Śrī Vedānta-sūtra

Adhyāya 2: No Conflict Between Vedānta and Other Vedic Scriptures

Pāda 1: Refutation of Opposing Views

duryuktika-droṇaja-bāṇa-vikṣataṁ
parīkṣitaṁ yaḥ sphuṭam uttarāśrayam
sudarśanena śruti-maulim avyathaṁ vyadhāt
sa kṛṣṇaḥ prabhur astu me gatiḥ

“May Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who protected His devotee Mahārāja Parīkṣit the son of Abhimanyu in the womb of his mother Uttarā from the burning arrows of the son of Droṇa with His Sudarśana disc, be my refuge and goal.”

The First Adhyāya established that the texts of the Vedas in general, and Vedānta-sūtra in particular, teach that the Supreme Brahman, the Lord of all, is the chief objective of human life; that He is the material and operative cause of everything; that He has His own individuality, distinct from everything and everyone else; that He is the inner Self of all existence and beings; that He is free from all imperfections; that He possesses infinite inconceivable powers and a measureless abundance of auspicious transcendental qualities. This was proved by the samanvaya or harmonious contextual interpretation of the texts of Vedānta-sūtra.

This Second Adhyāya will prove elaborately that all theories attempting to establish a material cause, such as pradhāna, for the creation of the universe, are incorrect; it will show that the conflicts between the Smṛti-śāstra and such theories are due to the fallacious reasoning of those theories, and that the views of the Vedānta texts are the only possible correct view. Specifically, this Adhyāya will disprove the speculative Sāṅkhya theories of the atheistic Kapila, and others such as the various Buddhist schools; but these arguments also disprove all materialistic theories of creation, such as the theories of modern materialistic science.

Most people do not subject their beliefs to the stringent test of reason. They simply are taught a certain opinion in school, and they accept this opinion, wrongly accepting it as knowledge. Thus if you inquire, they will say that “The universe was created in the Big Bang,” but they cannot explain or defend this theory because it is not really knowledge, just an opinion that they were taught, and blindly accepted without any real understanding. Similarly, if we simply take Śrīla Vyāsadeva’s word for it that these theories are wrong, then all we have done is exchange one shallow opinion for another. We still cannot explain why we accept one theory and not another; nor do we have the power to change others’ thinking, because our so-called knowledge is merely a belief. Therefore first we must penetrate to the essence of the misunderstanding inherent in the materialistic theories, and then we will be in a position to understand the real truth.

The basic flaw in all these systems is the false assumption that matter can create or act independently. Matter is inert; it can do nothing on its own. The dynamic material creation that we observe requires not only the inert material ingredients, but also an injection of energy and intelligence. The energy animates the dull matter, filling it with light and motion, and the intelligence takes the form of the universal laws that govern matter’s behavior. This energy and intelligence must come from a source outside of the material continuum, and that source can only be the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the spiritual world. Lord Kṛṣṇa states in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam:

aham evāsam evāgre
nānyad yat sad-asat param
paścād ahaṁ yad etac ca
yo 'vaśiṣyeta so 'smy aham

“Brahmā, it is I, the Personality of Godhead, who was existing before the creation, when there was nothing but Myself. Nor was there the material nature, the cause of this creation. That [material creation] which you see now is also I, the Personality of Godhead, and after annihilation what remains will also be I, the Personality of Godhead.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.9.33]

The material nature or pradhāna [the unmanifested total material elements] is nothing but a transformation of the cosmic root substance Brahman. Brahman is completely spiritual, therefore before the Lord manifests the material creation, only Brahman and the spiritual world exist. At the time of creation, the Supreme Personality of Godhead allocates a portion of His eternal spiritual energy and transforms it into the pradhāna; but being material, pradhāna cannot do anything until He specifically animates it by His glance. This injection of the Lord’s potent creative energy animates the material elements by the force of time, setting the cosmos into motion. He also creates the rules of material interactions, the laws of nature that underlie all material transformations, with His perfect intelligence. Then He enters into His creation and superintends its operation from a hidden position within.

The Lord provides the material creation as facility for those souls who, due to the exercise of their God-given free will, do not wish to live in the spiritual world. The presence of the Lord is directly manifest everywhere in the spiritual world, but the conditioned living entities do not want His personal association: they want to enjoy His facilities without Him. This spirit of independence leads them to become offensive to the Lord and His eternal devotees, so such conditioned souls are sent to the material world for their life of so-called independent enjoyment. But actually all the facility for their so-called independent life is created by the Lord, and out of His perfect, unconditional love, He remains their constant companion, hidden within their hearts as Paramātmā, the Supersoul.

Naturally the rebellious conditioned souls are motivated to explain the creation without reference to the energy or will of the Lord, but all their atheistic theories suffer from the same flaw: they attribute to matter energy and intelligence that it does not possess. Actually matter becomes animated only in association with life, or the soul; the proof of this is that as soon as the soul leaves the material body, it immediately becomes inert and begins to disintegrate. Therefore the universe, as the cosmic body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, displays energy and activity only because of His presence; when He withdraws His energy there is devastation, and the whole creation comes to an end [pralaya]. He is therefore the soul of the entire creation.

The importance of this topic in the process of self-realization is that as long as we remain under the illusion that matter can create independently, we cannot appreciate the presence of the Lord within the material creation. Understanding the falsity of these atheistic theories, and that the dynamic cosmos that we observe all around us is possible only by the energy and intelligence of the Lord, is an important early step on the path of spiritual awakening. Having been thoroughly convinced of this point, one becomes qualified to engage in the process of devotional service [bhakti-yoga] discussed in the Third Adhyāya, and experience its unequalled benefits as described in the Fourth Adhyāya of Śrī Vedānta-sūtra.

Adhikaraṇa 1: Vedānta Rejects the Sāṅkhya doctrine

Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: First the author of the sūtras proves that atheistic Sāṅkhya is opposed to the Vedic texts, and removes the doubt that the views of Vedānta-sūtra contradict the Vedic texts that Kapila uses to establish the Sāṅkhya theory. It will be shown that that Kapila’s philosophy is not supported by the very Vedic texts he uses to establish it.

The atheistic Sāṅkhya philosopher Kapila has explained the different elementary truths given in the Vedas according to his own opinion. According to him, material nature consists of pradhāna, the equilibrium of the three material qualities: goodness, passion and ignorance. Material nature produces the material energy, known as the mahat-tattva, and mahat produces the false ego. The ego produces the five objects of sense perception, which produce the ten senses [five for acquiring knowledge and five for working], the mind and the five gross elements [space, air, fire, water and earth]. Counting the puruṣa, the soul or the enjoyer, with these twenty-four elements, there are twenty-five different tattvas [fundamental ontological categories]. The unmanifested stage of these twenty-five ontological truths is called pradhāna, and the manifested stage is called prakṛti, or material nature. The qualities of material nature are the causes of happiness, distress and illusion. The quality of goodness is the cause of material happiness, the quality of passion is the cause of material distress, and the quality of ignorance is the cause of illusion. Our material experience lies within the boundaries of these three manifestations of happiness, distress and illusion. For example, a beautiful woman is certainly a cause of material happiness for one who possesses her as a wife, but the same beautiful woman is a cause of distress to a man whom she rejects or who is the cause of her anger, and if she leaves a man she becomes the cause of illusion.

The two kinds of senses are the ten external senses and the internal sense, the mind. Thus there are eleven senses. According to Kapila, material nature is eternal and all-powerful. Originally there is no spirit, and matter has no cause. Matter itself is the chief cause of everything. It is the all-pervading cause of all causes. The Sāṅkhya philosophy regards the total material energy [mahat-tattva], the false ego and the five objects of sense perception [sound, form, touch, taste and odor] as the seven diverse manifestations of material nature, which has two features: the material cause and efficient cause. The puruṣa [soul or enjoyer] is without transformation, whereas material nature is always subject to transformation. But although material nature is inert, it is the cause of enjoyment and salvation for many living creatures. Its activities are beyond the scope of sense perception, but still one may guess at them by superior intelligence. Material nature is one, but because of the interaction of the three qualities, it can produce the total energy and the wonderful cosmic manifestation. Such transformations divide material nature into two features, namely the efficient and material causes.

The puruṣa, the soul or enjoyer, is inactive and without material qualities, although at the same time he is the master, existing separately in each and every body as the emblem of knowledge. By understanding the material cause, one can guess that the puruṣa, the enjoyer, being without activity, is aloof from all kinds of enjoyment or superintendence. Sāṅkhya philosophy, after describing the nature of prakṛti [material nature] and puruṣa [the enjoyer], asserts that the creation is only a product of their combination or proximity to one another. The living symptoms are visible in material nature because of this proximity, but one can guess that in the person of the enjoyer, the puruṣa, there are powers of control and enjoyment. When the puruṣa is in illusion because of lack of sufficient knowledge, he feels himself to be the enjoyer, and when he is in full knowledge he is liberated. The liberated puruṣa is described in the Sāṅkhya philosophy to be always indifferent to the activities of prakṛti.

The Sāṅkhya philosopher accepts three kinds of evidence: direct perception, hypothesis and traditional authority. When such evidence is complete, everything is perfect. The process of comparison is within such perfection. Beyond such evidence there is no proof. The Sāṅkhya system of philosophy identifies three kinds of procedures—namely, pariṇāmāt (transformation), samanvayāt (adjustment) and śaktitaḥ (performance of energies)—as the causes of the cosmic manifestation.

Vedānta-sūtra nullifies the Sāṅkhya conclusion because it proves that the actual cause of creation is Brahman, not pradhāna. Discrediting pradhāna as the cause of the cosmic manifestation nullifies the entire Sāṅkhya philosophy. Materialistic philosophers accept matter to be the material and efficient cause of creation; for them, matter is the cause of every type of manifestation. Generally they give the example of a waterpot and clay. Clay is the cause of the waterpot, but the clay can be found as both cause and effect. The waterpot is the effect and clay is the cause, but the pot is nothing but clay. A tree is matter, but a tree produces fruit. Water is matter, but water flows. In this way, say the Sāṅkhyas, matter is the cause of movements and production. As such, matter can be considered the material and efficient cause of everything in the cosmic manifestation.

But matter is inert, therefore it cannot act as the material or efficient cause of creation. The wonderful arrangement and management of the cosmic manifestation means that a living intelligence is behind it, for such an arrangement could not exist without a sentient designer. It is impossible for any complex arrangement to exist without conscious direction. In our practical experience we never see that inert bricks can construct a big building themselves. The example of the waterpot cannot be accepted because a waterpot has no perception of pleasure and distress. Consciousness and the perception of pleasure and pain are within every living entity. Therefore symbolizing the covering body by the empty waterpot is not an acceptable analogy.

Sometimes the material scientists suggest that trees grow from the earth without the assistance of a gardener, because that is a tendency of matter. They also consider the intuition of living creatures from birth to be material. But tendencies like bodily intuition cannot be accepted as independent, for they require the existence of a spirit soul within the body. Actually, neither the tree nor any other body of a living creature has any independent tendency or intuition; the tendency and intuition exist because the soul is present within the body. As soon as the soul leaves the body, all action and intelligence cease. For example, a car has a tendency to move and turn right or left, but the car does not move or turn without the direction of a driver. A material car has neither tendencies nor intuitions independent of the intentions of the living driver within the car. The same principle applies to the automatic growth of trees in the forest. The growth takes place because of the souls present within the trees. As soon as the souls leave, the trees fall to the ground and do not reproduce further.

Sometimes foolish people take it for granted that because scorpions appear in bags of rice or flies appear in heaps of garbage, the rice has produced the scorpions or the garbage has produced the flies. But just because the scorpions and flies appear there, it does not mean that the rice gives birth to the scorpions, or the garbage creates the flies. The real fact is that the mother scorpion lays eggs within the rice, and by the proper fermentation of the rice the eggs give birth to baby scorpions, which come out in due course. Similarly the flies lay their eggs in the garbage, and as it rots it feeds the larvae of the flies. Different living creatures appear in different places, but one should not conclude that matter produces such living creatures. Thus the theory cited by the materialists that trees automatically come from the earth because the earth’s natural tendency is to produce trees is incorrect.

According to the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, every living being is forced by divine superintendence to take a certain type of body according to his past deeds. There are many varieties of bodies, and a living entity takes bodies of different shapes because of divine arrangement. When a person thinks “I am doing this,” the ‘I am’ does not refer to the body. It refers to something more than the body, or the soul within the body. The material body has neither tendencies nor intuition by itself; the tendencies and intuition belong to the living soul within the body. Material scientists sometimes suggest that the tendencies of male and female bodies cause their union, and that this is the cause of the birth of the child. But since according to Sāṅkhya philosophy, the puruṣa is always unaffected, where does the tendency to give birth come from? Life manifests and growth happens only in the presence of the soul, otherwise matter remains inert.

Sometimes the Sāṅkhyas give the example that milk turns into curd automatically, and that distilled water pouring from the clouds falls down to earth, producing different kinds of trees, and enters different kinds of flowers and fruits with different fragrances and tastes. Therefore, they say, matter produces varieties of material things on its own. But the same proposition of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad—that different kinds of living creatures are put into different kinds of bodies by the management of a superior power—also rebuts this argument. Under the superintendence of spiritual authority, various souls are given the chance to take a particular type of body, such as that of a tree, animal, bird or beast, according to their past activities, and thus their different tendencies develop under these circumstances. The Bhagavad-gītā [13.22] also further affirms:

puruṣaḥ prakṛti-stho hi
bhuṅkte prakṛti-jān guṇān
kāraṇaṁ guṇa-saṅgo ’sya
sad-asad-yoni-janmasu

“The living entity in material nature thus follows the ways of life, enjoying the three modes of nature. This is due to his association with that material nature. Thus he meets with good and evil among various species.”

The soul is given different types of bodies according to his karma. For example, were souls not given varieties of tree bodies, the different varieties of fruits and flowers could not be produced. There is distinction among the different species of trees. Each kind of tree produces a particular kind of fruit and flower; an individual tree does not produce flowers of different colors or fruits of different tastes. We can observe classes demarcated among humans, animals, birds and other species. There are innumerable living entities, and their qualities and activities according to the three material modes of nature give them the chance to have different kinds of experiences, as required by their previous activities.

Thus one should understand that pradhāna, being dull matter, cannot create the material world unless impelled by a spiritual living entity. The materialistic theory that matter acts independently cannot be accepted. Matter is called prakṛti, which refers to female energy. A woman is prakṛti, a female. A female cannot produce a child without the association of a puruṣa, a man. The puruṣa causes the birth of a child because the man injects the soul, which is sheltered in the semen, into the womb of the woman. The woman supplies the body of the soul as the material cause, and as the efficient cause she gives birth to the child; but the puruṣa, the male, is the original cause of the child. Similarly, this material world gives rise to varieties of manifestations due to the entrance of Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu within the universe. He is present not only within the universe but within the bodies of all living creatures, as well as within the atom. We understand from the Brahma-saṁhitā that the Supersoul is present within the universe, within the atom and within the heart of every living creature. Therefore the atheistic theory that matter is the cause of the entire cosmic manifestation cannot be accepted by anyone with sufficient knowledge of matter and spirit.

Materialists sometimes give the argument that as straw eaten by a cow produces milk automatically, so material nature automatically produces varieties of manifestations under different circumstances. Thus matter is the original cause. To refute this argument, we may say that an animal of the same species as the cow—namely, the bull—also eats straw like the cow, but does not produce milk. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that straw in connection with a particular species produces milk. The conclusion should be that there is superior management, as confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā [9.10], where the Lord says,

mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram

“This material nature is producing all moving and unmoving beings under My direction.”

The Supreme Lord says mayādhyakṣeṇa: “Under My superintendence.” When He desires that the cow produce milk by eating straw, there is milk; and when He does not so desire it, the mixture of such straw cannot produce milk. If the way of material nature had been that straw produced milk, a stack of straw could also produce milk. But that is not possible. And the same straw given to a human female also cannot produce milk. That is the meaning of the Bhagavad-gītā’s statement that everything takes place only under the superior orders of the will of the Lord. Matter itself has no power to produce independently. The conclusion, therefore, is that insentient matter cannot be the cause of the material creation. The ultimate creator is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

If matter were accepted as the original cause of creation, all the authorized scriptures in the world would be useless; for in every scripture, especially the Vedic scriptures like the Manu-smṛti, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is said to be the ultimate creator. The Manu-smṛti is considered the highest Vedic direction to humanity. Manu is the lawgiver to mankind, and in the Manu-smṛti it is clearly stated that before the creation the entire universal space was darkness, without information and without variety, and was in a state of complete suspension. Everything was darkness. The Supreme Personality of Godhead then entered the universal space, and although He is invisible, He created the visible cosmic manifestation. In the material world the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not manifested by His personal presence, but the presence of the cosmic manifestation in different varieties is the proof that everything has been created under His direction. He entered the universe with all creative potencies, and thus He removed the darkness of the unlimited space.

Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Is the view established in the First Adhyāya, that Brahman is the sole cause of the material universe, contradicted by the Sāṅkhya-smṛti?

Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: If Brahman is the sole cause of the material universe, then what about those Vedic texts that establish the Sāṅkhya view that pradhāna [the unmanifested total material elements] is the material cause of the universe? According to the Vedānta texts, the Sāṅkhya-smṛti would have to be rejected. Kapila, the author of Sāṅkhya, is called a ṛṣi [great sage] in the following text of the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [5.2]:

“It is the one who superintends every cause, all forms and all germs; who sustains with knowledge the Ṛṣi Kapila, the first born, and who saw him born.”

