person who aspires for liberation considers all the enjoyments of the material world to be absolutely useless, because they are temporary. Therefore is is seen that advanced transcendentalists are generally renunciants. Only those who are conditioned by the material modes of external energy are captivated by different types of material enjoyment. The transcendentalist has no material desires to be fulfilled, whereas the materialist has all types of desires to be fulfilled. Thus the materialist worships different material forms and names, while the liberated devotee worships the pure spiritual Supreme Brahman alone.
The impersonalists try to establish that the methods of worship of the Supreme Brahman given in the Vedas are actually material; then they teach that one can worship any material demigod and get the same result as worship of the Supreme Brahman. This is not only against the teachings of the Vedas but is also foolish, just as it is foolish to claim that purchasing a plane ticket to Paris will allow one to reach Australia. It is clearly stated in the scriptures that persons contaminated with material desires have different modes of worship, but one who has no desire for material enjoyment should worship the Supreme Lord, the Personality of Brahman. Generally worship of the Lord does not fulfill one’s material desires for sense enjoyment, but He awards His worshipers the benedictions of transcendental knowledge and detachment, so ultimately they renounce material enjoyment. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is described as puruṣaṁ param, or the Supreme Transcendental Person, in the sloka quoted above. Even Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya has admitted, nārāyaṇaḥ paro ‘vyaktāt: the Supreme Lord is the highest, transcendental, beyond all material entanglement. There is nothing higher than the Supreme Brahman.
svāpyāt
sva–into Himself; apyāt–because He merges.
[The Supreme Brahman described in the Vedic literatures is not bound by the modes of nature,] because He merges into Himself, [unlike the creatures bound by nature’s modes, who all merge into something other than their self].
The Creator of the material world is the unmanifested Brahman, and His creation is the manifested Brahman. At the end of the creation, the manifestation enters back into the unmanifested Brahman, thus it is said here that Brahman merges into Himself. The Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [5.1.1] and Śrī Īśopaniṣad [Invocation] declare:
oṁ pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaṁ
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam
evāvaśiṣyate
“The Personality of Brahman is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the complete whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the complete whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.”
In this mantra, the word adaḥ [this] refers to the aprakaṭa [not manifested in the material world] form of the Supreme Brahman, which is the root from which the various prakaṭa forms of Brahman emanate. Both aprakaṭa [manifested] and prakaṭa [unmanifested] forms of Brahman are perfect and complete. That is the actual meaning of pūrṇam [complete or Absolute]: He can expand into an unlimited number of forms, and each one is as complete in transcendental power and attributes as His original form. If there were actually a distinction between His nirguṇa [without qualities] and saguṇa [with qualities] aspects, the scriptures would state that the saguṇa Brahman expands from or enters into the nirguṇa Brahman, but the term “saguṇa Brahman” is not found in the scriptures. Therefore the idea of saguṇa Brahman is a concoction, as described in the next sūtra.
In the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa it is said,
“The same Personality of Godhead who is known in Vaikuṇṭha as the four-handed Nārāyaṇa, the friend of all living entities, and in the milk ocean as the Lord of Śvetadvīpa, and who is the best of all puruṣas, appeared as the son of Nanda. In a fire there are many sparks of different dimensions; some of them are very big, and some are small. The small sparks are compared to the living entities, and the large sparks are compared to the Viṣṇu expansions of Lord Kṛṣṇa. All the incarnations emanate from Kṛṣṇa, and after the end of their pastimes they again merge with Kṛṣṇa.”
This sūtra explains that the Supreme Brahman, which is pūrṇa [perfect and complete], enters into Himself. This cannot be said of that which is not perfect and complete: for example, material nature or the living entities:
sarva-bhūtāni kaunteya
prakṛtiṁ
yānti māmikām
kalpa-kṣaye punas tāni
kalpādau visṛjāmy
aham
“O son of Kuntī, at the end of the millennium all material manifestations enter into My nature, and at the beginning of another millennium, by My potency, I create them again.” [Bhagavad-gītā 9.6]
If the Supreme Brahman described in the scriptures were a product of the modes of material nature, then He would be described as merging into the Supreme, and not into Himself. In this way He could not be described as truly perfect and complete.
Brahman expands from His aprakaṭa form and appears in the material world in His prakaṭa form, displaying His rāsa-līlā and other transcendental pastimes. When the prakaṭa form of Brahman leaves the material world and enters into the aprakaṭa form of Brahman, Brahman remains unchanged, eternally perfect and complete. That Brahman is untouched by the modes of material nature, and that He expands into many forms, is confirmed by the following statement of smṛti-śāstra:
sa devo bahudhā bhūtvā
nirguṇah
puruṣottamaḥekī-bhūya punaḥ śete
nirdoṣo harir ādi-kṛt
“The Personality of Brahman is faultless. Even though He is the original creator of the material world, He remains always untouched by matter. He expands in innumerable viṣṇu-tattva incarnations, and then these incarnations enter Him and He again becomes one.”
At this point someone may raise the following objection: “There are actually two kinds of Brahman: Saguṇa Brahman [Brahman enmeshed in the modes of material nature], and Nirguṇa Brahman [Brahman untouched by the modes of material nature]. Saguṇa Brahman has a form constructed of the mode of material goodness. This Saguṇa Brahman is the omniscient, all-powerful creator of the material universes. Nirguṇa Brahman is pure transcendental existence only. This Nirguṇa Brahman is pure, perfect, and complete. The Saguṇa Brahman is the śakti [potency] described by the Vedas, and the Nirguṇa Brahman is the tātparya [meaning] of the Vedas.”
Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes this argument in the next sūtra:
gati-samanyāt
gati–the conception; samanyāt–because of uniformity.
[This is not so] because the Vedas describe only one kind of Brahman.
In this sūtra the word gati means “conception.” The Vedic literatures describe Brahman as full of transcendental knowledge, omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, complete, pure, the all-pervading Superconscious living entity, the original creator of the material universes, the object of worship for the saintly devotees, and the bestower of liberation. The Vedas do not describe two kinds of Brahman: Nirguṇa and Saguṇa. In fact, the term “Saguṇa Brahman” does not even appear in the Vedas. This is a straw-man argument manufactured by the fallible human mind. Rather, the Vedas actually describe only one kind of Brahman: supreme, eternal and transcendental, without material qualities [nirguṇa]. This one Brahman is described by the Personality of Brahman Kṛṣṇa in the following words:
mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid
asti dhanañjaya
mayi sarvam idaṁ protaṁ sūtre
maṇi-gaṇā iva
“O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon me as pearls strung on a thread.” [Bhagavad-gītā 7.7]
Thus the Vedic literatures describe only one kind of Brahman: Nirguṇa Brahman. There are many statements in the Vedic literature that confirm this:
sarvendriya-guṇābhāsaṁ
sarvendriya-vivarjitam
asaktaṁ
sarva-bhṛc caiva
nirguṇaṁ guṇa-bhoktṛ ca
“The Supersoul is the original source of all senses, yet He is without senses. He is unattached, although He is the maintainer of all living beings. He transcends the modes of nature, and at the same time He is the master of all the modes of material nature.” [Bhagavad-gītā 13.15]
rājovāca
brahmaṇā codito
brahman
guṇākhyāne 'guṇasya ca
yasmai yasmai yathā
prāha
nārado deva-darśanaḥ
King Parīkṣit inquired from Śukadeva Gosvāmī: “How did Nārada Muni, whose hearers are as fortunate as those instructed by Lord Brahmā, explain the transcendental qualities of the Lord, who is without material qualities, and before whom did he speak?” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.8.1]
anādir ātmā puruṣo
nirguṇaḥ
prakṛteḥ paraḥ
pratyag-dhāmā svayaṁ-jyotir
viśvaṁ
yena samanvitam
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the Supreme Soul, and He has no beginning. He is transcendental to the material modes of nature and beyond the existence of this material world. He is perceivable everywhere because He is self-effulgent, and by His self-effulgent luster the entire creation is maintained.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.26.3]
evaṁ jyotir-mayo devaḥ
sad-ānandaḥ
parāt paraḥ
ātmārāmasya tasyāsti
prakṛtyā na
samāgamaḥ
māyayāramamāṇasya
“The Lord of Gokula is the transcendental Supreme Godhead, the own Self of eternal ecstasies. He is the superior of all superiors and is busily engaged in the enjoyments of the transcendental realm, and has no association with His mundane potency. Kṛṣṇa never consorts with His illusory energy.” [Brahma-saṁhitā 5.6-7]
Śrīla Vyāsadeva describes this Nirguṇa Brahman even more clearly in the next sūtra:
śrutatvāc ca
śrutavāt–because of being described in the Vedas; ca–and.
[There is only one kind of Brahman: Nirguṇa Brahman], because Nirguṇa Brahman is described throughout the Vedic literatures.
Nirguṇa Brahman alone is described in the statements of the Vedic literature:
oṁ tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ
padaṁ sadā
paśyanti sūrayo divīva cakṣur ātatam
tad
viprāso vipanyavo jāgṛvāmṣaḥ
samindhate viṣṇor yat
paramaṁ padam
“Just as those with ordinary vision see the sun’s rays in the sky, so the wise and learned devotees always see the supreme abode of Lord Viṣṇu. Because those highly praiseworthy and spiritually awake brāhmaṇas can see that abode, they can also reveal it to others.” [Ṛg Veda 1.22.20]
eko devaḥ sarva-bhūteṣu gūḍhaḥ
sarva-vyāpī sarva-bhūtāntarātmā
karmādhyakṣaḥ
sarva-bhūtādhivāsaḥ sākṣī cetā kevalo nirguṇaś ca
“The Personality of Brahman manifests Himself as the all-pervading Superconscious living entity, the witness present in the hearts of all living entities. He witnesses all activities of the living entity. He is the supreme living force. He is transcendental to all material qualities.” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.11]
ekas tvam eva sad asad dvayam
advayaṁ ca
svarṇaṁ kṛtākṛtam iveha na
vastu-bhedaḥ
ajñānatas tvayi janair vihito
vikalpo
yasmād guṇa-vyatikaro nirupādhikasya
“My dear Lord, Your Lordship alone is the cause and the effect. Therefore, although You appear to be two, You are the Absolute One. As there is no difference between the gold of a golden ornament and the gold in a mine, there is no qualitative difference between the cause and effect [of the universal cosmic manifestation]; both of them are the same. Only because of ignorance do people concoct differences and dualities. You are free from material contamination, and since the entire cosmos is caused by You and cannot exist without You, it is an effect of Your transcendental qualities. Thus the conception that Brahman is true and the world false cannot be maintained.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 8.12.8]
Thus Nirguṇa Brahman alone is described in the śruti-śāstra. The śruti-śāstra does not say that it is impossible to describe Brahman. Some say that Brahman may be understood not from the direct statements of the Vedic literatures but only indirectly, or from hints found in the Vedic texts. This is an incorrect understanding, for if the Vedic scriptures had no power to describe Brahman directly, then they would also lack the power to describe or hint about Him indirectly. The Vedic literature may say that Brahman has no contact with guṇas [materialistic qualities, or the three modes of material nature], and it certainly says that He cannot be seen by material eyes [adṛśya], still it does not say that the words of the Vedas have no power to describe Him.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: “Is it not said in the Vedas that Brahman has no guṇas [qualities]? Your statement that Brahman has qualities contradicts the description of the scriptures.”
To this I reply: This is not true. You can only say this because you do not understand the confidential meaning of the word nirguṇa. Because the Supreme Brahman is all-knowing and possess many transcendental qualities, when the scriptures say that He is nirguṇa, it should be understood to mean that He has no [niḥ] contact with the three modes of material nature [guṇa]. Brahman’s qualities are all transcendental, therefore it is a fact that He has no material qualities. This is confirmed by the following statements of smṛti-śāstra:
sattvādayo na śānṭiśe yatra cāprakṛtā guṇāḥ
“The Personality of Brahman, who possesses numberless transcendental qualities, is eternally free from the touch of the three modes [guṇas] of material nature: goodness, passion, and ignorance.”
samasta-kalyāṇa-guṇātmako ‘sau
“The Personality of Brahman possesses all auspicious qualities.”
For all these reasons it should be accepted that the Vedic literatures have the power to describe the perfect, pure, complete Supreme Brahman. When it is said by the scriptures that the Supreme Brahman has no names, forms or qualities, it should be understood that the Supreme Brahman has no material names, forms or qualities; and that His spotless transcendental names, forms and qualities are limitless and beyond the accounting of limited conscious living entities.
At this point someone may object, saying that “The literal interpretation of the Vedic statements is that Brahman is without qualities [nirguṇa], and your interpretation of the word nirguṇa as having only transcendental qualities is wrong.”
To this objection I reply: Does this description that Brahman has no qualities help to positively understand Brahman? If you say yes, then you have to admit that the Vedas do have the power to describe Brahman; and if you say no, then you have to admit that your careful studies of the scientific literature and religious scriptures have been a great waste of time, for you remain wholly ignorant of Brahman’s real transcendental nature and qualities.
śabdā vācakatāṁ yānti
yantrānandamayādayaḥ
vibhum ānanda-vijñānaṁ taṁ
śuddhaṁ śraddadhīmahi
“Let us place our faith in the Personality of Brahman, who is supremely pure, all-powerful, all-knowing and full of transcendental bliss. He is perfectly described in the ānandamaya-sūtra and the other statements of Vedānta-sūtra.”
Generally there are six great philosophers in Indian literature: Kaṇāda, the author of Vaiśeṣika philosophy; Gautama, the author of Nyāya [logic]; Patañjali, the author of mystic yoga; Kapila, the author of Sāṅkhya philosophy; Jaimini, the author of Karma-mīmāṁsā; and Vyāsadeva, the author of Vedānta-darśana. Five of these are atheistic philosophies:
The Mīmāṁsaka philosophers, following Jaimini, stress fruitive activity and say that if there is a God, He must be under the laws of fruitive activity. In other words, if one performs his duties very nicely in the material world, God is obliged to give one the desired result. According to these philosophers, there is no need to become a devotee of God; if one strictly follows moral principles, one automatically will be recognized by the Lord, who will give the desired reward. Such philosophers do not accept the Vedic principle of bhakti-yoga. Instead, they give stress to following one’s prescribed duty.
Atheistic Sāṅkhya philosophers like Kapila analyze the material elements very scrutinizingly, and thereby come to the conclusion that material nature is the cause of everything. They do not accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead as the cause of all causes.
Nyāya philosophers like Gautama and Kaṇāda accept the combination and interaction of atoms as the original cause of the creation, and inductive logic can arrive at the Absolute Truth. This philosophy is very similar to modern materialistic science.
Māyāvādī philosophers say that everything is an illusion. Headed by philosophers like Aṣṭāvakra and Śaṅkara, they stress the impersonal Brahman effulgence as the cause of everything.
Philosophers following the precepts of Patañjali practice rāja-yoga. Their process of self-realization is to imagine a form of the Absolute Truth within many forms.
All five kinds of atheistic philosophers understand that impersonal Brahman is without material qualities, but they believe that when the Personality of Godhead appears, He is contaminated and covered by the material qualities. For them, Nirguṇa Brahman means “the impersonal Absolute Truth without any material qualities” and Saguṇa Brahman means “the Absolute Truth accepts a form of contaminated material qualities.” All these types of philosophical speculation are varieties of Māyāvāda philosophy; they reject the predominance of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and strive to establish their own philosophical theories.
So atheism and materialism are not new; they have existed in various forms, under different names and teachers, for many millennia. The fact is, however, that the Absolute Truth never has anything to do with material qualities because He is transcendental. He is always complete with full spiritual qualities. By writing Vedānta-sūtra, emphasizing the essence of all Vedic literature, Śrīla Vyāsadeva established the supremacy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, defeating the five kinds of atheistic philosophy. Because Vyāsadeva is the original Vedic authority, he is known as Vedavyāsa. Only his philosophical explanation of the Vedānta-sūtra is accepted by the intelligent devotees. As Kṛṣṇa confirms in the Bhagavad-gītā (15.15):
sarvasya cāhaṁ hṛdi
sanniviṣṭo
mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaṁ
ca
vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedānta-kṛd veda-vid
eva cāham
“I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known; indeed, I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.”
From the 12th sūtra [ānandamaya] to the end of this First Adhyāya, Śrīla Vyāsadeva will prove that the statements of the Vedic literatures are intended to describe Brahman. The First Pāda of Vedānta-sūtra discusses those words of the Vedic literatures which, taken by themselves, would not necessarily refer to Brahman, but which in their Vedic context certainly do refer to Brahman. These transcendental terms are actually qualitatively identical with Brahman, because they help to describe Brahman.
