Vedānta-sūtra

Adhyāya 1, Pāda 4

Some scriptural texts that may seem to describe the jīvas or some other topic actually describe the Supreme Brahman

tamaḥ saṅkhya-ghanodīrṇa-vidīrṇaṁ yasya go-gaṇaiḥ
taṁ samvid-bhūṣaṇaṁ kṛṣṇa-pūṣaṇaṁ samupāsmahe

“Let us offer our respectful obeisances to the Kṛṣṇa-sun, which is decorated with transcendental knowledge, and which with its effulgence dispels the deep darkness of Saṅkhya.”

Adhikaraṇa 1: The Avyakta in Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.11 Refers to the Subtle Body and Not to Pradhāna

Viṣaya: The Fourth Pāda of the First Adhyāya of Śrī Vedānta-sūtra begins with a refutation of the theory of creation held by atheistic Sāṅkhya philosophy. They say that there is no need for God, and that the material nature and the actions of the jīvas are sufficient to explain the material creation. Atheistic theories of creation are nothing new; even 5,000 years ago when the Vedānta-sūtras were compiled, there was a need to refute such atheistic theories. A more detailed and thorough refutation of the atheistic Sāṅkhya philosophy will appear in Adhyāya 2, Pāda 1 of Śrī Vedānta-sūtra.

Vedānta-sūtra’s refutation of Sāṅkhya, Buddhism and other atheistic cosmogonies is well-known. The important point for the contemporary reader is that the same refutation applies equally well to modern so-called scientific theories of creation. Matter is inert. If we place a rock in the desert, we can come back after a day, a year, ten years or a millennium, and barring some event like an earthquake, the rock will remain exactly as we left it. Matter does not move itself; it requires some application of energy to animate it. Nor does matter possess any sort of intelligence; it blindly follows the applicable laws of physics. All theories excluding God or the transcendental world from consideration fail on this account: they cannot explain the initial injection of energy and intelligence into the system of the material world.

For example, all the variations of the currently popular ‘Big Bang’ theory assume that the material world possessed or generated its own energy. But even if the universe has its own energy, that energy originally had to come from some source. It must have a point of emanation, just like the sunlight radiates from the sun and electricity comes from the powerhouse. The materialistic scientists cannot explain how this took place. They cannot answer the simple question of how the matter of the universe went from the inert, unmanifested stage to the dynamic, energetic state we see it in today.

There is also the problem of the origin of the physical laws of the universe. Scientists have observed that the fundamental forces and physical constants of the universe have to be finely tuned to permit organic life to exist. The stability of many essential structures, from atomic nuclei to the whole universe, depends upon delicate balances among various fundamental forces and physical constants. For example, for life as we know it to exist, there must be atoms; and if any one of several fundamental physical constants were different by a small amounts, atoms could not exist.

As far as anyone can tell, the physical laws and constants are permanent features of the universe and are consistent everywhere. But how did these physical laws originate, how are they enforced, and how did they acquire values that guarantee favorable conditions for life? No one is prepared to argue that the laws of physics evolved over time, for that would destroy the basis of all science: namely, that there are unchangeable physical laws and universal principles underlying all existence. If there is no chance to change or correct the laws of the universe, they had to be tuned properly from the very beginning of creation to permit the existence of life as we know it. Therefore for life to exist, the universal physical laws and constants could only have been designed by a sentient Creator with perfect intelligence and foreknowledge. This is the basic argument behind the theory of Intelligent Design.

Of course, the simple and correct answer to these difficulties is that both the original energy of the creation and the physical laws of the universe came from God. But the modern scientists are unreasonably biased against this simple, clear explanation. For example, the author of this frank statement is Professor Richard Lewontin of Harvard:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, ... in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. ... we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” [Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.]

The scientists abuse the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors to propagate a false explanation of the creation, merely to forward the materialistic agenda of a world without a controller, without spirit:

“And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. ... our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports [sic] the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.” [Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.]

These frank and cynical statements of prominent so-called scientists reveal that their atheistic mindset is not the result of careful, unbiased empirical investigation of nature, as they try to reassure us. Their thinking is not scientific at all. Is is, instead, part of a broad, calculated strategy to disempower people in general by feeding them a view of the world that makes them appear weaker and less important than they really are. The materialists want people to believe that they are nothing but soulless bags of flesh in a world with no God, no right or wrong, and no continued existence or consequences for our present behavior after death. That explanation is just a cynical lie to make the innocent people easier to control and exploit by ruthless, amoral nation-states and corporations. They take advantage of the moral paralysis engendered by this destructive and toxic worldview to profit at the expense of the rest of the world. Hence the research funding controlled by the same governments and corporations goes to researchers and educators who support their atheistic agenda, and is withheld from programs with a theistic worldview.

An intelligent person demands conclusive proof for any theory. The conventional atheistic explanation of the creation has numerous deficiencies, but as evinced by the above quotes, the scientists collude to cover them up. Most people are intellectually lazy, and never bother to think through the explanations they are given for the creation of the world. The theories of theistic creation offered by most religious organizations are not very convincing because they lack a detailed description of the creation; nor do they know how to refute the materialistic explanation. But as soon as we understand the clear arguments of Vedānta-sūtra and the detailed descriptions of the creation contained in its natural commentary Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, all doubts are destroyed. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam gives wonderful theistic explanations of all the difficulties of creation theory, especially the main problems of the original energy and the origin of the physical laws outlined above. By studying Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, any actually intelligent person will certainly conclude that the Supreme Lord is the Designer and Creator of the universe.

Vedānta-sūtra philosophy calls this Creator of the universe the Supreme Brahman. It is He who created the laws of physics, generated the material of the universe, and injected the original impulse of creative energy to set it into motion. Then He entered into the creation as the Supersoul to direct the further development and activities of the living entities. No atheistic theory can explain these functions of the divine Creator; therefore the efforts of the materialistic theorists center on trying to avoid answering these questions: Where did the original material of the creation come from? What is the source of the original energy of the universe? How did the physical laws of the universe originate? Why are these laws favorable for the existence of life as we know it? What intelligence is responsible for the continued development and maintenance of the material universe?

Anyone who has been involved with a large, complex project such as building a house knows that the materials do not simply take their positions automatically; the energy and cooperation of many intelligent workers is required. For the project to be a success there must an architect, a designer who plans everything; sufficient amounts and proper types of materials must be available; sufficient skilled labor to assemble the materials must be present; a competent manager must supervise the work; finally, continued upkeep and regular maintenance are required to prevent the finished product from decaying due to the influence of time, and keep it useful for its intended purpose. If these requirements apply to a house, a car or any other complex construction, how much more do they apply to the entire universe? Therefore an intelligent, energetic Creator must exist, and all attempts to explain the universe and life without such a Creator must fail.

Just as the universe and life as we know it cannot exist without an intelligent Creator, they cannot exist without the prior existence of the spiritual world. The space and time of the material universe do not exist before the creation; therefore before the material creation is brought into manifestation, there must be a continuum in which its dormant material and energetic ingredients, including the living entities, can exist in an unmanifest state. Since material time has a beginning and an end, the spiritual world must be eternal, or beyond material time. The spiritual world is also the abode of the Creator and contains His potencies, associates and eternal activities. The purpose of Vedānta-sūtra and indeed, all Vedic philosophy and practices, is to enable the conditioned living entities in the material world to transfer their existence to the spiritual world, where there is unending, perfect felicity in association with the Creator, the Supreme Brahman.

Previously the sūtras affirmed that the Supreme Brahman is He, the knowledge and realization of whom bring liberation, He who is the seed and material cause of the creation, maintenance, and destruction of the material universes, who is different from both the jīvas and dead matter, who possesses innumerable inconceivable potencies, who is all-knowing, who possesses all auspicious qualities, who is free from all inauspiciousness, who possesses unlimited opulences, and who is supremely pure. He is the ultimate answer to all questions regarding the mystery of the creation of the universe, and the miracles of life and consciousness.

Earlier in Pāda 3 we discussed pradhāna, the unmanifested stage of material nature. Now we will consider the theory that the pradhāna and the pum [individual living entities] together comprise all that exists, and there is no God separate from them. This theory is propounded in the Kapila-tantra and perhaps also seen in some branches of the Vedas. The followers of Sāṅkhya philosophy quote the following passage from Kaṭha Upaniṣad [1.3.10-11]:

indriyebhyaḥ parā hy arthā
arthebhyaś ca paraṁ manaḥ
manasas tu parā buddhir
buddher ātmā mahān paraḥ

mahataḥ param avyaktam
avyaktāt puruṣaḥ paraḥ
puruṣān na paraṁ kiñcit
sā kāṣṭhā sā parā gatiḥ

“The sense-objects are higher than the senses. The mind is higher than the sense-objects. Intelligence is higher than the mind. The mahat is higher than the intelligence. The avyakta [the unmanifested] is higher than the mahat. The puruṣa [person] is higher than the unmanifested. Nothing is higher than the puruṣa. The puruṣa is the highest destination.”

Saṁśaya: The doubt here is whether the word avyakta [the unmanifested] refers to the pradhāna [the primordial stage of material nature] or the śarīra [the body].

Pūrvapakṣa: The opponent may answer this doubt by saying that because both śruti and smṛti give the sequence as first mahat, then avyakta, and then puruṣa, therefore the word avyakta here must refer to the pradhāna.

Siddhānta: Whether the word avyakta refers to pradhāna or śarīra is explained in the following sūtra.

Sūtra 1.4.1

anumānikam apy ekeṣām iti cen na śarīra-rūpaka-vinyasta-gṛhītair darśayati ca

anumānikam – the inference; apy – even; ekeṣām – of some; iti – thus; cen – if; na – not; śarīra – the body; rūpaka – the metaphor; vinyasta – placed; gṛhītair – because of being accepted; darśayati – reveals; ca – and.

If some assume [that the word avyakta in this passage of the Kaṭha Upaniṣad refers to the pradhāna], then I say “No. The fact that this passage is part of a metaphor referring to the body clearly shows [that the word avyakta here means śarīra].”

The Kaṭhakas [those who study the Kaṭha Upaniṣad] consider that the word avyakta here refers to the pradhāna. The opponent says: “The etymology of the word avyakta is ‘That which is not [a-] manifested [-vyakta]’. If this is so, then the word avyakta cannot mean anything except the pradhāna [unmanifested material nature].”

What is the answer to this objection? The answer is given in this sūtra in the phrase beginning with the word śarīra. Because it is employed in a passage where the body is compared to a chariot, the word avyakta here refers to the śarīra [body]. The passage preceding this mention of avyakta, which is a metaphor where the material body is considered to be a chariot, clearly shows this. The entire passage is given here:

“The individual is the passenger in the car of the material body, and the intelligence is the driver. Mind is the driving instrument, and the senses are the horses. The self is thus the enjoyer or sufferer in the association of the mind and senses. So it is understood by great thinkers. For a fool who does not control his mind, the senses are wild horses overwhelming the charioteer. For the wise man who controls his mind, the senses are good horses obedient to the charioteer. An impious fool who does not control his mind does not attain the spiritual world; he attains the world of repeated birth and death. A pious wise man who controls his mind attains the spiritual world. He never again takes birth. A person who has transcendental knowledge as a charioteer, and who tightly holds the reins of the mind, attains the path’s final destination: the supreme abode of Lord Viṣṇu. The sense objects are higher than the senses. The mind is higher than the sense-objects. Intelligence is higher than the mind. The mahat [material nature] is higher than the intelligence. The avyakta [the unmanifested] is higher than the mahat. The puruṣa [person] is higher than the unmanifested. Nothing is higher than the puruṣa. The puruṣa is the highest destination. That Self is hidden within all beings and does not shine forth; but He is seen by subtle seers through their sharp and subtle intellects. A wise man should control speech and knowledge; he should keep his consciousness within the Self, which is the Great, and he should keep the Great within the Self, which is the Quiet.” [Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.3-13]

Here the devotee who desires to attain the abode of Lord Viṣṇu is described as the passenger in a chariot. His body and other possessions are described as a chariot with its various parts. The traveller who keeps the chariot and its parts under control attains the supreme abode of Lord Viṣṇu; one who fails to control his mind and senses attains only the misery of continued material existence. After this passage, the Kaṭha Upaniṣad continues to explain how the body and its various parts, which are metaphorically considered a chariot and its parts, are more or less difficult to control. In the metaphor of the chariot in the above passage, the senses and other adjuncts of the body are described as horses or other adjuncts of the chariot. The Upaniṣad continues this discussion in the same terms. Of the several things mentioned in the previous verses, only the body itself is not listed in the subsequent verses, and therefore the single ambiguous item avyakta must refer to the śarīra [body] by default. In the metaphorical description of the chariot in ślokas 1-9 of the passage quoted above, we have the following entities:

Now comparing the terms of this metaphor with the words of the passage under discussion, only the body is left out, therefore the word avyakta must refer to the body, by process of elimination. The same metaphor is expressed in the passage under discussion, showing how the senses are easier to control than the sense objects, the mind and intelligence. Therefore a wise man simply controls the senses, and the rest are controlled automatically because the chariot, or body, is the main entity and the others are the more subtle adjuncts of the body.

The interpretation of avyakta as pradhāna is also disproved because the contents of the passage quoted above and the following verses of the Kaṭha Upaniṣad disagree with the tenets of Saṅkhya philosophy. The Saṅkhya philosophy does not accept that the sense objects are the cause of the senses, or that mind is higher than the sense objects.