This sage Kapila is thus an authoritative person, because the Śruti itself calls him “Ṛṣi Kapila.” Kapila acknowledges the validity of fire sacrifices and other practices taught in the karma-kaṇḍa, and thus is not a heretical scoffer. He has composed the saṅkhya-smṛti as part of the jñāna-kaṇḍa to teach the nature and means of attaining liberation to those who desire it. The first sūtra of his system is:

“The highest goal for human beings is the complete cessation of the threefold miseries.”

In another aphorism he says:

“The cessation of suffering is not possible by material means, because the relief afforded by them is only temporary, and there is recurrence of pain.”

In this system the insentient pradhāna is the independent cause of the creation; pradhāna generates the creation to give the conditioned jīvas an opportunity for liberation, or for her own sake. Though insentient, pradhāna creates the world, just as insentient milk turns into curd by its own accord. If Brahman is the sole cause of the creation, as Vedānta philosophy asserts, then there will be no scope for the Sāṅkhya philosophy. It will be invalidated, because it is entirely devoted to setting out a theoretical truth and not a practical duty, and if it is not accepted as a valid theory, it will find no use whatsoever. Therefore the texts of Vedānta should be interpreted in such as way as not to contradict Kapila, who is a great authority. If we interpret the Vedānta texts in conformity with Saṅkhya, it is not that Manu-smṛti and similar works would be contradicted. Actually there is no harm if Manu-smṛti and similar works would be contradicted on theoretical grounds, for such contradictions would not make such works useless. For Manu and similar works instruct in practical religious duties and are authoritative in the practices of karma-kaṇḍa, and thus will have a scope of their own. The Saṅkhya-smṛti, however, is purely theoretical.

Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: The author replies to this objection with the following sūtra:

Sūtra 2.1.1

smṛtyanavakāśadoṣaprasaṅga iti cet na anyasmṛtyanavakāśadoṣaprasaṅgāt

smṛti – the Kapila-smṛti philosophy; anavakāśa – want of application, redundancy; doṣa – fault; prasaṅgaḥ – result; iti – thus; cet – if; na – not; anya – other; smṛti – the smṛti; anavakāśa – non-scope or redundancy; doṣa – fault; prasaṅgāt – because of the result.

[If it is objected that the Kapila]-smṛti will find no scope [under Vedāntic interpretation] we say no; because [under Sāṅkhya interpretation] there would result the fault of want of scope for other smṛtis [like that of Manu, etc.]

The word anavakāśa means lack of scope; in other words, having no area of application and becoming totally useless. The Sāṅkhyas’ objection to the Vedānta texts explaining, by force of samanvaya, the teaching that Brahman is the sole cause of the universe is that the Sāṅkhya-smṛti does not find any scope under that interpretation; therefore, the Sāṅkhya philosophers desire the Vedāntic texts to be explained in a way opposite to their direct meaning. This objection is raised in the first part of the sūtra [smṛtyanavakāśadoṣaprasaṅga].

The objection is answered in the second part of the sūtra, which says anyasmṛtyanavakāśadoṣaprasaṅgāt: “Let it be so that the Sāṅkhya-smṛti finds no scope, for otherwise other smṛtis, such as Manu and the rest, that also declare Brahman to be the universal cause and are in harmony with the teachings of Vedānta, would become useless.” Thus there is a choice of two evils: should the texts of Vedānta be interpreted in a distorted way to give scope to the Sāṅkhya-smṛti, or should they be interpreted in a natural way to give scope to Manu and the rest? Certainly the greater evil is to deny scope to Manu and the other smṛtis. Manu-smṛti and others like it establish that the Lord is the cause of the creation, sustenance and dissolution of the universe, and that the atheistic creation theory of Kapila is incorrect. Thus Manu-smṛti [1.5] says:

“This universe existed in the form of darkness, unperceived, destitute of distinctive marks, unattainable by reasoning, unknowable, as though it were immersed in deep sleep. Then the divine Self-existent, Svayambhū the Self-born, Himself indiscernible, but making all this—the great elements and the rest—discernible, appeared with irresistible creative power, dispelling the darkness. He who can be perceived only with the internal organ [of consciousness], who is subtle, indiscernible and eternal, who contains all created beings and is inconceivable, shone forth of His own will. He, desiring to produce beings of many kinds from His own body, first created the waters by His thought, and placed His seed in them. That seed became a golden egg, equal to the sun in brilliance; in that egg He Himself was born as Brahmā, the progenitor of the whole world.”

Similarly Parāṣara says in Viṣṇu-Purāṇa:

“From Lord Viṣṇu sprang the world, and in Him it abides; He makes this world persist and He rules it. He is the world. As a spider draws out the web from his abdomen, and again draws it into his body, similarly the world is emitted from the body of the Lord and merges back into Him.”

There are other smṛtis with the same purport. These find no scope in the karma-kaṇḍa section of the Vedas, for they do not teach a particular course of action but are concerned with theoretical truth alone. They are taught for the sake of jñāna, with the object of purifying the mind of the conditioned soul so that knowledge of Brahman may arise therein. Sometimes impersonalists claim that philosophical speculations are meant for the advancement of knowledge free from the limitations of religious ritualistic principles. But the religious ritualistic principles are actually meant for the advancement of spiritual knowledge by accrual of pious activities. By performance of religious rituals one ultimately reaches the supreme goal of knowledge by understanding that Vāsudeva, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the cause of everything. It is clearly stated in the Bhagavad-gītā that even those who are advocates of knowledge alone, without any religious ritualistic processes, advance in knowledge after many, many lifetimes of speculation and thus come to the conclusion that Vāsudeva is the supreme cause of everything that be.

bahūnāṁ janmanām ante
jñānavān māṁ prapadyate
vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti
sa mahātmā su-durlabhaḥ

“After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare.” [Bhagavad-gītā 7.19]

As a result of this God consciousness, the goal of human life, an advanced learned scholar or philosopher surrenders unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead and achieves perfection. The ritualistic religious performances and spiritual practices given in the Vedas are meant to cleanse the mind of material contamination, and the special feature of this Age of Kali is that one can execute the process of cleansing the mind of contamination simply by chanting the holy names of God. All abstract science and philosophy are of no practical use, except insofar as they promote the general development of intelligence and mental culture. The following text from the śruti shows that purification of the mind is the object of the jñāna-kaṇḍa:

“The brāhmaṇas try to know Him through study of the Vedas, by sacrifice, by alms, by austerity and by fasting.”

No doubt in some cases we would find that the performance of these things leads to results like rainfall, begetting sons, attainment of heaven etc., but that is only a byproduct that arises occasionally. The actual aim of scriptural study and spiritual practices is to produce faith in the conclusions of the scriptures, and the higher aim is to attain direct transcendental knowledge and realization of Brahman. In fact the entire Vedic literature has this aim:

sarve vedā yat padam āmananti

“Whose form and essential nature all the Vedas declare, and in order to attain Him they prescribe austerities, desiring to know Him the great ones perform brahmācārya, that symbol I will briefly tell you: it is oṁ.” [Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.15]

nārāyaṇa-parā vedāḥ

“All the Vedas declare Nārāyaṇa alone.”

Therefore, the main purpose of understanding the Vedas, performing Vedic sacrifices and speculating on the Vedānta-sūtra is to understand Kṛṣṇa. Accepting the impersonalist view of voidness or the nonexistence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead negates all study of the Vedas. Impersonal speculation aims at disproving the conclusion of the Vedas. Therefore any impersonal speculative presentation should be understood to be against the principles of the Vedas, or the oldest, most voluminous and consistent standard scriptures in the world. Since the speculation of the impersonalists does not follow the principles of the Vedas, their conclusion must be considered to be against the Vedic principles. Anything not supported by the Vedic principles must be considered imaginary and lacking in authority and proof. Therefore no impersonalist explanation or materialistic interpretation of any Vedic literature can be accepted.

Since our opponent raises his objection on the strength of Kapila’s Smṛti, then we shall refute him by his own argument; namely, by the strength of other Vedic Smṛtis such as Manu, etc. For if the argument of the objector has any force, it is that scope should be given to the Smṛtis, and the Vedānta should be interpreted in such a way as to accommodate them. Taking our stand on this proposition of our opponent, we conclude that we must explain the Vedānta so as to give scope to the largest number of Smṛtis, such as Manu and the rest. We cannot interpret the meaning of the Vedānta texts by means of the Sāṅkhya-smṛti of Kapila, because then we would have to accept an extremely undesirable conclusion: that all the other smṛtis are without authority. This would establish a conclusion opposed to the unity of the sacred scriptures, the most fundamental principle of the Vedic literature. For accepting a certain text to settle the meaning of another would show clearly the whole direction and intent of the scriptures as a whole. The Saṅkhya-smṛti does not possess this authority, because its conclusion is contrary to the conclusion of the Vedas as a whole. Actually this determining role belongs to the Vedānta-sūtra and its natural commentary Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam alone, for they are the mature verdict of Kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyana Vyāsa, the authoritative compiler of the most important Vedic literatures. First he divided the Vedas into four, then he explained them in the Purāṇas, and for less capable people he wrote the Mahābhārata. In the Mahābhārata there is given the Bhagavad-gītā, the best-known and most beloved Vedic scripture. Then all Vedic literature is summarized in the Vedānta-sūtra, and for future guidance he gave its natural commentary, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

tataḥ saptadaśe jātaḥ
satyavatyāṁ parāśarāt
cakre veda-taroḥ śākhā
dṛṣṭvā puṁso 'lpa-medhasaḥ

“Thereafter, in the seventeenth incarnation of Godhead, Śrī Vyāsadeva appeared in the womb of Satyavatī through Parāśara Muni, and he divided the one Veda into several branches and sub-branches, seeing that the people in general were less intelligent.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.3.21]

Thus the Saṅkhya-smṛti is merely the product of an individual’s mental concoction, and not the product of an actual spiritual authority. So we do not fear the contingency that the Saṅkhya-smṛti would find no scope in the Vedānta. Let the Saṅkhya-smṛti be totally discarded, when by doing so we save the numerous other smṛtis that follow the conclusions of Vedānta. It would be improper to show undue preference to the Saṅkhya-smṛti merely on the strength of its being composed by an authoritative person. If we did, we would have to accept many conflicting smṛtis by those who are considered authorities, such as those of Gautama. But these authors have given theories about the world, the soul and God that are in conflict with the conclusions of the Vedas. Thus we would be put into the absurd position of accepting contradictory theories simply on the strength of someone saying that their authors were persons of reliability, honesty and authority. The result of following that path is that we would never be able to reach any firm conclusion or know the real truth.

It is a well-known principle in Vedic philosophy that in case of conflict between two smṛtis, one should follow the one that agrees with the conclusions of the Vedas, and reject the other. If one tries to nullify the conclusions of the Vedas by accepting an unauthorized so-called scripture, it will be impossible for him to come to the right conclusion about the Absolute Truth. The system for adjusting two contradictory scriptures is to refer to the Vedas, for references from the Vedas are accepted as final judgments. When we refer to a particular scripture, it must be authorized, and to possess this authority it must strictly follow the Vedic injunctions. If someone presents an alternative doctrine he himself has manufactured, that doctrine will prove itself useless, for any doctrine that tries to prove that Vedic evidence is meaningless immediately proves itself meaningless, for the Vedas are the oldest scriptures and the primary spiritual authority.

The atheist Kapila is a descendant of the dynasty of Agni and is one of the conditioned souls. There are many statements directly against the Vedic principles in the doctrine of the atheist Kapila. He does not accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead; he says that the living entity is himself the Supreme Lord and that no one is greater than him; his conceptions of so-called conditioned and liberated life are materialistic, and he refuses to accept the importance of immortal time. All such statements are against the principles of the Vedānta-sūtra. Therefore the atheistic Kapila is an impostor.

The actual Kapila who is the son of Kardama Muni is accepted as an incarnation of Vāsudeva. The Padma Purāṇa gives evidence that the Supreme Personality of Godhead Vāsudeva takes birth in the incarnation of Kapila and, by His expansion of theistic Sāṅkhya philosophy, teaches all the demigods and a brāhmaṇa of the name Āsuri. The followers of the Vedas unanimously accept the authority of Manu and Parāśara in the disciplic succession. Their statements do not support the atheistic Kapila, because the Kapila mentioned in the Vedas is a different Kapila, the son of Kardama and Devahūti.

Regarding the objection that the author of the Sāṅkhya-smṛti is spoken of respectfully in the Śruti itself, in the famous passage of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [5.2], we reply that the pūvapakṣin has not properly understood that verse. It does not refer to Kapila, the founder of atheistic Sāṅkhya, but to a different person altogether. The śloka really means:

“He who before the creation of the world produced the sage Kapila [namely, the golden-colored Brahmā], in order to maintain the universe and who sustains this Brahmā with knowledge of the past, present and future, we worship that Lord God.”

The word kapila here means golden-colored, and is another name of Hiraṇyagarbha Brahmā, referred to in śloka 3.4 of the same Upaniṣad:

“May Rudra, the lord of all, the omniscient, who is the cause of the birth and power of the demigods, who begot Hiraṇyagarbha at the beginning, grant us good understanding.”

That this golden-colored first-born is Brahmā we learn from śloka 4.12 of the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad. Thus the Upaniṣad’s reference to Kapila indicates another being altogether; it does not refer to the founder of the atheistic science, for he misinterpreted the meaning of the Śruti. Therefore if the impostor Kapila is denied respect as an authoritative person, that does not show any disrespect to the Śruti. On the other hand, the authority of Manu is stated in unambiguous language in the Taittirīya Brahmaṇa, where it is said: “Whatever Manu has declared is a panacea.”

Similarly, Śrī Parāśara is mentioned in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa to have obtained knowledge of the transcendental worlds and of the true nature of the devatās through the blessings of Pulastya and Vaśiṣtha. Thus both Manu and Parāśara are undoubtedly āptas [great spiritual authorities], but not the atheist Kapila. The Kapila who wrote Sāṅkhya-smṛti and founded the philosophy opposed to the Vedic conclusions was a particular jīva, born in the family of Agni-vaṁśa, and deluded by the mysterious power of the Lord, he propounded this false philosophy. Thus we find in the Padma Purāṇa:

“One Kapila also called Vāsudeva taught the philosophy of Sāṅkhya to the devas, Brahmā and the rest, to the ṛṣis beginning with Bhṛgu, as well as to Āsuri. His doctrine was full in harmony with teachings of the Vedas. There was another Kapila who also taught a Sāṅkhya philosophy, fully opposed to all the Vedic teachings, and he also had a disciple named Āsuri, who was other than the first Āsuri. His philosophy is full of bad reasoning and false arguments.”

namo 'vyaktāya sūkṣmāya
pradhāna-puruṣāya ca
catur-viṁśad-guṇa-jñāya
guṇa-saṅkhyāna-hetave

“I offer my respectful obeisances unto You, the Supreme Person. Being very subtle, You are never visible to material eyes. You are the knower of the twenty-four elements, and You are the inaugurator of the sāṅkhya-yoga system.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 8.16.30]

śrī-bhagavān uvāca
atha te sampravakṣyāmi
sāṅkhyaṁ pūrvair viniścitam
yad vijñāya pumān sadyo
jahyād vaikalpikaṁ bhramam

Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: “Now I shall describe to you the science of Sāṅkhya, which has been perfectly established by ancient authorities. By understanding this science a person can immediately give up the illusion of material duality.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.24.1]

Therefore there is no fault if the Sāṅkhya-smṛti of the atheist Kapila is rejected, because it is opposed to the Vedas and is the work of a person who is not a spiritual authority.

Sūtra 2.1.2

itareṣāccānupalabdheḥ

itareṣām – of others, mainly the points raised in the Sāṅkhya philosophy; ca – and; anupalabdheḥ – because of non-perception.

Many other [doctrines taught in the Sāṅkhya philosophy] also are not found [in the Vedas, hence this system is not authoritative.]

The atheistic Sāṅkhya is unacceptable, not only because it teaches that pradhāna is the cause of creation, but also because it teaches many other doctrines that have no foundation in the Vedas. For example it teaches that:

• the jīvas are pure consciousness and all-pervading

• bondage and liberation are effects of prakṛti alone

• there is no Supreme Brahman or personal God

• time is not a tattva

• the prāṇas are merely forms of the five senses, and have no separate existence of their own

and many other anomalous and heterodox ideas, as discussed in detail above and refuted in other sūtras of the Vedānta. Therefore the atheistic Sāṅkhya and all other similar philosophies must be rejected.

For example, the modern so-called scientific creation myths share the deficiency of Sāṅkhya that matter can create independently. If the universe was really created in a ‘Big Bang,’ then who set it off? Where did the material ingredients originate? Who determined the universal laws that led to the universe as we see it today? No materialistic or atheistic theory can answer these questions satisfactorily. The material scientists want to ascribe everything to ‘chance,’ which simply means that they have substituted chance for God. Just as no one would want to live in a house that was designed by throwing dice, no one could live in a universe designed by chance.

Adhikaraṇa 2: Refutation of Yoga-sūtras

Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The present sūtra opens a new Adhikaraṇa, since yoga differs from Sāṅkhya in admitting the existence of the Lord; so the doubt arose that the refutation of Sāṅkhya did not necessarily require the refutation of yoga. This Adhikaraṇa removes that doubt.