Thus śabda-brahma is a special ontological class of nomenclature that, although composed of ordinary words, is actually transcendental sound vibration because the subject matter it describes is Brahman alone. Since the ultimate purpose of the Vedas is to reveal Brahman to the inquiring soul, actually the entire Vedic literature falls into this category of transcendental sound, even though substantial portions of it describe material subjects, such as religious sacrifices. Not only is it possible for the Vedas to describe Brahman, but because they emanate from Him and because describing Him is their main purpose, they are qualitatively identical with Him. Therefore association with śabda-brahma, the transcendental sound vibration of the Vedas, leads to realization of Brahman and liberation of the living entity from material existence. This is seen and also personally experienced by the faithful devotee who takes complete shelter of such transcendental sound.
The saṅgati [continuity with the previous Adhikaraṇa] here is prati-dṛṣṭānta [counter-illustration].
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Brahman is full of eternal transcendental bliss, which manifests in His creation in different ways. There is a manifestation of the Supreme Lord's energy known as annamaya, by which one depends simply upon food for existence. Anna means food, and here the suffix -maya means a transformation of the original spiritual energy of the Lord. In the beginning of the development of consciousness, every living entity is food-conscious. A child or animal is satisfied simply by getting nice food, and all their thought and activity is centered on getting food. This annamaya stage of consciousness, in which the goal of life is to eat sumptuously, is a materialistic realization of the Supreme at the lowest stage of consciousness, or animal life.
Then there is prāṇamaya; this means that after realizing the Supreme Absolute Truth as foodstuff, one can perceive and realize the Absolute Truth in the living symptoms of life forms. In this stage the living entity lives in the consciousness of being alive. If he can continue his life without being attacked or destroyed, he thinks himself happy, and his efforts center on getting more energy and power. This level of consciousness is slightly higher than annamaya because it is based on living energy, but it is still in reference to the gross body and is therefore associated with the lower stage of human life.
After this stage, when one’s consciousness is situated on the mental platform, that is called manomaya or jñānamaya. Manomaya indicates the lower mental platform of accepting and rejecting based on sense enjoyment. In jñānamaya the living symptoms develop to the point of thinking, feeling, and willing. This is the intellectual platform, or higher level of human life where knowledge and reason become most important. The material civilization is primarily situated in these three stages: annamaya, prāṇamaya and manomaya or jñānamaya. The first concern of civilized persons is economic development, the next concern is defense against being annihilated, and the next consciousness is mental speculation, the intellectual or philosophical approach to the values of life.
If by the evolutionary intellectual process of philosophical speculation one somehow or other reaches the platform of spiritual understanding―that he is not this material body but is a spirit soul―then by gradual evolution of spiritual life he comes to the understanding of the Supreme Soul or the Supreme Lord. This is spiritual intelligence or Brahman realization, called vijñānamaya, by which the living entity’s gross body, subtle mind and life symptoms are distinguished from the spiritual living entity himself. This is the beginning of real spiritual life.
The final, supreme stage called ānandamaya is realization of the all-blissful personal nature of the Supreme Brahman. When one develops his relationship with Him and executes devotional service, that stage of life is called Kṛṣṇa consciousness, the ānandamaya stage. Ānandamaya is the blissful life of knowledge and eternity. The Supreme Brahman and the subordinate Brahman, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the living entities, are both joyful by nature. When the subordinate Brahman or living entities become conscious of their eternal relationship with the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then their real life of perfect enjoyment begins.
This ānandamaya stage is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā as the brahma-bhūtā stage.
brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā
na
śocati na kāṅkṣati
samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu
mad-bhaktiṁ
labhate parām
“One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments or desires to have anything. He is equally disposed toward every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me.” [Bhagavad-gītā 18.54]
This stage begins when one becomes equally disposed toward all living entities, and it then expands to the stage of Kṛṣṇa consciousness in which one always desires to render service unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This desire for advancement in devotional service is not the same as hankering for sense gratification in material existence. In other words, desire is also there in spiritual life, but it becomes purified. When our senses are purified, they become free from all material stages of consciousness, namely annamaya, prāṇamaya, manomaya and vijñānamaya, and they become situated in the highest stage: ānandamaya, or blissful life in Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
Thus there are five stages of realization of Brahman, which is called brahma puccham. The first three stages—annamaya, prāṇamaya, and jñānamaya—involve the field of activity or the material body of the living entity. As long as the living entities are situated in the lower four stages of life—annamaya, prāṇamaya, manomaya and vijñānamaya—they are considered to be in the material condition or conception of life, but as soon as one reaches the stage of ānandamaya he becomes a liberated soul. The Supreme Lord, who is also called ānandamaya, is transcendental to all these fields of activities. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is by nature full of joy, and He expands into vijñānamaya, prāṇamaya, jñānamaya, and annamaya to enjoy His transcendental bliss. In this field of activities the living entity considers himself to be the enjoyer, and the ānandamaya is different from him. As long as the living entity tries to enjoy separately or independently from the Lord, he suffers; but when the living entity decides to enjoy by dovetailing himself with the ānandamaya, then he also achieves perfection and becomes blissful.
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: The Māyāvādī impersonalist philosophers consider ānandamaya to be the state of being merged in the Supreme. To them, ānandamaya means that the Supersoul and the individual soul become one. But the real fact is that oneness does not mean merging into the Supreme and losing one’s own individual existence. Merging in the spiritual existence is the living entity's realization of qualitative oneness with the Supreme Lord in His aspects of sat [eternity] and cit [knowledge]. But the actual ānandamaya [blissful] stage is obtained when one is engaged in devotional service. That is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā verse quoted above. Mad-bhaktiṁ labhate parām: the brahma-bhūtā ānandamaya stage is complete only when there is the exchange of love between the Supreme and the subordinate living entities. Unless one comes to this ānandamaya stage of life, the scriptures say that his breathing is like the breathing of a bellows in a blacksmith’s shop, his duration of life is like that of a tree, and he is no better than the lower animals like the camels, hogs and dogs.
taravaḥ kiṁ na jīvanti
bhastrāḥ
kiṁ na śvasanty uta
na khādanti na mehanti
kiṁ grāme
paśavo 'pare
“Do the trees not live? Do the bellows of the blacksmith not breathe? All around us, do the beasts not eat and discharge semen?” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.3.18]
dṛtaya iva śvasanty asu-bhṛto
yadi te 'nuvidhā
mahad-aham-ādayo 'ṇḍam asṛjan
yad-anugrahataḥ
puruṣa-vidho 'nvayo 'tra caramo 'nna-mayādiṣu
yaḥ
sad-asataḥ paraṁ tvam atha yad eṣv avaśeṣam ṛtam
“Only if they become Your faithful followers are those who breathe actually alive, otherwise their breathing is like that of a bellows. It is by Your mercy alone that the elements, beginning with the mahat-tattva and false ego, created the egg of this universe. Among the manifestations known as annamaya and so forth, You are the ultimate one, entering within the material coverings along with the living entity and assuming the same forms as those he takes. Distinct from the gross and subtle material manifestations, You are the reality underlying them all.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.87.17]
viṣayābhiniveśena
nātmānaṁ
veda nāparam
vṛkṣa jīvikayā jīvan
vyarthaṁ bhastreva
yaḥ śvasan
“Because of absorption in sense gratification, one cannot recognize himself or others. Living uselessly in ignorance like a tree, one is merely breathing just like a bellows.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.21.22]
These terms—annamaya, prāṇamaya, manomaya or jñānamaya, vijñānamaya and ānandamaya—give the complete picture of the Supreme Lord as supreme knower of the field, the living entity as subordinate knower, and the nature of the field of activities or material body and subtle mind, in terms of the development of consciousness. For a more elaborate explanation of these terms, see our article Six Stages of Conscious Evolution.
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: In the passages from Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.6.1] beginning brahma-vid āpnoti param and sa vā eṣa puruso ‘nna-rasamayaḥ, we find a description of the annamaya, prāṇamaya, manomaya, and vijñānamaya stages of existence, and after that we find the following statement:
tasmād vā etasmād vijñānamayād anyo ‘ntarātmānandamayas tenaiṣa pūrṇaḥ. sa vā eṣa puruṣa-vidha eva tasya puruṣa-vidhatām anvayaṁ puruṣa-vidhaḥ. tasya priyam eva śiraḥ. modo dakśiṇaḥ pakśaḥ. pramoda uttaraḥ pakśaḥ. ānanda ātmā. brahma-pucchaṁ pratiṣṭhā.
“Higher than the vijñānamaya stage is the ānandamaya stage of existence. The ānandamaya stage is a person whose head is pleasure [priya], whose right side is joy [moda], whose left side is delight [pramoda], and whose identity is bliss [ānanda]. The ānandamya is Brahman.”
Someone may doubt whether the ānandamaya person spoken of here is the individual conscious living entity or the Supreme Brahman. The impersonalists think that because ānandamaya is described as a person, it must refer to a conditioned conscious living entity residing in a material body, and that this jīva is identical with Brahman.
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: Śrīla Vyāsadeva answers this argument by speaking the following sūtra:
ānandamayo ‘bhyāsāt
ānanda–bliss; mayah–full of ; abhyāsāt–because of repetition.
The word ānandamaya [full of bliss] [used in the Vedic literatures must refer to the Supreme Brahman, for it is] repeatedly used [to describe Him.]
The Supreme Brahman is the ānandamaya described in Vedic literature. Why do we say so? Because the word ānanda is repeatedly used to describe the Supreme Brahman in the Vedic literature. The complete passage from the Taittirīya Upaniṣad referenced by this sūtra follows:
“He who knows Brahman attains the highest. On this the following verse is recorded: ‘He who knows Brahman, which is cause, not effect, which is conscious, which is without end, hidden in the depths of the heart, in the highest sky, enjoys all blessings in the company of the all-enjoying Brahman.’
“From that Self [Brahman] sprang ākāśa [ether, space or sky, through which we hear]; from ākāśa sprang air [through which we hear and feel]; from air, fire [through which we hear, feel and see]; from fire, water [through which we hear, feel, see and taste]; from water, earth [through which we hear, feel, see, taste and smell]. From earth sprang herbs; from herbs, food; from food, semen; from semen, man. Man thus consists of the essence of food. This [food] is his head, this is his right arm, this is his trunk [ātman], this is his seat [the support]. On this there is also the following śloka:
“ ‘All creatures that dwell on earth are produced from food [anna]. They live by food, and in the end they return to food. For food is the oldest of all beings, and therefore it is called sarvauṣādha [consisting of all herbs]. Those who worship Brahman as food obtain all food. For food is the oldest of all beings, and is therefore called panacea. All creatures are produced from food; when born, they grow from food. Because it is fed upon, therefore it is called annamaya.’
“Different from this annamaya, which consists of the essence of food, is the other inner Self that consists of breath or life energy [prāṇa]. The annamaya is filled by prāṇa. He also has a human shape; prāṇa is it His head, vyāna is His right arm, apāna is His left arm, ākāśa is His trunk, the earth is His seat. On this there is also the following śloka:
“ ‘The devas breathe after prāṇa, as do men and cattle. Prāṇa is the life of all beings, therefore it is called sarvāyuṣa [all-enlivening]. Those who worship prāṇa as Brahman obtain the full energy of life [prāṇamaya]. For prāṇa is the life of all beings, therefore it is called sarvāyuṣa. The inner Self of prāṇamaya is the same as that of annamaya [a human form].’
“Different from this prāṇamaya which consists of the essence of breath, is the other, the inner Self that consists of mind. The prāṇamaya is filled by mind [manomaya]. Similar to the human shape of prāṇamaya is the human shape of the manomaya; the Yajur-veda is His head, the Ṛg-veda is His right arm, the Sāma-veda is His left arm, the Brāhmaṇa is His trunk, the Atharva-veda is His seat. On this there is also the following śloka:
“ ‘He who knows the bliss of that Brahman, from whom all speech and mind turn away unable to reach Him, attains fearlessness.’ The inner Self of the manomaya is the same as that of the prāṇamaya.
“Different from this manomaya, which consists of mind, is the inner Self that consists of understanding [jñāna]. The manomaya is filled with this jñānamaya. He also has the shape of a man, like the human shape of manomaya: faith is His head; what is right is His right arm; what is true is His left arm; absorption in yogic trance is His trunk; great intelligence is His seat. On this there is also the following śloka:
“ ‘Understanding [jñāna] performs the sacrifice; it performs all the sacred acts. All the devas worship understanding as Brahman, as the oldest. If a man knows understanding as Brahman, and if he does not swerve from it, he leaves all evils behind in the body, and attains all his wishes.’ Different from this jñānamaya, which consists of understanding, is the other inner Self that consists of bliss. The jñānamaya is filled with this ānandamaya. He also has the shape of a man, like the human shape of jñānamaya; joy is His head, satisfaction is His right arm, great satisfaction is His left arm, bliss is His trunk, and Brahman is His seat. On this there is also the following śloka:
“ ‘One who thinks, “The Supreme Brahman does not exist” becomes a demonic atheist, and one who thinks, “The Supreme Brahman does exist” is known as a saint.’ The embodied Self of this ānandamaya is the same as the jñānamaya.”
Thereupon follow the questions of the student:
“Does anyone who does not know [this ānandamaya] ever go to that world [of bliss] after departing this life? Or does only one who knows [this ānandamaya] go to that world [of bliss] after departing this life?”
The answer is:
“He [Brahman] wished, ‘May I become many; may I grow forth.’ He contemplated Himself, like a man performing penance. After He had thus contemplated, He created all [beings] and everything that is. Having sent forth the creation, He entered into it. Having entered into it, He became sat [what is manifest] and tyat [what is unmanifest], defined and undefined, supported and unsupported, endowed with consciousness and not conscious, real and unreal. Brahman became all this, and therefore the wise call Him Satya [the Absolute Truth]. On this there is also a śloka:
“ ‘In the beginning this [creation] was nonexistent, not yet defined by form and name. From it was born whatever exists. The Self [Brahman] made it, therefore it is called the Self-born. That which is Self-born has a flavor [that can be tasted], for only after perceiving a flavor can one taste pleasure. Who could breathe, who could breathe forth, unless that bliss [ānandamaya] existed in the sky of the heart? For He alone causes blessedness.’ When one finds rest and freedom from fear in that which is invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported, then he has obtained the fearless [Brahman]. For if he makes the smallest distinction from it, there is fear for him. But that fear exists only for one who [merely] thinks himself wise [and not for the truly enlightened sage]. On this there is also a śloka:
“ ‘From fear of Him [Brahman] the wind blows; from fear of Him the sun rises; from fear of Him Agni and Indra, even Death perform their duties.’ Now this is the definition of what is meant by ānanda [bliss]: Let there be a noble young man who is well read in the Vedas, very swift, firm and strong, and let the whole world be full of wealth for him; that is one measure of human bliss.
“ ‘One hundred times that human bliss is one measure of the bliss of human Gandharvas [angels], and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires.
“ ‘One hundred times that bliss of the human Gandharvas is one measure of the bliss of divine Gandharvas [archangels], and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires.
“ ‘One hundred times that bliss of the divine Gandharvas is one measure of the bliss of the Forefathers [pitṛs], enjoying their long sojourn in the heavenly realms, and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires.
“ ‘One hundred times that bliss of the Forefathers is one measure of the bliss of the Demigods [devas], born in the Ajana heaven through the merit of their good karma, and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires.
“ ‘One hundred times that bliss of the devas born in the Ajana heaven is one measure of the bliss of the sacrificial devas, and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires.
“ ‘One hundred times that bliss of the sacrificial devas is one measure of the bliss of the 33 principal devas, and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires.
“ ‘One hundred times that bliss of the 33 principal devas is one measure of the bliss of Indra, and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires.
“ ‘One hundred times that bliss of Indra is one measure of the bliss of Bṛhaspati, and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires.
“ ‘One hundred times that bliss of Bṛhaspati is one measure of the bliss of Prajāpati [Lord Brahmā], and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires.
“ ‘One hundred times that bliss of Prajāpati is one measure of the bliss of Brahman, and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires.
“He who is this Brahman in man, and He who is that Brahman in the sun are one. He who knows [this Brahman], when he departs from this world, reaches the Self of food [annamaya], the Self of breath [prāṇamaya], the Self of mind [manomaya], the Self of understanding [jñānamaya] and the Self of bliss [ānandamaya].
“He who knows the bliss of that Brahman, from Whom words and the mind recoil, not finding Him, fears nothing. Truly, thoughts like ‘Why did I not do the good? Why did I do the evil?’ do not afflict him. He who knows this Brahman pleases his self with both of these. Yes, he pleases his self with both of these. Indeed, this is the Upaniṣad.”