There are many similar passages in the Vedic literature. We find a similar description of the hierarchy of the senses, mind etc. in Bhagavad-gītā [3.42]:

indriyāṇi parāṇy āhur
indriyebhyaḥ paraṁ manaḥ
manasas tu parā buddhir
yo buddheḥ paratas tu saḥ

“The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he [the soul] is even higher than the intelligence.”

ekāyano 'sau dvi-phalas tri-mūlaś
catū-rasaḥ pañca-vidhaḥ ṣaḍ-ātmā
sapta-tvag aṣṭa-viṭapo navākṣo
daśa-cchadī dvi-khago hy ādi-vṛkṣaḥ

“The body [the total body and the individual body are of the same composition] may figuratively be called ‘the original tree.’ From this tree, which fully depends on the ground of material nature, come two kinds of fruit—the enjoyment of happiness and the suffering of distress. The cause of the tree, forming its three roots, is association with the three modes of material nature—goodness, passion and ignorance. The fruits of bodily happiness have four tastes—religiosity, economic development, sense gratification and liberation—which are experienced through five senses for acquiring knowledge in the midst of six circumstances: lamentation, illusion, old age, death, hunger and thirst. The seven layers of bark covering the tree are skin, blood, muscle, fat, bone, marrow and semen, and the eight branches of the tree are the five gross and three subtle elements—earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego. The tree of the body has nine hollows—the eyes, the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the rectum and the genitals—and ten leaves, the ten airs passing through the body. In this tree of the body there are two birds: one is the individual soul, and the other is the Supersoul.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.2.27]

īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ
hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati
bhrāmayan sarva-bhūtāni
yantrārūḍhāni māyayā

“The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine made of the material energy.” [Bhagavad-gītā 18.61]

The subtlety of the Saṅkhya argument is not due to its refinement; it is because the Vedas never directly state anywhere that pradhāna is the cause of creation. Rather, they always state that the Supreme Brahman is the real cause, and pradhāna is only a secondary cause. Thus to gain support for their atheistic theory, the Saṅkhyas are forced to rely on indirect references taken out of context. The descriptions of the causal relationship between the Lord and material nature given in the Vedas are clear:

pradhāna-kṣetrajña-patir guṇeśaḥ

“The Supreme Lord as the Supersoul is the chief knower of the body and the master of pradhāna [the unmanifested three modes of material nature].” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.16]

kāla-vṛttyā tu māyāyāṁ
guṇa-mayyām adhokṣajaḥ
puruṣeṇātma-bhūtena
vīryam ādhatta vīryavān

“The Supreme Living Being in His feature as the transcendental puruṣa incarnation, who is the Lord's plenary expansion, impregnates the material nature of three modes, and thus by the influence of eternal time the living entities appear.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.5.26]

prakṛter guṇa-sāmyasya
nirviśeṣasya mānavi
ceṣṭā yataḥ sa bhagavān
kāla ity upalakṣitaḥ

“My dear mother, O daughter of Svāyambhuva Manu, as I have explained, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the time factor, from whom the creation begins as a result of the agitation of the neutral, unmanifested nature.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.26.17]

tato 'bhavan mahat-tattvam
avyaktāt kāla-coditāt
vijñānātmātma-deha-sthaṁ
viśvaṁ vyañjaṁs tamo-nudaḥ

“Thereafter, influenced by the interactions of eternal time, the supreme sum total of matter called the mahat-tattva became manifested, and in this mahat-tattva the unalloyed goodness, the Supreme Lord, sowed the seeds of universal manifestation out of His own body.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.5.27]

bhūtānāṁ nabha-ādīnāṁ
yad yad bhavyāvarāvaram
teṣāṁ parānusaṁsargād
yathā saṅkhyaṁ guṇān viduḥ

“O gentle one, of all the physical elements, beginning from the sky down to the earth, all the inferior and superior qualities are due only to the final touch of the glance of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.5.37]

daivena durvitarkyeṇa
pareṇānimiṣeṇa ca
jāta-kṣobhād bhagavato
mahān āsīd guṇa-trayāt

“When the equilibrium of the combination of the three modes of nature was agitated by the unseen activity of the living entity, by Mahā-Viṣṇu and by the force of time, the total material elements were produced.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.20.12]

mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ

“This material nature is working under My direction.” [Bhagavad-gītā 9.10]

So the Vedic scriptures assert again and again that the material energy is incapable of manifesting the creation without the transcendental glance of the Supreme.

Now the following objection may be raised: “The body is clearly manifest. How is it that in this passage it is described as unmanifest?” To answer this doubt the author says:

Sūtra 1.4.2

sūkṣmaṁ tu tad-arhatvāt

sūkṣmaṁ – subtle; tu – certainly; tad-arhatvāt – because of appropriateness.

[The word śarīra here] certainly [means the] subtle [body] because that is appropriate [in this context.]

The word tu [certainly] is used here to dispel doubt. The word śarīra here means sūkṣma-śarīra [the subtle body]. Why? Because that meaning is appropriate. It is appropriate to describe the sūkṣma-śarīra as avyakta [unmanifest]. The quote from Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [1.4.7] says tad dhedaṁ tarhy avyākṛtam āsīt: “Then there was the unmanifested.” This shows that before the gross material universe was manifested, the living force was present. This shows that the word avyakta [unmanifested] is appropriate to describe the subtle body. For example, the word vyaktāvyaktaṁ in the following śloka means “the gross and subtle bodies”:

labdhvā nimittam avyaktaṁ
vyaktāvyaktaṁ bhavaty uta
yathā-yoni yathā-bījaṁ
svabhāvena balīyasā

“The fruitive activities a living being performs, whether pious or impious, are the unseen cause for the fulfillment of his desires. This unseen cause is the root for the living entity’s gross and subtle bodies. Because of his intense desire, the living entity takes birth in a particular family and receives a body which is either like that of his mother or like that of his father. The gross and subtle bodies are created according to his desire.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.1.54]

The objection may be raised: “If the original cause is subtle, then why should that subtle cause not be described as the pradhāna [unmanifested material nature] of the Saṅkhya theory?” To answer this doubt he says:

Sūtra 1.4.3

tad-adhīnatvād arthavat

tad – on Him; adhīnatvād – because of dependence; arthavat – possessing the meaning.

[This meaning should be accepted] because [the pradhāna is ultimately] dependent on Him [the Supreme Brahman].

The meaning here is that the creative actions of pradhāna are not the original cause, but are themselves caused by the Supreme Brahman. Pradhāna is ultimately dependent on the Supreme Brahman, the original cause of all causes, because pradhāna is naturally inactive. It only acts when inspired by the glance of Brahman. This is described in the following statements of Vedic literature.

māyāṁ tu prakṛtiṁ vidyān māyinaṁ tu maheśvaram

“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is a magician, and the material world is His magical show.” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.10]

asmān māyī sṛjate viśvam etat

“The master of Māyā creates this world.” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.9]

ya eka varṇo bahudhā śakti-yogād varṇān anekān nihitārtho dadhāti

“He who has no rival creates the varieties of this world, using His own potencies according to His own wish.” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.1]

sa eva bhūyo nija-vīrya-coditaṁ
sva-jīva-māyāṁ prakṛtiṁ sisṛkṣatīm
anāma-rūpātmani rūpa-nāmanī
vidhitsamāno ‘nusasāra śāstra-kṛt

“The Personality of Godhead, again desiring to give names and forms to His parts and parcels, the living entities, placed them under the guidance of material nature. By His own potency, material nature is empowered to re-create.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.10.22]

pradhānaṁ puruṣaṁ cāpi
praviśyātmecchayā hariḥ
kṣobhayām āsa samprāpte
sarga-kāle vyayāvyayau

“At the time of creation Lord Hari enters the changing pradhāna and the unchanging living souls, and agitates them according to His wish.” [Viṣṇu Purāṇa]

mayādhyākṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ
sūyate sa-carācaram
hetunānena kaunteya
jagad viparivartate

“The material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction, O son of Kuntī, producing all moving and non-moving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again.” [Bhagavad-gītā 9.10]

We do not accept the Saṅkhya theory because it considers pradhāna the original, independent cause of all causes, whereas the Vedic literature clearly states that the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the original cause.

yasmin yato yena ca yasya yasmai
yad yo yathā kurute kāryate ca
parāvareṣāṁ paramaṁ prāk prasiddhaṁ
tad brahma tad dhetur ananyad ekam

“The Supreme Brahman, Kṛṣṇa, is the ultimate resting place and source of everything. Everything is done by Him, everything belongs to Him, and everything is offered to Him. He is the ultimate objective, and whether acting or causing others to act, He is the ultimate doer. There are many causes, high and low, but since He is the cause of all causes, He is well known as the Supreme Brahman who existed before all activities. He is one without a second and has no other cause. I therefore offer my respects unto Him.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.4.30]

In the next sūtra, the author gives another reason for holding that avyakta is not to be interpreted as pradhāna.

Sūtra 1.4.4

jñeyatvāvacanatvāc ca

jñeyatva – the state of being the object of knowledge; avacanatvāt – because of non-description; ca – and.

[The avyakta of this passage is not described] as the object of knowledge. This is another reason [for not interpreting this avyakta to be pradhāna.]

Claiming that liberation is obtained by understanding the difference between the the spiritual living entity, or soul and the modes of material nature, the Saṅkhya theorists claim that one should know the real nature of pradhāna in order to obtain certain powers. Because this passage from the Kaṭha Upaniṣad in no way describes any of this, the word avyakta here cannot refer to the pradhāna of the Saṅkhyas. Actual mystic power is to know the Supreme Personality of Godhead as the master of pradhāna:

kālenātmānubhāvena sāmyaṁ nītāsu śaktiṣu
sattvādiṣv ādi-puruṣaḥ pradhāna-puruṣeśvaraḥ

parāvarāṇāṁ parama āste kaivalya-saṁjñitaḥ
kevalānubhavānanda-sandoho nirupādhikaḥ

“When the Supreme Personality of Godhead displays His own potency in the form of time and guides His material potencies, such as the mode of goodness, into a neutral condition of equilibrium, He remains as the supreme controller of that neutral state, called pradhāna, as well as of the living entities. He is also the supreme worshipable object for all beings, including liberated souls, demigods and ordinary conditioned souls. The Lord is eternally free from any material designation, and He constitutes the totality of spiritual bliss, which one experiences by seeing the Lord's spiritual form. The Lord thus exhibits the fullest meaning of the word ‘liberation.’ ” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.9.17-18]

Sūtra 1.4.5

vadatīti cen na prājño hi prakaraṇāt

vadati – says; iti – thus; cet – if; na – no; prājño – the omniscient Paramātmā; hi – indeed; prakaraṇāt – because of reference.

If someone says [“This passage does describe pradhāna in this way”] then I say no. That statement refers to the omniscient Personality of Godhead.

Someone may object: “Your contention that the word avyakta in this passage of Kaṭha Upaniṣad cannot refer to pradhāna because the avyakta here is not described as the object of knowledge has in no way been proved. Pradhāna is described in this way in the very next verse [Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.15]:

aśabdam asparśam arūpam avyayaṁ
tathā-rasaṁ nityam agandhavac ca yat
anādy anantaṁ mahataḥ paraṁ dhruvaṁ
nicāyya taṁ mṛtyu-mukhāt pramucyate

“By meditating on the soundless, touchless, formless, unchanging, tasteless, eternal, fragranceless, beginningless, endless, Supreme Great, one becomes free from the mouth of death.”

“If these words do not describe pradhāna as the ultimate object of knowledge, then what do they describe?”

To this objection I reply: These words describe the omniscient Personality of Godhead. They are an appropriate description of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, about whom the following words are said:

puruṣān na paraṁ kiñcit sā kāṣṭhā sā parā gatiḥ

“Nothing is higher than the Supreme Person. The Supreme Person is the highest.” [Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.11]

eṣa sarveṣu bhūteṣu gūḍhātmā na prakāśate

“Hiding in the hearts of all beings, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not openly manifest.” [Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.12]

The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam explains how the manifested material nature and sense objects merge into the Supreme at the time of universal annihilation:

“At the time of annihilation, the mortal body of the living being becomes merged into food. Food merges into the grains, and the grains merge back into the earth. The earth merges into its subtle sensation, fragrance. Fragrance merges into water, and water further merges into its own quality, taste. That taste merges into fire, which merges into form. Form merges into touch, and touch merges into ether. Ether finally merges into the sensation of sound. The senses all merge into their own origins, the presiding demigods, and they, O gentle Uddhava, merge into the controlling mind, which itself merges into false ego in the mode of goodness. Sound becomes one with false ego in the mode of ignorance, and all-powerful false ego, the first of all the physical elements, merges into the total nature. The total material nature, the primary repository of the three basic modes, dissolves into the modes. These modes of nature then merge into the unmanifest form of nature, and that unmanifest form merges into time. Time merges into the Supreme Lord, present in the form of the omniscient Mahā-puruṣa, the original activator of all living beings. That origin of all life merges into the unborn Supreme Soul, who remains alone, established within Himself. It is from Him that all creation and annihilation are manifested.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.24.22-27]

Therefore He alone is the Supreme Great, and the cause and source of everything else, including pradhāna. To further explain that the word avyakta does not refer to pradhāna he says:

Sūtra 1.4.6

trayāṇām eva caivam upanyāsah praśnaś ca

trayāṇām – of the three; eva – indeed; ca – certainly; evam – in this way; upanyāsah – mention; praśnaś – question; ca – and.

In this context three questions certainly are mentioned.