It would be difficult to find an ancient text that has been misinterpreted and exploited more thoroughly in the West than the Yoga-sūtras of Patañjali. The commercial teaching of so-called “yoga” is a multi-million-dollar business, yet very little of what they teach has anything to do with the original source literature on the subject. Instead of a process of self-realization and linking the individual soul with God, yoga is misrepresented as a means to superior materialistic pleasure through sense enjoyment. This is often portrayed as somehow ‘spiritual’; but if we inquire from such materialistic so-called yogis what is the precise definition of spiritual life according to yoga philosophy, they cannot give a satisfactory answer.

Perhaps the most egregious deception offered by the modern materialistic yogis is the impression that that the yoga system is of Vedic origin, or approved by the Vedas. This Adhikaraṇa will show that nothing could be further from the truth; in fact the philosophy of the eightfold yoga system is against the conclusions of the Vedas. Patañjali is merely the most famous recent exponent of the eightfold yoga system, which is very old, being mentioned in Bhagavad-gītā [4.27]:

sarvāṇīndriya-karmāṇi
prāṇa-karmāṇi cāpare
ātma-saṁyama-yogāgnau
juhvati jñāna-dīpite

“Others, who are interested in achieving self-realization through control of the mind and senses, offer the functions of all the senses, and of the life breath, as oblations into the fire of the controlled mind.”

In the Yoga-sūtras of Patañjali, the soul is either parāg-ātmā or pratyag-ātmā. As long as the soul is attached to sense enjoyment he is called parāg-ātmā, but when the soul becomes detached from sense enjoyment he is called pratyag-ātmā. The soul is subjected to the functions of ten kinds of subtle air [prāṇa-vāyu] at work within the body, and this subtle internal air can be controlled through the breathing system. The Patañjali system of haṭha-yoga gives a technical procedure, prāṇāyāma, to control the functions of the prāṇa-vāyu so that its functions become favorable for purifying the soul of material attachment. The senses interact with the sense objects, like the ear for hearing, eyes for seeing, nose for smelling, tongue for tasting, hands for touching, etc. and all of them are thus engaged in activities outside the self. According to this yoga system, the ultimate goal of pratyag-ātmā is reached when the soul withdraws from activities in matter.

There are eight stages or limbs in the practice of Yoga:

1. yama [positive regulative injunctions]

2. niyama [negative regulative injunctions]

3. āsana [sitting postures]

4. prāṇāyāma [breath control]

5. pratyāhāra [withdrawal of the senses from their objects]

6. dhāraṇā [concentration of the mind]

7. dhyāna [meditation]

8. samādhi [ecstatic spiritual trance]

The prāṇa-vāyu has various functions: the apāna-vāyu goes downwards, vyāna-vāyu acts to shrink and expand, samāna-vāyu adjusts equilibrium, udāna-vāyu goes upwards—and when one is enlightened, one engages all these in searching for self-realization.

Yoga practice is supposed to be based on the principles of the Patañjali system. But the modern unauthorized commentators and teachers of yoga, if they are interested in spiritual matters at all, think that liberation means to identify the individual soul with the Supersoul. They do not understand the real purpose of the Patañjali system of yoga. There is acceptance of transcendental pleasure in the Patañjali system, but the monists do not want to accept this transcendental pleasure out of fear of jeopardizing the theory of oneness. The monists reject the duality of knowledge and knower necessary for the experience of transcendental pleasure, but actually transcendental pleasure, realized through transcendental senses, is accepted in this system. This is corroborated by Patañjali Muni, who declares in his Yoga-sūtras [4.34]:

puruṣārtha-śūnyānāṁ guṇānāṁ pratiprasavaḥ kaivalyaṁ svarūpa-pratiṣṭhā vā citi-śaktir iti

“Kaivalya is the state [of Enlightenment] when the primary elements involve, or resolve themselves back into that out of which they emerged because of their becoming devoid of the object of the Purusa. In this state the Purusa is established in his real nature [citi-śakti], wherein the power of pure consciousness becomes established in its true nature.”

The citi-śakti or internal potency mentioned in this sūtra is transcendental. Puruṣārtha means material religiosity, economic development, sense gratification and finally the futile attempt to become one with the Supreme. The monists consider kaivalyam to be oneness with the Supreme; but according to Patañjali, kaivalyam is an internal transcendental potency by which the living entity becomes aware of his actual constitutional position.

The theory of nirvāṇa also corresponds with this principle. After nirvāṇa, or cessation of material consciousness, there is the manifestation of spiritual activities, or devotional service to the Lord. In the words of the Bhāgavatam, svarūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ: this is the “real life of the living entity.”

muktir hitvānyathā rūpaṁ
sva-rūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ

“Liberation is the permanent situation of the form of the living entity after he gives up the changeable gross and subtle material bodies.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.10.6]

Māyā, or illusion, is the condition of spiritual life contaminated by material infection. Liberation from this material infection does not mean destruction of the original eternal position of the living entity. Patañjali also accepts this by his words kaivalyaṁ svarūpa-pratiṣṭhā vā citi-śaktir iti. This citi-śakti, or transcendental pleasure, is real life. This is confirmed in the Vedānta-sūtra [1.1.12], ānanda-mayo 'bhyāsāt. This natural transcendental pleasure is the ultimate goal of yoga, and is easily achieved by execution of devotional service, or bhakti-yoga. A devotee does not need to practice aṣṭāṅga-yoga in order to transfer his soul to the spiritual planets. This is confirmed by the following verse in the Varāha Purāṇa:

nayāmi paramaṁ sthānam arcirādi-gatiṁ vinā
garuḍa-skandham āropya yatheccham anivāritaḥ

“Just as a child is completely cared for by his parents, a devotee does not need to endeavor to transfer himself to other planets by yoga practice. A man who has fallen in the ocean cannot save himself unless someone comes and picks him up from the water. Similarly, by His great mercy, the Supreme Lord, riding on His bird carrier Garuḍa, picks up the devotee from this material existence.”

Bhakti-yoga will be vividly described in the Third Adhyāya of Vedānta-sūtra.

In the yoga system as described by Patañjali, there are two kinds of samādhi: samprajñāta-samādhi and asamprajñāta-samādhi. When one becomes situated in the transcendental position by various philosophical researches, he is said to have achieved samprajñāta-samādhi. In the asamprajñāta-samādhi there is no longer any connection with mundane pleasure, for one is then transcendental to all sorts of happiness derived from the senses. When the yogī is once situated in that transcendental position, he is never shaken from it. The yogī is unsuccessful unless he is able to reach this transcendental position. Today’s so-called yoga practice, which accepts various sense pleasures, is contradictory. A yogī indulging in sex and intoxication is a mockery. Even those yogīs who are attracted by the siddhis [mystic perfections], the byproducts of the process of yoga, are not perfectly situated. Yogīs who are attracted by the byproducts of yoga cannot attain the stage of perfection, because they remain attached to the subtle manifestations of the gunas or material qualities. Those who indulge in the showy practice of gymnastic feats or mystic siddhis as so-called yoga have lost the real aim of yoga.

One may sincerely accept the path of self-realization, but the process of cultivation of knowledge and the practice of the eightfold yoga system are generally very difficult for this age. Therefore despite constant endeavor one may fail. First of all, one may not be sufficiently serious about following the process. To pursue the transcendental path is more or less equivalent to declaring war on the illusory energy. Consequently, whenever a person tries to escape the clutches of the illusory energy, she tries to defeat the practitioner by various allurements. A conditioned soul is already allured by the modes of material energy, and there is every chance of being allured again, even while performing transcendental disciplines. This is called yogāc calita-mānasaḥ: deviation from the transcendental path.

arjuna uvāca
ayatiḥ śraddhayopeto
yogāc calita-mānasaḥ
aprāpya yoga-saṁsiddhiṁ
kāṁ gatiṁ kṛṣṇa gacchati

Arjuna said: “O Kṛṣṇa, what is the destination of the unsuccessful transcendentalist, who in the beginning takes to the process of self-realization with faith but who later desists due to worldly-mindedness and thus does not attain perfection in mysticism?” [Bhagavad-gītā 6.37]

Even if the practice of mystic yogas like the Patañjali system of haṭha-yoga or aṣṭāṅga-yoga is successful, the ultimate result is temporary material perfections like birth on higher planets, mystical experiences and powers, or at best, merging into the existence of the impersonal Absolute. While these yogīs are sincerely seeking a higher status of life, the actual Vedic conclusion of the highest stage of life as expressed in Vedānta-sūtra is the direct service of the Supreme Lord. This highest goal of spiritual life, transcendental consciousness, cannot be attained by any of the nondevotional yoga systems, but only by the mercy of the Lord and His bona fide devotees. The haṭha-yoga or aṣṭāṅga-yoga system is actually a distraction, a deviation from the principles of Vedānta. Therefore for reasons similar to those discussed in the previous Adhikaraṇa, the yoga-smṛti is also rejected.

Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Perhaps there is some value to the eightfold yoga system; after all Kṛṣṇa mentions it in Bhagavad-gītā, and many famous teachers endorse it.

Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: We admit that the Vedānta should not be explained on the basis of the Sāṅkhya philosophy, because it is opposed to the theistic philosophy of Vedānta. But the sūtras of Vedānta may be explained according to the philosophy of yoga, because it is based on the teachings of Vedānta and is not opposed to it. In fact, yoga is in complete harmony with the Vedic scriptures, and may therefore be called a Śrauta philosophy. It is mentioned in the Upaniṣads thus:

“That they hold to be yoga, which is the firm restraint of the senses. Then one becomes not heedless. Yoga should be performed with regard to the Lord, from whom is the origin and destruction of all things.” [Kaṭha Upaniṣad 6.11]

“Nachiketas having then obtained all the knowledge and practices of yoga imparted by Yāmarāja, attained Brahman, became free from rajas [passion] and beyond death; anyone else who thus knows the Spirit certainly becomes liberated.”

Similarly, the method of postures and other limbs of yoga are taught in the Bhagavad-gītā [6.13-14]:

samaṁ kāya-śiro-grīvaṁ
dhārayann acalaṁ sthiraḥ
samprekṣya nāsikāgraṁ svaṁ
diśaś cānavalokayan

praśāntātmā vigata-bhīr
brahmacāri-vrate sthitaḥ
manaḥ saṁyamya mac-citto
yukta āsīta mat-paraḥ

“One should hold one's body, neck and head erect in a straight line and stare steadily at the tip of the nose. Thus with an unagitated, subdued mind, devoid of fear, completely free from sex life, one should meditate upon Me within the heart and make Me the ultimate goal of life.”

Therefore, Patañjali composed the Yoga-smṛti so that men may conquer saṁsāra by crossing over the difficult ocean of the world. He is one of the best authors, and has composed his philosophy through his great Yogic powers. His aphorisms begin:

atha yogānuśāsbhanam

“Now, an explanation of yoga.” [Yoga-sūtras 1.1]

yogaścittavṛttinirodhaḥ

“Yoga is the cessation of the modifications of the thinking principle.” [Yoga-sūtras 1.2]

These sūtras are not opposed to Vedānta. If this Yoga-smṛti, which merely deals with the concentration of the mind, be held unauthoritative, then it will find no scope anywhere else; and if the Vedānta texts are explained by the method of samanvaya, without regard to any other smṛti, then this Yoga-smṛti becomes redundant. Therefore the Vedānta texts should be explained as to give scope to the Yoga-smṛti, and the doctrine of samanvaya should not be carried to an extreme. The Smṛtis like Manu and the rest, being concerned with the karma-kaṇḍa may be contradicted in certain parts by the Yoga-smṛti; but they will still have scope since they teach practical duties [dharma]. Therefore, the Vedānta texts should be construed by the Yoga-smṛti and not exclusively in accordance with samanvaya.

Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: The author replies to this objection with the following sūtra:

Sūtra 2.1.3

etena yogaḥ pratyuktaḥ

etena - by this; yogaḥ - the Yoga doctrine as to creation, etc.; pratyuktaḥ - has been refuted.

The Yoga-smṛti is also understood to have been refuted by the above refutation of the Sāṅkhya-smṛti.

The theory of yoga is also refuted on similar grounds to those employed to refute the Sāṅkhya theory of creation, for the yoga theory is at odds with the philosophy of Vedānta. If the Vedānta texts were to be explained in harmony with the Yoga-smṛti, then the other smṛtis, like Manu and the rest that are in harmony with Vedānta, would have no scope and become useless. Therefore, the Vedānta texts about creation are not to be explained or interpreted according to the Yoga-smṛti.

It is not a fact that the yoga theory of creation is harmonious with the Vedānta theory of cosmogony, for similar to the Sāṅkhya texts, the Yoga-smṛti says that the pradhāna is the independent cause of creation. According to the Yoga-smṛti, Brahman and the jīvas are mere consciousness [citi-mātrāḥ], without attributes or potencies, and both are all-pervading [vibhu].

Yoga theory is not only opposed to Vedānta on this point, but on many others also. For example, yoga teaches that:

• Mukti is merely the cessation of pain as a result of Yoga practice.

• The threefold means of right knowledge as given in the yoga texts are not given in Vedānta.

• The five vṛttis or functions of the mind mentioned by Yoga-smṛti are not supported by Vedānta philosophy.

Yoga philosophy holds that pramāna or right knowledge has three divisions—perception, inference and testimony—it also holds that the citta or thinking principle has five modifications: right knowledge, false knowledge, desire, sleep and memory. All these ideas are found in the Yoga-smṛti alone; therefore being opposed to Vedānta on these matters, the Yoga-smṛti is not a valid philosophy and should be rejected. If it is objected that the Yoga philosophy would find no scope as a result, then we say, let it be so. Since the Yoga-smṛti is opposed to Vedānta, there is no loss if there is no scope left to it. In fact, all the arguments against the Sāṅkhya-smṛti in the previous Adhikaraṇa also apply against the Yoga-smṛti.

Certain Vedic texts appear to make reference to the practices of yoga, for example:

“Making the three raised parts of the body steady and placing his senses into his heart with his intellect, the wise man should cross all the fearful streams of material existence on the raft of oṁ, the Brahman.” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 2.8]

“The chief Eternal among all eternals, the chief conscious entity among all conscious entities, who though one, disposes to the many the objects of their desires; one who knows that Lord, the prime cause, who is knowable through Sāṅkhya and yoga is freed from all bondage.” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.13]

The words Sāṅkhya and yoga here, however, mean metaphysical analysis of the material elements and deep meditation, respectively, and do not refer to the smṛtis with the same names. The same is true of the text from Bhagavad-gītā quoted earlier by the pūrvapakṣin.

Mukti cannot be obtained by the method taught by yoga, namely, by discrimination between prakṛti [material nature, or the body] and puruṣa [the controller of nature, or the soul], which is also the favorite method of Sāṅkhya. According to Vedānta, liberation depends on knowledge of God plus the grace of God, and not merely on discrimination between the soul and matter. That may be a necessary stage of spiritual practice, but it is certainly not sufficient by itself to award liberation from material existence. This is proved by the following texts:

“I know that Great Spirit, shining like the sun and transcending the world of darkness. It is only by knowing Him that one escapes death; there is no other path to go upon.” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.8]

“Knowing Him alone, let the wise brāhmaṇa meditate constantly. Let him not study many books, for verily all that is a waste of energy.” [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.21]

“He who meditates on Him, feels joy in Him and is devoted to Him, alone gets immortality and no one else.”

Vedānta philosophy accepts the parts of Sāṅkhya and yoga that are not opposed to the Vedic conclusion. We do not hold any animosity against these schools, but take exception to certain doctrines and theories of theirs that are opposed to the authorized Vedic explanations of creation and liberation. We simply discard the portions of these teachings that are opposed to Vedānta and accept the rest.

For example, yoga is not atheistic like Sāṅkhya, for it admits the existence of God, as expressed in several sūtras similar to the following:

īśvārapraṇidhānātvā

“Concentration may be obtained by complete concentration on God.”

kleśakarmavipākāsayairaparāmṛṣṭaḥ puruṣaviśeṣa īśvaraḥ

“The Lord is a particular spiritual being untouched by sin, evil, suffering actions and the fruits of actions.”

Yet these sūtras are not absolutely necessary for the yoga system, and many of its more atheistic followers say that the author of yoga was not in his right mind when he wrote these particular aphorisms, and they are merely an anomaly or a mistake.

Besides the yoga and Sāṅkhya-smṛtis, the Nyāya of Gautama and the Vaiśeṣika of Kaṇāda contain views opposed to Vedānta philosophy, especially in their theories of creation and liberation; therefore we reject them, and will refute them in later sections. No doubt the authors of these treatises are very learned and wise, but their erroneous conclusions are either the result of their own conceit, thinking they are omniscient when actually they are merely human beings, or because of some mysterious purpose of His own, the Lord willed that they should write such deluding theories. In fact, some writers speculate that the Lord had them write their works just so they could be refuted by the commentaries on Vedānta, and thus bring out its perfect symmetry and harmoniousness with the entire Vedic literature. Certainly such atheistic theories are in tune with the mood of the Kali-yuga, which perhaps explains the popularity in the West of teachings ostensibly based on them.

Adhikaraṇa 3: The Vedas are Eternal and Infallible

Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The principal, and really the sole, axiomatic truth in Vedic philosophy is that the transcendental sound vibration of the Vedic literature is perfect and infallible; everything else is understood from the original Vedic texts by a process of deductive logic. This path of acceptance is called avaroha-panthā. The word avaroha is related to the word avatāra, which means “that which descends.” This avaroha-panthā, the standard Vedic epistemological system, is the basis of the Vedic disciplic succession called the paramparā system. Therefore whatever the Vedas or Vedānta-sūtra says, we should accept without argument as Absolute Truth.