Directly following the description of ānandamaya in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.6.1] quoted above, we find the following statement:
asann eva sambhavati asad brahmeti
veda cet
asti brahmeti ced veda santam enaṁ tato viduḥ
“One who thinks, ‘The Supreme Brahman does not exist’ becomes a demonic atheist, and one who thinks, ‘The Supreme Brahman does exist’ is known as a saint.”
In this passage the word Brahman was repeated. This repetition is called abhyāsa in the sūtra under discussion. Abhyāsa means repeating a word without any qualifications. In the previous quotation from Taittirīya Upaniṣad, the word Brahman appeared in the word brahma-puccham, but in that case the word only occurred once, and therefore there was no abhyāsa or repetition. So it is this Brahman, which is the cause of all the other aspects or embodiments of Brahman known as annamaya, etc., that is the ānandamaya, the knowledge of whom saves one from all fear, and whose bliss is calculated as 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the measure of human bliss.
We also see that the Supreme Person is repeatedly described as full of bliss in the Vedic scriptures. The śruti-mantras declare:
satyaṁ brahma, ānanda-rūpam
“Brahman is the Absolute Truth and complete ānanda, or bliss.”
muktā hy etam upāsate, muktānām api bhaktir hi paramānanda-rūpiṇī
“Even those who are liberated worship Him, and even for them devotional service is the embodiment of supreme bliss.”
amṛtasya dhārā bahudhā
dohamānaṁ
caraṇaṁ no loke su-dhitāṁ dadhātu
“May His feet, which bountifully pour forth floods of nectar, bestow wisdom upon us who are living in this world.”
vijñānam ānandaṁ brahma
“The supreme reality is divine knowledge and bliss.” [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.9.34]
In his Vedānta-bhāṣya Śrīla Madhvācārya cites the following passage from the śruti:
vāsudevaḥ saṅkarṣaṇaḥ pradyumno 'niruddho 'haṁ matsyaḥ kūrmo varāho narasiṁho vāmano rāmo rāmo rāmaḥ kṛṣṇo buddhaḥ kalkir ahaṁ śatadhāhaṁ sahasradhāham amito 'ham ananto 'haṁ naivaite jāyante naivaite mriyante naiṣām ajñāna-bandho na muktiḥ sarva eva hy ete pūrṇā ajarā amṛtāḥ paramāḥ paramānandāḥ.
“I am Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. I am Matsya, Kūrma, Varāha, Narasiṁha, Vāmana, the three Rāmas [Rāmacandra, Paraśurāma and Balarāma], Kṛṣṇa, Buddha and Kalki. Immeasurable and unlimited, I appear in hundreds and thousands of forms, none of which ever takes birth or dies. These forms of Mine are not bound by ignorance, nor do they have to strive for liberation. They are all complete, free from old age, immortal, supreme and supremely blissful.”
The Dhyāna-bindu Upaniṣad states:
nirdoṣa-pūrṇa-guṇa-vigraha ātma-tantro niścetanātmaka- śarīra-guṇaiś ca hīnah/ ānanda-mātra-mukha-pāda-saroruhādiḥ
“[The Lord's] personal form possesses complete and faultless transcendental qualities. Indeed, the form of the completely independent Lord is free from all material bodily characteristics. His lotus face and lotus feet consist simply of pure ecstasy.”
The Vāsudeva Upaniṣad states,
sad-rūpam advayaṁ brahma madhyādy-anta-vivarjitam/ sva-prabhaṁ sac-cid-ānandaṁ bhaktyā jānati cāvyayam
“The Lord’s transcendental form is the Absolute Truth, devoid of duality or of middle, beginning or end. It is self-effulgent, eternal and full of knowledge and bliss. Only through devotional service can one understand that form to be infallible.”
The Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa states,
nanda-vraja-janānandī sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ
“The body of the Lord, who gives ecstasy to the residents of King Nanda's pastures, is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss.”
In the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [3.8], the Supreme is described as follows:
ānanda-mātram ajaraṁ purāṇam ekaṁ santaṁ bahudhā dṛśyamānam
“The Supreme is blissful, with no tinge of unhappiness. Although He is the oldest, He never ages, and although one, He is experienced in different forms.”
As stated in the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [1.38]:
govindaṁ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaṁ vṛndāvana-sura-bhūraha-talāsīnaṁ satataṁ sa-marud-gaṇo 'haṁ paramayā stutyā toṣayāmi
“With transcendental prayers, I and the Maruts are always trying to satisfy Lord Govinda, whose personal form is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss, and who is sitting amidst the celestial desire trees of Vṛndāvana.”
Lord Brahma prayed to the Supreme Lord:
ekas tvam ātmā puruṣaḥ
purāṇaḥ
satyaḥ svayaṁ-jyotir ananta ādyaḥ
nityo
'kṣaro 'jasra-sukho nirañjanaḥ
pūrṇādvayo mukta
upādhito 'mṛtaḥ
“You are the one Supreme Soul, the primeval Supreme Personality, the Absolute Truth—self-manifested, endless and beginningless. You are eternal and infallible, perfect and complete, without any rival and free from all material designations. Your happiness can never be obstructed, nor have You any connection with material contamination. Indeed, You are the indestructible nectar of immortality.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.14.23]
In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.7.1]it is said:
raso vai saḥ rasaṁ hy evāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati.
“He Himself is rasa, the taste or mellow of a particular relationship. And certainly one who achieves this rasa becomes ānandī, filled with bliss.”
eṣa hy evānandayati. yadā hy evaiṣa etasmin na dṛśye 'nātmye anirukte 'nilayane 'bhayaṁ pratiṣṭhāṁ vindate 'tha so 'bhayaṁ gato bhavati.
“A living entity becomes established in spiritual, blissful life when he fully understands that his happiness depends on spiritual self-realization, which is the basic principle of ānanda [bliss], and when he is eternally situated in the service of the Lord, who has no other lord above Him.”
If a living entity becomes situated in bliss simply by serving the Lord, then what to speak of the Lord Himself? And in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [10.14.32] we find,
yan-mitraṁ paramānandaṁ pūrṇaṁ brahma sanātanam
“The source of supreme transcendental bliss, the eternal, complete Supreme Brahman, has become their friend.”
satya-jñānānantānanda-
mātraika-rasa-mūrtayaḥ
aspṛṣṭa-bhūri-māhātmyā
api
hy upaniṣad-dṛśām
The viṣṇu-mūrtis all had eternal, unlimited forms, full of knowledge and bliss and existing beyond the influence of time. Their great glory was not even to be touched by the jñānīs engaged in studying the Upaniṣads.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.13.54]
There are many, many similar verses that describe the Supreme Brahman as full of blissfulness, ānandamaya. Therefore as the sūtra under discussion states, “ānandamaya must be accepted to refer to the Supreme Brahman, because of the repetition in the scriptures.”
The passage of Taittirīya Upaniṣad beginning with the verse annād vai prajāḥ prajāyante quoted above describe the annamaya, prāṇamaya, manomaya, and vijñānamaya levels of existence. Each of these levels is progressively higher than the preceding one, and after them the ānandamaya level, which is different in quality, is the highest of all. This will be more elaborately explained in the passage following Sūtra 3.3.13 of this book.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: “These stages of existence [annamaya, prāṇamaya etc.] describe the conditioned conscious living entities who have fallen into the raging river of material suffering. Why has the stage of blissfulness [ānandamaya] been made the chief of these stages of suffering?”
To this objection I reply: These stages of existence [annamaya, prāṇamaya etc.] actually describe expansions of the energy of Brahman in the creation, which are gradually realized by the conditioned living entities. But even if you interpret annamaya, prāṇamaya etc. as descriptions of progressively subtler stages of consciousness of the conditioned living entities, there is no fault in this. The all-blissful Personality of Brahman is present in the hearts of all the suffering conditioned conscious living entities, and therefore it is perfectly appropriate to mention them together. The Vedic literatures speak in this way to make a difficult subject matter intelligible for the less intelligent common man. Just as one may point out a small, difficult-to-see star such as Arundhati [Alcor, the tiny companion of Mizar in the constellation of Ursa Major] by first pointing to its nearby easy-to-see companion, and then lead the viewer from that reference point to the tiny Arundhati, in the same way the Vedic literatures first describe the suffering-filled life of the conditioned conscious living entities, and then from that reference point teach about the all-blissful Personality of Brahman. So the Upaniṣad first points out Brahman as annamaya, the energy of the Supreme Brahman as food, then gradually proceeds to more and more subtle descriptions of Brahman until reaching ānandamaya, the original Brahman, who is the source of all the others.
At this point someone may raise the following question: “Is it not, then, that the Vedic literatures mostly describe these reference-points to lead the reader indirectly to the Supreme, topics other than the Supreme Brahman, or do they mostly describe Brahman directly?”
I answer this question: Brahman is directly described throughout the Vedic literatures, because the final conclusion of the Vedas is Brahman. Just like a book on musical composition may begin by describing the notes of the scale and other preliminary subjects; even if the majority of the text is taken up with these preliminaries, the book as a whole is still about musical composition, because its ultimate purpose is to describe that subject to the reader. Similarly the Vedas describe the categories of the creation emanated by Brahman before describing Brahman Himself; therefore even though they devote so much space to subjects other than Brahman, their ultimate purpose is to describe Brahman, so actually they are describing Brahman the whole time.
For example, in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, Varuṇa, upon being asked by his son to teach him about Brahman, explains to him that Brahman is the original creator, maintainer, and destroyer of the material universes. He further explains that the annamaya, prāṇamaya, manomaya, and vijñānamaya stages of existence, one by one, are all Brahman. Then he explains that the ānandamaya stage is the final Brahman. After explaining this, Varuṇa concludes his teaching by confirming that he has spoken a true description of the Personality of Brahman. He says:
etam ānandamayam ātmānam
upasaṅkramya imān lokān
kāmāni kāma-rūpy anusañcarann
etat sama gāyann āste
“After leaving his material body, one who understands the supreme ānandamaya person leaves this material world and enters the spiritual world. All his desires become fulfilled, he attains a spiritual form according to his own wish, and he dedicates himself to glorifying that supreme ānandamaya person.”
This is confirmed in Bhagavad-gita [14.26]:
māṁ ca yo
'vyabhicāreṇa
bhakti-yogena sevate
sa guṇān
samatītyaitān
brahma-bhūyāya kalpate
“One who engages in full devotional service, who does not fall down in any circumstance, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman.”
So even though the description of annamaya, prāṇamaya, etc. may superficially seem to be materialistic, because the final conclusion is that they are all energies emanated by Brahman, actually the whole passage is about Brahman. Similarly even though there may be so many apparently materialistic passages in the Vedas as a whole, the ultimate conclusion is that everything is emanated from Brahman; therefore the Vedas, as a whole, describe nothing but Brahman.
That the ānandamaya person in the Vedic literatures is actually the Supreme Brahman is also described in the following statement of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [10.87.17]:
puruṣa-vidho ‘nvayo ‘tra
caramo ‘nnamyādiṣu yaḥ
sad asataḥ paraṁ tvam atha yad
eṣv avaśeṣāmṛtam
“Among the manifestations known as annamaya and so forth, You are the ultimate one, ānandamaya, entering within the material coverings along with the living entity and assuming the same forms as those he takes. Distinct from the gross and subtle material manifestations, You are the reality underlying them all.”
We may note in this connection that it is not contradictory or illogical to say that the Supreme Brahman has a form. The form of the Supreme is described throughout the Vedic literatures. For example, the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [3.7.3] explains:
pṛthivī śarīram
“The material universe is the body of the Personality of Brahman.”
It is because the Personality of Brahman has a form [śarīra], that this book, the Vedānta-sūtra, is also called Śārīraka-sūtra [sūtras glorifying the Personality of Brahman, who has a form]. But as described above, the form of the Lord, being composed of transcendental bliss, is completely spiritual.
Some may say that the word ānandamaya does not refer to the Supreme Brahman, and that only the word brahma-puccham [the support of Brahman; ultimate Brahman] actually refers to Brahman. This proposal is not very intelligent, because it ignores the fact that Brahman’s energies, while different from Him, are also simultaneously one with Him.
parāsya śaktir vividhaiva
śrūyate
svābhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā ca
“The Supreme Lord has multi-potencies, which act so perfectly that all consciousness, strength and activity are being directed solely by His will.” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.8]
loke vitatam ātmānaṁ
lokaṁ
cātmani santatam
ubhayaṁ ca mayā vyāptaṁ
mayi
caivobhayaṁ kṛtam
“In this world of matter, which the conditioned soul accepts as consisting of enjoyable resources, the conditioned soul expands, thinking that he is the enjoyer of the material world. Similarly, the material world expands in the living entity as a source of enjoyment. In this way they both expand, but because they are My energies, they are both pervaded by Me. As the Supreme Lord, I am the cause of these effects, and one should know that both cause and effect, material and spiritual energies, rest in Me.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.16.52]
The Vedic scriptures regard the material energies as forms or embodiments of Brahman, because the total material energy [mahat-tattva] emanates from Him, and because the material energy follows His will in all respects. This view is reflected in the well-known Antaryāmi passage [3.7.3] of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, included in its entirety below:
“He who dwells in the earth and within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, and who rules the earth within, He is the Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal [Brahman.]
“He who dwells in the water and within the water, whom the water does not know, whose body is the water, and who rules the water within, He is the Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal [Brahman.]
“He who dwells in the fire and within the fire, whom the fire does not know, whose body is the fire, and who rules the fire within, He is the Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal [Brahman.]
“He who dwells in the sky and within the sky, whom the sky does not know, whose body is the sky, and who rules the sky within, He is the Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal [Brahman.]
“He who dwells in the air and within the air, whom the air does not know, whose body is the air, and who rules the air within, He is the Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal [Brahman.]
“He who dwells in heaven and within heaven, whom heaven does not know, whose body is heaven, and who rules heaven within, He is the Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal [Brahman.]
“He who dwells in the sun and within the sun, whom the sun does not know, whose body is the sun, and who rules the sun within, He is the Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal [Brahman.]
“He who dwells in space and within space, whom space does not know, whose body is space, and who rules the space within, He is the Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal [Brahman.]
“He who dwells in the moon and stars and within the moon and stars, whom the moon and stars do not know, whose body is the moon and stars, and who rules the moon and stars within, He is the Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal [Brahman.]
“He who dwells in the ākāśa and within the ākāśa, whom the ākāśa does not know, whose body is the ākāśa, and who rules the ākāśa within, He is the Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal [Brahman.]
“He who dwells in the darkness and within the darkness, whom the darkness does not know, whose body is the darkness, and who rules the darkness within, He is the Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal [Brahman.]
“He who dwells in the light and within the light, whom the light does not know, whose body is the light, and who rules the light within, He is the Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal [Brahman.]
In fact the Vedānta-sūtra is sometimes called Śārīraka-mīmāṁsā, because it deals extensively with the forms or embodiments of the Supreme Brahman.
Some others may object that “The word ānandamaya does not refer to Brahman because the suffix -maya means transformation.” They think that the word ānandamaya [transformation of bliss] cannot refer to the Supreme Brahman because He is naturally full of bliss, and not a transformation of some pre-existing state of happiness. For this reason the word ānandamaya must refer to the individual conscious living entity, and not Brahman. In order to refute this argument, Śrīla Vyāsadeva speaks the following sūtra:
vikāra-śabdān neti cen na pracuryāt
vikāra–transformation; śabdāt–from the word; na–not; iti–thus; cet–if; na–not; pracuryāt–because of abundance.
If [someone argues that the Supreme Brahman cannot be the same as the ānandamaya person described in the Vedas] because the affix -maya means ‘transformation’, [and the Supreme Brahman is not a transformation of ānanda, or bliss, then I reply by saying that] because the affix -maya used here means ‘abundance’, this interpretation is not correct, [and therefore the word ānandamaya should be understood to mean “He who is filled with limitless bliss”].
The word ānandamaya does not mean “he who is a transformation of bliss.” Why? Because the affix -maya here means ‘abundance,’ and therefore the word ānandamaya means “He who is filled with limitless bliss.” It occurs in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, which is a portion of the Vedas. The rules of Sanskrit grammar state that “the affix -maya may not be used to mean ‘transformation’ in vaidika words of more than two syllables.” [Pāṇini 4.3.150] The word ānanda has three syllables, and therefore when the word ānandamaya appears in the vaidika text of the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, it cannot be interpreted to mean “he who is a transformation of bliss.”