The word ca [certainly] here is meant to remove doubt. In this passage of Kaṭha Upaniṣad only three questions are asked. They are:

1. Naciketa’s request that his father be kind to him

2. His request for celestial fire

3. His desire to know the true nature of the self

Nothing else is asked, and so it would have been irrelevant for the teacher to have given teachings on pradhāna. There is no mention of pradhāna because there was no inquiry about it.

Sūtra 1.4.7

mahadvac ca

mahat – the mahat; vat – like; ca – also.

This usage is like the usage of the word mahat.

Because the word mahān in the phrase buddher ātmā mahān paraḥ: “The Great Self is higher than the intelligence,” is never taken to mean the mahat-tattva [material nature] of the Saṅkhya theory, in the same way the avyakta [unmanifested] mentioned here to be higher than this mahat should not be taken to mean the pradhāna of Saṅkhya.

Thus, the attempt of the atheistic Saṅkhya philosophers to misinterpret the ambiguous word avyakta in the passage of Kaṭha Upaniṣad is baseless, and relies on taking the word out of context and reading in a meaning that was never intended. The atheistic Saṅkhya philosophers cannot depend on the support of the Vedic literature, because the real import of the Vedas is that the Lord alone is the supreme cause of the creation and everything else. Similarly, the atheistic material scientists of today want to prove that the creation comes from nothing, without any other cause but itself. But they cannot explain how the inert matter of the universe originates, nor where the energy and laws of the universe come from. Because they are averse to God and intent on material exploitation, they manufacture so many bogus theories and mislead the people in general. But anyone who understands Vedic philosophy can easily defeat all their arguments by insisting on sensible answers to these simple questions.

Adhikaraṇa 2: The Ajā of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.5 Does Not Mean Pradhāna

Viṣaya: Another wrong theory of the Saṅkhya philosophers is refuted in this Adhikaraṇa. The impersonalists do not follow any strict principle in interpreting the Vedic texts. They freely use the primary or secondary meanings of words, and the direct meaning or metaphorical interpretation of phrases, without any regard to contextual considerations, as long as it supports their preconceptions. They sometimes even create entirely new meanings for words based on etymological analysis of their roots. Thus their interpretation of the scriptures is only speculation, but it serves to confuse the layman as to the actual intent of scriptural passages.

The Vedic literature is not ordinary writing, but the Absolute Truth or sacred revelation of God; therefore it should not be interpreted whimsically or in a doctrinaire sectarian manner. To do so is not only a breach of scholarly ethics, but also blocks our only opportunity to receive definitive information of the inconceivable world of transcendence. For the all-perfect Vedas are originally spoken by the the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and compiled by Śrīla Vyāsadeva, also an incarnation of the Lord.

śrī-nārada uvāca
namas tasmai bhagavate
kṛṣṇāyāmala-kīrtaye
yo dhatte sarva-bhūtānām
abhavāyośatīḥ kalāḥ

Śrī Nārada said: “I offer My obeisances to Him of spotless fame, the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa, who manifests His all-attractive personal expansions so that all living beings can achieve liberation.”

ity ādyam ṛṣim ānamya
tac-chiṣyāṁś ca mahātmanaḥ
tato 'gād āśramaṁ sākṣāt
pitur dvaipāyanasya me

[Śukadeva Gosvāmī continued:] “After saying this, Nārada bowed down to Śrī Nārāyaṇa Ṛṣi, the foremost of sages, and also to His saintly disciples. He then returned to the hermitage of my father, Dvaipāyana Vyāsa.

sabhājito bhagavatā
kṛtāsana-parigrahaḥ
tasmai tad varṇayām āsa
nārāyaṇa-mukhāc chrutam

“Vyāsadeva, the incarnation of the Personality of Godhead, respectfully greeted Nārada Muni and offered him a seat, which he accepted. Nārada then described to Vyāsa what he had heard from the mouth of Śrī Nārāyaṇa Ṛṣi.

ity etad varṇitaṁ rājan
yan naḥ praśnaḥ kṛtas tvayā
yathā brahmaṇy anirdeśye
nīṛguṇe 'pi manaś caret

“Thus I have replied to the question You asked me, O King, concerning how the mind can have access to the Absolute Truth, which is indescribable by material words and devoid of material qualities.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.87.46-49]

Therefore the Vedic literatures compiled by Śrīla Vyāsadeva are the direct words of the the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Śrīla Vyāsadeva gives definitive information on the meaning of certain disputed passages of the Vedic literature in this section of the Vedānta-sūtras. For example, the following is quoted from the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [4.5]:

ajām ekāṁ lohita-śukla-kṛṣṇāṁ
bahvīḥ prajāḥ sṛjamānāṁ sarūpāḥ
ajo hy eko juṣamāno ‘nuśete
jahaty enaṁ bhukta-bhogam ajo ‘nyaḥ

“A certain unborn male serves the red, white and black unborn female that creates the many living entities and their forms, while another another unborn male abandons her as she enjoys pleasures.”

Saṁśaya: Does the word ajā here mean the pradhāna of saṅkhya, or does it mean the potency of Brahman described in this Upaniṣad?

Pūrva-pakṣa: The unborn material nature creates the innumerable living entities without any external help.

Siddhānta: In regard to the Saṅkhyas’ belief concerning the creation, he says:

Sūtra 1.4.8

camasavad aviśeṣāt

camasa – a cup; vat – like; aviśeṣāt – because of not being specific.

[The word ajā in Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.5 does not mean the Saṅkhya conception of material nature] because of the lack of a specific description. It is not like the word camasa [cup] [in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.2.3.]

The word na [not] should be read into this sūtra from Sūtra 1.4.5. It cannot be said that the female described here is the material nature as described in the Saṅkhya-smṛti. Why? Because the material nature is not specifically described in this passage. There is no specific description, but only the mention of being unborn in the word ajā, which is derived from the phrase na jāyate [it is not born].

It is not like the example of the cup in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [2.2.3] where it is said:

arvāg-bilaś camasa ūrdhva-budhna...

“There is a cup with its mouth down and its bottom up. Manifold glory has been placed within it. On its lip the seven Ṛṣis sit; the tongue as the eighth communicates with Brahman. What is called a cup with its mouth down and its bottom up is this head, for its mouth is below and its bottom [the skull] is above. When it is said that manifold glory has been placed within it, the senses are that manifold glory. When he says that the seven Ṛṣis sit on its lip, the Ṛṣis are the active senses. And when he says that the tongue as the eighth Ṛṣi communicates with Brahman, it is because the tongue does communicate with Brahman [by chanting mantras and prayers].”

It is not possible to take the word camasa, which is derived from the verb cam [to drink], in this mantra as literally a cup, or vessel used to consume what was offered in a yajña. It is not possible because one must consider the meaning of a word not only with reference to its etymology, but also considering the principles of samanvaya or interpretation according to context, as described in the Introduction to this work. For the reason of lack of supporting context, it is not possible to interpret the word ajā in the passage under discussion as the material nature described in the Saṅkhya-smṛti. It is also not possible because the Saṅkhya-smṛti considers that material nature creates the living entities independently, and there is nothing in this passage to support that concept.

The ajā here is the potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, which is described in the Vedas. Giving a specific reason to accept this, he says:

Sūtra 1.4.9

jyotir upakramā tu tathā hy adhīyate eke

jyotiḥ – light; upakramā – beginning with; tu – indeed; tathā – in that way; hi – indeed; adhīyate – I read; eke – some.

Light is its origin. Also, other passages confirm it.

The word tu [but] is used in the sense of certainty. The word jyotiḥ [light] in the sūtra means the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is celebrated as light in the śruti-śāstra [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 10.4.16]:

tad devā jyotiṣāṁ jyotiḥ

“The demigods meditate on Him, the light of lights.”

The word upakrama should be understood here in the sense of “cause”. Because this ajā [unborn] has Brahman as its cause, its being unborn is metaphorical only, just as the “cup” in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.2.3 discussed in the previous sūtra. In that passage it is said:

arvāg-bilaś camasa ūrdhva-budhna

“There is a cup with its mouth down and its bottom up.”

As the “cup” here is actually the skull, in the same way the ajā [unborn] here is not actually unborn, but is the potency born from Brahman, as is described in the first and fourth chapters of Śvetāsvatara Upaniṣad. The first quote is [Śvetāsvatara Upaniṣad 1.3]:

te dhyāna-yogānugata apaśyan
devātma-śaktiṁ sva-guṇair nigūḍhām

“The dhyāna-yogīs saw the Supreme Lord’s potency, which was hidden by its own qualities. He, being one, superintends all these causes, time, self, and the rest.”

The second quote is [Śvetāsvatara Upaniṣad 4.1]:

ya eka-varṇo bahudhā śakti-yogāt

“He [the Lord] who is one has become many by the touch of His potency.”

Then the author gives another reason in the sūtra’s words tathā hi. Hi in this context means “reason”. The reason is the evidence given in other passages [adhīyate eke]. That the material nature is born from the Supreme Personality of Godhead is also explained in the following passage [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.9]:

tasmād etad brahma nāma rūpam annaṁ ca jāyate

“From Him [the Lord], pradhāna, names, forms, and food, are all born.”

The word brahma here means pradhāna, which is situated in the three modes of nature, and which is also called brahma in Bhagavad-gita [14.3]:

mama yonir mahad brahma

“The total material substance, called Brahman, is the source of birth.”

Now our opponent may ask: “How, then, is the material nature unborn? Then, if it is unborn, how can it be born from light?”

Fearing that these questions may be raised, he says:

Sūtra 1.4.10

kalpanopadeśāc ca madhv-ādi-vad avirodhaḥ

kalpana – creation; upadeśāt – from the instruction; ca – certainly; madhv – honey; ādi – beginning with; vad – like; avirodhaḥ – not a contradiction.

Because it is said to be created by the Supreme, it is not a contradiction to say that pradhāna is both created and uncreated. In this way its is like honey and some other things [that are both created and uncreated.]

This doubt is dispelled by the word ca [certainly]. It is possible for pradhāna to be both created and uncreated. How is that? That is explained by the word kalpana. Kalpana here means “creation”. It should be understood in that way because it was used with that sense in the Ṛg Veda’s statement, yathā-pūrvam akalpayat: “In the beginning the Supreme Personality of Godhead created the world.” The meaning of this is that the pradhāna is manifested from the Supreme Brahman, who is the master of the potencies of darkness.

That is the truth in this matter. The Lord has an eternal and very subtle potency named tamas [darkness], which is described in the following statement [Ṛg Veda 10.1.29.3]:

tama āsīt tamasā gūḍham agre praketaṁ yadā tamas tan na divā na rātriḥ

“In the beginning was darkness. Darkness covered everything. When the darkness was manifested there was neither day nor night.”

Tamas is also described in the Culika Upaniṣad:

gaur anādavatī

“Matter has no power to speak.”

At the time of cosmic annihilation pradhāna attains oneness with Brahman, but does not merge into Brahman. In the passage from śruti-śāstra beginning with the words pṛthivy apsu pralīyate it is said that the material elements, beginning from earth and culminating in ether, all merge into tamas [darkness], but there is no mention of tamas merging into another substance because tamas is already one with the Supreme. Because tamas is very subtle there is no possibility of it being separate from the Supreme, and therefore it is one with Him. It is not otherwise. This does not mean that tamas is identical with the Supreme. If it meant identity with the Supreme the use of the pratyaya cvi in ekī-bhavati, would not be appropriate.

When the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of the tamas potency, desires to create, from Him arises the unmanifested [avyakta] three modes of material nature. The śruti-śastra explains:

mahān avyakte līyate avyaktam akṣare akṣaraṁ tamasi

“The mahat merges into the avyakta, the avyakta merges into the akṣara, and the akṣara merges into tamas.”

The Mahābhārata explains,

tasmād avyaktam utpannaṁ tri-guṇaṁ dvija-sattama

“O best of the brāhmaṇas, the unmanifested three modes of material nature were born from the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”

These passages from scripture clearly describe the creation of pradhāna and the other elements. In this way the the scriptures teach that pradhāna is created and that it is both cause and effect simultaneously. The Viṣṇu Purāṇa explains this in the following words:

pradhāna-puṁsor ajayoḥ
kāraṇaṁ kārya-bhūtayoḥ

“Lord Viṣṇu is the cause of the unborn pradhāna and puruṣa.”

At the time of creation the three modes of material nature arise in pradhāna and pradhāna manifests many different names, such as pradhāna-avyakta, and many different forms in red and other colors. At this time it is said that the pradhāna is manifested from the Supreme Light [jyotir-utpannā].

Next he [the author of the sutras] gives an example: “It is like honey and other similar things [madhv-ādi-vat].” The sun, when it is a cause, remains one, and when it is an effect it becomes other things, such as the honey enjoyed by the Vasus. In this way the sun is both cause and effect simultaneously. There is no contradiction in this.

Thus we see that the interpretation of the Vedic scriptures is an extremely subtle matter, requiring not only great scholarship and integrity but also complete faithfulness to the revelation of the Supreme Brahman, which is the actual subject matter of all the Vedic scriptures. The history of the Vedic knowledge is that the the Supreme Personality of Godhead impregnated it within Brahmā, the first created being in the universe, and then Brahmā distributed the Vedic knowledge to his sons and disciples. Brahmā was inspired by the Lord to receive this transcendental knowledge as it directly descends from the Lord. The Vedas are therefore called apauruṣeya, or not imparted by any created being. The Lord and the transcendental world alone existed before the creation [nārāyaṇaḥ paro 'vyaktāt], and therefore the words spoken by the Lord are vibrations of transcendental sound.