The transcendental philosophy and the principles of religion are established by the authorized explanations of Vedic literature. They cannot be ascertained merely through mundane exercises in logic. In the Puruṣa-sūkta [Ṛg Veda, maṇḍala 10, sūkta 90, mantra 9] it is stated,

tasmād yajñāt sarva-huta ṛcaḥ sāmāni jajñjire
chandāṁsi jajñjire tasmāt

“From Him, Yajña, came all sacrificial offerings, hymns of invocation and songs of praise. All the mantras of the Vedas come from the Lord.”

It is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [6.1.40]:

veda-praṇihito dharmo
hy adharmas tad-viparyayaḥ
vedo nārāyaṇaḥ sākṣāt
svayambhūr iti śuśruma

“That which is prescribed in the Vedas constitutes dharma, the religious principles, and the opposite of that is irreligion. The Vedas are directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Nārāyaṇa, and are self-born. This we have heard from Yamarāja.”

Similarly, in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [6.16.51] the Lord says,

ahaṁ vai sarva-bhūtāni
bhūtātmā bhūta-bhāvanaḥ
śabda-brahma paraṁ brahma
mamobhe śāśvatī tanū

“All living entities, moving and nonmoving, are My expansions and are separate from Me. I am the Supersoul of all living beings, who exist because I manifest them. I am the form of the transcendental vibrations like oṁkāra and Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Rāma, and I am the Supreme Absolute Truth. These two forms of Mine—namely, the transcendental sound vibration of the Vedas and the eternally blissful spiritual form of the Deity, are My eternal forms; they are not material.”

All the incarnations of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are completely transcendental and free from the four defects of conditioned life, namely mistakes, illusion, cheating and imperfect senses. So Vedic knowledge, being a plenary manifestation of the Supreme Lord, is similarly infallible and transcendental.

Materialistic people do not like the Vedic way of acceptance, because they think it limits their independence. Therefore the materialist wants to understand everything by the āroha-panthā—by speculative argument and inferential reason—but transcendental matters cannot be understood in that way, because they are beyond the range of our imperfect senses and limited intelligence. Rather, one must follow the avaroha-panthā, the process of descending knowledge or revelation because the origin of the eternal Vedic wisdom is the infallible Supreme Personality of Godhead. If not, then we must accept a constantly changing array of foolish contradictory theories that cannot adequately explain the world that we see before us, or the inner life of consciousness that we experience every day.

The rebellious nature of the materialists is mirrored by their insistence, against all logic and evidence, that matter has independent creative potency and intelligence. They want us to believe that the complex structures of living entities are developed by a process of evolution driven by chance mutation, and that the subtle qualities and experiences of mind and consciousness are due simply to electrochemical changes in our brains. They criticize the Vedas because they require faith, but they do not admit that their own theories require enormous leaps of faith against all experience and common sense.

Actually, in the end the Vedas do not require faith, for one who follows their instructions is able to realize and verify everything simply with his own purified and spiritualized consciousness. This is far more scientific than putting forward theories like the Big Bang and evolution that have not been, and can never be, verified by objective observation or experiment. The materialistic scientists’ insistence that subjective evidence is unacceptable is simply a ruse to discourage serious research into the nature of consciousness, because that would reveal the transcendental nature of the soul and ultimately, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: If the smṛtis like Sāṅkhya and the rest are to be set aside as invalid and anāpta [not spiritually authoritative] merely because they are opposed to the Vedas, then you must first establish that the Vedas themselves are infallible and contain nothing that is opposed to science or reason.

Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: Is the Veda fallible or infallible? Is it the product of an āpta [spiritual authority] or an anāpta? If the Veda is infallible, then everything it says would turn out to be true. But that is not the case. For example it says, “Let a person who desires rain perform the Kāriri sacrifice.” Now it is seen that the performance of the Kāriri sacrifice does not inevitably produce rain. Therefore, the Veda is not infallible.

Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: The author replies to this objection with the following sūtra:

Sūtra 2.1.4

na vilakṣaṇatvātasya tathātvacca śabdāt

na – not; vilakṣaṇatvāt – because of the difference in characteristics; asya – of the Veda; tathātvam – the eternity, the authority; ca – and; śabdāt – from the scripture.

The Veda is authoritative [unlike the Sāṅkhya-smṛti, etc.] because it is of a different character altogether, and because it is established from the scriptures.

The Veda is authoritative, unlike the Sāṅkhya-smṛti, Yoga-smṛti and others. Why? Vilakṣaṇatvāt: because it is fundamentally different in character from relative materialistic knowledge, being eternal and spoken by God. Every product of human effort is subject to four kinds of errors: ignorance leading to error, the cheating propensity, delusion due to being covered by a material body, and imperfect senses and intelligence. These errors are impossible in the case of the Veda, because it is eternal and not of human origin. These attributes are proved from the scripture itself, in both śruti- and smṛti-śāstra.

tasmai nunaṁ abhidyave vācā virupa nityayā
vṛṣṇe codasya su-stutim

“Now, O Virupa, rouse for Him, strong God who is ever Self-satisfied, fair praise with the eternal Vedic speech.” [Ṛg-Veda, 7.91.6]

Thus the Śruti itself calls the mantras of the Vedas by the significant term nitya-vak, the Eternal Voice. The Smṛtis also declare the Vedas to be eternal:

“The Self-existing Lord, in the beginning of creation, sent forth the eternal, beginningless Voice, the divine Veda, from which proceeded all other scriptures.” [Mahābhārata]

The Smṛtis, like those of Manu and the rest, are authoritative simply because they are based on the Vedas, and for no other reason. The eternity of the Vedas was established in Sūtra 1.3.29 by reasoning. In the present sūtra it is established by authority; that is the difference between these two sūtras.

An objector may say, “The Vedas are non-eternal because we find in them statements to the effect that they were created at a certain time, and everything that is created necessarily ends at some time. The following śloka of the Puruṣa-Sūkta prayers shows that the Vedas were created:

“The Ricas and Sāma hymns were born from that great general sacrifice, and from them spells and charms were produced. The Yajus had its birth from Him.” [Ṛg-Veda 10.90.9]

To this objection we reply, it is not so. In this passage the word jan does not mean “was born” in the ordinary sense, but “was manifested.” As stated in the following verse:

“This Lord Veda is Self-existent [eternal]. You, O God, have sung it out in ancient times. The great ones, from Śiva down to the Ṛṣis, are its reciters only and not its authors.”

Nor can it validly be objected that the Vedas are unauthoritative because they do not always produce the results promised by them. The production of any particular result depends on the qualification of the person performing the act. A competent person always gets the predicted result by the proper chanting of the Vedic hymns, while an incompetent person fails to get the expected result. The failure to obtain the result proves only the incompetence of the agent, and not the defectiveness of the science. However, the Smṛtis like Sāṅkhya and Yoga are unauthoritative not because they fail to produce the results promised by them, but because they conflict with the teachings of the Vedas on the important points of creation, liberation of the soul, the nature of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, etc. because they are products of defective human intelligence. The great sage Bhṛgu Muni states in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [4.2.30]:

eṣa eva hi lokānāṁ
śivaḥ panthāḥ sanātanaḥ
yaṁ pūrve cānusantasthur
yat-pramāṇaṁ janārdanaḥ

“The Vedas give the eternal regulative principles for auspicious advancement in human civilization which have been rigidly followed in the past. The strong evidence of this principle is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is called Janārdana, the well-wisher of all living entities.”

In the Bhagavad-gītā the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, claims to be the father of all living entities. Because the living entities are parts and parcels of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they are all children of the Lord. The Lord kindly manifests the Vedas for their guidance and benefit, because they are hovering on the mental platform under the false impression that they can lord it over material nature. Therefore the Vedas are called apauruṣeya: not written by any man or demigod, including the first living creature, Brahmā. Brahmā is not the creator or author of the Vedas. He is also one of the living beings in this material world; therefore he does not have the power to write or speak the Vedas independently.

Every living entity within this material world is subject to four deficiencies: he commits mistakes, he is illusioned, he cheats, and he has imperfect senses. The Vedas, however, are not written by any living creature within this material world, but originate from the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. Therefore they are said to be apauruṣeya. No one can trace out the history of the Vedas. Of course, modern human civilization has no chronological history of the world or the universe older than 5,000 years, and it cannot present actual historical facts older than three thousand years. But no one has traced out when the Vedas were written, because they were never written by any living being within this material world.

All other systems of knowledge are defective because they have been written or spoken by men or demigods who are products of this material creation, but the Vedas are apauruṣeya. That is accepted by such stalwart scholars as Śaṅkarācārya, not to speak of Vaiṣṇava ācāryas such as Rāmānujācārya and Madhvācārya. Śaṅkarācārya has accepted that Nārāyaṇa and Kṛṣṇa are transcendental, and in Bhagavad-gītā [10.8] Lord Kṛṣṇa has declared,

ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate

“I am the origin of everything; everything emanates from Me.”

This material creation, including Brahmā and Śiva and all the demigods, has been created by Him, for everything has emanated from Him. He also says in Bhagavad-gītā [15.15]:

vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham

“By all the Vedas am I to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.”

In the beginning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam it is established, tene brahma hṛdā: the Supreme Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead, instructed Brahmā in the Vedic knowledge through his heart. Therefore the evidence that Vedic knowledge is free from the defects of mistakes, illusions, cheating and imperfection is that it is spoken by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Janārdana, and has thus been followed from time immemorial, beginning from Brahmā. The Vedic religion or the principles of the Vedas have been followed by the highly cultured population of India since time immemorial; no one can trace out the history of Vedic religion. Therefore it is sanātana [eternal], and any blasphemy against the Vedas is calculated to be atheism. The Vedas are described as setu [a bridge]. If one wants to attain his spiritual existence, one has to cross an ocean of nescience. The Vedas are the bridge by which to cross that great ocean.

Adhikaraṇa 4: Terms like Fire, Earth etc. Denote the Superintending Devas

Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The materialistic creation theories all require that we accept an impossible assumption: that dull, inert matter somehow or other can create itself, organize itself and manifest the symptoms of life. We experience daily that matter cannot do anything without the energy and intelligence of living entities. And while we may not be able to observe consciousness in others except by its symptoms, we can certainly observe it directly in ourselves. Therefore the correct understanding is that the energy and intelligence shown by the material creation come from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and the consciousness and other living symptoms displayed by the living entities actually indicate the presence of the jīva souls emanated from Him.

The effect [the creation] mirrors the attributes found in the cause [Brahman or the Supreme Personality of Godhead]. Unless energy, intelligence, consciousness etc. are there in the cause of the material creation, how can they be manifest in the effect? The causes that materialistic theories such as Sāṅkhya, Buddhism and material science put forward for the material creation [pradhāna, śunyata, the Big Bang, etc.] do not possess the qualities such as energy, intelligence, sentience etc. that we see displayed in the creation. So in assuming that matter can manifest these qualities independently, essentially they are asking us to believe that nonexistence can manifest existence, or that something comes from nothing.

In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.4.1-5.2 we read:

“The Sat was alone in the beginning, one only, without an equal. The others say about this, ‘The Asat alone existed in the beginning, one without a second. From the Asat was produced the Sat.’

“But, O child, how could it be thus?” said the father. “How should the Sat be born from Asat? Therefore the Sat existed alone in the beginning, O child, one without an equal.

“He thought, ‘I shall assume many forms and create beings.’ He created fire. The fire thought, ‘I shall assume many forms and create beings.’ That created the waters.

“The waters thought, ‘We shall assume many forms and create beings.’ That created the food.

“Then God thought, ‘These three devatās are well-created; now I shall enter into them with that aspect of Mine called the Living Self, and shall develop name and form.’ ”

Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: How do you reconcile these absurd statements of the Vedas, such as:

“The fire willed, ‘Let me become many’; the water willed, ‘Let me become many.’ ” [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.4]

“The prāṇas, quarreling among themselves, went to Lord Brahmā and asked who was the best among them.” [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad]

Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: The elements like fire and so forth are insentient, and to say that they willed or quarreled is as reasonable as to say that “the sons of barren woman held a discussion.” Therefore, one section of the Vedas being proved unauthoritative, the portion asserting that Brahman is the cause of the world is also without authority. The cause of the world is therefore the pradhāna.

Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: The author replies to this objection in the following sūtra.

Sūtra 2.1.5

abhimāni vyapadeśastu viśeṣanugatibhyām

abhimāni – the presiding deities of the elements, etc.; vyapadeśaḥ – pointing out of, denotation of; tu – but; viśeṣa – on account of distinction, being so qualified; anugatibhyām – on account of their entering.

[The words fire etc. here denote] the superintending devas, because [the epithet] deva is mentioned there, and also because the statement that they entered these elements.

The word tu [but] shows that the doubt of the pūrvapakṣin is being removed.

Why do you say so? The phrases “the fire willed,” etc. clearly mean the conscious superintending devas of these elements, because the epithet devatā is expressly given in the same passage. Devatā means a conscious living being, a demigod; so they cannot be inanimate elements, but empowered cosmic intelligences.

Similarly, the passage regarding the quarrel among the prāṇas refers to the devatās, as the following quotation shows:

“Next follows the recognition of the pre-eminence of the prāṇa by the other devatās. All the devatās, contending with one another to assert their own pre-eminence, went out of the body. It lay inert like a piece of wood. Then speech entered into it. It spoke and lay down still. Then they eye entered into it. It spoke and saw, but lay down still. Then the ear entered into it, and it spoke, saw and heard, but still lay down. Then the mind entered into it, and it spoke, saw, heard and thought, but still lay down. Then the prāṇa entered into it, and it immediately got up. All these devatās, knowing the prāṇa to be pre-eminent, and fully comprehending Him as the conscious Self, went out of this world with all these.” [Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad 2.9]

Here again, the term devatās is applied to the senses. Consequently the quarrel was among the devas of the senses, and not among inanimate elements. Not only is the specific term devatās applied to them, but also in other Upaniṣads we find that the devas entered into these elements and senses to regulate their activities. For example in Aitareya Ārṇayaka [2.4.2.4] it is said,

“After those devatās, Agni and others had been created, they fell into a great ocean... Then Agni becoming speech, entered into the mouth. Vāyu having becoming scent, entered into the nostrils. Āditya becoming sight, entered the eyes. The Diś, becoming hearing, entered the ears.”

This shows that the terms Agni etc. mean the the superintending devas of the senses. The entering of the devas into the senses and body is another reason for holding that sentient entities, and not insentient elements, are meant. For example, Bhaviṣya Purāṇa states:

“The superintending devatās of earth, etc. possessed of inconceivable energies and mighty powers, are actually seen by the sages.”

Similarly, apparently impossible phrases such as “the stones float,” as in the passages describing Lord Rāma’s crossing the ocean, should be understood as praises of the devatās within them. The devatās within the stones and water held up the stones and made them float. Not only do the devatās enter into the material elements; it is stated that the Supreme Personality of Godhead also enters into the elements of the creation:

yathā mahānti bhūtāni
bhūteṣūccāvaceṣv anu
praviṣṭāny apraviṣṭāni
tathā teṣu na teṣv aham

“O Brahmā, please know that the universal elements enter into the cosmos and at the same time do not enter into the cosmos; similarly, I Myself also exist within everything created, and at the same time I am outside of everything. [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.9.35]

The great elements of material creation—namely earth, water, fire, air and ether—enter into the bodies of all manifested entities—the seas, mountains, aquatics, plants, reptiles, birds, beasts, human beings, demigods and everyone materially manifested—and at the same time the elements are situated outside their manifestations as the devatās or controlling deities of the elements. Human beings in the developed stage of consciousness can study physiological and physical science, but the basic principles of such sciences are nothing but the material elements. The body of the human being and the body of the mountain, as also the bodies of the demigods, including Brahmā, are all of the same ingredients—earth, water, etc.—and at the same time, the elements are beyond the body. The elements were created first, and entered into the bodily construction later, but in both circumstances they entered the cosmos and its forms, and also did not enter. Similarly the Supreme Lord, by His different internal and external energies, is within everything in the manifested cosmos, and at the same time He is outside of everything, situated in the kingdom of God, Vaikuṇṭhaloka. This is very nicely stated in the Brahma-saṁhitā [5.37] as follows:

ānanda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhāvitābhis
tābhir ya eva nija-rūpatayā kalābhiḥ
goloka eva nivasaty akhilātma-bhūto
govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi

“I worship the Personality of Godhead, Govinda, who by expansion of His internal potency of transcendental existence, knowledge and bliss, enjoys in His own and expanded forms. Simultaneously He enters into every atom of the creation.”

This expansion of His plenary parts is also more definitely explained in the Brahma-saṁhitā [5.35] as follows:

eko 'py asau racayituṁ jagad-aṇḍa-koṭiṁ
yac-chaktir asti jagad-aṇḍa-cayā yad-antaḥ
aṇḍāntara-stha-paramāṇu-cayāntara-sthaṁ
govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi

“I worship the Personality of Godhead, Govinda, who, by one of His plenary portions, enters into the existence of every universe and every particle of the atoms, and thus unlimitedly manifests His infinite energy all over the material creation.”