Thus ānandamaya does not mean mere absence of sorrow, but an overflowing abundance of transcendental bliss. The Supreme Brahman, therefore, is not only free from all suffering, but filled with limitless bliss. This is confirmed by the following statements of Vedic scripture:
eṣa sarva-bhūtāntarātmāpahata-pāpmā divyo deva eko nārāyaṇaḥ
“There is one Personality of Brahman: Brahman Nārāyaṇa. He is the transcendental Superconscious living entity in the hearts of all living entities, and He is completely free from all sin.” [Subala Upaniṣad]
parāḥ parāṇāṁ sakalā na
yatra
kleśādayaḥ sānti parāvareśaḥ
“He is the highest of the high, the Supreme Being. Suffering is not experienced by the Personality of Brahman.” [Viṣṇu Purāṇa]
When the affix maya means ‘abundance’, it also implies the meaning ‘essential nature.’ Therefore, when we use jyotirmaya [full of light] to mean the sun, the affix -maya can also be understood to mean ‘essential nature.’ In this way the word jyotirmaya means “that of which the essential nature is light.” In this way the word ānandamaya may also be interpreted to mean “He whose essential nature is full of bliss.” From all this it may be understood that the word ānandamaya clearly refers to the Personality of Brahman. It does not refer to the individual conscious living entity.
tad-hetu-vyapadeśāc ca
tat–of that; hetu–the origin; vypadeśāt–because of the statement; ca–also.
Because the Vedic literatures state [that the ānandamaya person is] the source [of bliss for others, it should be understood that the ānandamaya person is the Personality of Brahman, and not the individual conscious living entity].
This is confirmed by the following statement of Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.7]:
ko hy evānyat kaḥ prāṇyāt yady eṣa ākāśa ānando na syāt. esa evānandayati.
“Who is that person without whom the living entities cannot feel happiness? That is the Personality of Brahman, who delights the individual conscious living entities.”
This passage explains that the Supreme Brahman is the origin of happiness for the individual conscious living entities. From this we may understand that the cause of happiness [the Personality of Brahman], and the receiver of happiness [the individual conscious living entity] must be different persons. They cannot be identical. Therefore the word ānandamaya refers to the Personality of Brahman only. We may also note that the word ānanda used in this passage of Taittirīya Upaniṣad is identical in significance with the word ānandamaya in the passages quoted above.
The transcendental delight experienced in the presence of the Supreme Brahman cannot be compared with any other form of happiness, because it is pure, imperishable, ever-increasing, causeless transcendental bliss. This happiness is natural for the spiritual living entities because they are expansions or emanations from Brahman, who is a limitless ocean of such bliss. But because we have accepted a materialistic worldview in which we are separated from Brahman, we have to endure the incompleteness and suffering of material existence. This is a spiritual disease akin to jaundice, where the patient sees everything as yellow. Similarly, we see everything including ourselves as separate from Brahman, although everything is actually connected with Him. Association with the transcendental sound vibration of the Vedas is the cure for this existential disease.
mantra-varṇikam eva ca gīyate
mantra–by the mantra portion of the Vedas; varṇikam–described; eva–certainly; ca–also; gīyate–is described.
[The same Personality of Brahman] described in the mantra portion of the Vedas is also described [as the ānandamaya person in the text of the Taittirīya Upaniṣad].
The same Supreme Brahman described in the Vedic mantra, satyam jñānam anantam brahma, “The Supreme Brahman has no limits. He is eternal and full of knowledge,” is also described in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad by the word ānandamaya. In this way the above sūtra explains that the word ānandamaya does not refer to the individual living entity. Further, the Taittirīya Upaniṣad begins with the declaration:
brahma-vid āpnoti param
“One who understands the Supreme Brahman attains the Supreme Brahman.”
anta-kāle ca mām eva smaran muktvā
kalevaram
yaḥ prayāti sa mad-bhāvam yāti nāsty atra saṁśayaḥ
“Anyone who quits his body, at the end of life, remembering Me, attains immediately to My nature; and there is no doubt of this.” [Bhagavad-gītā 8.5]
asevayāyaṁ prakṛter
guṇānāṁ
jñānena vairāgya-vijṛmbhitena
yogena
mayy arpitayā ca bhaktyā
māṁ pratyag-ātmānam ihāvarundhe
“Thus by not engaging in the service of the modes of material nature but by developing Kṛṣṇa consciousness, knowledge in renunciation, and by practicing yoga, in which the mind is always fixed in devotional service unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead, one achieves My association in this very life, for I am the Supreme Personality, the Absolute Truth.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.25.27]
These passages explain that the individual living entity worships the Supreme Brahman and then attains the association of that Supreme Brahman. This is the same Supreme Brahman previously described in the mantra, satyam jñānam anantam brahma. This is the same Supreme Brahman described by the word ānandamaya, the same Supreme Brahman described in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad in the passage beginning tasmād vā etasmāt:
“Higher than the vijñānamaya stage is the ānandamaya stage of existence. The ānandamaya stage is a person whose head is pleasure [priya], whose right side is joy [moda], whose left side is delight [pramoda], and whose identity is bliss [ānanda]. The ānandamya is Brahman.”
Because the Supreme Brahman is the object of attainment for the individual conscious living entity, and because the object of attainment and the attainer must be two distinct entities, they cannot be identical; the Supreme Brahman and the individual living entities must be distinct persons, and therefore the word ānandamaya refers only to the Personality of Brahman and not to the individual living entities.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: “If the Supreme Brahman described in the Vedic mantras were different from the individual living entity, then the individual living entities could not be the ānandamaya person described in the scriptures. The actual fact is that the Supreme Brahman and the individual living entities are identical. The Vedic mantras state that when the individual conscious living entity is free from ignorance and liberated from material bondage, then he become identical with the Supreme Brahman.”
To answer this objection, Śrīla Vyāsadeva speaks the following sūtra.
netaro ‘nupapatteḥ
na–not; itaraḥ–the other; upapatteḥ–because it is illogical.
The other person [individual living entity] is not described [in the mantra satyam jñānam anantam brahma,] because [such an interpretation of the mantra] is illogical.
The itara [other person] mentioned in this sūtra is the individual living entity. This sūtra, therefore, states that the individual conscious living entity, even in the liberated condition, cannot be the Supreme Person described in the mantra, satyam jñānam anantam brahma. This is confirmed by the following statement of Vedic literature:
so ‘śnute sarvān kāmān saha brahmaṇā vipaścitā
“The liberated conscious living entity enjoys the fulfillment of all his desires in the company of the omniscient Supreme Brahman.”
In this passage the difference between the liberated conscious living entity and the Supreme Brahman is described in the words “He enjoys in the company of the Supreme Brahman.” The word vipascit means “He whose consciousness [cit] sees [paśyati] the great variety of that which exists [vividham]. The word paśya is changed to paś in this word by the grammatical formula pṛśodarādi-gaṇa [Pāṇini 6.3.109]. The liberated individual conscious living entity attains the association of the Personality of Brahman, who is expert at enjoying many varieties of transcendental bliss, and the individual conscious living entity enjoys with Him, fulfilling all his desires.
The word asnute should be understood in this context to mean ‘enjoys’. The verb aś means ‘to enjoy’, and although we would expect it to be conjugated in the parasmaipada, [aśnāti], in this passage it is conjugated in the ātmanepada [aśnute]. The reason for this is explained by Pāṇini in the sūtra, vyatyayo bahulam iti chandasi tathā smṛteḥ [3.1.85].
The Personality of Brahman is naturally the Supreme Enjoyer, and the individual conscious living entity is His subordinate in the matter of enjoyment. Still, the Personality of Brahman glorifies the liberated conscious living entities when He says:
mayi nirbaddha-hṛdayāḥ
sādhavaḥ
sama-darśanāḥ
vaśe kurvanti māṁ bhaktyā
sat-striyaḥ
sat-patiṁ yathā
“As chaste women bring their gentle husbands under control by service, the pure devotees, who are equal to everyone and completely attached to Me in the core of the heart, bring Me under their full control.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 9.4.66]
bheda-vyapadeśāc ca
bheda–difference; vyapadeśāt–because of the statement; ca–also.
[The Personality of Brahman and the individual conscious living entity are] different, because the Vedic literature teaches this fact.
The Taittirīya Upaniṣad [7.1] explains:
raso vai saḥ rasaṁ hy evāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati.
“When one understands the Personality of Godhead, the reservoir of pleasure Kṛṣṇa, he actually becomes transcendentally blissful.”
This passage clearly shows the difference between the liberated individual conscious living entity and the Personality of Brahman, whom the Vedic mantras describe as ānandamaya, and who is the transcendental nectar attained by the individual conscious living entity by following the Vedic system of self-realization. This difference is also described in the following statement of Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.4.6]:
brahmaiva san brahmāpnoti
“After becoming Brahman, the individual conscious living entity attains Brahman.”
This statement does not mean that after liberation the individual conscious living entity becomes non-different from the Supreme Brahman, but rather the liberated conscious living entity becomes similar to Brahman in quality and consciousness, and in this condition meets Brahman and attains His association. This is confirmed by the following statement of Māṇḍukya Upaniṣad [3.1.31]:
nirañjanaḥ paramaṁ sāmyam upaiti
“This liberated conscious living entity becomes like the Personality of Brahman.”
Also, in the Bhagavad-gītā [14.2], the Personality of Brahman declares:
idaṁ jñānam upāśritya mama sādharmyam āgatāḥ
“By becoming fixed in this knowledge, one can attain to the transcendental nature, which is like My own nature.”
In this way the Vedic literatures teach us that the liberated conscious living entities become qualitatively similar the Personality of Brahman. However they do not state that the living entities become equal to Brahman in every way, especially quantitatively. This concept is the foundation of the philosophy of simultaneous oneness and difference between the jiva and Brahman, known as acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. The living entities are qualitatively similar to, and quantitatively different from Brahman.
The principle of material creation is the sum total of the three modes of material nature—goodness, passion and ignorance—technically called the pradhāna. The Vedic hymns sarvaṁ hy etad brahma [Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad 1.1.2], tasmād etad brahma nāma-rūpam annaṁ ca jāyate [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.2.10], and, in the Bhagavad-gītā [14.3], mama yonir mahad brahma indicate that everything in the material world is a manifestation of Brahman; and although the effects are manifested in combinations and permutations of three different modes, they are nondifferent from the cause. Therefore those who, according to atheistic Sāṅkhya philosophy, accept prakṛti, the manifested material nature, as the original cause of the cosmic manifestation are incorrect in their conclusion. The material nature has no separate existence without the Lord.
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [3.26.10] states,
śrī-bhagavān uvāca
yat tat
tri-guṇam avyaktaṁ
nityaṁ sad-asad-ātmakam
pradhānaṁ
prakṛtiṁ prāhur
aviśeṣaṁ viśeṣavat
The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: “The unmanifested eternal combination of the three modes is called pradhāna, and it is the cause of the manifest state. It is called prakṛti when in the manifested stage of existence.”
Pradhāna is the subtle, undifferentiated sum total of all material elements. Although the elements are undifferentiated, the potential to manifest the total material elements is contained in pradhāna. When the total material elements are manifested by the interaction of the three modes of material nature with material time, the manifestation is called prakṛti. Impersonalists say that Brahman is without variegatedness and differentiation. Some philosophers say that pradhāna is the Brahman stage of matter, but actually the Brahman stage is different from pradhāna. Pradhāna is distinct from Brahman because in Brahman there is no existence of the material modes of nature.
Pradhāna is the sum total of all material elements before the creation, when the reaction of the total elements with time does not take place, and the interactions of cause and effect are potential, or not yet manifested (avyakta). Pradhāna is separate from the time element because the time element contains actions and reactions, creation and annihilation. Nor is it the jīva, or marginal potency of materially designated, conditioned living entities, because the designations of the living entities are not eternal. One adjective used in this connection is nitya, which indicates eternality; the principle of the material creation is eternal, but the manifestation is temporary because it is controlled by the Supreme Lord in His form of time. Therefore the pradhāna is a potential state of material nature immediately previous to its manifestation.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: “Is not the pradhāna feature of the mode of material goodness [sattva-guṇa] the actual origin of the ānandamaya person?” Śrīla Vyāsadeva answers this objection in the following sūtra.
kāmāc ca nānumānāpekṣā
kāmāt–because of desire; ca–also; na–not; anumāna–to the theory; apekṣā–in relation.
[The ānandamaya person] cannot be [a product of the mode of material goodness], because [the mode of goodness is insentient and desireless, whereas the ānandamaya person] is filled with desires.
The Taittirīya Upaniṣad explains:
so ‘kāmayata bahu syāṁ prajāyeya
“The Personality of Brahman desired: Let Me become many. Let Me father many living entities.”
In this way the śruti-śāstra explains that the universe was created by the desire of the ānandamaya person. Because the ānandamaya person is thus filled with desires, it is not possible for the pradhāna mode of material goodness, which is lifeless, insentient, and desireless, to be that ānandamaya person.
Many people think that simply by performing pious activities and cultivating the qualities of goodness such as nonviolence, charity, scriptural knowledge and so on, they can attain the highest destination. While these qualities of the mode of goodness are certainly praiseworthy and recommended, they are preliminary to actual self-realization, therefore they cannot elevate us to the highest destination because the ānandamaya person or Brahman is actually transcendental to all material qualities, even goodness.
Personality, individuality, cognition, desire, emotion, will, initiative, creativity, thought, reason, memory, imagination, life energy, activity, enjoyment and so on are all actually symptoms of the spirit soul or living entity. The proof of this is that when the living entity leaves the material body at the time of death, all these subtle qualities disappear simultaneously. Because these qualities belong to the living entity and not the body, they are actually spiritual. Since Brahman is the source of the spiritual living entities, we would naturally expect to find the same qualities in Him, but in unlimited abundance.
So all the most desirable qualities of the living entity are spiritual, and not a manifestation of the modes of material nature, which are inert and mechanical. Similarly the qualities of Brahman are spiritual, not material. Even though the qualities of goodness—purity, learning, self-discipline and so on—may be desirable, from the point of view of the Vedas it is not for their own sake, but because they are necessary-but-not-sufficient preliminaries to self-realization.
asminn asya ca tad-yogam śāsti
asmin–in that ānandamaya person; asya–of the individual conscious living entity; ca–also; tat–of fearlessness; yogam–contact; sasti–the Vedic scriptures teach.
[The ānandamaya person cannot be manifested from the pradhāna mode of material goodness, because] the Vedic scriptures teach that contact with the ānandamaya person brings fearlessness [to the individual conscious living entity].
The śruti-śāstra teaches that by taking shelter of the ānandamaya person, the individual conscious living entity attains fearlessness, and by declining to take shelter of Him, the conscious living entity becomes plagued with all kinds of fear. This confirmed by the Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.7.2] in the passage beginning with the words yadā hy eva:
“When he finds repose and freedom from fear in that which is invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported, then he has obtained fearlessness. For if he makes the slightest separation from Him, there is fear for him. But that fear exists only for those who think themselves wise, not for the true enlightened sage.”
On the other hand, contact with the material nature brings fear to the individual conscious living entities. The material nature does not bring a condition of fearlessness to the living entities, and for this reason it is not possible that the pradhāna mode of material goodness is the ānandamaya person.
bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ
syād
īśād apetasya viparyayo 'smṛtiḥ
tan-māyayāto
budha ābhajet taṁ
bhaktyaikayeśaṁ guru-devatātmā
“Fear arises when a living entity misidentifies himself as the material body because of absorption in the external, illusory energy of the Lord. When the living entity thus turns away from the Supreme Lord, he also forgets his own constitutional position as a servant of the Lord. This bewildering, fearful condition is effected by the potency for illusion, called māyā. Therefore, an intelligent person should engage unflinchingly in the unalloyed devotional service of the Lord under the guidance of a bona fide spiritual master, whom he should accept as his worshipable deity and as his very life and soul.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.2.37]
Therefore, the ānandamaya person is the Personality of Brahman, Hari. The ānandamaya person is not the individual conscious living entity or the material nature, because neither of them can deliver us from fear. But if the living entity takes shelter of the Vedic process under competent guidance, he can attain complete fearlessness.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The wonderful puruṣa described as follows in Chāndogya Upaniṣad 1.6-7 is Brahman:
“The devī Sarasvatī called Ṛk verily pervades this earth; the deva Vāyu called Sāman pervades fire; therefore, the Sāman is sung as resting on the Ṛk. Sā is this earth, and Ama is fire and that makes Sāma [Vedic hymn sung as a sacrificial offering].