There is a gulf of difference between the two qualities of sound, namely prākṛta and aprākṛta or material and transcendental. The materialists like the Saṅkhya philosophers and others can deal only with prākṛta sound, or sound vibrated in the material sky, because their consciousness is limited to the manifested material nature. Therefore we must know that the transcendental sound vibrations recorded in the symbolic expressions of the Vedas cannot be understood by anyone within the material universe unless and until he is inspired by the chain of disciplic succession from the Lord to Brahmā, from Brahmā to Nārada, from Nārada to Vyāsa and so on, as described above. No mundane scholar can translate or reveal the true import of the Vedic mantras. They cannot be understood unless one is inspired or initiated by the authorized spiritual master. The original spiritual master is the Lord Himself, and the succession comes down through the sources of paramparā, as clearly stated in Bhagavad-gītā [4.2]:

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.”

So unless one receives the transcendental knowledge from the authorized paramparā, even though he may be greatly qualified in the mundane advancements of arts or science, his speculative interpretation of the Vedic sound vibration should be considered useless.

Adhikaraṇa 3: Pañca-pañca-janāḥ in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.17 Does Not Refer to the 25 Elements of Saṅkhya

Viṣaya: The Saṅkhya philosophers analyze this material world into twenty-four elements, and they place the individual soul as the twenty-fifth item. According to their philosophy the 25 tattvas of the material creation are as follows:

The Saṅkhya philosophers are desperate to find support for their atheistic views from the theistic Vedic literatures. So even though the purport of the Vedas completely contradicts their philosophy, any time they see even a glimpse of a reference to their thinking, they pounce on it and hold it up as a supporting statement, even though it is actually a mirage, like a lake seen in the desert. For example the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.17 explains:

yasmin pañca-pañca-janā
ākāśāś ca pratiṣṭhitāḥ tam eva manya ātmānaṁ
vidvān brahmāmṛto ‘mṛtam

“I, who am immortal spirit, meditate on the Supreme Brahman, in whom the ether element and the pañca-pañca-jana rest.”

Saṁśaya: Do the words pañca-pañca-jana refer to the 25 elements described in the Kapila-tantra, or to some five other things?

Pūrvapakṣa: Because pañca-pañca is a bahuvrīhi-samāsa and pañca-pañca-janāḥ is a karmadhāraya-samāsa, the word pañca-pañca-janāḥ refers to the 25 elements described by Kapila. Somehow the two elements ātmā and ākāśa are here added to the list of elements. The word jana here means tattva [elements].

Siddhānta: He says:

Sūtra 1.4.11

na saṅkhyopasaṅgrahād api nānā-bhāvād atirekāc ca

na – not; saṅkhya – of numbers; upasaṅgrahāt – because of enumeration; api – even; nānā – various; bhāvāt – states; atirekāt – because of going beyond; ca – and.

Even though they give the same numbers as the Saṅkhya theory, these words do not refer to the Saṅkhya theory because the the numbers here actually exceed Saṅkhya numbers and because the elements of Saṅkhya are variegated [and not grouped into five groups of five].

The word api [even] here is used in the sense of “even if we consider for a moment this view.” By noting that the number here is the same number as the Saṅkhya elements does not prove that pañca-pañca-jana refers to the Saṅkhya elements. Why? The answer is given in the words beginning nānā-bhāvāt. Because the variegated Saṅkhya elements are not divided into five groups of five, it is not possible to accept the 5 x 5 here as referring to the 25 Saṅkhya elements. Also, the addition of atmā and ākāśa brings the number up to 27. Simply by hearing the word pañca [five] twice, one should not be bewildered into thinking these two fives refer to the 25 elements of the Saṅkhya theory.

Someone may ask, “What is your interpretation of pañca-pañca-jana?” The word pañca-jana is the name of a group, just as the word saptarṣi [the seven sages] is the name of a group. This is explained by Pāṇini [Aṣṭādhyāyī 2.1.50] in the words dik-saṅkhye saṁjñāyām: “Words indicating direction or number may be compounded with another word in the same case.” As each of the saptarṣis may be called saptarṣi, in the same way there may be five pañca-janas, each of whom may be called a pañca-jana, and all the pañca-janas together may be called the five pañca-janas. In this way the meaning of the word pañca-jana is very clear.

Who or what actually are these pañca-janas? To answer this question he says:

Sūtra 1.4.12

prānādayo vākya-śeṣāt

prāna – breath; ādayaḥ – beginning with; vākya – of the statement; śeṣāt – from the remainder.

[The pañca-janas here are five things] beginning with prāṇa [breath], as is clear from the words immediately following the mention of pañca-jana.

The five things beginning with prāṇa are described in the following words [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.18]:

prānasya prāṇam uta cakṣuṣaś cakṣur uta śrotrasya śrotram annasyānnaṁ manaso ye mano viduḥ

“They know the breath of breath, the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, the food of food, the mind of the mind.”

The objection may be raised: “The word annam [food] here is included in the Madhyandina recension of the Upaniṣad but not in the Kaṇva recension. In the Kaṇva recension, then, there are only four items and not five.”

To answer this doubt he says:

Sūtra 1.4.13

jyotiṣaikeṣām asaty anne

jyotiṣā – by light; ekeṣām – of some; asaty – in the absence; anne – of food.

In some versions [the Kaṇva recension] the word jyotiḥ [light] replaces the word anna [food].

In the version of the Kaṇvas, even though the word anna is missing, the addition of the word jyotiḥ brings the number up to five. This word jyotiḥ is found in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.6 in the words tad devā jyotiṣāṁ jyotiḥ: “The demigods worship Him, the light of lights.” The word jyotiḥ appears here in both recensions and it should be counted among the five or not as is appropriate.

Because the Saṅkhya philosophy does not accept the Vedic version that the the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the root cause of all causes of the material creation and everything else, it is useless for them to seek confirmation from the Vedas. The entire Vedic literature is staunchly theistic, as the many quotations presented in this work affirm. It is simply not the case that certain sections of the Vedas support the idea that material nature is independent of the control of the Lord. The sūtras of Vedānta systematically establish the correct interpretation. When we interpret these sections properly according to the principles of samanvaya given in the Introduction, they remain congruent with the theistic conclusions of the entire Vedic literature, and do not lend support to any other interpretation.

Adhikaraṇa 4: Brahman is the Only Original Cause

Viṣaya: If the materialistic impersonalist speculators cannot find support in the Vedic literature for their pet theory, that the creation arises from matter alone, by taking Vedic statements out of context, their next tactic is to accuse the Vedas of inconsistency. Because the Supreme Brahman is called by many different names in the Vedas and Upaniṣads, they may say that the Vedic literatures contain many conflicting theories of creation. The modern scientific critics are especially quick to assert that the Vedic literature is the quaint mythology of a primitive people, and that their scientific knowledge has made tremendous advancement since those ancient times. But all these arguments are pointless, because actually the Vedic literature consistently presents the fact that the the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the sole cause and ingredient of the cosmic creation.

Saṁśaya: The Saṅkhya theorist thus raises another doubt: “It cannot be said that the Vedānta describes Brahman as the sole cause of the universe, for the Vedānta philosophy does not describe a single original cause of creation.”

Pūrvapakṣa: In Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1 ātma [self] is revealed as the source of creation in the following words:

tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśaḥ sambhūtaḥ

“From ātmā the sky was born.”

Another passage [Tatittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7.1] describes asat [non-existence] as the original cause in the following words:

asad vā idam agra āsīt tato vā sad ajāyata tad ātmānaṁ svayam akuruta

“In the beginning was non-existence. From non-existence existence was born. Existence created the self.”

Another passage [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 1.9.1] affirms that ākāśa [sky] is the original cause:

asya lokasya kā gatir ity ākāśa iti hovāca

“What is the origin of this world? Sky is the origin, he said.”

Another passage [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 1.11.5] affirms that breath [prāṇa] is the original cause in the following words:

sarvāṇi hā vā imāni bhūtāni prāṇam evābhisamviśanti

“Everything was born from breath and ultimately enters into breath again.”

Another passage again proclaims asat [non-existence] as the original cause in the following words:

asad evedam agra āsīt tat samabhavat

“In the beginning was non-existence. From non-existence this world was manifested.”

Another passage [Chāndogya Upanisād 6.2.1] proclaims Brahman the original cause in the following words:

sad eva saumyedam agra āsīt

“O saintly one, in the beginning was Brahman.”

Another passage [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.7] proclaims avyākṛta [the unmanifested] as the original cause in the following words:

tad vaidaṁ tarhy avyākṛtam āsīt tan-nāma-rūpābhyāṁ vyākriyata

“In the beginning was the unmanifested. From it all the names and forms have come.”

Many other passages could also be quoted to show the different theories of creation. Because in these passages of the Vedas many different things have been described as the sole original cause of creation, it cannot be said that Brahman is the sole cause of the creation of the world. However, it is possible to say that pradhāna is the sole cause of creation, as we find in the passage beginning with the word tarhi already quoted from the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad. If this view is accepted, then the contradiction of seeing one thing sometimes as the original cause and sometimes as a product of the original cause becomes at once resolved. Because it is all-pervading the pradhāna can appropriately be called ātmā, ākāśa, and brahma, because it is the resting-place of all transformations and because it is eternal it may appropriately be called asat, and because it is the origin of all breathing it may metaphorically be called breath. When the scriptures state that the original cause performed activities, such as thinking. Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.2.5 explains sa aikṣata: “The original cause thought.” these may also be considered metaphors. All this evidence clearly demonstrates that pradhāna is the original cause of creation of the world as described in the Vedānta literature.

Siddhānta: In the context of this argument:

Sūtra 1.4.14

kāraṇatvena cākāśādiṣu yathā vyapadiṣṭokteḥ

kāraṇatvena – as the cause; ca – certainly; ākāśa – sky; ādiṣu – beginning with; yathā – as; vyapadiṣṭa – described; ukteḥ – from the statement.

The Upaniṣads state that Brahman is the cause of sky and the other elements.

The word ca [certainly] is used here to dispel doubt. It may be said that Brahman is the only cause of the world. Why? Because “the Upaniṣads state that Brahman is the cause of sky and the other elements.” The words yathā vyapadiṣṭam [as described] mean Brahman who in the lakṣaṇa-sūtra of Vedānta [1.1.2] and in other places in Vedic literature is described as all-knowing, all-powerful, and full of all other powers and virtues.” This is true because in all Vedānta literatures Brahman is described as the original cause of sky and all the elements. That Brahman is all-knowing and full of a host of transcendental qualities, and is described in the following words [Taittirīya Upaniṣad 1.2.2]:

satyaṁ jñānam anantam

“Brahman is eternal, limitless, and full of knowledge.”

That Brahman is the original cause of all causes is described in these words [Taittirīya Upaniṣad 1.2.3]:

tasmād vā etasmāt

“From Brahman sky is manifested.”

The qualities of Brahman are described in the following words [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.1]:

sad eva saumyedam

“O gentle one, in the beginning was the eternal Brahman.”

Also, in these words [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.3]:

tad aikṣata bahsyām

“He thought: I shall become many.”

The truth of Brahman is also described in the following words [Taittirīya Upaniṣad 6.2.3]:

tat tejo ‘sṛjata

“Then He created light.”

The relationship between cause and effect in regard to Brahman we will describe later on. The words atmā, ākāśa, prāṇa, sat, and Brahman mean all-pervading”, “all-effulgent,” “all-powerful,” “the supreme existence,” and “the greatest,” respectively. These words are very appropriate as names for Brahman. In the same way the statement sa aikṣata [He thought.] is very appropriate for Brahman.

Now, describing the meaning of the words asat [non-existence] and avyākṛta [unmanifested], he says:

Sūtra 1.4.15

samākarṣāt

samākarṣāt – from appropriateness.

The words asat [non-existence] and avyākṛta [unmanifested] also refer to Brahman, for that interpretation is appropriate in this context.

Because it is preceded by the words so ‘kāmayata [He desired] the word asat in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7.1 passage asad vā idam agra āsīt: “In the beginning was asat,” must refer to the Supreme Brahman, and because it is preceded by the words ādityo brahma [splendid Brahman] the word asat in the passage asad evedam [In the beginning was asat] must also refer to the Supreme Brahman. Because before the creation of the material world the Supreme Brahman’s names and forms had not existed in the material world, the Supreme Brahman is sometimes known as asat [nonexistence].

The idea that asat and not the Supreme Brahman is the original cause of creation is refuted in the following statement of Chāndogya Upaniṣad [6.2.1-2]:

sad eva saumyedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyaṁ tad dhaika āhur asad evedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyaṁ tasmād asataḥ saj jāyate. kutas tu khalu saumyaivaṁ syād iti hovāca katham asataḥ saj jāyeteti sat tv eva saumyedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyam.

“O gentle one, in the beginning was sat, who is one without a second. Some say that in the beginning was asat, who is one without a second, and from that asat the sat was born. O gentle one,” he said, “how is it possible that the sat was born from the asat? O gentle one, it is the sat, which is one without a second, that existed in the beginning.”

The idea that asat was the original cause of creation is also refuted by the argument of time. The argument of time is that is not possible to use the verb “to be” with the noun asat [non-existence]. Because it is thus not possible to say “In the beginning non-existence was,” it is also not possible to say that asat [non-existence] was the original cause of creation.

In this way the wise declare that it is not possible for non-existence to be the cause of creation and for this reason when asat is described as the cause of creation it must refer to the Supreme Brahman, who is asat because His transcendental potencies are supremely subtle and fine. That is the proper understanding of the word asat in this context.

The Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [1.4.7] explains:

tad vaidaṁ tarhy avyākṛtam
āsīt tan-nāma-rūpābhyāṁ vyākriyata

“In the beginning was the avyākṛta. From it all the names and forms have come.”

The word avyākṛta should be understood to mean Brahman. In the words sa eṣa iha praviṣṭaḥ: “Then He entered within,” that immediately follow it becomes clear that the avyākṛta that becomes manifested by name and form is the powerful Supreme Brahman who appears by His own wish. Any conclusion other than this would oppose the clear teachings of Vedānta-sūtra and the general conclusions of all the śruti-śāstras. For these reasons it is therefore confirmed that the Supreme Brahman is the actual cause of the material universes.

Adhikaraṇa 5: The Puruṣa of the Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad Is Brahman

Viṣaya: In the next passage the author of the sūtras again refutes the Saṅkhya theory that the cause of the world is the collective activity of the individual living entities [jīvas]. We find this theory today in spurious new-age cults that maintain, contrary to everyone’s daily experience, that one can create one’s own reality. This philosophy originates from an attempt to get around the difficulty of atheistic theories of creation discussed earlier, that matter is inert and cannot organize itself into the energetic universe we observe. However, the jīvas, being atomic in size and power, do not possess sufficient creative energy to account for the gigantic material creation. Such unlimited creative power belongs only to the Supreme Brahman.

In the Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad 4.18, Bālākī Vipra promises “I shall tell you about Brahman,” and proceeds to describe 16 puruṣas, beginning with the sun-god, as Brahman. King Ajātaśatru then rejects these instructions and says: “O Bālākī, the person who is the creator of these sixteen puruṣas, the person engaged in this karma is the actual Brahman.”

Saṁśaya: At this point the doubt may be raised: “Is the superintendent of matter, the enjoyer described in the saṅkhya texts, or is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Viṣṇu, to be understood as the Brahman mentioned here?”

Pūrvapakṣa: Someone may object: “Because the use of the word karma here identifies this Brahman with the experiencing the results of good and bad work, because it the next passage this Brahman is described as sometimes sleeping [tau ha suptaṁ puruṣam ājagmatuḥ], and because in the passage after that this Brahman is described as an enjoyer [tad yathā śreṣṭhī svair bhuṅkte], it should be understood that the Brahman here is the jīva [individual spirit soul] described in the tantras.

“The use of the word prāṇa [life-breath] here also confirms that the Brahman described here is the living individual soul. This Brahman [the jīva], which is different from matter, should thus be understood as the original cause of the many enjoyer-puruṣas and the original cause of their sinless activities as well. In this way it has been proven that the Brahman described in this passage is the individual spirit soul [jīva]. The theory that there is a Supreme Personality of Godhead is separate from the individual spirit soul [jīva] is thus completely untenable. The text [sa aikṣata] that explains that the creator thinks is thus very appropriate if it is understood that the original cause, the controller of the material energy that creates this world, is in fact the individual soul [jīva].”

Siddhānta: In response to this, he says:

Sūtra 1.4.16

jagad-vācitvāt

jagat – the world; vācitvāt – because of the word.

[The word Brahman here means the Supreme Personality of Godhead, because the word karma here should be understood] to mean jagat [creation].

The word Brahman here does not mean the kṣetrajña [individual spiritual soul] described in the tantras, but rather it means the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is known by study of Vedānta. Why? Because of the use of the word jagat. Because it is accompanied by the word jagat, the word karma in this passage means “the material world composed of a mixture of matter and spirit.” Because He is the original creator, this karma [material world] may be understood to be His property [yasya karma]. The truth is this: the word karma, which is derived from the verb kṛ [to do, create] here means creation. When this interpretation is accepted the actual meaning of the word here is understood. This interpretation refutes the mistaken idea that the individual spirit soul [ jīva] is the original creator. Even the Kapila-tantra does not accept the individual living entity as the original creator. One also cannot say that by adhyāsa [association] the individual living entity may be considered the creator of the material world, for all the scriptures maintain that the spirit soul is always aloof from matter. For these reasons it is the Supreme Personality of Godhead who is the original creator of the material world. It cannot be that King Ajātaśatru speaks lies in this passage. Rejecting Bālākī’s teaching that the sixteen puruṣas [persons] are Brahman, Ajātaśatru promises, “I will tell you about Brahman.” If Ajātaśatru then teaches that the jīvas [individual spirit souls] are Brahman then his teaching is no different than Bālākī’s, and he is dishonest to reject Bālākī’s instruction as untrue, and then teach the same instruction as the truth. In this way the meaning of this passage is understood. “You have described these puruṣas [persons] as Brahman, but I will tell you of someone who is the creator of all of them,” is the gist of Ajātaśatru’s statement. In this way it should be understood that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original cause and the entire material world is His creation.

idaṁ hi viśvaṁ bhagavān ivetaro
yato jagat-sthāna-nirodha-sambhavāḥ

“The Supreme Lord, the 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 into Him it enters after annihilation.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.5.20]

ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo
mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate
iti matvā bhajante māṁ
budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ

“I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.” [Bhagavad-gītā 10.8]

Pūrvapakṣa: If someone objects “Because it mentions mukhya-prāṇa [the chief breath of life] the Brahman here must be the jīva and not anyone else,” then he replies:

Sūtra 1.4.17

jīva-mukhya-prāṇa-liṅgān neti cet tad-vyākhyātam

jīva – the individual spiritual entity; mukhya – the chief; prāṇa – breath of life; liṅgān – because of the characteristics; na – not; iti – thus; cet – if; tad – that; vyākhyātam – has been explained.

If the objection is raised that the jīva or chief breath of life is described as Brahman in this passage, then I say, “No. This has already been explained [in Sūtra 1.1.31].”

In Sūtra 1.1.31, which dealt with the conversation of Indra and Pratardana, this question was conclusively decided. There it was explained that in a passage where in both the beginning and the end Brahman was explicitly named, what in the beginning may seem perhaps by its characteristics to refer to the jīvas or something else, without them being explicitly mentioned, must be taken as referring to Brahman also.

This passage from the Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad begins with the words brahma te bravāṇi: “Now I will tell you about Brahman,” and ends with the words sarvān pāpmāno ‘pahatya sarveṣāṁ bhūtāānāṁ śreṣṭham ādhipatyaṁ paryeti ya eva veda: “A person who understands this becomes free from all sins. He becomes the king of all men.” Because of these words understood according to the explanation given in the conversation of Indra and Pratardana [Sūtra 1.1.31] and because of the other arguments given here, the words yasya caitat karma in this passage of Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad should not be understood to refer to anything other than Brahman, the Personality of Godhead.

Someone many object, “Certainly you may connect the words karma and prāṇa with the word etat and then interpret them to refer to Brahman, but still there are direct references to the jīva in this passage of Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad. The evidence of the questions and answers in this passage make it impossible to consider Brahman different from the jīva. In the question about the sleeper the jīva is asked about, and in the questions about the place of sleep, the naḍīs, and the senses, the jīva, who is here called prāṇa, is also asked about. It is the jīva who awakens at the end. In this way the entire passage is about the jīva. In this way it may be understood that the jīva is the Supreme.”

This argument is based on the rest of the passage quoted from Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad 4.18, which is given in its entirety below:

Bālākī first mentions the puruṣa in the sun as Brahman. Then on being refuted by Ajātaśatru, he goes on mentioning various puruṣas in the moon, lightning, the thundercloud, in the wind, in the ether, in the fire, in the waters, in the mirror, in the shadow, in the echo, in sound, in sleep, in body, in the right eye, and in the left eye. All these were refuted by Ajātaśatru. Then having exhausted all his ideas of Brahman, Bālākī fell silent. Ajātaśatru said to him, “Is this as far as your knowledge goes, O Bālākī?” “Thus far only,” he replied.

Ajātaśatru said, “Do not speak proudly without cause, saying ‘Let me tell you about Brahman.’ O Bālākī, the person who is the creator of these sixteen puruṣas, the person engaged in this karma is the actual Brahman.” Then Bālākī approached him with fuel in his hand, saying, “Let me accept you as guru.”

Ajātaśatru said, “I consider it unnatural that a kṣatriya should be the guru of a brāhmaṇa. Come, I will tell you all I know.” Taking Bālākī by the hand, Ajātaśatru went out. They came to a man asleep. Ajātaśatru pushed him with his staff, and the man immediately got up. Ajātaśatru said to Bālākī, “Where was this sleeping soul resting? Where did he go, and from where did he return upon awakening?” Bālākī did not know what to say. Then Ajātaśatru said to Bālākī, “The vessels of the heart named Hitā surround the heart membrane; thin as a hair divided into a thousand parts and filled with the minute essence of various colors—white, black, yellow and red—when a jīva is in dreamless sleep, he abides therein.

“Then he is absorbed in that prāṇa. Then speech enters into it with all names, sight enters into it with all forms, hearing enters into it with all sounds, the mind enters into it with all thoughts. As sparks go out in all directions from a blazing fire, when the soul awakens, all the prāṇas go out to their stations; from the prāṇas come the devas, from the devas the worlds. This is the true prāṇa, identical with prajñā; entering this body and soul, to the hair and nails. The subordinate souls follow this Soul, as the household follows the householder. As the householder feeds with his household, and as the household feeds on the householder, so this Soul, itself prajñā, feeds with those souls, and those souls feed on this Soul. As long as Indra did not know this Soul, the asuras defeated him. When he knew Him, then then having conquered and slain the asuras, he attained the pre-eminence of all the demigods and all beings, he attained sovereignty and empire. Thus too it is with him who has this knowledge; having destroyed all sins, he attains the pre-eminence of all beings, and sovereignty and empire, who knows thus, who knows thus.”

To answer this doubt he says:

Sūtra 1.4.18

anyārthaṁ tu jaiminiḥ praśna-vyākhyānābhyām api caivam eke

anya – another; arthaṁ – meaning; tu – but; jaiminiḥ – Jaimini; praśna – with the questions; vyākhyānābhyām – and answers; api – also; ca – and; evam – in this way; eke – some.

Jaimini thinks these questions and answers convey a different meaning, and some versions of the text also give a different meaning.

The word tu [but] is used here to dispel doubt. The description of the jīva here has a different meaning. Jaimini considers that this passage explains that Brahman and the jīva are different. Why? Because of the questions and answers in this passage. The questions ask about the living soul, sleeping and awake, who is different from the life-breath. The text reads: kvaiṣa etad bālāke puruṣa śayiṣṭa kva vā etad abhūt kuta etad agāt: “O Bālākī, where does this person rest while he sleeps? From where does he come when he wakes?” In this question the difference between Brahman and the jīva may be clearly seen. The answer is given, yadā suptaḥ svapnaṁ na kañcana paśyati tathāsmin prāṇa evaikadhā bhavati: “When he sleeps without seeing a dream he becomes one with the life-breath.” The passage etasmād ātmanaḥ prāṇā yathāyatanaṁ vipratiṣṭante prāṇebhyo devā devebhyo lokāḥ: “From that Supreme Self the breath of life comes. From the breath of life the demigods come. From the demigods the planets come,” shows the difference between Brahman and the jīva.

The word prāṇa here means Lord Paramātmā, because Paramātmā is famous as the resting-place of dreamless sleep. Into Him the jīvas merge, and from Him they become manifested again. The meaning of the following passage is that the nāḍīs are merely the gateways leading to the realm of sleep. The Paramātmā should be understood to be where the jīva sleeps, and from whom the jīva emerges to enjoy. In the Vājasaneyī recension of this conversation between Bālākī and Ajātaśatru, the jīva is described as vijñānamaya [full of knowledge] and Brahman is clearly distinguished from him. In that reading the question is, ya eṣa vijñānamayaḥ puruṣaḥ kvaiṣa tadābhūt kuta etad āgāt: “O Bālākī, where does this person full of knowledge rest while he sleeps? From where does he come when he wakes?” The answer is given, ya eṣo ‘ntar hṛdaya ākāśas tasmin śete: “He rests in the sky within the heart.” We have already discussed in Sūtra 1.3.14 that the Supreme Brahman is found in the small sky within the heart of the living entities. In this way it is proved that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the object of knowledge taught in this passage.

Adhikaraṇa 6: The Ātmā of Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5 is Brahman and Not Jīva

Viṣaya: The materialistic impersonalist speculators again try to misuse the authority of the Vedic literatures to prove their theory that the pradhāna, not Brahman, is the source of creation, and that knowledge of the jīvas is the cause of liberation. In this example they try to redefine the word ātmā, which primarily signifies Paramātmā, the Supersoul or Self of existence. There is a famous passage in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5 where Yājñavalkya teaches his wife Maitreyī about Brahman:

Yājñavalkya had two wives, and Kātyāyanī. Maitreyī was conversant with Brahman, but Kātyāyanī had only such knowledge as is commonly possessed by women. Yājñavalkya, when he was preparing to give up the life of a householder and enter into the forest, said “Maitreyī, certainly I am going away from this my house, into the forest. Let us make a settlement between you and Kātyāyanī.”

Maitreyī said “My lord, if all the wealth in this whole earth were to belong to me, tell me, would I be immortal by it, or not?” Yājñavalkya replied “No, your life would be like the life of rich people, but there is no hope of immortality by wealth.” Then Maitreyī said “What use is that by which I do not become immortal? What my lord knows of immortality, tell that clearly to me.”

Yājñavalkya said, “You who are truly dear to me, and you have increased what is dear to me in you. Therefore if you like, I will explain it to you, and mark well what I say.