The impersonalists such as the Sāṅkhyas can imagine or even perceive that the Supreme Brahman is all-pervading in His impersonal form, but then they wrongly conclude that there is no possibility of His personal form. Herein lies the mystery of Vedic transcendental knowledge. This mystery is transcendental love of Godhead, and one who is surcharged with such transcendental love of Godhead can see the Personality of Godhead in every atom and every movable or immovable object without difficulty. And at the same time he can see the Personality of Godhead in His own abode, Goloka, enjoying eternal pastimes with His eternal associates, who are also expansions of His transcendental existence. This vision is the real mystery of spiritual knowledge, as stated by the Lord to Brahmā in the beginning of creation:

śrī-bhagavān uvāca
jñānaṁ parama-guhyaṁ me
yad vijñāna-samanvitam
sarahasyaṁ tad-aṅgaṁ ca
gṛhāṇa gaditaṁ mayā

The Personality of Godhead said: “Knowledge about Me as described in the scriptures is very confidential, and it has to be realized in conjunction with devotional service. The necessary paraphernalia for that process is being explained by Me. You may take it up carefully.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.9.31]

This esoteric mystery is the most confidential part of the knowledge of the Supreme, and it is impossible for the mental speculators to discover by their intellectual gymnastics. The mystery can be revealed through the process recommended by Brahmājī in his Brahma-saṁhitā [5.38] as follows:

premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena
santaḥ sadaiva hṛdayeṣu vilokayanti
yaṁ śyāmasundaram acintya-guṇa-svarūpaṁ
govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi

“I worship the original Personality of Godhead, Govinda, whom the pure devotees, their eyes smeared with the ointment of love of Godhead, always observe within their hearts. This Govinda, the original Personality of Godhead, is Śyāmasundara with all transcendental qualities.”

Therefore although He is present in every atom, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is invisible to the materialistic speculators; the mystery is unfolded before the eyes of the pure devotees because their eyes are anointed with love of Godhead. And this love of Godhead can be attained by the practice of transcendental loving service of the Lord, and nothing else. The process of devotional service is summarized in the Third Adhyāya of Vedānta-sūtra. The vision of the devotees is extraordinary because it is purified by the process of devotional service. In other words, as the universal elements are both within and without, similarly the Lord's name, form, quality, pastimes, entourage, etc., as they are described in the revealed scriptures or as performed in the Vaikuṇṭhalokas, far, far beyond the material cosmic manifestation, are factually manifest in the heart of the devotee. One with a poor fund of knowledge cannot understand, but that is the mystery of knowledge of the Personality of Godhead.

There is nothing unauthoritative in the Vedas; consequently the teaching of Vedānta that the Supreme Brahman is the sole cause of the material universe is firmly established, and the objections raised by the Sāṅkhyas and other atheistic speculators are invalid.

Adhikaraṇa 5: Brahman is the Material Cause of the Universe Established by Reason

Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: So far Vedānta-sūtra has established that it is impossible for pradhāna or matter alone to be the cause of the creation. However the materialistic philosophers not only try to establish their own version, they also criticize the version of the Vedas and try to invalidate it. The chief attack of the materialist scholars is that spirit, if it exists at all, is so different from matter that it cannot possibly be the cause of the material creation. If there is any relationship at all, it must be that God created the initial conditions for material world [“Let there be light”], and the material energy created everything independently from there.

The demonic materialists conclude that this cosmic manifestation arises due to chance material actions and reactions. They do not think that the world was created by God for a certain purpose. They have their own theory: that the world has come about in its own way, and that there is no reason to believe that there is a God behind it. For them there is no difference between spirit and matter; spirit is an illusion, everything is matter, and the whole cosmos is just a mass of ignorance. According to them, everything is ultimately impersonal or void, and whatever manifestation apparently exists is simply due to our ignorance in perception. They take it for granted that all manifestation of diversity is a display of ignorance. Such misinformed critics do not at all understand the relationship between spirit and matter.

nāsato vidyate bhāvo
nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ
ubhayor api dṛṣṭo 'ntas
tv anayos tattva-darśibhiḥ

“Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent there is no endurance, and of the eternal there is no cessation. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both.” [Bhagavad-gītā 2.16]

In other words, matter is temporary but spirit is eternal. In addition, before the creation of the material world and after its destruction in due course of time, only spirit exists:

aham evāsam evāgre
nānyad yat sad-asat param
paścād ahaṁ yad etac ca
yo 'vaśiṣyeta so 'smy aham

“Brahmā, it is I, the Personality of Godhead, who was existing before the creation, when there was nothing but Myself. Nor was there the material nature, the cause of this creation. That which you see now is also I, the Personality of Godhead, and after annihilation what remains will also be I, the Personality of Godhead.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.9.33]

Therefore only spirit can be the source of matter. Consequently, matter must be a transformation of spirit.

idaṁ hi viśvaṁ bhagavān ivetaro
yato jagat-sthāna-nirodha-sambhavāḥ
tad dhi svayaṁ veda bhavāṁs tathāpi te
prādeśa-mātraṁ bhavataḥ pradarśitam

“The Supreme Lord Personality of Godhead is Himself this cosmos, and still He is aloof from it. From Him only has this cosmic manifestation emanated, in Him it rests, and unto Him it enters after annihilation. Your good self knows all about this. I have given only a synopsis.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.5.20]

The entire cosmic manifestation is but a transformation of the energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but because of illusion, the conditioned souls cannot appreciate that God is nondifferent from the material energy, and that this material world is simply a transformation of His different energies. It is stated in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [6.8]:

parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate
svābhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā ca

“The Supreme Lord has multipotencies, which act so perfectly that all consciousness, strength and activity are being directed solely by His will.”

This also supported by the Vedas: sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma: “Matter and spirit are all nondifferent from the Supreme Brahman.” Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa confirms this statement in the Bhagavad-gītā [7.4]:

bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ
khaṁ mano buddhir eva ca
ahaṅkāra itīyaṁ me
bhinnā prakṛtir aṣṭadhā

“Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego—all together these eight constitute My separated material energies.”

The material energy is the Lord’s energy, but it is separated from Him. The spiritual energy is also His energy, but it is not separated from Him. When the material energy is engaged in the service of the Supreme Spirit, so-called material energy becomes transformed into spiritual energy, just as an iron rod becomes fire when placed in contact with fire. Simply understanding the transformations of different energies is partial knowledge. When we can understand by an analytical study that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the cause of all causes, our knowledge is perfect. We must come to the ultimate cause, and this requires a bona fide spiritual master in the Vedic lineage. Otherwise we shall remain entrapped by nescience:

na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇuṁ
durāśayā ye bahir-artha-māninaḥ
andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānās
te 'pīśa-tantryām uru-dāmni baddhāḥ

“Persons who are strongly entrapped by the consciousness of enjoying material life, and who have therefore accepted as their leader or guru a similar blind man attached to external sense objects, cannot understand that the goal of life is to return home, back to Godhead, and engage in the service of Lord Viṣṇu. As blind men guided by another blind man miss the right path and fall into a ditch, materially attached men led by another materially attached man are bound by the ropes of fruitive labor, which are made of very strong cords, and they continue again and again in materialistic life, suffering the threefold miseries.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 7.5.31]

The materialists want to be reassured that matter is independent from spirit, so they can push God far into the background, or better yet, eliminate Him entirely, and go on with their lusty program of material sense gratification in full confidence, free from the doubts of conscience. So they find some foolish lusty rascal just like themselves and elect him to the post of guru, so they can continue their material exploitation without being confronted by the Absolute Truth of the Vedas. They see the Vedic philosophy as a great challenge, not just to their religious and philosophical beliefs, but to their very existence. For if the Vedas are right, then everything they are thinking and doing is built upon a wrong platform.

Therefore even after being defeated in the preceding Adhikaraṇas, the Sāṅkhya philosopher comes to the attack again, saying that Brahman cannot be the material cause of the universe; this time not relying on texts, but on reason alone. Normally the Sāṅkhyas admit that reason is of little help in transcendental matters, such as the true nature of the Self, cosmogony, etc. and must be abandoned in favor of the Śruti. They even have the following aphorism:

śrutivirodhāt na kutarkāpadasyātmalābhaḥ

“The attainment of the Self cannot take place by mere false reasoning [kutarka, false arguments or sophistry alone], because it is opposed to the scriptures [śruti].” [Sāṅkhya-smṛti 6.35]

This apparent homage of the Sāṅkhya to the Śruti is only lip service, for the Sāṅkhya appeals to Śruti merely to find fault with Vedānta. The nature of the doubt raised is this:

Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Is it possible for Brahman to be the material cause of the universe or not?

Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: Brahman cannot be the material cause of the universe because the world is of a substantially different nature from Brahman. Brahman is understood to be omniscient, omnipotent, all-pure and possessing the highest joy as His nature. The world, on the other hand is seen to consist of ignorance, impotence, impurity and sorrow. Thus it is inarguable that the natures of Brahman and the material world are diametrically opposed. And it is a fact of daily experience that the effect of a cause has the same nature as the cause. For example, a pot or a crown or a piece of cloth have the same nature as the clay, gold or threads of which they are made. Therefore the world, having a different nature from Brahman, cannot have Him as its material cause.

We must, therefore, search out some appropriate material cause for the world, and we find that in pradhāna alone. The world consists of joy, sorrow and delusion, and for such a world, the pradhāna consisting of sattva, rajas and tamas is the most appropriate cause. The Vedānta philosopher says, “We explain this by positing the existence of two energies, spirit and matter, both dwelling in Brahman, and thus there is no difficulty understanding how this world proceeds as an effect from Brahman.” But this theory does not solve the difficulty. The world still remains of a different character from it supposed material cause, the Brahman. It is difficult to explain how this material world comes into existence from two very subtle causes such as spirit and matter. There are too many differences between this world and Brahman for Brahman to be the material cause of its existence. Therefore Brahman is not the material cause of the world, because it is essentially different from Brahman; therefore Vedānta must take help in worldly matters from reason to ascertain the truth.

Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: The next sūtra answers this objection.

Sūtra 2.1.6

dṛṣyate tu

dṛṣyate – is seen; tu – but.

But it is seen [that the material cause of a thing may be of totally different quality from it].

The word tu [but] removes the familiar doubt raised by the pūrvapakṣin. The word na [not] from Sūtra 2.1.4 is understood in this sūtra also. The objection that “the world cannot have Brahman for its cause because it is of a totally different nature from Him” is not correct, because it is seen in everyday experience that things that are entirely different in their essential natures stand as material cause and effect. Thus the rise of different qualities from things of different nature is common. For example, the quality of intoxication arises from the fermentation of pure sugar; flying insects arise from crawling larvae; the origin of the different species of animals, such as elephants and horses, from the wish-fulfilling tree in the heavenly planets; gold arises from the Philosopher’s Stone, etc. Referring to matter coming out from spirit, the Ātharvanikas say:

yathorṇa-nābhiḥ sṛjate gṛhṇate ca
yathā pṛthivyām oṣadhayaḥ sambhavanti
yathā sataḥ puruṣāt keśa-lomāni
tathākṣarāt sambhavatīha viśvam

“As a web is expanded and withdrawn by a spider, as herbs grow from the earth, and as hair grows from a living person’s head and body, so this universe is generated from the inexhaustible Supreme.” [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.7]

Ultimately everything is spiritual because everything is an expansion of Kṛṣṇa; that is, everything is an expansion either of Kṛṣṇa Himself or of His potency. Because the potency is nondifferent from the potent, the potency and the potent are one [śakti-śaktimatayor abhedaḥ]. The Māyāvādīs, however, say, cid-acit-samanvayaḥ: “Spirit and matter are one.” This is a wrong conception. Spirit [cit] is different from matter [acit], as explained by Kṛṣṇa Himself in Bhagavad-gītā [7.4-5]:

bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ
khaṁ mano buddhir eva ca
ahaṅkāra itīyaṁ me
bhinnā prakṛtir aṣṭadhā

apareyam itas tv anyāṁ
prakṛtiṁ viddhi me parām
jīva-bhūtāṁ mahā-bāho
yayedaṁ dhāryate jagat

“Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego—all together these eight comprise My separated material energies. But besides this inferior nature, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is a superior energy of Mine, which consists of all living entities who are struggling with material nature and are sustaining the universe.”

Spirit and matter are superior and inferior energies, yet the Māyāvādīs and other speculators artificially try to make them one. Although spirit and matter ultimately come from the same source, they cannot be made one. There are many things that come from our bodies, but although they come from the same source, they are qualitatively different. Although the supreme source of both matter and spirit is one, the emanations from this source should be regarded separately, as inferior and superior. Vedānta philosophy recognizes this fact, and this is the main difference between it and all other speculative impersonal philosophies of the creation.

Spirit and matter emanate from the same source, exist together and interpenetrate one another. Yet they are different and cannot be artificially combined. For example, fire and heat interpenetrate and cannot be separated; where there is fire there is heat, and where there is heat there is fire. Nonetheless, although they are one, they are different. Therefore the actual Vedānta philosophy is acintya-bhedābheda: inconceivable, simultaneous qualitative oneness and difference between the Lord and His potencies.

Adhikaraṇa 6: Non-Being not the First Cause

Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The previous sūtras proved that something—namely the energy, organization and life symptoms of the material creation—cannot come from nothing; so now the speculators, refusing to admit defeat, argue the Buddhist doctrine that the material world not only comes from nothing, it is itself nothingness, just to maintain their commitment to atheism to the bitter end. This absurdist attitude is typical of the demons. My spiritual master Śrīla Prabhupāda used to tell the story of the two arguing men:

Two men were arguing about which cutting instrument is better, a knife or scissors. “Knife!” said one. “No, scissors!” said the other. Their talk became a heated fight. “If you don’t agree,” said the man who advocated the knife, “I will throw you in the river.” “No, I’ll never change my mind. It’s scissors!” So the knife advocate threw the other into the swift river. He swam for a while but became exhausted and began to sink. But he was so stubborn about holding his point of view, that even after he was sinking under the water to his death, he held up his arm and crossed his fingers back and forth like a pair of scissors cutting. “The scientists are like that,” said Śrīla Prabhupāda. “Even after defeating them with all logic, still they will say, ‘Life comes from matter.’ But more sane and innocent people would be convinced by the Vedic presentation, that life comes from life.”

The argument about the source of life cannot be resolved, because the real intention of materialists like the scientists is not so much to prove that life comes from matter, as it is to prove that there is no God. If there is no God there are no rules, no right and wrong, no reward or punishment after death. Thus convinced, they do whatever they like, exploit and ‘enjoy’ in any way whatsoever, with full confidence that there is no moral authority to check their independence. In other words, atheism is a potent consciousness-altering drug that conveniently removes the need to listen to one’s conscience. It therefore destroys morality in human society, reducing people to the animal level of consciousness. Atheism’s habitual users are addicted far more powerfully than to any opiate. Convincing them of any sane viewpoint is most difficult because of the depth of their commitment to rebellion against God. They would rather look like fools, and waste valuable time and energy making absurd arguments, than give even an inch to the theistic point of view.

So if the atheists cannot be convinced, why does Vedānta-sūtra devote so much space to defeating their arguments? If they are so addicted to untruth, why not just let them drown in their own ignorance? The answer is that the arguments of Vedānta-sūtra are not so much directed at the atheists themselves, as to theists who lack the strength of mind to resist their seductive arguments. The real battleground of Vedānta versus atheism is not the public forum of debate, but the mind and heart of the neophyte devotee.

The devotee requires the strong medicine of Vedānta to protect himself against the atheistic poison of Kali-yuga in all its bewildering guises. By hearing the arguments of Vyāsa, anyone can defend their spiritual integrity and make their faith strong. This prophylactic is greatly needed in a time when theistic people are rare, as they are today. The faithful minority is surrounded on every side by pitchmen for materialism and atheism, and to maintain a consistent theistic temperament is most difficult.

Perhaps the most dangerous enemies of theism are the materialistic so-called religions and philosophies that superficially claim to be of God, but actually teach atheism. These are very common, especially in the materialistic West. While paying lip service to belief in God, they relegate Him to a very minor role in the creation, then keep Him far in the background while propagating atheistic ideas like the independent creative power of matter and the evolution of species by random mutation. Thus many ostensibly faithful people are recruited for the front lines of the atheists’ war against God because they have no means to protect themselves against such sophisticated disinformation, which conceals its real purpose behind a respectable front. Many become addicted to sinful pleasures of the tongue based on animal slaughter. Others fall for the appeal of mass-marketed lust in a permissive atmosphere of easy licentiousness. Thus the enemies of God convince the weak, little by little, to take up their cause.

It is well-nigh impossible to remain free from sin in a demoniac culture such as Western materialism. The only hope is that some intelligent individuals sense that they have been cheated, and research the world’s religious and philosophical literature in search of a cure, until they discover Vedānta-sūtra and allied writings, especially Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Then they should search out the association of advanced souls who have realized these esoteric teachings for themselves, and take up their service with enthusiasm. Such stalwart transcendentalists can recognize and defeat illusion is all its subtle disguises, for they know well the taste of Absolute Truth.

Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Sāṅkhya philosophy differs from Vedānta in its view of the cause of creation, because it apprehends that the creation arose essentially from nothingness.

Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: If the material cause is different in its essential nature from the effect—if Brahman differs in nature from its effect, the world—then because the cause and effect being essentially different, the world before its creation was nonexistent in Brahman, the cause. In other words, the world was nothing [asat] before its origination because only the One [Brahman] existed then. But Vedānta, which holds that the world is a real effect of Brahman, and is real, cannot support this view.

Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: To this objection the author of the sūtras replies:

Sūtra 2.1.7

asaditi cet na pratisedhamātratvāt

asat – nonexistence, absolute nothing; iti – thus; cet – if; na – not; pratisedha – denial, prohibition; mātratvāt – because, merely.

If it thus [be objected that the world is then an] absolute unreality, we say no, because [in the previous sūtra there was] merely a denial [of the sameness in nature between the cause and the effect, and not that the two are substantially different.]