“The devī Sarasvatī as presiding over sky is verily Ṛk, the deva Vāyu as presiding over air is Sāman. This Sāman is refuged in that Ṛk. The sky is Sā and the air is Ama, and thus the Sāma is made.
“The heaven Sarasvatī is verily Ṛk, and the sun Vāyu is Sāman, this Sāman is sung as based on the Ṛk, heaven is Sā and the sun is Ama, thus is Sāma made.
“The devī Sarasvatī dwelling in the stars is verily Ṛk and the deva Vāyu in the moon is Sāman. This Sāman is refuged on that Ṛk. Sā is the stars, Ama the moon, and thus Sāma is made.
“Now that which is the white light of the sun indeed is Ṛk; again that which is the blue, exceeding dark light of the sun, that verily is Sāman. Thus Sāman [darkness] is refuged in that Ṛk [light]; therefore the Sāman is sung as refuged on the Ṛk. Now the Sā is the white light of the sun; and the blue and deep dark is Ama, and that makes Sāma.
“Now that Being residing within Vāyu and Sarasvatī who is seen in the sun in meditation as full of intense joy, with joy as beard, joy as hair, joy altogether to the very tips of His nails,
“His two eyes are like a fresh red lotus. His mystic Name is Ut, for He has risen [udita] above all sins. He who knows this verily also rises above all sins.
“Ṛk and Sāma [Sarasvatī and chief Vāyu] are the minstrels of the Lord; therefore he [the chanter in a Vedic sacrifice] is called Udgātri. He, the Lord called Ut, is the ruler of the worlds above the plane of heaven. He rules those words and awards the desired objects to the devas. This is adhidaivata [cosmological conception].
“Now the psychological conception [adhiātmika]. The Ṛk is speech, and the Sāma is the organ of respiration. Thus respiration is seen to rest in the organ of speech. Therefore, the Sāman is sung as resting on the Ṛk. Sā is the organ of speech, and Ama is the organ of respiration. That makes Sāma.
“The eye is the Ṛk, and the jīva is the Sāman. This Sāman is seen to rest on the Ṛk, therefore the Sāman is sung as resting on the Ṛk. Sā is the eye, and Ama is the jīva; and that makes Sāma.
“The ear is the Ṛk and the mind is the Sāman. This Sāman is seen to rest on the Ṛkṭherefore, the Sāman is sung as resting on the Ṛk. Sā is the ear, and Ama is the mind. That makes Sāma.
“Now the white light of the eye is indeed Ṛk, and the blue exceeding dark light of the eye is Sāman. This Sāman is refuged on that Ṛk. Therefore the Sāman is sung as refuged on the Ṛk. Sā is the white light of the eye, and Ama is the blue exceeding dark light, and that makes Sāma.
“Now the person who is seen in the eye is the all-wise, all-harmonious and uplifter of all. He is all-adorable, He is all-full. The form of the person in the eye is the same as the form of the other person in the sun, the minstrels of the one are the minstrels of the other, the name Ut of the one, is the name of the other.
“He is the Lord who rules the worlds beneath the physical, and awards all the wishes of men. Therefore all who sing any song, really sing to Him, and thus they actually attain all wealth from Him.
“Now he who knowing this sings a Sāman, sings to both, he really sings as if inspired by Him, and obtains the worlds beyond that and the wishes of the devas.
“Now through this alone he obtains all the lower worlds and the desires of the human beings. Therefore the Udgātri who knows this should say: ‘To accomplish what particular desire of yours, O Yajamāna, shall I sing?’ For he, who knowing this, sings out the Sāman, is able to accomplish the desires of his Yajamāna through his song, yea, through his song.”
In the Vedic conception of cosmology, everything is living, personal and intelligent. The universe is not some vast clockwork machine, wound up at the time of creation and now slowly running down according to the laws of thermodynamics. The personal form of the Lord, and the impersonal energy of the Lord known as the brahmajyoti, are clearly explained in the Vedas as the actual causes of the creation, maintenance and ultimate destruction of the cosmic creation. The brahmajyoti or effulgence of the personal form of the Lord is compared to the radiation of the sun. The sunshine may expand all over the universe, but the source of the sunshine is the deity known as Sūrya-nārāyaṇa, who lives within the sun and empowers it.
sva-dhiṣṇyaṁ pratapan
prāṇo
bahiś ca pratapaty asau
evaṁ virājaṁ
pratapaṁs
tapaty antar bahiḥ pumān
“The sun illuminates both internally and externally by expanding its radiation; similarly, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, by expanding His universal form, maintains everything in the creation both internally and externally.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.6.17]
A power plant requires so many intelligent engineers and trained technicians to construct and operate. Do we really think that a great source of radiant energy like the sun is simply mechanistic happenstance? Therefore the Vedic brāhmaṇas use the mantra mentioned in the Ṛg Veda, generally known as Gāyatrī mantra, to worship the Supreme Nārāyaṇa situated within the sun. The physical sun that gives light and warmth to the earth is simply a reflection of the rays of the brahmajyoti or spiritual radiance of the Lord’s transcendental body.
Although the reflected energy of the Lord displays various illusions to the eyes of persons afflicted with a poor fund of transcendental knowledge, the sane person knows clearly that the Lord can act by His different energies, even from far, far beyond our vision, just as fire can diffuse heat and light from a distant place, or microwaves can transfer power invisibly. In the medical science of the ancient sages, known as the Āyur-veda, there is definite acceptance of the Lord’s supremacy in the following words:
jagad-yoner
anicchasya
cid-ānandaika-rūpiṇaḥ
puṁso 'sti prakṛtir
nityā
praticchāyeva bhāsvataḥ
acetanāpi caitanya-
yogena
paramātmanaḥ
akarod viśvam akhilam
anityam nāṭakākṛtim
“There is one Supreme Person who is the progenitor of this cosmic manifestation and whose energy acts as prakṛti, or the manifested material nature, dazzling like a reflection. By such illusory action of prakṛti, even dead matter is caused to move by the influence of the living energy of the Lord, and the material world appears like a dramatic performance to the ignorant eyes.”
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: The ignorant person, therefore, may even be a scientist or physiologist in the drama of prakṛti, while the sane transcendentalist knows perfectly well that prakṛti or material nature is merely the external illusory energy of the Lord, and the internal living conscious spiritual energy is actually the cause of everything, including energetic manifestations like the sun. The passage of Chāndogya Upaniṣad quoted above explains:
atha yā so ‘ntar ādityo hiraṇmayaḥ puruśo dṛśyate hiraṇya-śmaśrur hiraṇya-keśa aprāṇakhāt sarva eva suvarṇas tasya yathā kapyasaṁ puṇḍarīkam evam akśiṇi tasyodeti nāma sa eṣa sarvebhyaḥ pāpmābhyah udita udeti hā vai sarvebhyaḥ pāpmābhyo ya evaṁ veda tasya ṛk sāma ca gesnau tasmād udīgithas tasmāt tv evodgataitasya hi gāthā sa eṣa ye cāmuṣmat paraṇco lokas teṣāṁ ceṣṭe deva-kāmānāṁ cety adhidaivatam… athādhyātmam atha ya eṣo ‘ntar-akśiṇi puruṣo dṛśyate saiva ṛk tat sāma tad ukthaṁ tad yajus tad brahma tasyaitasya tad eva rūpaṁ yad amuṣya rūpam. yāv amuṣya gesnau tau gesnau yan nāma tan nāma.
“Within the sun-globe is a golden person with golden hair, a golden beard, and a body golden from His fingernails to all His limbs. His eyes are like lotus flowers. He is above all sin. One who understands Him also becomes situated above all sin. The Ṛg and Sāma Vedas sing His glories. From Him the highest spiritual planets, where the demigods desire to go, have become manifested. This is the golden person present among the demigods… Now I shall describe the person within the human mind and heart. Within the eyes a wonderful person may be seen. The Ṛg, Sāma, and Yājur Vedas glorify Him. He is identical with the golden person who resides in the sun.”
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: Someone may doubt: “Is this an individual conscious living entity who by great piety and spiritual knowledge has attained this exalted position, or is this the Personality of Brahman, who appears as the all-pervading Superconscious living entity? Because this person has a form and various human-like features, He must be a pious conscious living entity. By his piety and spiritual knowledge he has become able to become the great controller of demigods and human beings who fulfills their desires and grants them the results of their actions.”
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: Śrīla Vyāsadeva addresses these views by giving the siddhānta [Vedic conclusion] in the following sūtra.
antas tad-dharmopadeśāt
antah–within; tat–of Him; dharma–nature; upadeśāt–because of the instruction.
The person within [the sun and the eye is the Personality of Brahman], because the Vedic literatures explain that His nature fits the description of Brahman.
The person within the sun and the eye is the Personality of Brahman, who is present everywhere as the original Superconscious living entity. This person is not the individual conscious living entity. Why? Because the Vedic literatures describe Him as being sinless and possessing all the qualities of the Personality of Brahman. He is free from all sin and all karma. The slightest fragrance of karma cannot touch Him. This is not possible for the individual conscious living entities, who remain subject to the laws of karma.
viśuddhaṁ kevalaṁ
jñānaṁ
pratyak samyag avasthitam
satyaṁ pūrṇam
anādy-antaṁ
nirguṇaṁ nityam advayam
“The Personality of Godhead is pure, being free from all contaminations of material tinges. He is the Absolute Truth and the embodiment of full and perfect knowledge. He is all-pervading, without beginning or end, and without rival.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.6.40]
The individual conscious living entity does not fit the description of this person within the sun and the eye in many other ways as well. For example, the individual conscious living entity is not the fulfiller of the desires of the living entities, nor is he the awarder of the fruits of action, nor is he the object of the worship of the living entities.
At this point the impersonalists may raise the following objection: “Because the person within the sun and the eye is described as having a body, therefore He must be an individual conscious living entity, for the Supreme Brahman has no body.”
To this objection I reply: This is not necessarily so. The puruṣa-sūkta prayers [Ṛg Veda 10.90] and many other Vedic verses describe the transcendental body of the Personality of Brahman.
oṁ namo bhagavate mahā-puruṣāya mahānubhāvāya mahā-vibhūti-pataye sakala-sātvata-parivṛḍha-nikara-kara-kamala-kuḍmalopalālita-caraṇāravinda-yugala parama-parameṣṭhin namas te.
“O transcendental Lord, who are situated in the topmost planet of the spiritual world, Your two lotus feet are always massaged by a multitude of the best devotees with their lotus-bud hands. You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, complete with six opulences. You are the Supreme Person mentioned in the Puruṣa-sūkta prayers. You are the most perfect, self-realized master of all mystic power. Let me offer my respectful obeisances unto You.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.16.25]
The Śvetāśvatāra Upaniṣad also describes the Supreme Brahman’s transcendental body in the following words:
vedhāham etaṁ puruṣaṁ mahāntam āditya-varṇaṁ tamasaḥ parastāt
“I know that Personality of Brahman, whose form is transcendental to all material conceptions of darkness.”
The difference between the form of an ordinary living entity and the body of the Lord is that His body is never material. The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [3.8-9] substantiates this as follows:
vedāham etaṁ puruṣaṁ
mahāntam
āditya-varṇaṁ tamasaḥ parastāt
tam eva
viditvāti mṛtyum eti
nānyaḥ panthā vidyate 'yanāya
yasmāt paraṁ nāparam asti
kiñcid
yasmān nāṇīyo no jyāyo 'sti kiñcit
vṛkṣa
iva stabdho divi tiṣṭhaty ekas
tenedaṁ pūrṇaṁ puruṣeṇa
sarvam
“I know that Supreme Personality of Godhead who is transcendental to all material conceptions of darkness. Only he who knows Him can transcend the bonds of birth and death. There is no way for liberation other than this knowledge of that Supreme Person. There is no truth superior to that Supreme Person, because He is the supermost. He is smaller than the smallest, and He is greater than the greatest. He is situated as a silent tree, and He illumines the transcendental sky, and as a tree spreads its roots, He spreads His extensive energies.”
The transcendental form of the Lord is described in many other places in the scriptures. But as stated in Kaṭha Upaniṣad [1.2.23],
yam evaiṣa vṛṇute tena
labhyas
tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanuṁ svām
“Only one who is fully surrendered and engaged in the devotional service of the Supreme Lord can understand the Supreme Lord as He is.”
Therefore neither the materialistic scientists nor the impersonalist speculators can actually see the Lord, because being of atheistic temperament, they do not perform devotional service, which is the process for revealing Him as He really is.
bheda-vyapadeśāc cānyaḥ
bheda–difference; vyapadeśāt–because of the statement; ca–also; anyaḥ–another.
[The Personality of Brahman is] different [from the individual conscious living entity] because this doctrine is taught in all Vedic literatures.
The golden person within the sun is not the solar deity, the individual conscious living entity who thinks the sun planet is his own body, but rather that golden person is the Personality of Brahman, the Superconscious living entity who is present in every atom. This is confirmed by the following statement of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad:
ya āditye tiṣṭhann ādityād
antaro yam ādityo
na veda yasyādityaḥ śarīraṁ ya ādityam
antaro
yamayaty eṣa ta ātmāntaryāmy amṛtaḥ
“That person situated within the sun, who is not the sun-god, whom the sun-god does not know, who manifests the sun planet as His own body, who controls the sun planet from within, that person is the immortal Personality of Brahman who is present within the heart of every living entity as the Superconscious living entity.”
From this description we may understand that the golden person within the sun is not the individual conscious living entity who is the sun-god, but the Personality of Brahman. Both this passage and the previous quoted passage from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad agree on this point.
The ordinary living entities cannot perceive the effulgent Supreme Person within the sun because their material vision is overwhelmed by the glaring radiance of the sun planet. Yet without the presence of the Lord, the energetic source of all emanations, the sun planet could not remain steady in its radiation over millions of years. The Lord can be seen only by the devotees whose minds are controlled by the process of devotional service. Lord Śiva prays:
namo namo
'niruddhāya
hṛṣīkeśendriyātmane
namaḥ
paramahaṁsāya
pūrṇāya nibhṛtātmane
“My Lord, as the supreme directing Deity known as Aniruddha, You are the master of the senses and the mind. I therefore offer my obeisances unto You again and again. You are known as Ananta as well as Saṅkarṣaṇa because of Your ability to destroy the whole creation by the blazing fire from Your mouth.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.24.36]
Hṛṣīkeśendriyātmane: The mind is the director of the senses, and Lord Aniruddha is the director of the mind. In order to execute devotional service, one has to fix his mind on the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa; therefore Lord Śiva prays to the controller of the mind, Lord Aniruddha, to be pleased to help him engage his mind on the lotus feet of the Lord. It is stated in Bhagavad-gītā [9.34]:
man-manā bhava mad-bhakto
mad-yājī
māṁ namaskuru
mām evaiṣyasi yuktvaivam
ātmānaṁ
mat-parāyaṇaḥ
“Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, offer obeisances and worship Me. Being completely absorbed in Me, surely you will come to Me.”
The mind has to be engaged in meditation on the lotus feet of the Lord in order to execute devotional service. It is also stated in Bhagavad-gītā [15.15],
mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaṁ ca
“From Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness.”
Thus if Lord Aniruddha is pleased, He can help the mind engage in the service of the Lord. It is also indicated in this verse that Lord Aniruddha is the sun-god by virtue of His expansions. Since the predominating deity of the sun is an expansion of Lord Aniruddha, Lord Śiva also prays to the sun-god in this verse, and this is also why the brāhmaṇas use the Gāyatrī mantra of the Ṛg Veda to worship the Supreme Nārāyaṇa within the sun. Lord Kṛṣṇa, by His quadruple expansion of Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha, is the Lord of all psychic action: thinking, feeling, willing and acting. Lord Śiva prays to Lord Aniruddha as the sun-god, who is also the controlling deity of the external material elements constituting the material body. Therefore in the Āyur-veda, those who desire health are also instructed to worship the sun.
The sun-god is addressed above as nibhṛtātmane, which indicates that he always maintains the various planets by providing rainfall. By emanating his dazzling rays, the sun-god evaporates water from the seas and oceans, forms the water into clouds and distributes it. When there is sufficient rainfall, grains are produced, and these grains maintain living entities in every planet. The sun-god is also addressed herein as pūrṇa, or complete, because the sun-god has been supplying heat and light without diminution for millions and millions of years since the creation of the universe. He is also addressed as paramahaṁsa. The word paramahaṁsa is applied to persons who are completely cleansed. When there is sufficient sunshine, the mind remains clear and transparent—in other words, the sun-god helps the living entity to situate his mind on the platform of pure consciousness. Thus Lord Śiva prays to Lord Aniruddha to be kind upon him, so that his mind will always be in the perfect state of cleanliness and engaged in the devotional service of the Lord. Just as fire sterilizes all unclean things, the sun-god also keeps everything sterilized, especially dirty things within the mind, enabling one to attain elevation to the platform of spiritual understanding.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The ākāśa mentioned in Chāndogya Upaniṣad 1.9 refers to Brahman. The entire passage is quoted below:
Then Sālāvatya asked, “What is the goal of Brahmā?” “The all-luminous [ākāśa] Viṣṇu,” replied Pravāhana, “For all these mighty beings arise from the All-luminous and again set in the All-luminous. The All-luminous is greater than all these; the All-luminous is their great refuge. He indeed is higher than the highest, the Udgītha, the Infinite.