“Verily a husband is not dear, that you may love the husband; but that you may love the Self [ātmā], therefore the husband is dear.

“Verily sons are not dear, that you may love the sons; but that you may love the Self [ātmā], therefore the sons are dear.

“Verily a wife is not dear, that you may love the wife; but that you may love the Self [ātmā], therefore the wife is dear.

“Verily wealth is not dear, that you may love wealth; but that you may love the Self [ātmā], therefore wealth is dear.

“Verily cattle are not dear, that you may love the cattle; but that you may love the Self [ātmā], therefore the cattle are 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 Vedas are not dear, that you may love the Vedas; but that you may love the Self [ātmā], therefore the Vedas 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 everything is not dear, that you may love everything; but that you may love the Self [ātmā], therefore everything is dear.

“Verily, the Self should be seen, heard, worshiped, and always meditated on. O Maitreyī, by seeing, hearing, worshiping, and understanding the Self [ātmā], everything becomes known.”

“Whoever looks for the brāhmaṇas elsewhere than the Self, is abandoned by the brāhmaṇas.

“Whoever looks for the kṣatriyas elsewhere than the Self, is abandoned by the kṣatriyas.

“Whoever looks for the worlds elsewhere than the Self, is abandoned by the worlds.

“Whoever looks for the devas elsewhere than the Self, is abandoned by the devas.

“Whoever looks for the living entities elsewhere than the Self, is abandoned by the living entities.

“Whoever looks for everything elsewhere than the Self, is abandoned by everything.

“These brāhmaṇas, these kṣatriyas, these worlds, these devas, these Vedas, all these living entities, all and everything is the Self.

“Now as the sounds of a drum being beaten cannot be seized externally by themselves, but the sound is seized when the drum is seized, or the beater of the drum; or as the sounds of a conch being blown cannot be seized externally by themselves, but the sound is seized when the conch is seized, or the blower of the conch; and as the sounds of a flute being played cannot be seized externally by themselves, but the sound is seized when the flute is seized, or the player of the flute; as smoke comes from a fire made with wet fuel, the Rg Veda, Sāma Veda, Yajur Veda, Atharva Veda, Purāṇas, Itihāsas, Vidyās, Upaniṣads, ślokas, sūtras, vyākhyās, and anuvyākhyās, come from the breath of the Supreme Person. As the ocean is the sole resting place of all waters, so the skin is the sole resting-place of all tactile sensations, the nose is the sole resting-place of all fragrances, the tongue is the sole resting-place of all tastes, the eyes are the sole resting-place of all forms, the ears are the sole resting-place of all sounds, the mind is the sole resting-place of all thoughts and desires, the heart is the sole resting place of all knowledge, the hands are the sole resting-place of all work, the genitals are the sole resting-place of all material bliss, the anus is the sole resting-place of all expulsions, the feet are the sole resting-place of all pathways, and words are the sole resting-place of all the Vedas. As a little salt merges into water and cannot be again extracted from it, although the water itself becomes salty, so does this great being, limitless, endless, and full of knowledge, rise from these elements and then vanish into them. When He has departed, there is no more knowledge, I say, O Maitreyī.” Thus spoke Yājñavalkya.

Then Maitreyī said, “Here, Sir, you have landed me in utter bewilderment. Indeed I do not understand Him [the Self].” But he replied, “Maitreyī, I say nothing that is bewildering. Verily, that Self is imperishable, of an indestructible nature. For when there seems to be duality, then one sees the other, one smells the other, one tastes the other, one salutes the other, one hears the other, one perceives the other, one touches the other, one knows the other; but when the Self only is all this, how should he see another, how should he smell another, how should he taste another, how should he salute another, how should he hear another, how should he touch another, how should he know another? That Self is to be described by ‘No, no!’ He is incomprehensible, for He cannot be understood; He is imperishable, for He cannot perish; He is unattached, for He does not attach Himself; unfettered, He does not suffer, He does not fail. How, O Beloved, should one know the Knower?

“Thus, O Maitreyī, you have been instructed; thus far goes immortality.” Having said this, Yājñavalkya went away into the forest.

The most significant verses in this passage are the following:

na vā are patyuḥ kāmāya patiḥ priyo bhavati

“A husband is not dear because the wife loves the husband; the husband is dear because she loves the Self [ātmā].”

He also says:

na vā are sarvasya kāmāya sarvaṁ priyaṁ
bhavati ātmanas tu kāmāya sarvaṁ priyaṁ bhavati

“Everything is not dear because one loves everything; everything is dear because one loves the Self [ātmā].”

Again, he says:

ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo maitreyy ātmano vā are darśanena śravaṇena matyā vijñānena idaṁ sarvaṁ viditam

“The Self should be seen, heard, worshiped, and always meditated on. O Maitreyī, by seeing, hearing, worshiping, and understanding the Self [ātmā], everything becomes known.”

Saṁśaya: In this passage which self is to be understood: the jīva [individual spirit soul] described in the Kapila-tantra, or the Paramātmā [the Supreme Personality of Godhead]?

Pūrvapakṣa: Because in this passage he describes the love of husband and wife and because in the middle of the passage he says: etebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya tāny evānuvinaśyati na pretya-saṁjñāsti: “He leaves the material elements, his body is destroyed, he dies and is no longer conscious,” words that clearly describe a resident of the material world who is subject to birth and death, and because at the end he says: vijñātāram are kena vijānīyāt: “How should we understand the person who is the knower?” this passage should be interpreted to describe the jīva, who is the knower described in the Kapila-tantra.

You may object: “But it says that by knowing the Self everything becomes known. Certainly this refers to the Paramātmā and not the jīva.” but this objection is not valid. The jīva takes birth in this world with an aim to enjoy and one may figuratively say that by knowing the jīva one knows everything for one then knows the world around him meant for his enjoyment. You may again object, “This passage cannot refer to the jīva because the text says amṛtatvasya tu nāśāsti vittena: ‘By knowing Him one becomes immortal.’ Because it is only by knowing the Paramātmā that one becomes immortal, how can this passage refer to the jīva?” This objection is also invalid because one may also attain immortality by understanding that the jīva is by nature different from matter. In the same way, all descriptions in this passage that seem to refer to Brahman should be understood to refer to the jīva. Actually this entire passage describes the jīva. Therefore it should be understood that the material nature, which is under the control of the jīva, is the original cause of the world.

Siddhānta: In this matter:

Sūtra 1.4.19

vākyānvayāt

vākya – statement; anvayāt – because of the connection.

The context of this passage [proves that Brahman is the object of discussion.]

In this passage the Paramātmā, and not the jīva of the Kapila-tantra, is described. Why? Because in the context of the whole passage, including what precedes and follows this quote, that is the appropriate interpretation. Three sages also confirm this interpretation:

Sūtra 1.4.20

pratijñā-siddher liṅgam āśmarathyaḥ

pratijñā – of the promise; siddher – of the fulfillment; liṅgam – the mark; āśmarathyaḥ – Āśmarathya.

Āśmarathya [maintains that the Self here is Paramātmā because only in that way] is the promise [that by knowledge of the Self everything is known] fulfilled.

Āśmarathya maintains that the promise ātmano vijñānena sarvaṁ viditam: “By knowledge of the Self everything is known,” indicates that the Self referred to here is the Paramātmā. It is not taught here that by knowledge of the jīva everything becomes known. On the other hand, everything becomes known by knowledge of the cause of all causes. It is not possible to interpret these words in a figurative way, because after promising that by knowing the Self everything becomes known, in the passage beginning brahma taṁ parādāt: “One who thinks the brāhmaṇas rest in a place other than the Self is spurned by the brāhmaṇas. One who thinks the kṣatriyas rest in a place other than the Self is spurned by the kṣatriyas. One who thinks the worlds rest in a place other than the self is spurned by the worlds,” he affirms that the Paramātmā is the form of everything and the resting place of the brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, and world. For these reasons it is not possible that the Self here can be any other than the Paramātmā.

It is also not possible for the individual living entity who remains under the control of karma to be the original cause of all causes described in the passage beginning tasya vā etasya mahato bhūtasya niḥśvasitam: “The Vedas were manifested from the breathing of this Supreme Being.” It is also not possible for the sage Yājñavalkya to have taught his wife, who had renounced all wealth and material benefits to attain liberation, only about the jīva and not about the Supreme Brahman. It is also not possible that the Self referred to here is the jīva because one cannot attain liberation simply by knowing the jīva. That liberation is attained only by understanding the Supreme Brahman is confirmed in the following statement of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.8 and 6.15: tam eva viditvāti mṛtyum eti: “By understanding the Supreme Brahman one is able to transcend death.” For all these reasons it should be understood that the Self described in this passage is the Paramātmā.

The objection may be raised: “Because the Self in this passage is described as the object of love for the husband and other persons, this self must be the jīva bound to the cycle of repeated birth and death and not the Paramātmā. It cannot be said that the Self described here must be the Paramātmā because that interpretation answers the promise of Yājñavalkya to speak certain words, nor can it be said that the Self here must be the Paramātmā because this Self is the shelter of the devotees, the creator of everything, all-powerful, and the origin of transcendental bliss.

The jīva may also be these things, as the Padma Purāṇa explains:

yenārcito haris tena tarpitāni jaganty api rajyanti jantavas tatra sthāvarā jaṅgamā api

“One who worships Lord Hari pleases all the worlds. All moving and non-moving creatures love the devotee.”

In this way the Self described here is not the Paramātmā.”

Siddhānta: Fearing that the opponent may speak these words, he says:

Sūtra 1.4.21

utkramiṣyata evaṁ bhāvād ity auḍulomiḥ

utkramiṣyataḥ – of a person about to depart; evam – in this way; bhāvāt – from this condition; iti – thus; auḍulomiḥ – Auḍulomi.

Auḍulomi maintains that one about to become liberated attains the transcendental qualities of the Lord.

The word utkramiṣyataḥ here means a person who by following spiritual practices attains the Paramātmā. Evaṁ bhāvāt means “because of being dear to everyone.” Ātmā means “Paramātmā.” This is the opinion of Auḍulomi. The passage patyuḥ kāmāya patiḥ priyobhavati: “A husband is not dear because the wife loves the husband; a husband is dear because she loves the Self,” means that if a wife thinks “By my own power I shall become dear to my husband” her husband will not love her. However, if the wife loves the Paramātmā, then Lord Paramātmā will make everyone love this devotee-wife. The word kāma here means “desire” and kāmāya means “to fulfill the desire.” The use of the dative case here is described in Pāṇini’s sūtras [Aṣṭādhyāyī 2.3.1 or Siddhānta-kaumudī 581] in the following words:

kriyārthopapadasya ca karmaṇi sthāninaḥ

“The dative case is used for the object of a verb understood but not expressed. In the dative two verbs are used together and the action is in the future.”

In other words this passage [patyuḥ kāmāya] of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad means “When He is worshiped with devotion, the Supreme Personality of Godhead makes everything a source of happiness for His devotees.” This is corroborated by the following statement of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [11.14.13]:

akiñcanasya dāntasya
śāntasya sama-cetasaḥ
mayā santuṣṭa-manasaḥ
sarvāḥ sukhamayā diśaḥ

“For a person who is renounced, self-controlled, peaceful, equal to all, and who finds his happiness in Me, every place in this world is full of joy.”

The passage patyuḥ kāmāya may also be interpreted to mean “Trying to please the husband does not please him. Only when the wife tries to please the Paramātmā does the husband become pleased.” This interpretation is corroborated by the following statement of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [10.23.27]:

prāṇa-buddhi-manaḥ-svātma-
dārāpatya-dhanādayaḥ
yat-samparkāt priyā āsaṁs
tataḥ ko ‘nyaḥ paraḥ priyaḥ

“Our life, property, home, wife, children, house, country, society, and all paraphernalia which are very dear to us are expansions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Who is more dear to us than the Supreme Person?”

In this interpretation the word kāma means “happiness” and the dative case is used in the same sense as the previous interpretation. This interpretation means that by the will of the Paramātmā, by the nearness of the Paramātmā, or by the touch of the Paramātmā, even what is ordinarily unpleasant becomes blissful. Therefore when the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad says ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ: “The Self should be seen,” the word ātmā means the dear Lord Hari. It is not possible to interpret the word ātmā here to mean the jīva because here the primary meaning of ātmā is the supremely powerful Personality of Godhead. To interpret ātmā in any other way would contradict the way the word had been used in the previous passage [vākya-bheda]. We do not see how it is possible to interpret ātmā in a way different from the way it was clearly used in the immediately previous passage. In this way the word ātmā in ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ must be the Paramātmā. In both passages [ātmanas tu kāmāya and ātmā vā] the word ātmā cannot mean the jīva, for in these contexts the word ātmā can only refer to Brahman.

Although Auḍulomi is a nirguṇa-ātmavādī [impersonalist] as will be explained later on [Vedanta-sūtra 4.4.6] in the words citi tan-mātreṇa tad-ātmakatvād ity auḍulomiḥ: “When he is liberated the jīva enters the Supreme Intelligence, for the jīva is actually intelligence only. This the the opinion of Auḍulomi.” Still Auḍulomi maintains that Lord Hari should be worshiped in order to dispel ignorance and reveal the true nature of the self, as will be explained in the following words [Vedānta-sūtra 3.4.45]: ārtvijyam ity auḍulomis tasmai hi parikrīyate: “Just as a Vedic priest is purchased to perform a yajña, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is purchased by His devotees’ love.” In this way it is proved that pure devotion to Lord Hari fulfills all desires.