The objection raised by the pūrvapakṣin is insubstantial, because the denial in the previous sūtra was was only with regard to the assumption that the cause and effect must be of the same essential nature. It was not intended to mean that the substances of the two are different. For example, liquid water is qualitatively different from the gases hydrogen and oxygen, but there is no substantial difference between the cause and the effect. Our position is that Brahman Himself becomes modified into the world, and then manifests different characteristics.

The meaning is this: when you say that there is a difference in nature between the cause—Brahman—and the effect—the world, and that therefore Brahman cannot be the cause of the world, do you mean to say that because all the attributes of Brahman do not reappear in the effect, therefore the effect is not due to Brahman? Or do you intend to say that because only some characteristics appear and others do not, therefore Brahman is not the cause? You cannot mean the first, for then there would be no such thing as cause and effect, because the cause and the effect are never identical in all characteristics. The very relationship of cause and effect implies that there is some difference between them. For example, although the lump of clay is the material cause of the jar that you make out of it, the jar does not possess lumpiness, but has a different form altogether. If however you mean the second, and try to say that no characteristics of Brahman appear in the world, then you are evidently wrong. For Brahman is Sat or being, and the quality of beingness or existence certainly appears in the world. Nor can you say that, because particular aspects of Brahman, such as His joyousness, etc., do not appear in the world therefore the world is not His effect. You cannot pick and choose the qualities at random, for then any thing may become the cause of any other thing; everything will be the cause of everything else, and the law of causation will be reduced to absurdity.

Says the objector, “We do not hold any such absurd position. But we demand that the particular attributes that differentiate the cause from other objects should reappear in the effect, for the relation of cause and effect is constituted by the persistence or inheritance of those characteristic things that differentiate the cause from other things. For example, the characteristics that distinguish a thread from gold persist in the cloth manufactured from the thread and the bracelet made from gold.”

To this, we reply that this is not an invariable rule, for this rule is violated in the production of herbs from earth, and so on. Nor is the gold in every respect the same as the bracelet; there is a difference in condition between the two. Though the world and Brahman are different, as the Philosopher’s Stone is different from gold, yet they have this in common, that both are essentially one in substance, as the gold and the bracelet. Therefore the world, though an effect, is not unreal, because it is an emanation from Brahman, or absolute reality.

The modern atheistic scientists propound a variation on this same argument: “If you think that God created the world, how is it possible because even if God exists, He is spiritual, and spiritual things are insubstantial. It is not possible that an insubstantial spiritual entity created the manifested material creation, because something [matter or the universal creation] cannot come from nothing [God or the spiritual existence].”

This argument is invalid because it rests upon several false assumptions. The scientists’ favorite trick is to deny subjective evidence that is revealed directly to consciousness, and accept only objective evidence that is visible to the material senses or their technological extensions. By doing so, they conveniently eliminate all manifestations of spiritual truth, because consciousness and its corollaries like personality, individuality, mind, intelligence and so on are always purely subjective. We will ignore for now the hypocrisy that the scientists’ own consciousness and intelligence, of which they are so proud, fall among the subjective phenomena they refuse to accept when it suits their purposes. But the phenomenon of consciousness itself is completely subjective because it is a symptom of the soul. The existence of God and other spiritual entities can be realized only by consciousness purified of material contamination. So the scientists cleverly eliminate the only possibility of observing the existence of God or the spiritual world by limiting the domain of acceptable evidence to objectively verifiable material facts. They refuse to follow the process of purification of consciousness that would allow them to verify the existence of God subjectively, in their own consciousness, and go so far as to argue that consciousness itself is unreal and simply an epiphenomenon of the electrochemical functions of the brain.

The argument that “The material world is objective and substantial, and God or spirit is only subjective and insubstantial” is also misleading. They are trying to establish that only the material existence is real, and the spiritual world is more or less imagination. In reality it is the other way around, because the existence of all material things is relative and impermanent, but the existence of spiritual entities is eternal and absolute.

nāsato vidyate bhāvo
nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ
ubhayor api dṛṣṭo 'ntas
tv anayos tattva-darśibhiḥ

“Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent there is no endurance, and of the existent there is no cessation. This seers have concluded by studying the nature of both.” [Bhagavad-gītā 2.16]

Brahman or God is not nothing; conversely, He is the source of everything. Dull matter has no way of bringing itself into existence; it must be created, energized and organized by an outside force. That force is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who exists before the material world is created and after it is destroyed.

aham evāsam evāgre
nānyad yat sad-asat param
paścād ahaṁ yad etac ca
yo 'vaśiṣyeta so 'smy aham

“Brahmā, it is I, the Personality of Godhead, who was existing before the creation, when there was nothing but Myself. Nor was there the material nature, the cause of this creation. That which you see now is also I, the Personality of Godhead, and after annihilation what remains will also be I, the Personality of Godhead.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.9.33]

The reality of God and the transcendental world can be known only by the revelation of the Vedānta-sūtra and other scriptures, and the direct perception of the self-realized soul. Anyone can verify this spiritual existence, but to do so requires enough faith in the words of the scriptures to follow the process of self-realization to completion. The scientists and other materialists will uselessly labor in the obscurity of material illusion until they recognize this fact and perform the process of self-realization in their own consciousness. Then no more proof will be needed, for they will see for themselves that the statements of the scriptures are correct.

The Sāṅkhya opponent comes forward now with another objection:

Sūtra 2.1.8

apitau tadvat prasaṅgādasamaṁjasam

apitau - at the time of pralaya; tadvat - like that; prasaṅgāt - on account of the consequences; asamaṁjasam – inappropriate.

[If Brahman is the material cause of the universe, then] when the world is re-absorbed in Him, Brahman would have all the consequences of the world [tainted with all its defects, and thus the Vedānta texts would become] inappropriate.

If Brahman, with His subtle energies of spirit and matter, is the material cause of the world—a world full of misery and many defects, injurious to the progress of the human soul—then when it is reabsorbed into Brahman at the time of pralaya, Brahman would become tainted with all the concomitant consequences of matter. The force of vat in the sūtra is similar to iva [like]. As because of its imperfections the world is not the final object of man, so the Brahman tainted with the defects of the world would not be the final object, for in the state of pralaya Brahman would become tainted with all the defects of the material existence. That being so, inappropriateness would arise because the texts of the Upaniṣads that declare Brahman to be omniscient, pure, etc. would be contradicted. This is an additional reason why Brahman is not the material cause of the world.

The author sets aside this objection in the next sūtra:

Sūtra 2.1.9

na tu dṛṣṭāntabhāvāt

na - not; tu - but; dṛṣṭānta - instances, illustrations; bhāvāt - because of the existence of.

But this is not so, as there are instances of this effect.

The validity of the objection is set aside with the word tu [but].

There is no inappropriateness in Brahman being the material cause of the universe, for there are many instances to show that the cause is not tainted by the defects of the effect. Though the world is full of misery, yet the Lord is all-pure. He remains always untouched by evil. As in one picture, the different colors do not overlap one another, but remain in their proper places, so the qualities of the world remain in their proper place and do not affect Brahman. Similarly childhood, youth and old age are attributes belonging to the body only, therefore they do not affect the embodied being; or as the defects of blindness, deafness, etc. belong to the senses and not to the embodied being himself. The Vedas say, asaṅgo 'yaṁ puruṣaḥ: “The soul is untouched by any material contamination.” So the defects of the world do not appertain to Brahman. All those modifications of Brahman belonging to matter and antagonistic to the highest goal of man appertain to the energies of Brahman, are energies of His śakti and remain with His śakti, and do not pervade the pure Brahman.

nātaḥ paraṁ parama yad bhavataḥ svarūpam
ānanda-mātram avikalpam aviddha-varcaḥ
paśyāmi viśva-sṛjam ekam aviśvam ātman
bhūtendriyātmaka-madas ta upāśrito 'smi

“O my Lord, I do not see a form superior to Your present form of eternal bliss and knowledge. In Your impersonal Brahman effulgence in the spiritual sky, there is no occasional change and no deterioration of internal potency. I surrender unto You because whereas I am proud of my material body and senses, Your Lordship is the cause of the cosmic manifestation and yet You are untouched by matter.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.9.3]

We therefore hold that Brahman is the material cause of the world. This theory is not only free from all objections, but the opposing theory of the Sāṅkhyas that pradhāna is the cause of the world is open to the following objection:

Sūtra 2.1.10

svapakṣe doṣāt ca

svapakṣe - in his own side; doṣāt - because of the fault or objection; ca - and.

The objections [to the Vedānta theory raised by the Sāṅkhya] apply with equal force to the Sāṅkhya theory itself.

“O Sāṅkhya, the faults that you find with our theory are to be found in your theory as well. These have been pointed out in another place.” One fault found is that the upādana or cause is different from the effect. The same objection applies to the Sāṅkhya. Pradhāna is conceived to be devoid of sense objects, like sound and the rest; but the world generated by pradhāna has the attributes of sound, etc. Thus the cause is different from the effect in the Sāṅkhya theory also. The effect thus being different from the cause, the objection that the effect is nonexistent and unreal also remains. Similarly, in the state of reabsorption, when all objects merge with the pradhāna and become one with it, there will be pervasion of pradhāna of all the effects of the world, so the objection raised in Sūtra 2.1.8 applies to the Sāṅkhya theory also. All the objections raised by the Sāṅkhya against the Vedānta theory apply to the Sāṅkhya theory as well. The Brahman theory deduces the creation from a conscious Being or spirit; the pradhāna theory adduces it from unconscious matter. Moreover in the pradhāna theory of creation, the very motive for creation is unclear, for the pradhāna being inanimate and unconscious, can possess no motive at all. This will be examined in detail later on.

The author now shows that the scriptures, when supported by reason, are the cause of ascertaining the truth, and consequently reason has its place in this system.

Sūtra 2.1.11

tarkāpratiṣṭānādapyanyathānumeyamiti cedevamapyanirmoṣca prasaṅgaḥ

tarka - controversial reasoning; apratiṣṭānāt - because not having any finality; api - also; anyathā - otherwise; anumeyam - to be inferred; iti - thus; cet - if; evam - thus; api - also; anirmoṣa - want of release; prasaṅgaḥ - consequence.

[If it be said that there is] no finality about reasoning, for it is always possible to infer the truth of the opposite; we say no, for then the undesirable consequence would follow that that there would be no final liberation.

Owing to the differences in the brains of men, their reasoning powers are also different. There is no finality about reasoning; a position established by one man may be demolished the next day by a man with a stronger intellect. There is no conclusive certainty or definite finality about reasoning, even with regard to the acknowledged great intellects of the world; great thinkers like Kapila, Kaṇāda etc. are seen to contradict and refute one another. Therefore without relying upon defective human reason, we must accept that Brahman is the material cause of the world, simply because the Vedas and Upaniṣads declare it. Everything else follows by simple deduction.

It cannot be said that any human reasoning is absolute and unassailable, for then the reasoning by which a particular argument is held to be inconclusive would itself become invalid, leading to a logical paradox. On the other hand, if all reasoning is held to be inconclusive, then all worldly activities would come to an end. Human activities are all based upon inference, as we predict the future from the experiences of past and present. The actions that have been found to yield pleasant or painful results in the past are repeated or avoided by reason alone, for it is inferred that they would produce the same consequences in the future as well. Indeed, this is one of the most important and useful functions of the mind and intelligence.

This view that all reason is inconclusive also leads to the undesirable consequence that the existence of spiritual liberation cannot be established. A proposition established purely by human intellect, unaided by intuition or experience, is always liable to be set aside by a higher intellect born in another time or place. Thus over time, great confusion develops around the teachings of the scriptures as various commentators refute each others’ arguments. Such speculative arguments are too unreliable to engender the firm faith required for genuine spiritual advancement. Therefore spiritual liberation can never be attained by methods evolved by human intelligence, but must be attained by the methods given by direct Upaniṣadic revelation alone. The Mahābhārata [Bhīṣma-parva 5.22] therefore says,

acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet

“How can that which is beyond the imagination or sensory speculation of mundane creatures be approached simply by logic?”

Logic and argument are always imperfect when applied to spiritual understanding. By utilizing mundane logic, one frequently comes to the wrong conclusion regarding the Absolute Truth, and as a result of such a conclusion one may fall down into a hellish condition of life. Nevertheless reason can be useful in analyzing the instructions of the scriptures and applying them to various circumstances. Those who are actually inquisitive to understand the philosophy of Vedānta through logic and argument are welcome to put the Vedānta-sūtras to the test, and those who actually know how to apply logic will come to the right conclusion that there is no philosophy more powerful than Vedānta.

It is perfectly true that within the scope of secular matters, such as mathematics, reason is absolute; but in transcendental matters, such as the existence of God, His role in the creation, the afterlife, the spiritual world, final liberation from material existence, etc., the conclusions of human intellect can never be perfectly free from doubt, because these matters are outside the scope of the mind and senses. For Brahman is inconceivable, and consequently unarguable. If you allow reasoning in the matter of Brahman, then you not only contradict the Śruti, but also your own assertions become incongruous. The Śruti itself says:

“O Nāciketā, this faith that you have got cannot be brought about nor destroyed by argument. The Self becomes easily attained when one is taught by a true teacher. O dearest disciple, your determination is strong. Inquirers like you are very rare.” [Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.9]

The Smṛti also supports this:

“O Ṛṣis! The sages realize that Truth with tranquil bodies, senses and minds, but when that realization is overwhelmed with dry reasoning, it vanishes.”

Therefore, as Śruti is the highest authority in matter of religious law [dharma], it is the only authority in theological matters [Brahman]. Of course, reasoning auxiliary to Śruti is always allowed, because the word mantavya [reasoned about] shows that Brahman should be reasoned about. Smṛti also says that one should interpret a scriptural passage by looking into and reasoning about all that precedes and follow it. This is the very process of samanvaya by which this commentary is written.

Adhikaraṇa 7: Kaṇāda and Gautama Refuted

Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Once we understand the Vedic view that the Supreme Brahman is both the efficient and material cause of creation, and that His multifarious potencies, internal and external, are responsible for the creation, we are faced with the surprising conclusion that all other philosophies, religions and theories of the creation are incorrect, because they all ascribe some degree of independent creative power and intelligence to dull, inert matter. This view is surprising because many of these philosophies are ostensibly religious or spiritual, yet directly or indirectly, they promote the atheistic view that the personal intelligence, will and energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are not required to explain the creation. Therefore all such illusory theories, having been refuted by the clear arguments of Vedānta-sūtra, are rejected.

All these theories are merely covered atheism, masquerading as knowledge. None of them can be proven, and none are supported by the Vedic literature. There may be some residual material attachment to such theories due to material education, childhood religious training or simple ignorance, but this attachment must be given up to make continued spiritual progress, because all such notions are actually offensive to the Supreme Brahman, the Lord. He is the source of everything, and in one sense, He is everything. He is the creator, controller and the proprietor of everything and everyone.

mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ
jagad avyakta-mūrtinā
mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni
na cāhaṁ teṣv avasthitaḥ

na ca mat-sthāni bhūtāni
paśya me yogam aiśvaram
bhūta-bhṛn na ca bhūta-stho
mamātmā bhūta-bhāvanaḥ

“By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities, and although I am everywhere, still My Self is the very source of creation.” [Bhagavad-gītā 9.4-5]

The idea that ‘all religious beliefs are somehow correct, at least for the believer’ is another sentimental attachment that must be rejected to make real spiritual progress. Actually it is a vestige of impersonalism; for all non-Vedic theories try to remove the Lord from the center stage of creation and diminish His importance. Vedānta-sūtra is very clear about its rejection of other theories and sole support of the Vedic version. This is because, of all the systems of knowledge in the world, only the Vedas are of divine origin; all others are unapologetically originated by defective human intelligence. Therefore, following the example of Vedānta-sūtra, no authentic self-realized soul will accept such factually erroneous, nonsensical and spiritually crippling theories.

The author has refuted the arguments of the Sāṅkhya and Yoga philosophers as regards Brahman being only the operative cause and not the material cause of the creation. Now he refutes all non-Vedic theories in general, and the Smṛtis of Kaṇāda and Gautama in particular, and answers the objections brought forward by their followers.

Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: According to Kaṇāda and others, if Brahman is accepted as the material cause of the world, then those philosophies would find no scope at all.

Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: According to Kaṇāda and Gautama, bigger atoms are formed by the aggregation of smaller atoms. When two smaller atoms unite, they form a molecule called a dvianu or dyad, a triad, etc. The whole world is made up of atoms, which are the ultimate material cause of the universe, and not the Brahman or prakṛiti. Brahman, being all-pervading, cannot be the material cause of the world because it is limited.

Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: The author replies to this with the following sūtra:

Sūtra 2.1.12

etena śiṣtā parigrahā api vyākhyātaḥ

etena – by this; śiṣtāḥ – the remaining systems; aparigrahāḥ – not accepted by the Vedas; api – also; vyākhyātaḥ – are refuted.

Hereby other systems not in harmony with the Vedas are also refuted.

The word śiṣtāḥ means the remaining. The word aparigrahāḥ means those philosophical systems that do not acknowledge or accept the Vedas as authoritative, but which rely on reason alone, and which therefore are not accepted by Vedānta philosophy. This sūtra teaches that by the refutation of the Sāṅkhya doctrine above, the remaining similar theories such as the atomic theories of Kaṇāda and Gautama are also refuted, for they are opposed to the Vedas on the same points. Vedānta-sūtra will specifically refute the various atomic theories later on.

In the next sūtra the author raises another objection and disposes of it.