“He who meditates on the Udgītha as greater than the great, knowing Him thus to be the supreme goal, the greater than the great becomes his protector, and he obtains the worlds that are greater than the great [Vaikuṇṭha].
“Those among Mankind who know this Udgītha,” said Atidhanvan, the son of Śunaka to his disciple Udara Śāṇḍilya, “will live for the entire length of the yuga in which they get this knowledge, and for that whole time the Supreme Brahman will be their life in this world, and also in the next world, yea in the next world.”
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: In Vedic cosmology, ākāśa, sometimes unfortunately mistranslated ‘ether’, actually means space. In the Vedic literature, ākāśa is sometimes translated ‘sky’ or ‘air,’ but it is most often used in the sense of the Vedic cosmological element which is equivalent to the Western scientific concept of space-time. Normally we do not think of space as a substance, but from the transcendental point of view of the Vedas, material space-time is a temporary, artificial manifestation unique to the material creation. It is of central importance because of course, nothing can exist without space. Distance, movement and thus energy, force and work all require space. Therefore ākāśa, space is an even more fundamental concept than energy or matter. Bhagavad-gītā [9.6] says,
yathākāśa-sthito nityaṁ
vāyuḥ
sarvatra-go mahān
tathā sarvāṇi bhūtāni
mat-sthānīty
upadhāraya
“As the mighty wind, blowing everywhere, always rests in ākāśa [ethereal space], know that in the same manner all beings rest in Me.”
One clue to the meaning of ākāśa is that it is described as the medium of śabda, or subtle sound. Śabda is the vibration of the element ākāśa, the ethereal space of the sky. Space is the medium of subtle vibrations like radio signals, light, cosmic rays and so on. Although modern scientists do not count ethereal space as a material element as do Vedic sages, they agree it is not a void, but rather a sea of energetic vibrations in which we and all other things in the universe exist. Some scientists suppose there is a fundamental vibration that permeates the universe, holding all matter together. The Vedas describe a fundamental vibration, called śabda-brahma or transcendental sound, that originates in the spiritual sky and is the basis of creation. We also experience subtle sound vibration in the internal conversations of the mind. This mental sound is transmitted by ākāśa.
The passage of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad quoted in full above states:
asya lokasya kā gatir iti ākāśa
iti hovāca
sarvāṇi hā vā imāni bhūtāny ākāśād
eva
samutpadyante. ākāśaṁ pratyastaṁ yānty ākāśaḥ
parāyanam iti.
“He asked: ‘What is the ultimate destination of all living entities?’ He replied: ‘Ākāśa is the ultimate destination. All living entities and all material elements have emanated from ākāśa, and they will again enter into ākāśa.’”
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: What is the meaning of the word ākāśa here? Does it mean the element ether [sky or space], or does it mean the Supreme Brahman? The opposing argument is that “The word ākāśa here means the element ether or space, because air and the other elements evolve from it. Indeed, the zero-point energy of space is the origin of all the other energies and elements.”
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes this argument by stating the siddhānta [Vedic conclusion] in the following sūtra.
ākāśas tal-liṅgāt
ākāśah–the word ākāśa; tat–of Him; lingat–because of the qualities.
The word ākāśa [in the Vedic literature refers to] the Supreme Brahman, for the description [of ākāśa aptly fits the description of the qualities of Brahman.]
The word ākāśa here refers to Brahman and not the material element ether. Why? Because the ākāśa described here has all the characteristics of Brahman. The ākāśa described here is the source from which the material elements emanate, the maintainer who sustains them, and the ultimate refuge into which they enter at the time of cosmic annihilation. That is a perfect description of Brahman.
The scriptures explain that sarvāṇi hā vā imāni bhūtāni: “All material elements have emanated from ākāśa.” Because ether is one of the material elements, it is included in the word sarvāṇi [all the elements]. It is not the independent origin of the causal chain, but merely one of the links. For this reason it cannot be the ākāśa that is the source of all the elements, including ether. The use of the word eva [certainly] in this context reinforces the interpretation that ākāśa refers to Brahman because eva implies “there is no other cause”. For this reason ākāśa cannot refer to the material element ether or space, because space is not a cause but an effect.
For example, clay is the origin from which clay pots are produced, and other material substances are the origins of other objects. But all these are not primal origins, they are merely intermediate steps in a great causal chain. By using the word eva [the sole cause] the text clearly refers to the primal, uncaused cause, Brahman, and not ether or any other particular intermediate stage in the causal chain. The Vedic literatures describe Brahman as the master of all potencies and the source of all forms, and therefore, because the ākāśa is described by the word eva as the sole cause, it can refer only to the primal cause Brahman and not the material element ether. Although the word ākāśa generally means ether or space in ordinary usage, in this context the secondary meaning “Brahman” is far more appropriate.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The prāṇa mentioned in Chāndogya Upaniṣad 1.10-11 refers to Brahman. The entire passage is quoted below:
When the crops in the land of the Kurus were destroyed by hailstones, Uśaśti Cākrāyana lived with his young wife by begging at Ibhya-grāma. Seeing the lord of Ibhya eating beans, he begged some from him.
The master of the elephants said to Uśaśti “I have no more except these that are placed before me for eating.” Uśaśti said, “Give me some of those.” He gave him some of those and said, “Here is some water to drink in this water-bag.” Uśaśti said, “If I drink what has already been drunk by another, I shall drink impure water.” The master of elephants said, “Are not these beans impure also, as I am eating from them?”
Uśaśti replied, “No, because without eating them I cannot live; while drinking your water is not an absolute necessity, for water may be obtained anywhere.” After eating, Uśaśti brought the remnants to his wife. But she had already eaten, therefore she put them away.
The next morning after leaving his bed Uśaśti said, “Alas, if we could get a little food, we could get much wealth, because that king is going to offer a sacrifice, and he may choose me for the post of priest.”
His wife replied, “Alas, O husband, there is nothing in the house besides these stale beans that you brought yesterday.” Uśaśti after eating the beans, went to the big sacrifice that was being performed. There he sat down next to the Udgatrina priests who were singing hymns in the Astava ceremony. Then he said to the Prastotar priest, “O Prastotar, if you sing the prastāva without knowing the Deity that belongs to it, your head will fall off. O Udgātar, if you sing the udgithā without knowing the Deity that belongs to it, your head will fall off. O Pratihartrar, if you sing the pratihāra without knowing the Deity that belongs to it, your head will fall off.” Then they indeed stopped and sat down silent.
Then the Sacrificer said to him, “Sir, I desire to know who you are.” He replied, “I am Uśaśti the son of Cākrāyana.” The king said, “I had made up my mind, Sir, to appoint you alone to all these priestly offices; but not having found you, I have appointed others. But now that I have found you, I elect you to all these priestly offices.”
“Very well,” said Uśaśti “but do not send these others away, but let them indeed sing the sacred hymns under my direction. And promise that you pay me as much wealth as you would have given to them collectively.” The Sacrificer said, “Let it be so.”
Then the Prastotar priest approached him respectfully, saying, “Sir, you said to me ‘Prastotar, if you sing the prastāva without knowing the Deity that belongs to it, your head will fall off.’ Who is this Deity of whom you speak?”
Uśaśti replied: “It is Viṣṇu as the chief prāṇa, the great breath. From prāṇa all the material elements have emanated, and into prāṇa they enter at the end. This is the Deity belonging to the creation [prastāva]. If after being warned by me you had sung the prastāva hymn without knowing that Deity, you head would have fallen off.”
Then the Udgatri priest approached him respectfully, saying, “Sir, you said to me ‘Udgatri, if you sing the udgithā without knowing the Deity that belongs to it, your head will fall off.’ Who is this Deity of whom you speak?”
Uśaśti replied: “The sun. It is Viṣṇu residing in the sun who is the Deity of the udgithā. Verily all creatures sing His praises because He is the best and the highest. He alone is the Deity belonging to the udgithā. If after being warned by me you had sung the Udgitha hymn without knowing that Deity, you head would have fallen off.”
Then the Pratihartri priest approached him respectfully, saying, “Sir, you said to me ‘Pratihartri, if you sing the pratihāra without knowing the Deity that belongs to it, your head will fall off.’ Who is this Deity of whom you speak?”
Uśaśti replied: “It is Viṣṇu residing in the food who is the Deity of the pratihāra. Verily all creatures eat food, and live thereby because Viṣṇu lives in the food and maintains them. He alone is the Deity belonging to the pratihāra. If after being warned by me you had sung the pratihāra [guardian] hymn without knowing that Deity, you head would have fallen off.”
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: The Vedic conception of prāṇa is very important. Prāṇa is sometimes poorly translated as ‘subtle airs’ or ‘breath,’ but it is actually closer to Chinese chi or Japanese ki, the subtle life energy that runs through the body under the direction of the soul. Prāṇa means subtle life energy, and although Western science does not want to admit the existence of prāṇa, it has been shown without a doubt that medical treatments that depend on the manipulation of prāṇa, such as acupuncture, are effective in treating all kinds of diseases.
In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [3.1.9] the relationship of prāṇa with the atomic spirit soul is further explained:
eṣo 'ṇur ātmā cetasā
veditavyo
yasmin prāṇaḥ pañcadhā saṁviveśa
prāṇaiś
cittaṁ sarvam otaṁ prajānāṁ
yasmin viśuddhe vibhavaty eṣa
ātmā
“The soul is atomic in size and can be perceived by perfect intelligence. This atomic soul is floating in the five kinds of air (prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, samāna and udāna), is situated within the heart, and spreads its influence all over the body of the embodied living entities. When the soul is purified from the contamination of the five kinds of material air, its spiritual influence is exhibited.”
These five kinds of subtle life energies are collectively known as prāṇa. The apāna-vāyu goes downwards, vyāna-vāyu acts to shrink and expand, samāna-vāyu adjusts equilibrium, udāna-vāyu goes upwards—and when one is enlightened, one engages all these in searching for self-realization. The haṭha-yoga system is meant for controlling the five kinds of prāṇa encircling the pure soul by different kinds of sitting postures. The yogic process of breathing exercises called prāṇāyāma is aimed at controlling the prāṇa; not for any material profit, but for liberation of the atomic soul from the entanglement of the material atmosphere.
The passage from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad quoted above mentions prāṇa in the following śloka:
katama sa devateti. prāṇa iti
hovāca. sarvāṇi hā vai
imāni bhūtāni prāṇam
evābhisamviśanti prāṇam abhyujjīhate.
They asked: “Who is this Deity of whom you speak?” He replied: “It is prāṇa. From prāṇa all the material elements have emanated, and into prāṇa they enter at the end.”
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: Someone may object, “Does the word prāṇa here refer to the breath that travels in and out of the mouth, the subtle life energy, or does it refer to the Personality of Brahman? The ordinary meaning of the word prāṇa is the breath that travels in and out the mouth. That meaning is intended here.”
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes this view by speaking the Vedic siddhānta [conclusion] in the following sūtra.
ata eva prāṇaḥ
ataḥ eva–therefore; prāṇah–the word prāṇa.
The word prāṇa [in the Vedic literatures refers to the Supreme Brahman,] for the same reasons expressed in the previous sūtra.
The word prāṇa in this passage from Chāndogya Upaniṣad refers to the Personality of Brahman, and not to the transformations of air. Why? Because this text describes prāṇa as the original cause from which all creatures and material elements have emanated, and into which they enter at the end. These are the characteristics of the Supreme Brahman, and not the material element air or the various kinds of prāṇa.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The jyotis [light] mentioned in Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.13.7 refers to Brahman. The entire passage is quoted below:
“The Lord called Gāyatrī is verily this all-full, in whatever form He manifests. Gayatri is speech, because the Lord as speech controls and commands all beings. He sings the Vedas and gives salvation to all, therefore He is called Gāyatrī.
“That same Lord who is in the sun and is called Gāyatrī, is also the Lord who is in the earth and is called Pṛthivī [the broad]. All beings are established in this form, and nothing excels this form.
“That same Lord who in the earth and is called Pṛthivī, is also the Lord who is in the soul and is called Śarīra [bodily form], the joy, bliss-wisdom. In this form rest all the senses, and nothing excels this form.
“That same Lord who in the soul and is called Śarīra, is also the Lord who is in the innermost part of the soul and is called the heart. In this form rest all the senses, and nothing excels this form.
“That sixfold Gāyatrī has four feet; this fact is declared by the Ṛg-Veda [10.90.3]:
“Such is His greatness, and He is even greater. All [embodied] souls constitute one quarter of Him, and His immortal three-quarters are in the spiritual worlds.”
“That Gāyatrī form of the Lord is indeed Brahman, the all-pervading Godhead. This indeed is the all-luminous [ākāśa] who is within the jīva and all-pervading.
“That all-luminous who is inside the jīva is verily the all-luminous who is in the heart of the jīva.
“That all-luminous who is in the heart is verily the Fullness, the Self-determined Lord. He who knows this obtains happiness, complete and independent.
“Of this Supreme Brahman called the heart, there are five divine gatekeepers. His eastern gatekeeper is the presiding deity of prāṇa, of the eye and of the sun. Let one meditate on him as the sun, as physical energy and health. He who meditates thus becomes energetic and healthy.
“Now His southern gatekeeper is the presiding deity of vyāna, of the ear, and is the moon. Let one meditate on him as the moon possessed of beauty and fame. He who meditates thus becomes artistic and famous.
“Now His northern gatekeeper is the presiding deity of apāna, of the organ of speech, and is Agni. Let one meditate on him as Agni, possessed of intellectual energy and sanity. He who meditates thus becomes intellectual and sane.
“Now His western gatekeeper is the presiding deity of samāna, and of wind, and he is Indra. Let one meditate on him as Indra, possessed of renown and lordliness. He who meditates thus becomes renowned and lordly.
“Now His central gatekeeper is the presiding deity of udāna, the chief Vāyu, Ākāśa. Let one meditate on him as the chief Vāyu, possessed of spiritual energy and greatness. He who meditates thus becomes spiritually energetic and great.
“These verily are the five servants of Brahman, the gatekeepers of pure wisdom and joy. He who knows these five servants of Brahman as the gatekeepers of the heart and the world of pure wisdom and joy, gets a virtuous son born in his family, and himself enters that world of pure wisdom and joy, because he knows these five servants of Brahman, the gatekeepers of the world of svarga [heaven].
“Now the light [jyotis] that shines above that heaven, in the worlds higher than the world of Brahmā, higher than all, beyond which there are no higher worlds, and are the highest worlds; that verily is the same light [jyotis] that is within the heart of men. And the direct proof is this:
“Namely, the warmth that one perceives through touch here in the body. Of Him is this praise, which one hears as existing in the ears, namely, the sound like the roar of the ocean, or that of thunder, or that of burning fire. Let one meditate on Brahman as thus seen and heard. He who knows this thus becomes clear-seeing and celebrated; yes, he who knows this thus.”
The Supreme Brahman is described in many places in the scriptures as being the source of all light.
jyotiṣām api taj jyotis
tamasaḥ
param ucyate
jñānaṁ jñeyaṁ jñāna-gamyaṁ
hṛdi
sarvasya viṣṭhitam
“He is the source of light in all luminous objects. He is beyond the darkness of matter and is unmanifested. He is knowledge, He is the object of knowledge, and He is the goal of knowledge. He is situated in everyone's heart.” [Bhagavad-gītā 13.18]
anādir ātmā puruṣo
nirguṇaḥ
prakṛteḥ paraḥ
pratyag-dhāmā svayaṁ-jyotir
viśvaṁ
yena samanvitam
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the Supreme Soul, and He has no beginning. He is transcendental to the material modes of nature and beyond the existence of this material world. He is perceivable everywhere because He is self-effulgent, and by His self-effulgent luster the entire creation is maintained.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.26.3]
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Modern science has determined that the primary measurable energy in the universe is light. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity explains that the speed of light is a limit in this universe, and nothing can exceed that limit. Even time will bend to accommodate this limit, and this has been proven by numerous physical experiments. The quantum unit of light, the photon, is the fundamental particle of energy exchange in all subatomic, atomic and chemical reactions. Visible light is only a small part of the entire spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, all of which follows the same physical laws as apply to light. Thus light energy is the primary component of matter.