Our opponent may say: “So be it. However, in the same Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [2.4.12] we find the following words:

sa yathā saindhava-khilya udake prāptam udakam evānulīyate na hāsyodgrahaṇāyaiva syād yato yatas tv ādīta lavaṇam evaivaṁ vā. Are idaṁ mahad bhūtam anantam apāraṁ vijñāna-ghana evaitebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya tāny evānuvinaśyati

“As a little salt merges into water and cannot be again extracted from it, although the water itself becomes salty, so does this great being, limitless, endless, and full of knowledge, rise from these elements and then vanish into them.”

How do you reconcile this statement with your interpretation of the word ātmā in this Upaniṣad? Clearly this passage refers to the jīva described in the Kapila-tantra, because that is the appropriate interpretation.”

To answer this doubt he says:

Sūtra 1.4.22

avasthiter iti kāśakṛtsnaḥ

avasthiter – because of residence; iti – thus; kāśakṛtsnaḥ – Kāśakṛtsna.

This passage refers to Paramātmā, for Paramātmā resides within the jīva. This is the opinion of Kāśakṛtsna.

In this statement the word avasthiteḥ [residing] which refers to the Paramātmā, the Great Being who is different from the jīva, and who is described as vijñāna-ghana [full of knowledge], teaches that the Paramātmā is different from the jīva and resides within him. Kāśakṛtsna considers that because the Paramātmā and the jīva are different the words mahad-bhūtam [Great Being], anantam [limitless] and vijñāna-ghana cannot refer to the jīva. A summary of the passage from Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad under discussion follows.

yenāhaṁ nāmṛtaḥ syāṁ kim ahaṁ tena kuryām

“Tell me what I must do to become free of death.” [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5.4]

Asked this question about the means to attain liberation, the sage answered:

ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo maitreyy ātmano vā are darśanena śravaṇena matyā vijñānena idaṁ sarvaṁ viditam

“The Self should be seen, heard, worshiped, and always meditated on. O Maitreyī, by seeing, hearing, worshiping, and understanding the Self, everything becomes known.”

In this way he explains that the worship of Paramātmā is the way to attain liberation. Then he says:

sa yathā dundubher hanyamānasya
bāhyāñ chabdāñ chakruyād grahaṇāya dundubhes tu
grahaṇena dundubhy-āghātasya vā śabdo gṛhītaḥ

“As the sounds of a drum when beaten cannot be seized externally, although when the drum or the player of the drum are seized then the sounds are also seized.”

Thus, in a very general way he explains the proper method of worshiping the Paramātmā: sense-control. He continues in the following words:

sa yathārdhraidho ‘gner abhyāhitasya pṛthag dhūmā viniścaranty evaṁ vā are ‘sya mahato bhūtasya niśvāsitam etad yad ṛg vedo yajur vedaḥ sāma-vedo ‘tharvāṅgirasa itihāsaḥ purāṇaṁ vidyā upaniṣadaḥ ślokāḥ sūtrāṇy anuvyākhyānāni vyākhyānānīṣṭaṁ hutam āśitaṁ pāyitam ayaṁ calokaḥ paraś ca lokaḥ sarvāṇi ca bhūtāny asyaikaitāni sarvāṇi niśvasitāni. Sa yathā sarvāsām apāṁ samudra ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ sparśānām tvacaikāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ rasānāṁ jihvaikāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ gandhānāṁ nāsikaikāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ rūpāṇāṁ cakṣur ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ śabdānāṁśrotram ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ saṅkalpānāṁ mana ekāyanam evaṁ sarvāsāṁ vidyānāṁ hṛdayam ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣām karmaṇāṁ hastāv ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣām ānandānāṁ upastha ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁvisargāṇāṁ pāyur ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣām adhvanāṁ pādāv ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ vedānāṁ vāg ekāyanam

“As smoke comes from a fire made with wet fuel, the Rg Veda, Sāma Veda, Yajur Veda, Atharva Veda, Purāṇas, Itihāsas, Vidyās, Upaniṣads, ślokas, sūtras, vyākhyās, and anuvyākhyās, come from the breath of the Supreme Person. As the ocean is the sole resting place of all waters, so the skin is the sole resting-place of all tactile sensations, the nose is the sole resting-place of all fragrances, the tongue is the sole resting-place of all tastes, the eyes are the sole resting-place of all forms, the ears are the sole resting-place of all sounds, the mind is the sole resting-place of all thoughts and desires, the heart is the sole resting place of all knowledge, the hands are the sole resting-place of all work, the genitals are the sole resting-place of all material bliss, the anus is the sole resting-place of all expulsions, the feet are the sole resting-place of all pathways, and words are the sole resting-place of all the Vedas.”

To encourage the desire for liberation he says:

sa yathā saindhava-khilya udake prāptam udakam evānulīyate na hāsyodgrahaṇāyaiva syād yato yatas tv ādīta lavaṇam evaivaṁ vā. are idaṁ mahad bhūtam anantam apāraṁ vijñāna-ghana evaitebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya tāny evānuvinaśyati

“As a little salt merges into water and cannot be again extracted from it, although the water itself becomes salty, so does this Great Being, limitless, endless, and full of knowledge, rise from these elements and then vanish into them.”

In this way he explains that the supreme object of worship is immanent: always near to the jīva. In the words etebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya tāny evānuvinaśyati: “So does this great being, limitless, endless, and full of knowledge, rise from these elements and then vanish into them,” he describes the non-devotees who do not worship the Lord, who mistake the external material body for the self, who at the time of death remain in the cycle of repeated birth and death, and for whom the Supreme Lord remains invisible, hidden within the material elements.

The words na pretya saṁjñāsti, “After death he becomes free of the world of names,” describe the devotee when he leaves the material body and attains liberation. At that time the liberated devotee becomes aware of his real spiritual identity. He then considers all material designations to be the same and he no longer thinks of himself as a human being, demigod, or any other kind of material being. Consider the words:

yatra hi dvaitam iva bhavati tad itara itaraṁ paśyati tad itara itaraṁ jighrati tad itara itaraṁ rasayate tad itara itaram abhivadati tad itara itaraṁ śṛṇoti tad itara itaraṁ manute tad itara itaraṁ spṛśati tad itara itaraṁ vijānāti yatra tv asya sarvam ātmaivābhūt tat tena kaṁ paśyet tat tena kaṁ jighret tat kena kaṁ rasayet tat kena kam abhivadet tat kena kaṁ śṛṇuyāt tat kena kaṁ manvīta tata tena kaṁ spṛśet tat tena kaṁ vijānīyāt

“Where there is duality one sees another, smells another, tastes another, offers respect to another, hears another, thinks of another, touches another, and is aware of another. But for one for whom the Supreme Self is everything how can he see another? How can he smell another? How can he taste another? How can he offer respect to another? How can he hear another? How can he think of another? How can he touch another? How can he be aware of another?”

This explains how the liberated jīva takes shelter of the the Paramātmā. The words yenedaṁ sarvaṁ vijānāti taṁ kena vijānīyāt: “How can a person, even if he understands the entire world, understand Him?” teach that it is very difficult to understand the Supreme Lord. The words vijñṭāram are kena vijānīyāt: “How can one understand the Supreme Knower?” mean “How can one understand the all-knowing Supreme Personality of Godhead without first worshiping Him and attaining His mercy? There is no other way than this.” In this way the worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is described as the actual means of liberation. The speaker of the Upaniṣad concludes by declaring that actual liberation is the same as attaining the Paramātmā.

From all this it may be understood that this passage of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad describes the Paramātmā and not the puruṣa as described in the Kapila-tantra, or the material nature controlled by the puruṣa.

Adhikaraṇa 7: Brahman is Both Primary and Secondary Cause

Viṣaya: Now that he has refuted the atheistic pradhāna theory, he will refute some theistic theories and prove that all scriptural descriptions of the cause of the universe refer to the Supreme Brahman. Some philosophers consider that the material world is an illusion, and only the spiritual existence is actually real. However, for this to be the case, the material energy would have to be completely different from the the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The actual Vedic philosophy is that the Lord is both the efficient cause and the material cause of the material manifestation; in other words, He is both the Creator and the ingredient of the material world. In this way it may be understood that the vivarta theory, that the material world is an illusion, is untrue and the pariṇāma theory that the material world is a transformation of Brahman is the truth taught in the Vedic scriptures.

Let us consider the following scriptural passages:

tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśaḥ sambhūtaḥ

“From ātmā the sky was manifested.” [Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1]

yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante

“From the Supreme these creatures were born.” [Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1]

sad eva saumyedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyaṁ tad aikṣata bahu syām prajāyeya

“O gentle one, in the beginning was the Supreme, who was one without a second. He thought: ‘Let me become many. Let me become the father of many.’ ” [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.1]

sa aikṣata lokān nu sṛjā

“He thought: ‘Now I shall create the worlds.’ ” [Aitareya Upaniṣad 1.1.2]

Saṁśaya: Should Brahman be considering the primary cause or the ingredient of the creation? Because the Upasniṣads say sa aikṣata: “He thought: ‘Now I shall create the worlds’,” the first proposal, that Brahman is the primary cause and not the ingredient of creation, should be considered true. Although the Upaniṣad says tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśaḥ sambhūtaḥ: “From ātmā the sky was manifested,” still this should be interpreted to mean only that the Supreme is the primary Creator, and not the ingredient of creation of the worlds. The quotes tad aikṣata bahu syām prajāyeya: “He thought, ‘Let me become many. Let me become the father of many.’ ” and sa aikṣata lokān nu sṛjā: “He thought: ‘Now I shall create the worlds’,” because of their clear explanation that the Lord’s thinking precedes the creation, show that the Lord is the primary Creator in the same way a potter is the creator of pots. Because the creation itself and the ingredients of which it is made must have the same nature, the ingredient of the material creation must be the material energy [prakṛti]. It is not possible to say that the primary cause of creation is identical with the ingredients of the creation. In the material world made of dull matter, the ingredients are earth and the other elements, and the creator is consciousness, just as pots are made of the elements and the creator of the pots is the conscious potter. Here the pots and the potter are clearly different. Furthermore, many diverse causes may create a single effect. Therefore it cannot be said that a single thing is both the primary cause and the ingredient of creation. The changing material energy [prakṛti], which is controlled by the unchanging Brahman is the ingredient of the changing material universe, and Brahman is only its primary cause. This statement is not based only on logic, for it is also supported by the following passage of the Culika Upaniṣad:

vikāra-jananīm ajñāṁ aṣṭa-rūpām ajāṁ dhruvam
dhyāyate ‘dhyāsitā tena tanyate preritā punaḥ

sūyate puruṣārthaṁ ca tenaivādhiṣṭhitā jagat
gaur anādy-antavatī sā janitrī bhūta-bhāvinī

sitāsitā ca raktā ca sarvakām adhunā vibhoḥ
pibanty enām aviṣamām avijñātāḥ kumārakāḥ

ekas tu pibate devaḥ svacchando ‘tra vaśānugām
dhyāna-kriyābhyāṁ bhagavān bhuṅkte ‘sau prasabhaṁ vibhuḥ

sarva-sādhāraṇīṁ dogdhrīṁ pīyamānāṁ tu yajvabhiḥ
catur-viṁśati-saṅkhyākaṁ avyaktaṁ vyaktam ucyate

“The Supreme Personality of Godhead meditates on the unborn, eternal, unintelligent material nature [prakṛti], which has eight forms, and by His order the material nature creates the material worlds and the various goals of life adopted by the living entities. Material nature is a beginningless, endless cow, the mother of the worlds. Without knowing, her children, the creatures in goodness, passion, and ignorance all drink her nourishing milk. The one independent, all-powerful Supreme Personality of Godhead strongly enjoys her with thought and deed, she who is the milk-giving mother of all, who is drunk by the performers of sacrifice, and who is said to be both the unmanifested and the manifested divided into 24 elements.”

Furthermore, the Viṣṇu Purāṇa says:

yathā sannidhi-mātreṇa gandhaḥ kṣobhāya jāyate
manaso nopakartṛtvāt tathāsau parameśvaraḥ

sannidhānād yathākāśa-kālādyāḥ kāraṇaṁ taroḥ
tathaivāparigāmena viśvasya bhagavān hariḥ

nimitta-mātram evāsau sṛṣṭānāṁ sarga-karmaṇi
pradhāna-kāriṇī bhūtā yato vai sṛjya-śaktayaḥ

“When there is a fragrant flower before someone, the fragrance is touched by the smelling power of the person, yet the smelling and the flower are detached from one another. There is a similar connection between the material world and the Supreme Personality of Godhead: actually He has nothing to do with this material world, but He creates by His glance and ordains. In summary, material nature, without the superintendence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, cannot do anything. Yet the Supreme Personality is detached from all material activities.”

For these reasons, whatever scriptural passages state that Brahman is the ingredient of the creation should be interpreted to have a different meaning.

Siddhānta: To this argument he replies:

Sūtra 1.4.23

prakṛtiś ca pratijñā dṛṣṭāntānuparodhāt

prakṛtiḥ – material nature; ca – and; pratijñā – theproposition to be proved; dṛṣṭānta – example; anuparodhāt – because of not contradicting.

Brahman is also the material nature [prakṛti] because this view is not contradicted by the statements and examples [given in the scriptures].