Sūtra 2.1.13

bhoktrāpatteravibhāgaścet syāllokavat

bhoktrā – with the enjoyer; āpatteḥ – from becoming; avibhāgaḥ – non-distinction; cet – if; syāt – it may be; lokavat – as in the world.

[Someone may object that] if Brahman is accepted as the material cause of the world, then there would be no difference between the jīva and the Lord. To this we reply, it need not be so, as we see in ordinary life.

The objector says, “The Vedic opinion is that Brahman as possessing the subtle energy of spirit is Himself the material cause of the creation, and as possessing the gross energy He is also the effect. Let us see whether this view is sound or not. Now energy is not different from the substance of which it is the energy; therefore the jīva is not different from Brahman. Thus your theory of two energies of Brahman lands you into contradiction, for it follows that Brahman and the jīva are one. Therefore the texts like ‘two birds,’ ‘when it sees the other as the Lord’ etc. become null and void when the difference established by them is ignored.”

To this objection we reply, it is not so. Even in ordinary life, we see that energy is different from the person possessing it. Thus a man armed with a sword is a single man, but the sword is different from the man, though it represents the energy of the man. Therefore, Brahman possessing śakti is still nothing more than Brahman, but the śakti is different from Brahman. Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [1.10] says:

haraḥ kṣarātmānāv īśate deva ekaḥ

“Although the living entities are inexhaustible, being proud by considering themselves the enjoyers of material objects, they are prone to be conditioned by māyā. Both material nature and the living entities are energies of and controlled by the Supreme Lord. The Supreme Lord is one without a second.”

samāne vṛkṣe puruṣo nimagno
‘nīśayā śocati muhyamānaḥ
juṣṭaṁ yadā paśyaty anyam īśam
asya mahimānam eti vīta-śokaḥ

“Although the two birds are in the same tree, the enjoying bird is full of anxiety and morose; but if somehow he turns to his friend, the Lord, and knows His glories, at once he is freed from all anxiety. [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad Chapter 4]

tam ātmasthaṁ ye’ nupaśyanti dhīras-teṣāṁ sukhaṁ śāśvataṁ [śānti śāśvatī] netareṣām

“Only the wise person who can see that Supreme Soul within his heart becomes peaceful and enjoys transcendental bliss.” [Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.12-13]

sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma taj jalāniti śānta upāsīta

“Whatever we see is a manifestation of Brahman. Everything is created, maintained, and annihilated by Brahman. Therefore one should peacefully worship Him.” [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14]

bhūya eva vivitsāmi
bhagavān ātma-māyayā
yathedaṁ sṛjate viśvaṁ
durvibhāvyam adhīśvaraiḥ

“I beg to know from you how the Personality of Godhead, by His personal energies, creates these phenomenal universes as they are, which are inconceivable even to the great demigods.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.4.6]

nimitta-mātraṁ tatrāsīn
nirguṇaḥ puruṣarṣabhaḥ
vyaktāvyaktam idaṁ viśvaṁ
yatra bhramati lohavat

“My dear Dhruva, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is uncontaminated by the material modes of nature. He is the remote cause of the creation of this material cosmic manifestation. When He gives the impetus, many other causes and effects are produced, and thus the whole universe moves, just as iron moves by the integrated force of a magnet.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.11.7]

Thus there is no fault in the Vedānta theory of Brahman and His two śaktis. This theory will be discussed in more detail in Adhikaraṇas 8 and 9 below.

Adhikaraṇa 8: The World is Nondifferent from Brahman

Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Originally the path of self-realization was established by the standard direction of the Vedas. Śrīla Vyāsadeva divided the original Veda into the Sāma, Atharva, Ṛg and Yajur-Vedas, the eighteen Purāṇas (supplements) and the Mahābhārata, and then the same author summarized them in the Vedānta-sūtras. The purpose of all these Vedic literatures is to realize oneself to be a spiritual being, eternally related with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the all-attractive spiritual fountainhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

But all these different Vedic literatures were deliberately and systematically distorted by the onslaught of the age of Kali, as the walls of the paddy field and the strand of the river are distorted by heavy monsoon rains. These distorting attacks are offered by atheistic philosophers concerned only with eating, drinking, making merry and enjoying. These atheists are intimately attached to sense pleasures and gross materialism. Others do not believe in the soul or the eternity of existence. Some of them propose that life is ultimately annihilated, and that only the material energy is conserved. Others are less concerned with physical laws, but do not believe anything beyond their experience. And still others equate spirit and matter, declaring the distinction between them to be illusory, and that even consciousness itself is a myth. Therefore all of them are against the revelations of the Vedas.

There is no doubt that from every angle of vision, the Vedas stand as the oldest and most universally recognized books of knowledge. But over the course of time the Vedic path has been attacked by atheistic, materialistic and impersonalist philosophers like Cārvāka, Buddha, Arhat, Kapila, Patañjali, Śaṅkara, Vaikāraṇa, Jaimini, the Nyāyakas, the Vaiśeṣikas, the Saguṇists, the empiricists, the epicureans, the Pāśupata Śaivas, the Saguṇa Śaivas, the Brāhmos, Āryas, Brahma-kumaris, Muslims, Christians, material scientists and many others; the list of non-Vedic speculators grows daily, without restriction. While some are openly Godless and others hide their atheism behind a veneer of conventional religion, all of them without exception want to create the illusion that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is separate from His creation, and that the Lord is not omnipresent or omnipotent. These overt and covert attacks on the very basis of theism and morality have weakened people’s intelligence and degraded the moral fabric of human civilization until it resembles the vicious activities of animals.

The path of the Vedas does not accept any philosophy lacking the concepts of an eternal relationship of the soul with God and attainment of His devotional service, culminating in transcendental ecstatic love for Him. It is the only spiritual teaching that fully recognizes and explains that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ultimate cause of everything; that His spiritual and material energies are source of the living entities and the material creation; that since nothing but Him actually exists, whatever we see is simply a transformation of His energy and substance; that He creates this material existence as a means of fulfilling the desires of the living entities who wish to be apart from His personal association; and that self-realization, or the direct perception of the Absolute Truth by individual consciousness as described in the Vedas, is the ultimate solution to all the problems and suffering of human life.

The two great pillars of Vedānta philosophy are explained in this Adhikaraṇa and the following one: that because the material energy is simply a transformation of Brahman, the creation is nondifferent from Him; and that Brahman is both the operative and material cause of the creation. All the principal concepts of Vedic philosophy derive from these two most important revelations by a simple process of deduction. If these two ideas are firmly and clearly established in one’s mind, then the complete cosmic conception of Vedānta is easily understood; without them it is inconceivable.

Although in a previous Adhikaraṇa it was proved that Brahman is the material cause of the world, yet it does not automatically follow that the creation is nondifferent from Him. Therefore in this Adhikaraṇa the author of the sūtras wishes to establish that the world is nondifferent from its cause, Brahman. In Sūtra 2.1.7 and subsequent sūtras, the non-difference of the world from Brahman was assumed, and the proof that Brahman is the material cause of the world was given on that assumption. The present sūtra raises an objection against that non-difference and then refutes it, making the doctrine that Brahman is nondifferent from His creation explicit.

Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: The question is whether this world, which is an effect, is different from its cause, Brahman, or not?

Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: The followers of Kaṇāda hold the view that the effect is always different from the cause. Their reasons are as follows:

1. The difference of ideas: cause and effect are objects of different ideas; a lump of clay, which is the material cause, is different from the jar which is its effect.

2. The difference of words: the word ‘jar’ applied to the effect, is never applied to the lump of clay which is its material cause. Thus the cause and effect are not only represented by different ideas in our minds, but also by different words.

3. The difference of applications: a jar is useful for fetching water from a well, but the lump of clay has no such use.

4. The difference of forms: the cause, clay, is merely a lump in shape; the jar, the effect, has a different shape with a neck, etc.

5. The difference of time: the cause is prior in time, the effect is posterior.

Thus for all these reasons, the effect is different from the cause. If it were not different, then the work of the person producing the effect would be useless. If a jar is the same as a lump of clay, then the labor of the potter is useless; for the jar would come into existence automatically. If it is said that the effect is always existing, but simply unmanifest in the beginning, so the activity of the agent is necessary, this view is also incorrect. For the questions arise, “Does the effect exist before manifestation or not? Or is the manifestation existent or nonexistent prior to the activity of the agent?” The manifestation cannot exist prior to the action of the agent, for then such activity would be purposeless, and it would follow that the effect should be always perceptible. Moreover, this would result in removing the distinction between eternal and non-eternal things. If it is assumed that one manifestation requires another manifestation to account for it, then we are driven into an infinite regression. If it is held that manifestation is unreal [asat] then we lapse into the theory of the asat-kāryavāda, according to which the effect does not exist before its origination. Therefore the pūrvapakṣa is that the effect is always different from the cause, and that activity of the agent is not necessary for the production of an unreal effect. Therefore the Nyāyikās hold that in the creation, a material cause which is sat produces an effect that is asat.

Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: This view of the Vaiśeṣikās is refuted by the author in the following sūtra:

Sūtra 2.1.14

tadananyatvamārambhaṇaśabdādibhyaḥ

tat – from that; ananyatvam – the identity; ārambhaṇa – ārambhaṇa; śabdādibhyaḥ – from the words beginning with.

The non-difference [of the world from Brahman is established in the verses of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad] beginning with the word ārambhaṇa.

The word tat means ‘from that,’ namely from Brahman, the material cause of the world who possesses two śaktis called jīva and prakṛti, spirit and matter. This world is certainly an effect, but it is not different from its cause, namely Brahman. How do we know this? We learn it from the passage of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad beginning with the word ārambhaṇa [in the beginning], as quoted below.

Hariḥ oṁ. There once lived Śvetaketu Āruṇeya, the grandson of Āruṇa. His father Uddālaka said to him, “My dear Śvetaketu, go to school, for there is none in our family who has not studied the Vedas and is therefore a brāhmaṇa only by birth.”

Having begun his apprenticeship with a teacher when he was twelve years old, Śvetaketu returned to his father when he was twenty-four, having studied all the Vedas, conceited and stern, considering himself well-read.

His father said to him, “My dear Śvetaketu, as you are so conceited and stern, considering yourself well-read; have you ever asked for that instruction by which we hear what cannot be heard, by which we perceive what cannot be perceived, by which we know what cannot be known?”

“What is that instruction, Sir?” he asked. The father replied, “My dear boy, as by one clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, the difference being only in name arising from speech, but the truth being that all is clay;

“And my dear boy, as by one nugget of gold all that is made of gold is known, the difference being only a name arising from speech, but the truth being that all is gold;

“And my dear boy, as by one pair of nail-scissors all that is made of iron is known, the difference being only a name arising from speech, but the truth being that all is iron; thus, my dear boy, is that instruction.”

The son said, “Surely those venerable men, my teachers, did not know that. For if they had known it, why should they have not told it to me? Therefore Sir, do tell me that.” “Be it so, said the father.

“That which is manifested, which owing to the distinctions of names and forms, bears a manifold shape, was in the beginning one only, owing to the absence of the distinction of names and forms. He thought, ‘May I be many, may I grow forth.’ ” [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.1-3]

Thus we see that the cause of the creation Brahman is nondifferent from the effect, the chief differences being only a matter of forms and names. So it is perfectly possible for a cause and its effect to be nondifferent. If it is held that the pot is different from the clay, the objection would arise that they should have double weight. The weight of a lump of clay being one unit, and the weight of the pot another; if the cause and effect were two different things, when the pot is weighed in the balance, the weight ought to be double. But the pot does not show any increase in weight over the lump of clay from which it is made; thus the substance of the clay and the pot is one. The clay and the pot are the same in other respects as well; for example, chemical analysis of the pot shows the same materials as in the clay. Chāndogya Upaniṣad [6.1.4] states:

vācārambhaṇam vikāro nāmadheyam mṛttikā iti eva satyam

“All transformation is a mere matter of words, and is nothing but name. Therefore, the truth is that it is only clay.”

Pots of various shapes and sizes are made out of clay and given different names, but they are all nothing but clay, and do not have any reality apart from clay. Similarly, the world consisting of various forms and names is in reality nothing but Brahman, and has no existence apart from Brahman. The pot is not an illusory effect, like the illusion of silver in the seashell. Although silver exists as a real substance, there is no silver in mother of pearl; however, the pot consists wholly of the clay from which it is made. Similarly, the universe is nothing but Brahman, although Brahman has transformed Himself into the various forms and names of the manifested creation.

Nor can you say that the theory of manifestation has no Vedic authority for it. For we find in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa [7.3.26]:

kalpānte kāla-sṛṣṭena
yo 'ndhena tamasāvṛtam
abhivyanag jagad idaṁ
svayañjyotiḥ sva-rociṣā

“At the end of each Kalpa, the universe is fully covered with dense darkness by the influence of time; and then again, during his next day, that self-effulgent lord, by his own effulgence, manifests, maintains and destroys the entire cosmic manifestation through the material energy, which is invested with the three modes of material nature.”

ātma-māyāṁ samāviśya
so 'haṁ guṇamayīṁ dvija
sṛjan rakṣan haran viśvaṁ
dadhre saṁjñāṁ kriyocitām

The Lord continued: “My dear Dakṣa Dvija, I am the original Personality of Godhead, but in order to create, maintain and annihilate this cosmic manifestation, I act through My material energy, and My representations are differently named according to the different grades of activity.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.7.51]

Nor is this theory open to the objections of accomplishing a thing that is already accomplished, or infinite regression. For we do not acknowledge that the manifestation existed prior to the activity of the agent; nor do we accept that one manifestation requires another to manifest it, and so on.

Says an objector, “If so, then you are open to the objection of maintaining the theory of asat-kāryavāda [the effect does not exist before its origination]. For the activity of the agent manifests the effect, which did not exist before; thus the activity of the agent creates the effect.”

To this we reply, it is not so. The activity of the agent, material nature [prakṛti], produces manifestation, but does not produce the effect. For the manifestation of the material creation is not the effect; the effect of the Lord’s creative potency is the material nature, which under the proper circumstances has the power of self-manifestation. Manifestation is characterized by the substratum of which it is the manifestation. In other words, the manifestation of the substratum of material nature—its basic elements, energies and laws—constitutes the manifestation of the world. But the manifestation in the form of saṁsthāna-yoga [integration of atoms] or material transformations is an ongoing manifestation, and thus there is no fault in the theory set out by Vedānta philosophy, because this potential power of material manifestation resides eternally in Brahman.

On the other hand, those who maintain that an effect is the result of a cause which is asat or nonexistent (in other words, that an effect is completely different from its cause) are wrong, because it is impossible to prove and is self-contradictory. For if it were so, then the result would be as follows: the effect will be nonexistent before the cause that manifests it, and consequently, anything would be the effect of any other thing, and everything would produce the same effect and every thing would come out of everything else. Since nonexistence is present everywhere, and according to you, an effect is nonexistent before its manifestation, therefore any effect can be produced from anything. Thus not only could oil be extracted from sesame, but we would also get milk from the same seeds. Because the oil [the effect] is nonexistent in the seed, being the result of the activity of the agent, milk could also be extracted from the seed by the same activity. Moreover your theory is open to another objection. If the effect were totally nonexistent prior to its manifestation, then the production of an effect would be agentless. Nor can you say that some energy inherent in the cause would regulate the particular effect that cause would produce, because there can be no relationship between an existent cause and a nonexistent effect.

Moreover we have the following dilemma also: does the origination originate itself or not? If so, then we have an infinite regression; for one origination we require another origination to originate it, and so on. In the second alternative, the effect being nonexistent and non-eternal, the origination becomes impossible. Thus both these alternatives are wrong. It would follow that we must perceive an effect always, or not at all. If you say “Origination being itself an origin, there is no necessity of imagining another origin for it,” then it is the same thing as the Vedic theory of manifestation; and in that case the theory of origination and the theory of manifestation become identical.

sa eṣa ādyaḥ puruṣaḥ
kalpe kalpe sṛjaty ajaḥ
ātmātmany ātmanātmānaṁ
sa saṁyacchati pāti ca

“That supreme original Personality of Godhead, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, expanding His plenary portion as Mahā-Viṣṇu, the first incarnation, creates this manifested cosmos, but He is unborn. The creation, however, takes place in Him, and the material substance and manifestations are all Himself. He maintains them for some time and absorbs them into Himself again.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.6.39]

The author now shows through further arguments that the effect is nondifferent from the cause, by the following aphorism:

Sūtra 2.1.15

bhavecopalabdheḥ

bhave – in the existence; ca – and; upalabdheḥ – because of the perception.

And because the cause is perceived in the effect.

We perceive the existence of the clay or gold that are the material causes of the pot or crown in their effects. In fact, the perception of the clay or gold in the pot of crown would not have been possible if the effect were completely different from the cause.

An objector may say, “But we do not recognize the cause in the elephants and other animals produced from the wish-fulfilling tree [kalpa-vṛkṣa], for there is nothing in common between the tree and its effects, the animals that are produced.”

To this we reply that there is no force in the objection, for here also there is recognition of the cause in the effect. The kalpa-vṛkṣa tree is a physical object, and so are the animals produced from it; therefore, recognition is possible on the basis of both being physical matter.

An objector says, “But there is no recognition of fire in smoke; and smoke, being an effect of fire, ought to show fire in it.”