The Vedas and religious books of other ancient cultures talk about light as related to consciousness. Consciousness is what makes objects perceivable to us. Without consciousness, nothing is knowable and no action is possible. Therefore it is said that consciousness illuminates objects and makes them perceivable. In that sense, consciousness is like light. However, consciousness is intangible; it cannot be measured by any physical means. Only the secondary symptoms of consciousness, such as language, activity, and other external symptoms, can be observed. Consciousness itself remains ineluctably subjective.
Although the Vedas and similar sources indicate that a subjective process can demonstrate the existence of the soul and Brahman, insuperable difficulties stand in the way of verifying this information to the satisfaction of empirical scientific method. The strict standards of psychological experimental protocol demand that to eliminate bias, the operator of an experiment should not know what he is observing or measuring. This creates an insuperable difficulty for investigators, because any experiment based on the principles of consciousness given in the Vedas would have to be performed on the subjective platform; therefore we could never trust the objectivity of the experimental subjects’ reports. Most contemporary people agree that it is better to simply ignore this arcane and recondite tradition in favor of clear, repeatable material scientific knowledge, which after all has given us such great economic and so many other advantages.
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: In the passage from Chāndogya Upaniṣad quoted above, [3.13.7] states:
atha yad ataḥ paro divo jyotir dīpyate viśvataḥ pṛṣṭheṣu sarvataḥ pṛṣṭheṣv anuttameṣūttameṣu lokeṣu idaṁ vāva tad yad idam asminn antaḥ puruṣe jyotiḥ
“Jyotis shines in the spiritual world, above all the material planets. Jyotis forms the context in which all material universes and all material planets, from lowest to highest, rest. This jyotis is present in the heart of every living being.”
Someone may argue, “What is the jyotis [light] described here? Is it the light of the sun and other luminous objects, or is it the Supreme Brahman? Because there is no mention of Brahman in this passage, the word jyotis in this text must refer to the light of the sun and other luminous objects.”
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: Śrīla Vyāsadeva replies by giving the siddhānta in the following sūtra.
jyotiś-caraṇābhidhānāt
jyotih–of the jyotih; caraṇa–of the feet; abhidhānāt–because of the mention.
Because the jyotis in this text is described as having feet, [it must refer to the Supreme Brahman].
The word jyotis here should be understood to mean the Supreme Brahman. Why? Because this jyotis is described as having four feet. The Chāndogya Upaniṣad [3.12.6] states:
etāvan asya mahimato jyāyāṁs’
ca puruṣaḥ
pado ‘sya sarva-bhūtāni tri-pad asyāmṛtaṁ
divi
“The Personality of Brahman is full of glory and opulence. His one foot is all material elements and all living entities, and His other three feet are the eternal spiritual world.”
In the previously quoted text of Chāndogya Upaniṣad [3.13.7], and in this text where Brahman is described as having four feet, the spiritual world is mentioned. Although both texts are separated by a little distance, they are brought together by joint mention of the spiritual world, as well as by use of the relative and co-relative pronouns yat and tat. For these reasons it should be understood that both texts describe the all-powerful Personality of Brahman. For these reasons the jyotis described in this text is the all-powerful Personality of Brahman, and not the light of the sun and other luminous objects.
chando-’bhidhānān neti cen na tathā ceto ‘rpaṇa-nigādāt tathā hi darśanam
chandah–of a meter; abhidhānāt–because of being the description; na–not; tathā–in that way; cetah–the mind; arpaṇa–placing; nigādāt–because of the instruction; tathā hi–furthermore; darśanam–logical.
[If someone were to claim: “The word jyotis here does not refer to Brahman, but to the Gāyatrī] meter,” [then I would reply:] This is not true. [The Gāyatrī meter] is taught to assist meditation on Brahman. [For this reason it is] logical and appropriate [to interpret the word jyotis to mean Brahman.]
In Sanskrit, there are definite rules that regulate poetry; rhyme and meter are not written whimsically, as in much modern poetry. Amongst the regulated Sanskrit poetic meters, the Gāyatrī mantra chanted by qualified brāhmaṇas is the most prominent. The Gāyatrī mantra is mentioned in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam; in fact, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam begins with a Gāyatrī mantra. The Gāyatrī mantra is very important in Vedic civilization and is considered to be the sound incarnation of Brahman. Brahmā is its initiator, and it is passed down from him in disciplic succession. To be successful in chanting the Gāyatrī mantra, one must first acquire the qualities of goodness according to the laws of material nature. Then one must be duly initiated into the disciplic succession from Brahmā by a bona fide spiritual master. This mantra is meant for spiritually advanced people, and when one attains success in chanting it, he attains the transcendental position. Because the Gāyatrī mantra is especially meant for God-realization, it represents the Supreme Lord.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: “Is it not true that the Vedic literatures state:
gāyatrī vā idaṁ sarvaṁ bhūtaṁ yad idaṁ kiñcit
“Gāyatrī is everything that exists.”
tam eva bhūta-vāk-pṛthivī-śarīra-hṛdaya-prabhedaiḥ
“Gāyatrī is everything. Gāyatrī is speech, earth, body, and mind.”
caiṣa catuṣ-padā ṣaḍ-vidhā gāyatrī tad etad ṛcābhyuktam
“The Gāyatrī meter, of which there are four feet and six varieties, is extensively employed in the mantras of the Vedas.”
etāvan asya mahimā
“Gāyatrī is glorious.”
For these reasons it should be understood that the word jyotis in the Vedic literatures refers to the Gāyatrī mantra. Why, without any good reason, do you insist that the word jyotis refers to Brahman?”
To this objection I reply: Gāyatrī is a meter, and therefore it is not sensible to claim that it is everything, and everything has emanated from it. For this reason it is only reasonable to conclude that the word jyotis in this context refers to Brahman and not Gāyatrī. Why? Because in this sūtra Śrīla Vyāsadeva states: tathā hi darśanam [that the word jyotis refers to Brahman is only logical and consistent. Any other interpretation is illogical].
The esoteric truth is that the Supreme Brahman has incarnated in this world in the form of the Gāyatrī mantra to enable the living entities to meditate on Him. This fact is confirmed by the statements of Vedic literature.
gāyatrī chandasām aham
“Of poetry I am the Gāyatrī verse, sung daily by brāhmaṇas.” [Bhagavad-gītā 10.35]
If we accept that Gāyatrī is an incarnation of Brahman, then the scriptural statement “Gāyatrī is everything” is perfectly sensible. Otherwise, the interpretation we concoct is illogical and forced. In this way we have demonstrated that the Gāyatrī mantra is an incarnation of Brahman.
bhūtādi-pada-vyapadeśopapatteś caivam
bhūta–the living entities; ādi–beginning with; pada–feet; vyapadeśa–of the statement; upapatteḥ–for the reason; ca–also; evam–in this way.
Because the Vedic literatures state that the living entities, [their speech, bodies, and minds are the four] feet [of Gāyatrī], it should be understood [that Gāyatrī is an incarnation of Brahman].
Gāyatrī should be considered the same as Brahman. Why? Because Gāyatrī is described in the words:
tam eva bhūta-vāk-pṛthivī-śarīra-hṛdaya-bhedaiḥ
“Gāyatrī is everything. The four feet of Gāyatrī are speech, earth, body, and mind.”
Without Gāyatrī being an incarnation of Brahman, it is not possible for these four things to be Gāyatrī’s feet. For this reason, as previously explained, it is only natural to interpret the word Gāyatrī to mean Brahman. Furthermore, the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [2.2.9-11] states:
hiraṇmaye pare kośe virajaṁ
brahma niṣkalam
tac chubhraṁ jyotiṣāṁ jyotis tad yad
ātma-vido viduḥ
na tatra sūryo bhāti na
candra-tārakaṁ
nemā vidyuto bhānti kuto ’yam agniḥ
tam eva bhāntam anubhāti
sarvaṁ
tasya bhāsā sarvam idaṁ vibhāti
brahmaivedam amṛtaṁ purastād
brahma
paścād brahma dakṣiṇataś cottareṇa
adhaś cordhvaṁ ca prasṛtaṁ
brahmai-
vedaṁ viśvam idaṁ variṣṭham
“In the spiritual realm, beyond the material covering, is the unlimited Brahman effulgence, which is free from material contamination. That effulgent white light is understood by transcendentalists to be the light of all lights. In that realm there is no need of sunshine, moonshine, fire or electricity for illumination. Indeed, whatever illumination appears in the material world is only a reflection of that supreme illumination. That Brahman is in front and in back, in the north, south, east and west, and also overhead and below. In other words, that supreme Brahman effulgence spreads throughout both the material and spiritual skies.”
Here the word jyotis is clearly mentioned to be identical with Brahman.
In the two quotations from Vedic literature that have formed the basis of our discussion, the word dyu [the spiritual world] has occurred. This appearance of the word dyu in both passages further confirms that the ambiguous words in these two passages refer to Brahman, and not to something else.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: “The word dyu appearing in these two passages refers to different things.”
To answer this objection, Śrīla Vyāsadeva speaks the following sūtra.
upadeśa-bhedān neti cen nobhayasminn apy avirodhāt
upadeśa–of instruction; bhedāt–because of the difference; na–not; iti–thus; cet–if; na–not; ubhayasmin–in both places; api–also; avirodhāt–because of non-contradiction.
[The objection that because the two scriptural passages employ the word dyu] in two different cases [locative and ablative], therefore they describe two different objects, [which cannot both be Brahman,] is not a valid objection. [The use of the two different cases does not mean that] the two passages must describe two different things.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: “Two contradictory descriptions of Brahman are found in the scriptures. In one place the scriptures state:
tri-padasyāmṛtaṁ divi
“The eternal Personality of Brahman resides in the spiritual world, which constitutes three-quarters of all existence.”
In another place the scriptures state:
paro divaḥ
“The Personality of Brahman resides on top of the spiritual world.”
In the first quotation the spiritual world was placed in the locative case. Since this is so, both passages contradict each other, They describe two different objects, one within the spiritual world, and the other above it.”
To this objection I reply: Why do you say this? Both passages refer to the same object. The use of the locative and ablative cases in these quotations does not present a contradiction. For example, in the material world a parrot may be said to be in a tree or on it. There is no real difference in the two statements. In the same way the Personality of Brahman may be said to be in the spiritual world or on it. There is no real difference.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: In the Kauṣītakī Brāhmaṇa, Chapter 3, the following passage appears:
Pratardana, the son of Divodāsa, was able to enter the favorite residence of Mahārāja Indra by virtue of his chivalry and heroism. Indra said to him, “Pratardana, choose any benediction you like.” Pratardana answered, “Please choose the benediction for me that you think is most beneficial for a man.” Indra said to him, “No one who chooses, chooses for another; choose for yourself.” Pratardana replied, “I do not want any boon that I would choose myself.”
Then Indra did not swerve from truth, for Indra is truth itself. He said to Pratardana, “Then know me only; that is what I deem most beneficial for man, that he should know me. I slew the three-headed son of Tvaṣṭri; I delivered the Arunmukhas, the devotees, to the wolves [śālāvṛkas]; breaking many treaties, I killed the people of Prahlāda in heaven, the people of Pulomā in the sky, the people of Kalakanga on earth. And not one hair of myself was harmed thereby; and he who knows me thus, by no deed of his is his life harmed, not by the murder of his mother, not by the murder of his father, not by theft, nor by the killing of a brāhmaṇa. If he is going to commit a sin, the bloom does not depart from his face.”
Indra said, “I am prāṇa. An intelligent person will meditate on me as the conscious self, as life, as immortality. life is prāṇa; prāṇa is life. As long as prāṇa dwells in this body, surely there is life. By prāṇa he obtains immortality in the next world, by knowledge he obtains the true conception of spiritual life. He who meditates on me as life and immortality gains full life in this world, and immortality and indestructibility in the next world.”
Pratardana said, “Some philosophers maintain that the prāṇas become one, for otherwise no one could make known a name by speech, see a form by the eye, hear a sound with the ear and think a thought with the mind at the same time. After becoming one, the prāṇas perceive all these together, one by one. While speech speaks, all the prāṇas speak after it; while the eye sees, all the prāṇas see after it; while the ear hears, all the prāṇas hear after it; while the mind thinks, all the prāṇas think after it. While the prāṇa breathes, all the prāṇas breathe after it.”
“Thus it is indeed,” replied Indra, “nevertheless there is a pre-eminence among the prāṇas. Man lives deprived of speech, therefore we see dumb people. Man lives deprived of sight, for we see blind people. Man lives deprived of hearing, for we see deaf people. Man lives deprived of mind, for we see infants. Man lives deprived of his arms, deprived of his legs, for we see thus. But prāṇa alone is the conscious self, and having laid hold of this body, prāṇa makes it rise up. Therefore it is said, ‘Let man worship prāṇa alone with uktha [mantras of the karma-kaṇḍa fire sacrifices]’. What is prāṇa, that is prajña [self-consciousness]; what is prajña, that is prāṇa, for they live in this body and go out of it together. This is the evidence or understanding of that: When a man is in dreamless sleep, he becomes one with that prāṇa alone. Then when he is absorbed in prāṇa, speech goes to him with all names, the eye with all forms, the ear with all sounds, the mind with all thoughts. And when he awakes, then just as burning sparks proceed from a fire in all directions, then from that self, the prāṇas of speech, etc. proceed to their places; similarly the demigods like Agni, etc. proceed from the prāṇas, and from the demigods proceeds the world.
“This is the evidence or understanding of that: When a man is sick, going to die, falling into weakness and faint, they say, ‘His thought has departed, he hears not, he sees not, he speaks not, he thinks not.’ Then he goes with prāṇa alone. Then speech goes to him with all names, the eye with all forms, the ear with all sounds, the mind with all thoughts. Then when he departs from that body, he departs together with all these.
Speech gives up all names to him who is absorbed in prāṇa, so that by speech he obtains all names. The nose gives him all odors, so that by smell he obtains all odors. The eye gives up to him all forms, so that by the eye he obtains all forms. The ear gives up to him all sounds, so that by the ear he obtains all sounds. The mind gives up to him all thoughts, so that by the mind he obtains all thoughts. This is complete absorption in prāṇa. And what is prāṇa, that is prajña [self-consciousness]; what is prajña, that is prāṇa. For together they live in this body, and together they depart.
Now we shall explain how all things become one in that prajña. Speech is one portion taken out of that prajña, the word is its object, placed outside. The nose is one portion taken out of that prajña, odor is its object, placed outside. The eye is one portion taken out of that prajña, form is its object, placed outside. The ear is one portion taken out of that prajña, sound is its object, placed outside. The tongue is one portion taken out of that prajña, the taste of food is its object, placed outside. The two hands are one portion taken out of that prajña, its pleasure and pain are its object, placed outside. The sex organ is one portion taken out of that prajña, the happiness, joy and offspring are its object, placed outside. The two feet are one portion taken out of that prajña, movement are its object, placed outside. The mind is one portion taken out of that prajña, thoughts and desires are its object, placed outside.
Having by prajña taken possession of speech, by speech he obtains all words. Having by prajña taken possession of the nose, by the nose he obtains all odors. Having by prajña taken possession of eye, by the eye he obtains all forms. Having by prajña taken possession of the ear, by the ear he obtains all sounds. Having by prajña taken possession of the tongue, by the tongue he obtains all tastes of food. Having by prajña taken possession of the two hands, by the two hands he obtains all actions. Having by prajña taken possession of the body, by the body he obtains all pleasures and pains. Having by prajña taken possession of the sex organ, by the sex organ he obtains all happiness, joy and offspring. Having by prajña taken possession of the two feet, by the two feet he obtains all movements. Having by prajña taken possession of the mind, by the mind he obtains all thoughts and desires.
For without prajña [self-consciousness], speech does not make known to the self any words. ‘My mind was absent,’ he says, ‘I did not apprehend that word.’ Without prajña the nose does not make known any odor. ‘My mind was absent,’ he says, ‘I did not apprehend that odor.’ Without prajña the eye does not make known any form. ‘My mind was absent,’ he says, ‘I did not apprehend that form.’ Without prajña the ear does not make known any sound. ‘My mind was absent,’ he says, ‘I did not apprehend that sound.’ Without prajña the tongue does not make known any taste. ‘My mind was absent,’ he says, ‘I did not apprehend that taste.’ Without prajña the two hands do not make known any action. ‘My mind was absent,’ he says, ‘I did not apprehend that act.’ Without prajña the body does not make known any pleasure or pain. ‘My mind was absent,’ he says, ‘I did not apprehend that pleasure or pain.’ Without prajña the sex organ does not make known any happiness, joy or offspring. ‘My mind was absent,’ he says, ‘I did not apprehend that happiness, joy or offspring.’ Without prajña the two feet do not make known any movement. ‘My mind was absent,’ he says, ‘I did not apprehend that movement.’ Without prajña no thought succeeds, nothing can be known that is to be known.