Brahman is the material nature [prakṛti], the ingredient of the world. How is that? It is so because pratijñā-dṛṣṭāntānuparodhāt, which means “Because this view is not contradicted by the statements and examples of the scriptures.” An example may be given from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.1.3:

śvetaketo yan nu saumyedaṁ mahā-manā anūcāna-mānī stabdho ‘sy uta tam ādeśam aprākṣīr yenāśrutaṁ śrutaṁ bhavaty amataṁ matam avijñātaṁ vijñātam ity eka-vijñānena sarva-vijñāna-viṣayā pratijñā

“Gentle Śvetaketu, you are now very proud and arrogant, thinking yourself a great Vedic scholar. Did you ask for the teaching that makes the unheard heard, the unthinkable thinkable, and the unknown known?”

Here the statement is the existence of a single teaching, the knowledge of which makes everything known. This teaching must be about the ingredient of the world for only that knowledge would not contradict the description in this passage. That ingredient of the world is not different from the original creator of the world. They are one, unlike the pot and the potter, which are different from each other.

The following example is given [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.1.10]:

yathā saumyaikena mṛt-piṇḍena sarvaṁ mṛṇ-mayaṁ vijñātaṁ syāt

“O gentle one, as by knowing the nature of clay, everything made of clay becomes known, in the same way by understanding this one teaching everything becomes known.”

These words of the śruti must refer to the ingredient of the world. They cannot refer to only the original creator of the world, for by understanding only the potter one does not understand the pot. Therefore, to avoid contradicting these words of the scripture, it must be concluded that Brahman is not only the original creator of the world, but the ingredient of which the world is made as well.

Sūtra 1.4.24

abhidhyopadeśāc ca

abhidhya – will; upadeśāc – because of the teaching; ca – and.

Because [the scriptures] teach [that in this age the world was created by His] will and [in previous creations the world was also created by His will, it must be concluded that Brahman is both the original cause of creation and the ingredient of the creation as well].

In this sūtra the word ca [and] means “and many other things that are not explicitly mentioned here.”

The Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.6.1] explains:

so ‘kāmayata bahu syāṁ prajāyeya sa tapo ‘tapyata tapas taptvā idaṁ sarvam asṛjat. Yad idaṁ kiñcana tat sṛṣṭvā tad evānuprāviśat. Tad anupraviśya sac ca tyac cābhavat.

“He desired: I will become many. I will father many children. He performed austerities and created everything. Then He entered within the world He had created. After He entered He became all that is manifest and all that is unmanifest.”

Because it is here taught that He resides as Paramātmā within all conscious living entities and unconscious matter by His own desire, and because it is also taught here that he is the creator of everything, it must be concluded that He is both the ingredient of the which the creation is made and the original creator and as well.

Sūtra 1.4.25

sākṣāc cobhayāmnānāt

sākṣāt – directly; ca – certainly; ubhaya – both; āmnānāt – because of direct statement.

[Brahman is both creator and the ingredient of creation] because both [truths] are directly stated [in the scriptures].

The word ca here means “certainly.” The Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa [2.8.9.6] explains:

kiṁsvid vanaṁ ka u sa vṛkṣa āsīt
yato dyāvā-pṛthivī niṣṭatakṣuḥ
maṇīṣiṇo manasā pṛcchataitat
yad adhyatiṣṭhad bhuvanāni dhārayan

brahma vanaṁ brahma sa vṛkṣa āsīt
yato dyāvā-pṛthivī niṣṭatakṣuḥ
manīṣiṇo manasā prabravīmi
vo brahmādhyatiṣṭhad buvanāni dhārayan

“What was the forest? What was the tree? From what tree in what forest did He fashion heaven and earth? Ask these questions, O wise ones. Where did He stand when He created the worlds?” “Brahman was the forest. Brahman was the tree. From Brahman He created heaven and earth. O wise ones, I tell you, He stood on Brahman when He created the worlds.”

These questions and answers clearly show that Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient from which the creation is made. From the tree-ingredient the creation, designated by the word “heaven and earth” comes. The word niṣṭatakṣuḥ means “the Supreme Personality of Godhead created.” Although niṣtatakṣuḥ is plural, the opposite, the singular, is intended here. This is a use of Vedic poetic license. The questions “What is the tree? What is the forest where the tree rests? Where does He stand when He created the worlds?” are asked in terms of the things of this world and the answers describe something beyond this world. In this way it may be understood that Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of which the world is made.

Sūtra 1.4.26

ātma-kṛteḥ pariṇāmāt

ātma – self; kṛteḥ – because of making; pariṇāmāt - because of transformation.

[Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of the creation] because He transformed Himself [into the world].

The Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.6.2] says:

so ‘kāmayata

“He desired: ‘I shall become many.’ ”

It also says [2.7.1]:

tad ātmānaṁ svayam akuruta

“He created the world from His own Self.”

In this way the scriptures explain that Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient from which the creation is made.

Someone may object: “How can the eternally perfect creator be also the creation?”

To answer this objection he says pariṇṁāt: “Because He has transformed Himself.” This does not contradict the changelessness of Brahman, for a certain kind of transformation is not incompatible with changelessness.

Here is the truth of this. In the following passages the śruti explains that Brahman has three potencies:

parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śruyate

“The Supreme has many potencies.” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.8]

pradhāna-kṣetrajña-patir guṇeśaḥ

“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of pradhāna [material nature], kṣetrajña [the individual spirit souls], and guṇa [the three material modes].” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.16]

The smṛti [Viṣṇu Purāna] also explains:

viṣṇu-śaktiḥ parā proktā
kṣetrajñākhyā tathā parā
avidyā-karma-saṁjñānyā
tṛtīyā śaktir ucyate

“The potency of Lord Viṣṇu is summarized in three categories: namely the spiritual potency, the living entities, and ignorance. The spiritual potency is full of knowledge; the living entitles, although belonging to the spiritual potency, are subject to bewilderment; and the third energy, which is full of ignorance, is always visible in fruitive activities.”

In this way the scriptures explain that Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of which the creation is made. He is the creator by the agency of His spiritual potency and He is the ingredient of which the creation is made by the agency of the other two potencies. This interpretation is confirmed by the aphorism sa-viśeṣeṇa vidhi-niṣedhau viśeṣaṇam upasaṅkrāmate: “An adjective describes both what a noun is and what it is not.”

The scriptures also explain [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.1]:

ya eko ‘varṇo bahudhā śakti-yogād
varṇān anekān nihitārtho dadhāti
vi caiti cānte viśvam ādau sa devaḥ
sa no buddhyā śubhayā saṁyunaktau

“May the one, unrivaled Supreme Personality of Godhead, who for His own purpose created the many varieties of living entities by the agency of His potencies, who created everything in the beginning and into whom everything enters at the end, grant pure intelligence to us.”

As the supreme unchangeable, the Supreme Brahman is the original cause of creation, and as the pariṇāmi [the transformable], Brahman is also the ingredient of which the creation is made. Brahman is the creator in His subtle nature, and He is the creation itself in His nature as gross matter. In this way it is established that the Supreme Brahman is both creator and creation.

The creation is thus like a lump of clay that may be shaped in different ways. The word pariṇāmāt [because of transformation] in this sūtra clearly refutes the theory that declares the material world a vivarta [illusion] that has no reality. The statement that the material world is an illusion superimposed on Brahman, just as the existence of silver is an illusion superimposed on an oyster shell with a silvery sheen, cannot be accepted because the oyster shell is an object that can be placed before the viewer; but Brahman, cannot be placed before the viewer because He is all-pervading, and therefore an illusion cannot be superimposed on Him. One may object that although the sky is all-pervading, illusions may be superimposed on it. However, Brahman is not like the sky in the sense that the sky may be approached by the material observer, but Brahman remains beyond the reach of the material senses; and therefore an illusion cannot be superimposed on Him. Furthermore, the existence of an illusion implies the existence of something different from the thing on which the illusion is superimposed. Without the existence of something separate there is no possibility of an illusion.

In the end, therefore, the vivarta theory postulates the existence of something different from Brahman. This is the fault in their theory. When the scriptures state that the material world is an illusion, it should be understood these words are are a device intended to create renunciation. This is the opinion of they who know the truth. The material world, however, displays a complicated structure of different elements grouped in categories of higher and lower, and in this way it is very much unlike an illusion, where nothing is very stable and one things is continually changing into another. In this way it may be understood that the vivarta theory, that the material world is an illusion, is untrue and the pariṇāma theory that the material world is a transformation of Brahman is the truth taught in the Vedic scriptures.

Sūtra 1.4.27

yoniś ca hi gīyate

yoniḥ – the place of birth; ca – also; hi – indeed; gīyate – is declared.

[The scriptures] declare that [Brahman is the] womb [from which the material world was born].

The śruti-śāstra explains:

yad bhūta-yoniṁ paripaśyanti dhīrāḥ

“The wise see that Brahman is the womb from which everything was born.” [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.6]

kartāram īśaṁ puruṣaṁ brahma-yonim

“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original creator, the womb from which everything was born.” [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.6]

In these verses the word yonim [womb] describes Brahman as the ingredient of creation and the words kartāraṁ puruṣam [the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the original creator] describe Brahman as the creator. In this way Brahman is described as both the creator and the ingredient of which the creation is made. The word yoni [womb] means “the ingredient of which the creation is made.” This is confirmed in the words:

pṛthivī yonir oṣadhi-vanaspatīnām

“The earth is the womb from which the trees and plants are born.”

In both common sense and Vedic revelation the creator and the ingredients from which the creation is made are considered are always considered different and it is not possible to say that the creator and the ingredient of which his creation is made are identical. However, the previously quoted passages from the śruti clearly explain that in this case Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of which His creation is made.

Adhikaraṇa 8: All Names Are Names of Lord Viṣṇu

Viṣaya: Someone may object: “Many passages in the scriptures do not support your conclusion at all.” This adhikaraṇa is written to dispel this doubt.

The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad explains:

kṣaraṁ pradhānam amṛtākṣaraḥ haraḥ

“Material nature is in constant flux and the Supreme, Lord Hara is eternal and unchanging.” [1.10]

eko rudro na dvitīyāya tasthuḥ

“Lord Rudra is the Supreme. He has no rival.” [3.2]

yo devānāṁ prabhavaś codbhavaś ca
viśvādhiko rudraḥ śivo maharṣiḥ

“Lord Śiva, who is known as Rudra, is the omniscient ruler of the universe. He is the father of all the demigods. He gives the demigods all their powers and opulences.” [3.4]

yadā tamas tan na divā na rātrir
na san na cāsac chiva eva kevalaḥ

“When the final darkness comes and there is no longer day or night, when there is no longer being and non-being, then only Lord Śiva exists.” [4.18]

The scriptures also explain:

pradhānād idam utpannam
pradhānam adhigacchati
pradhāne layam abhyeti
na hy anyat kāranaṁ matam

“From pradhāna this material world was born. This world knows only pradhāna. This world merges into pradhāna at the time of annihilation. Nothing else is the cause of this world.”

jīvād bhavanti bhūtāni
jīve tiṣṭhanty acañcalāḥ
jīve ca layam icchanti
na jīvāt kāraṇaṁ param

“From the jīva all the elements of this world have come. In the jīva they rest without moving, and they finally merge into the jīva. Nothing else is the cause of this world.”

Saṁśaya: Should Hara and the other names given in these quotes be understood in their ordinary senses, as names of Lord Śiva, pradhāna, and jīva, or should they all be understood to be names of the Supreme Brahman?

Pūrvapakṣa: The names should all be understood in their ordinary senses, as names of Lord Śiva, pradhāna, and jīva.

Siddhānta: The conclusion follows.

Sūtra 1.4.28

etena sarve vyākhyātā vyākhyātāḥ

etena – in this way; sarve – all; vyākhyātāḥ – explained; vyākhyātāḥ – explained.

All [words in the scriptures] should be interpreted to agree with the explanation [that the Supreme Brahman is the original cause].

In this sūtra the word etena means “according to the explanations already given,” sarve means “Hara and the other names,” and vyākhyātāḥ means “should be understood to be names of the Supreme Brahman because all names are originally names of the Supreme Brahman.”

The Bhālvaveya-śruti explains:

nāmāni viśvāni na santi loke
yad āvirāsīt puruṣasya sarvam
nāmāni sarvāṇi yam āviśanti
taṁ vai viṣṇuṁ paramam udāharanti

“The names of this world are not different from Him. All names in this world are names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All names refer to Him, Lord Viṣṇu, whom the wise declare is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”

Vaiśampāyana Muni explains that all these names are names of Lord Kṛṣṇa. The Skanda Purāṇa also explains:

śrī-nārāyaṇādīni nāmāni vinānyāni rudrādibhyo harir dattavān

“Except for Nārāyaṇa and some other names, Lord Hari gave away His names to Lord Śiva and the other demigods.”

This is the rule that should be followed: When the ordinary sense of these names does not contradict the essential teaching of the Vedas, the ordinary meaning should be accepted. When the ordinary sense of these names does contradict the teaching of the Vedas, these names should be understood to be names of Lord Viṣṇu.

The repetition of the last word [vyākyātāḥ] here indicates the end of the Adhyāya.

sarve vedāḥ paryavasyanti yasmin
satyānantācintya-śaktau pareśe
viśvotpatti-sthema-bhaṅgādi-līle
nityaṁ tasmin nas tu kṛṣṇe matir naḥ

“May we always fix our hearts on Lord Kṛṣṇa, who is the final goal taught by all the Vedas, who is the master of unlimited and inconceivable transcendental potencies, who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and who in His own pastimes creates, maintains and destroys the material universes.”

Thus ends the Fourth Pāda of the First Adhyāya of Vedānta-sūtra. All glories to Śrīla Prabhupāda!