Let no man try to find what speech is; let him know the speaker. Let no man try to find what odor is; let him know him who smells. Let no man try to find what form is; let him know the seer. Let no man try to find what sound is; let him know the hearer. Let no man try to find what the tastes of food are; let him know the knower of tastes. Let no man try to find what action is; let him know the agent. Let no man try to find what pleasure and pain are; let him know the knower of what pleasure and pain are. Let no man try to find what happiness, joy and offspring are; let him know the knower of happiness, joy and offspring. Let no man try to find what movement is; let him know the mover. Let no man try to find what mind is; let him know the thinker.
These ten objects [what is spoken, smelled, seen, heard, tasted, done, felt, enjoyed, moved and thought] have reference to the prajña [self-consciousness]. These ten subjects [speech, odor, form, sound, taste, action, pleasure and pain; happiness, joy and offspring; movement and thoughts] have reference to objects. If there were no objects, there would be no subjects; if there were no subjects, there would be no objects, for nothing could be achieved by one without the other. But it should be known that the self-consciousness [prajña], prāṇa, life, is not many, but one. For as in a chariot, the circumference of a wheel is placed on the spokes, and spokes on the nave; thus are these objects placed on the subjects, and the subjects on the prāṇa. And that prāṇa is indeed the Self of the prajña, the self-conscious self; blessed, imperishable, immortal. He does not increase by a good action; He does not decrease by a bad action. For He makes him whom He wishes to elevate from these worlds do good actions, and He makes him whom He wishes to denigrate do bad actions. He is the guardian of the world; He is the king of the world; He is the Lord of the universe. And He is my [Indra’s] Self, thus let it be known, yea, thus let it be known!
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]:
The great Vedic king named Pratardana, also known as Dyumān, lived in very ancient times. He was the son of Divodāsa and the great-great-grandson of Dhanvantari, the powerful incarnation of Godhead who gave the medical science to humankind. The passage from the Kauṣītakī Brāhmaṇa quoted above narrates how, when Indra granted Pratardana a benediction, Pratardana requested Indra choose the benediction he was to give. Indra instructed Pratardana in the following words:
prāṇo ‘smi prajñātmā taṁ mām āyur-amṛtam upasasva
“I am prāṇa. An intelligent person will worship me as the great immortal person.”
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: Our opponent may object, “Who is this person named prāṇa? Is he an individual conscious living entity, or is He the Personality of Brahman who resides in everyone’s heart as the Superconscious living entity? The words indra and prāṇa here refer to a specific individual conscious living entity. When Pratardana inquired, Indra replied by saying the worship of Indra was the most beneficial activity for the living entities.
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: Śrīla Vyāsadeva responds to this argument in the following sūtra.
prāṇas tathānugamāt
prāṇaḥ–the word prāṇa; tathā–in the same way; anugamāt–because of the context.
The word prāṇa [should be understood to refer to Brahman] because of the context of its use.
The prāṇa here must refer to the Personality of Brahman, who is present in everyone’s heart as the Superconscious living entity. Prāṇa here cannot refer to the individual conscious living entity. Why? Śrīla Vyāsadeva explains: tathānugamāt [because of the context]. The prāṇa described here is intelligence, the Self, and transcendental bliss. He is free from old age and death. These attributes clearly indicate that the word prāṇa here refers to the Personality of Brahman.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: “To interpret the word prāṇa here to mean Brahman is very inappropriate. Mahārāja Indra is speaking, and he says prāṇo ‘smi: “I am prāṇa.” The speaker is Mahārāja Indra, and he clearly refers to himself. He then proceeds to further identify himself, saying tri-śirṣāṇaṁ tvaṣṭram ahanam aruṇmukhān ṛṣīn śalavṛkebhyaḥ prayacchan: “I killed Vṛtrāsura, the three-headed son of Tvaṣṭā, and I gave the Aruṇmukha sages to the Śalavṛkas.” These are all historical incidents, deeds performed by Indra. All this shows that the Indra described here is an individual conscious living entity who advises the living entities to worship him. Even though at the end of this passage prāṇa is described as ānanda [transcendental bliss], this also is consistent, because the transcendental glories of the individual conscious living entities are also described in the Vedic literatures. In fact, when Indra says he is prāṇa and everyone should worship him, he refers to himself, the individual conscious living entity Indra. Indra’s statement may be compared to the advice of the Vedic literature vācaṁ dhenum upāsīta: “One should worship the goddess of speech just as one worships the cow.” Because Mahārāja Indra is the strongest of living entities, and because strength is identified with the living force [prāṇa], he identifies himself with that prāṇa. This is perfectly in accord with the statement of Vedic literature prāṇo vai balam: “The living force is strength.” In this way it should be understood that the words prāṇa and indra here refer to a specific individual conscious living entity.”
Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes this argument in the next sūtra.
na vaktur ātmopadeśād iti ced adhyātma-sambandha-bhūma hy asmin
na–not; vaktuḥ–of the speaker; ātma–of the self; upadeśāt–because of the instruction; iti–thus; cet–if; adhyātma–to the Personality of Brahman; sambandha–references; bhūma–abundance; hi–indeed; asmin–in this Upaniṣad.
If it is said that the speaker here refers to himself, I say that is not true. In this passage there are many references to the Personality of Brahman.
In this sūtra the word adhyātma-sambandha means “with reference to the Personality of Brahman”, and the word bhūma means “abundance”. In this chapter of Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad the word prāṇa repeatedly appears in various contexts where it must unavoidably be interpreted to mean “the Personality of Brahman.”
For example:
1. When Pratardana asked for the most beneficial gift, or in other words liberation, Indra replied replied by saying “Worship me as prāṇa.” In this context prāṇa must mean the Personality of Brahman, for only He can grant liberation.
2. The Upaniṣad explains:
eṣa eva sādhu karma kārayati
“Prāṇa bestows upon the living entity the power to act wonderfully.”
This must refer to the Personality of Brahman, the supreme controller, and not to the tiny demigod Indra.
3. The Upaniṣad also explains:
tad yathā rathasyāreṣu nemir
arpitā nābhavara arpita evam evaita bhūta-mātraḥ.
prajñā-mātrāsv arpitaḥ. prajñā-mātrāḥ
prāṇe ‘rpitaḥ.
“Just as in a chariot wheel the rim rests on the spokes, and the spokes on the hub, in the same way the material elements rest on prajñā [intelligence], and prajñā rests on prāṇa.”
This quote states that everything sentient and insentient is maintained by prāṇa.
4. The Upaniṣad also explains:
sa eṣa prāṇa eva prajñātmānando ‘jaro ‘mṛtaḥ. eṣa lokādhipatir eṣa sarveśvaraḥ
“Prāṇa is the Superconscious living entity present in all living entities. Prāṇa is the transcendental bliss. Prāṇa remains eternally untouched by old-age and death. Prāṇa is the master of all living entities and all planets. Prāṇa is the Supreme Controller.”
Because prāṇa is transcendental bliss and has the various qualities described here, the word prāṇa in this context can refer only to the Supreme Brahman, the Personality of Brahman, the Supreme Controller who is present in the hearts of all living entities as the Superconscious living entity. The word prāṇa here cannot possibly refer to anyone else.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: “Is it not so that Indra directly describes himself as prāṇa? Why does he do this if your interpretation that prāṇa means “Supreme Brahman” is correct?”
Śrīla Vyāsadeva answers this objection in the following sūtra.
śāstra-dṛṣṭyā tūpadeśo vāmadevavat
śāstra–of scripture; dṛṣṭyā–from the viewpoint; tu–but; upadeśaḥ–instruction; vāmadeva–Vāmadeva; vat–like.
[Indra speaks in this way, identifying himself with Brahman] in accordance with the teaching of Vedic literature. He does this just as the sage Vāmadeva also did.
The word tu [but] is used here to remove doubt. Even though Indra was perfectly aware that he was an individual conscious living entity and not the Supreme Brahman, he still said, “Worship me, knowing me to be Brahman,” and this statement is actually perfectly correct according to the philosophy of Vedic literature. It is not untrue. For example, the Chāndogya Upaniṣad states:
na vai vāco na cakṣūmsi na śrotrāṇi na manāṁsīty ācakṣate prāṇa ity evācakṣate prāṇo hy evaitāni sarvāṇi bhavanti
“The senses are not properly called ‘voices’, ‘eyes’, ‘ears’, and ‘minds’. The proper name for them all is prāṇa. Everything that is exists is prāṇa.”
Because prāṇa maintains their activities, the senses are identified as prāṇa. The learned, self-realized speaker, Indra, wishing to teach his humble, well-behaved student, instructed him: “I am that prāṇa.” This means that Indra is dependent on prāṇa or Brahman, not that he is identical with Brahman in all respects.
The example of Vāmadeva is found in the following passage of Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [1.4.10]:
tad vaitat paśyan nṛṣir vāmadevaḥ pratipade ahaṁ manur abhavaṁ sūryaś ca
“Seeing this, the sage Vāmadeva repeated at every moment: ‘I was Manu. I was the sun-god.’”
Here Vāmadeva identifies himself with Manu and the sun-god because the Supreme Brahman is the controller who grants powers to Vāmadeva, Manu, and the sun-god. Because they all obtain their powers from the Supreme Brahman, in one sense they are all one. The Supreme Brahman is all-pervading. He is, in one sense, one with everything that is pervaded by Him. This confirmed by the following statements of smṛti-śāstra:
yo ‘yaṁ tavāgato deva-samīpaṁ devatā-gaṇaḥ sa tvam eva jagat-sraṣṭā yataḥ sarva-gato bhavān
“Whoever comes before You, be he a demigod, is created by You, O Personality of Brahman.” [Viṣṇu Purāṇa 1.9.69]
sarvaṁ samāpnoṣi tato ‘si sarvam
“You are all-pervading, and thus You are everything.” [Bhagavad-gītā 11.40]
In ordinary usage also, when there is a great assembly in a certain place, people call that oneness because there is unity of place, and also when there is agreement of opinion that is also called oneness. For example, it is said: “In the evening the scattered cows assemble in one place and thus attain oneness,” and “The disputing monarchs finally agreed and became one in their opinion.”
At this point someone may raise the following objection: “Is it not so that although there are many passages indicating that the word prāṇa in this passage refers to Brahman, still there are many other passages that demonstrate that it is not possible for the word prāṇa to refer Brahman? Some examples are:
na vācaṁ vijijñāsitā vaktāraṁ vidyāt
“Do not try to understand the meaning of a statement without first understanding who has spoken it.” [Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad 3.8]
tri-śirṣāṇaṁ tvaṣṭram ahanam
“I am the Indra who killed Vṛtrāsura, the three-headed son of Tvaṣṭā.”
These two quotations clearly identify that the speaker of the passage in question was the demigod Indra, who is an individual conscious living entity. That the word prāṇa refers to the life-force, or breath within the body, is confirmed by the following scriptural statements:
yāvad asmin śarīre prāṇo vasati tāvad āyur atha khalu prāṇa eva prajñātma idaṁ śarīraṁ parigṛhyotthāpayati
“As long as prāṇa remains within it, the body is alive. Prāṇa is the conscious living entity. Prāṇa grasps this material body, and makes it rise up and move about.” [Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad 2.2-3]
yo vai prāṇaḥ sa prajñā yā prajñā sa prāṇaḥ. sa hā hy etāv asmin śarīre vasataḥ. sahotkramate.
“Prāṇa is the same as prajñā [consciousness]. Prajñā is the same as prāṇa. Together they reside in the material body. At the last moment they both leave the body together.” [Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad]
These quotations clearly show that it is not impossible to interpret the word prāṇa in this context to mean “the individual conscious living entity” or “living force”. The scriptures teach us that both are actually identical, the living force being the active expression of the inactive conscious living entity. In this way it is valid to interpret the word prāṇa in three ways: 1. the individual conscious living entity; 2. the living force; and 3. the Supreme Brahman. The word prāṇa here refers to all three. All three are worshipable for the living entities.”
Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes this argument in the following sūtra.
jīva-mukhya-prāṇa-liṅgān neti cen nopāsya-traividhyād āśritatvād iha tad-yogāt
jīva–of the individual conscious living entity; mukhya–the primary; prāṇa–living force; liṅgāt–the signs; na–not; iti–thus; cet–if; na–not; upāsya–worshipable; taividhyāt–because of being there; āśritatvāt–because of taking shelter; iha–here; tat-yogāt–because of appropriateness.
If someone says the word prāṇa also refers to the individual conscious living entity and the primary living force in addition to referring to Brahman, then I reply that such an interpretation is not correct. If the word prāṇa referred to all three, then all three would be worshipable. This view is not correct, because neither logic nor the authority of scripture support it.
Someone may say that the natural features of the individual conscious living entity and the living force are such that they are proper objects of worship. To this I reply: This is not true. Why? For then there would be three objects of worship. When Indra says, “Worship me as prāṇa,” he uses only one sentence. The rules of rhetoric demand that a sentence have only one correct interpretation, and therefore if we say that the word prāṇa here refers to three different objects, we shall break that rule. This is the true meaning: There are three possible ways to interpret the meaning of prāṇa in this context:
Take all these passages, including what directly mentions Brahman, as referring to the individual conscious living entity and living force;
Take these passages as referring some to the individual conscious living entity and living force, and some to Brahman; and
Take these passages as all referring to Brahman. The first possibility has already been clearly refuted, The second possibility is not very acceptable, for it recommends that there are three distinct objects of worship.
Śrīla Vyāsadeva says the third possibility is actually logical because āśritatvāt [this view is supported by the statements of Vedic literature]. We may see that many passages in Vedic literature that seem to refer to the individual conscious living entity or the living force, in fact refer to Brahman. For example, in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad [5.1.15] it is said,
na vai vāco na cakṣūṁṣi na śrotrāṇi na manāṁsīty ācakṣate prāṇa iti evācakṣate prāṇo hy evaitāni sarvāṇi bhavanti
“In the body of a living being neither the power to speak, nor the power to see, nor the power to hear, nor the power to think is the prime factor; it is life which is the center of all activities.”
If at this point someone were to object: “Is it not true that in this passage the natural sense of the words supports the interpretations of the individual conscious living entity and the living force?” I would reply by saying: In this passage the worship of prāṇa is described as the most beneficial activity for the living entities. For this reason the interpretation of the Supreme Brahman is logical. For this reason Śrīla Vyāsadeva states in the sūtra, tad-yogāt [because this is logical].
Someone may then object: “Is it not true that the scriptures explain that the prāṇa and prajñā both reside within the body of the individual conscious living entity, and also leave that body together at the time of death? How is this possible if you say that prāṇa means Brahman?”
To this objection I reply: Brahman is present in the body of the individual conscious living entity in two ways: as kriyā-śakti [the potency of action], which is also known as prāṇa, and as jñāna-śakti [the potency of knowledge], which is also known as prajñā. Both are manifested from Brahman. These two potencies remain within the body of the individual conscious living entity, and also leave it together at the time of death.
Another objection may be raised in the following words: “Is it not true that prāṇa and the other words you claim are names of the Supreme Brahman are all actually adjectives, and therefore cannot function as names?”
To this objection I reply: This not true. These words are simultaneously adjectives and nouns. When Indra says prāṇo ‘smi prajñātmā [I am prāṇa, prajñā, and ātmā], he uses these words as nouns. For these reasons prāṇa, prajñā, and other words used by Indra should be understood to refer to Brahman.
At this point a further objection may be raised: “Is it not true that in the beginning you adequately demonstrated that the word prāṇa refers to Brahman? Most of your arguments are redundant.”
To this objection I reply: This is not true. In the beginning I dispelled the doubts that may have arisen in regard to the single word prāṇa taken by itself. After that I discussed the word prāṇa in relation to a specific quotation, where it was related with other words, such as ānanda, and in this discussion I demonstrated that the word prāṇa was used there in such a way that it could only be understood to mean Brahman, and not the individual conscious living entity, or anything else. For this reason I have discussed this specific passage of Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad separately.
Thus ends the First Pāda of the First Adhyāya of Vedānta-sūtra. All glories to Śrīla Prabhupāda!