To this we reply that smoke is really an effect of damp fuel, which when coming in contact with fire, throws off its earthy particles in the form of smoke. That the smoke is an effect of the damp fuel is proved by the fact that the aromas of the fuel and the smoke are similar.

tenaikam ātmānam aśeṣa-dehināṁ
kālaṁ pradhānaṁ puruṣaṁ pareśam
sva-tejasā dhvasta-guṇa-pravāham
ātmaika-bhāvena bhajadhvam addhā

“Because the Supreme Lord is the cause of all causes, He is the Supersoul of all individual living entities, and He exists as both the remote and immediate cause. Since He is aloof from the material emanations, He is free from their interactions and is Lord of material nature. You should therefore engage in His devotional service, thinking yourself qualitatively one with Him.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.31.18]

Sūtra 2.1.16

sattvāccāvarasya

sattvāt – because of the existence; ca – and; avarasya – of the posterior.

[The effect is nondifferent from the cause,] because it is existent in the cause [prior to its manifestation,] though it is posterior [in time].

The effect is nondifferent from its cause for this additional reason: before its manifestation it exists in latency in the cause. Thus the Śruti says, “Only Being existed in the beginning.” Also Smṛti says:

“As in the seed of barley there exists in latency the root, the stem, the leaf, the bud, the carpels, the ovary, the flower, the milk, the rice, the husk and the seeds; they manifest out of the seed when they get the proper conditions and materials to manifest them. O best of the sages, similarly, the bodies of devas and others exist in innumerable karmas. When they get context with the Viṣṇu energy they come into manifestation. Certainly that Viṣṇu is the Supreme Brahman, who is the sustenance and dissolution of this universe.

We can get oil from sesame because the oil exists in latency in the seed; but we cannot get oil from sand because it has no oil in it. Existence is the same both in Brahman and in the world, and because everything exists in Brahman so it can come out of Him.

tvaṁ vā idaṁ sad-asad īśa bhavāṁs tato 'nyo
māyā yad ātma-para-buddhir iyaṁ hy apārthā
yad yasya janma nidhanaṁ sthitir īkṣaṇaṁ ca
tad vaitad eva vasukālavad aṣṭi-tarvoḥ

“My dear Lord, O Supreme Personality of Godhead, the entire cosmic creation is caused by You, and the cosmic manifestation is an effect of Your energy. Although the entire cosmos is but You alone, You keep Yourself aloof from it. The conception of ‘mine and yours’ is certainly a type of illusion [māyā] because everything is an emanation from You and is therefore not different from You. Indeed, the cosmic manifestation is nondifferent from You, and the annihilation is also caused by You. This relationship between Your Lordship and the cosmos is illustrated by the example of the seed and the tree, or the subtle cause and the gross manifestation.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 7.9.31]

Previously we established the identity of the effect with the cause, even after origination. The next two aphorisms establish the same identity of the effect with the cause, even after the destruction of the effect and its merging into the cause.

Sūtra 2.1.17

asatvyapadeśānneticenna dharmāntareṇa vākyadeṣāt

asat – nonexistent; vyapadeśāt – because of the designation; na – not; iti – thus; cet – if; na – not; dharma-antareṇa – on account of another attribute; vākyadeṣāt – because of the complimentary passage.

[If it be said that the effect does not exist in the cause after dissolution,] because there is a text designating it as non-being, we reply that it not so, since the word asat [non-being] refers to another attribute of the effect, as would appear from the complimentary passage of that text.

An objector declares, “Let it be so. But we find the following passage in Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.7.1]:

asad vā idam agra āsīt

“In the beginning of this creation, only asat was present.”

Here we see that the effect is called asat or non-existing, consequently the effect vanishes completely at the time of pralaya, and therefore does not exist in the cause.”

To this objection we reply that it is not so, for the word asat used in that passage does not refer to absolute nonexistence, as you take it to mean, but it refers to another attribute of the effect, namely non-manifestation. The words sat and asat should be understood as referring to two attributes of the same object; namely to its gross or manifested condition, and its subtle or unmanifested condition. An object existing as cause is in subtle condition, and existing as effect it is in gross condition; therefore the word sat means the gross condition of an object, and asat means the subtle condition. Thus the word asat here refers to the subtle condition of the object, and is the designation due to another attribute of the object as different from the gross condition.

Objector: “But how do you explain the word asat, which literally means nonexistence, as meaning here the subtle condition?”

We do so in order to make sense of the passage consistent with follows in the same text; for further on we find the following:

“Asat verily was this in the beginning; from it verily proceeded the sat. That made itself its Self, therefore it is said to be self-made.”

The words “Asat made itself its Self” clears up any doubt as to the real meaning of asat. For if the word asat meant absolute nonexistence, then there will be a contradiction, for a non-existing thing can never make itself the Self of anything. Similarly, the word āsīt [was] becomes absurd when applied to asat, in the sense of absolute nonexistence, for absolute nonexistence can never be said to exist, and ‘was’ means existence. An absolute nonexistence can have no relation with time, either past or present, nor can it have any agency as we find in the sentence, “It made itself its Self.” Therefore the word asat here should be explained as the subtle state of an object.

In general, asat does not mean absolute nonexistence, but refers to that which does not posses absolute existence. Similarly, sat generally refers to real existence, which is eternal and absolute.

nāsato vidyate bhāvo
nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ
ubhayor api dṛṣṭo 'ntas
tv anayos tattva-darśibhiḥ

“Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [asat] there is no endurance, and of the existent [sat] there is no cessation. This seers have concluded by studying the nature of both.” [Bhagavad-gītā 2.16]

We do not say that the material world is unreal or that it does not exist, but that its existence is relative to the existence of Brahman. The principle of material energy [pradhāna] is eternal, being the external energy of Brahman, so it is real and existent in the full sense of the words. But the manifestation of the material creation [prakṛti], with its temporary names and forms, is both relative and temporary, therefore its existence is merely conditional. The Lord [puruṣa] is the origin, master and controller of both.

tvam eka ādyaḥ puruṣaḥ supta-śaktis
tayā rajaḥ-sattva-tamo vibhidyate
mahān ahaṁ khaṁ marud agni-vār-dharāḥ
surarṣayo bhūta-gaṇā idaṁ yataḥ

“My dear Lord, You are the only Supreme Person, the cause of all causes. Before the creation of this material world, Your material energy remains in a dormant condition. When Your material energy is agitated, the three qualities—namely goodness, passion and ignorance—act, and as a result the total material energy—egotism, ether, air, fire, water, earth and all the various demigods and saintly persons—becomes manifest. Thus the material world is created.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.24.63]

Sūtra 2.1.18

yukteśśabdāntarācca

yukteḥ - from reasoning; śabda-antarāt - from another text of the Vedas; ca – and.

[Being and non-being are attributes of things, as is proved] by reasoning and other texts of the Vedas.

The cause of our thinking that ‘the pot exists’ is the fact that the lump of clay assumes a particular form with a neck, hollow belly etc., while the actual material remains simply clay. On the other hand, we think and say ‘the pot does not exist’ when the clay takes a condition different from a pot, for example when it is broken into pieces. Therefore existence and nonexistence, when they are applied to objects, show their different conditions only, therefore nonexistence in this connection does not mean absolute nonexistence. The Smṛti declares the same fact, as discussed in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa:

“The clay assumes the form of a pot, the pot [after being broken] becomes a potshard, which in time may be reduced to powder or dust, but the clay remains the same in all phases and conditions of the pot’s existence. Further analysis of the dust would reveal atoms of physical matter, but the matter never vanishes.”

Therefore the reason that we do not perceive the absolute nonexistence of the pot is that when we say ‘the pot does not exist,’ we mean only that the pot has been reduced into pieces. Thus there is no absolute annihilation of the pot; it has simply changed its condition from manifested to unmanifested. This is the proof by reasoning or yukti. As regards the other text, we find it in the well-known passage of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad [6.2.1]:

sad eva saumyedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyam

“My dear boy, the Absolute Truth alone existed prior to this creation, one without a second.”

Thus both through reason and the authority of the Vedic texts, we come to the conclusion that the word asat used in the passage of the Taittirīya Upaniṣad quoted above does not mean absolute nonexistence, like the nonexistence of the horn of a rabbit; it means a subtle condition, the state of unmanifestation into which all objects enter at the time of pralaya or devastation. When this world merges into the Supreme Brahman, that very subtle condition of the universe is called asat [non-being], on account of its extreme subtleness. Therefore we come to the conclusion that even prior to its origination the world existed, and thus the effect is nondifferent from the cause, but is simply the cause in a different form.

The statement “Non-being can never come into existence because of the impossibility of such a thing, nor can being be the result of the activity of an agent, because of the futility of such agency; therefore the whole process of creation is an inscrutable mystery,” is incorrect, and proceeds from misunderstanding the significance of the words sat and asat as applied in the Upaniṣads. The Māyāvādīs hold the theory that māyā is neither being nor non-being, but different from both and utterly inconceivable. But there does not and cannot exist something unexplainable, different from sat and asat; therefore the only real māyā in the sense the Māyāvādīs conceive of it is their own nonsensical theory.

kālaṁ karma svabhāvaṁ ca
māyeśo māyayā svayā
ātman yadṛcchayā prāptaṁ
vibubhūṣur upādade

“The Lord, who is the controller of all energies, thus creates, by His own potency, eternal time, the fate of all living entities, and their particular nature, for which they were created, and He again merges them into Himself at the time of devastation.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.5.21]

The author now gives some illustrations to confirm the doctrine that the effect is something real and nondifferent from the cause.

Sūtra 2.1.19

paṭavacca

paṭavat - like a piece of cloth; ca – and.

And as a piece of cloth is not different from its threads, so the effect is not different from its cause.

As the materials of a piece of cloth existed before its manifestation in the form of threads, and as these threads, when arranged in a particular way lengthwise and crosswise, manifest the cloth, similarly this whole universe existed as the subtle energy of Brahman, and when Brahman desires to create, it assumes manifestation of the material world. The word ca [and] in the sūtra shows that other illustrations, like the seed and the tree, may be given here also.

sa sarva-dhī-vṛtty-anubhūta-sarva
ātmā yathā svapna-janekṣitaikaḥ
taṁ satyam ānanda-nidhiṁ bhajeta
nānyatra sajjed yata ātma-pātaḥ

“One should concentrate his mind upon the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who alone distributes Himself in so many manifestations just as ordinary persons create thousands of manifestations in dreams. One must concentrate the mind on Him, the only all-blissful Absolute Truth. Otherwise one will be misled and will cause his own degradation.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.1.39]

Sūtra 2.1.20

yathā ca prāṇādiḥ

yathā – as; ca – and; prāṇādi – the vital airs called prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, samāna and udāna.

And as the different vital airs [are modifications of the chief prāṇa, so the effect is not different from the cause.]

In yogic trance induced by prāṇāyāma, or breath control, all the various life functions such as respiration, digestion, etc. cease for the time being; and the separated functions of apāna, vyāna, etc. merge in the main prāṇa and exist in latent in it. But when the yogī comes out of the trance, these other functions come out of the main prāṇa, manifest themselves, take possession of the various organs and manifest their different functions. Similarly, at the time of pralaya the universe loses all its specific differentiation and merges in the subtle energy of Brahman, but continues to exist in Brahman in that subtle aspect. Then at the time of new creation it emerges from Him because He desires to create, and then assumes different forms such as the pradhāna, mahāt-tattva etc.

The word ca [and] in the sūtra indicates that the illustrations of the piece of cloth in the previous sūtra and the example of the life functions in the present sūtra should be read together as one illustration. In fact, there are no illustrations anywhere of the theory that the effect is something non-real and different from the cause [asat-kāryavāda]. No one has ever seen the birth of the son of a barren woman, nor the flower in the sky, because such things are contradictions in terms.

Therefore Brahman, although one without a second, has two energies, the subtle and the gross, one consisting of the aggregation of all living entities [jīvas], and the other of all the aggregates of matter [prakṛiti]. In other words, Brahman’s two energies are spirit and matter, and possessing these two energies, Brahman is the material cause of the universe, and consequently the universe is nondifferent from Brahman, but also has Brahman for its Self. Thus the proposition that the effect is nondifferent from the cause has been established. But Brahman, manifesting as an effect, through His inconceivable potencies, retains all His powers in their fullness. The manifestation of the material creation does not cause any decrease in Brahman. As it is said in Viṣṇu Purāṇa [1.19.78]:

oṁ namo vāsudevāya tasmai bhagavate sadā
vyatiriktaṁ na yasyāsti vyatirikto’khilasya yaḥ

“I offer my respectful obeisances unto the adorable Lord Vāsudeva; He is above the entire universe, and there is nothing greater than Him.”

And Lord Vāsudeva Himself declares:

mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ
jagad avyakta-mūrtinā
mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni
na cāhaṁ teṣv avasthitaḥ

“By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.” [Bhagavad-gītā 9.4]

Adhikaraṇa 9: Brahman, the Operative Cause

Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Modern so-called scientific doctrine not only assumes that matter can act independently, it also assumes that the natural laws of physics and so forth sprang into being and are enforced without any cause. This is extremely illogical. When they attempt to explain the origin of the laws of nature at all, the scientists simply say that they are due to chance. But the universe is too finely structured, and its laws too delicately balanced to be the result of chance. There must be a superhuman intelligence who not only plans and designs the universe and its natural laws, but also is a potent creator who sets the creation into motion and enforces those laws. Then there are ubiquitous phenomena like time and gravity that the scientists cannot explain at all. Where do they come from, how do they work, and from where does their power to compel all material things originate? The scientists cannot answer these questions, so they simply refuse to discuss them with religious people.

This Adhikaraṇa presents the second great pillar of Vedānta philosophy: that the Lord is not only the material cause of the creation, but also the operative cause; and that He does not create for any material motive, but out of His unlimited transcendental bliss. Sūtra 1.4.23 asserted that Brahman is the material as well as the operative cause of the universe. Sūtras 2.1.6-20 have answered objections to the view that Brahman is the material cause of the universe, and by answering these objections the author has strengthened this view. Now he confirms the second view, that Brahman is the operative cause of the universe, by showing that none but Brahman could be the operative cause, and he answers the objections of those who hold that mukta jīvas are the creators of universes.

Vedānta philosophy holds that Brahman is the operative cause of the universe because of texts like Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [3.1.3]:

kartāram īśaṁ

“He is the agent, the Lord, and the creator.”

Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Is God the creator of the universe, or is some highly developed mukta jīva its cause? We find texts supporting both positions.

Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: Those who hold the view that mukta jīva is the creator of the universe quote a different text in support of their position:

jīvād bhavanti bhūtānī

“All beings arise from the jīva.”

They maintain that if Brahman were the creator of the universe, it would detract from His perfection, because the world is full of imperfections. Therefore, they maintain that mukta jīvas create the universe.

Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: The author removes this doubt by showing that no jīva, however high, can ever produce the universe.

Sūtra 2.1.21

itaravyapadeśāddhitākaraṇādidoṣaprasaktiḥ

itara – of the others; vyapadeśāt – from the designation; hita – beneficial; akaraṇādi – not creating, etc.; doṣa – imperfection; prasaktiḥ – consequence.

If the other view be held, [that the jīva is the creator of the universe,] then the result would be that [the creation would be liable to the objection that] the jīva intentionally creates that which is not beneficial for him.

Those who hold the view that the jīva is the creator of the universe must answer the objection, “Why does he create a world that is not beneficial for him?” If a man creates the world, why does he create it full of imperfections that cause him to suffer? If man would be the master of his destiny, and there were no Lord to award the result of good and bad actions, and if man alone were the creator of his world, then he certainly would not intentionally create a world that he knows would be painful for him.

The world, therefore is not the creation of man, because we find that it has the fault of not doing that which is beneficial for man; on the contrary, it does what is non-beneficial for him. No man willingly wants to labor, but the conditions of the world are such than no one can live without laboring and undergoing troubles. The world, therefore, is not the creation of any man. No wise and independent person is ever seen to act like the silkworm; to create his own prison, and then enter into it and suffer all the miseries of confinement by his own will. Nor does any human being, being a pure soul, voluntarily enter into a material body which is full of impurities.

You want us to believe that the jīva, supposed to be free and pure prior to the creation, voluntarily confines himself to a mortal body of flesh, full of impurities, and enters into a self-created world where his freedom of action is severely restricted. That is absurd. Nor has anyone ever seen any jīva create the cosmic matter of pradhāna, or the subtle matter of intelligence and false ego, nor even ordinary physical matter. Earth, water, fire, air, ākāśa etc. are not the creation of any man. In fact, limited human intelligence reels just from contemplating the wonderful organization of this universe. Therefore, the theory that the universe is man-made is wrong. On the other hand, God alone is the creator of the universe, and the objection that He has created the world full of imperfection, when He Himself is perfect, will be answered later on.

Although Lord Brahmā, a jīva, is commonly understood to be the creator of the universe, his creative activity is only secondary to that of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Supreme Brahman. Lord Brahmā admits:

tasyāpi draṣṭur īśasya
kūṭa-sthasyākhilātmanaḥ
sṛjyaṁ sṛjāmi sṛṣṭo 'ham
īkṣayaivābhicoditaḥ

“Inspired by Him only, I discover what is already created by Him [Nārāyaṇa] under His vision as the all-pervading Supersoul, and I also am created by Him only.” [Bhagavad-gītā 2.5.17]

The same argument refutes the modern New-Age philosophy that the jīva is the creator, if not of the universe, at least of his own reality. They say, “Each of us is a godlike spiritual being, therefore we create our own reality. This is true even for people who do not understand this truth; therefore they create so many undesired effects because, not realizing their creative power, they do not control their minds and intentions. Because the mind creates whatever is placed into it, if they worry or think in a negative way, their mind automatically creates based on those negative ideas. Therefore one should keep his mind controlled and think only positively of the things that one wants to happen, and then the mind will automatically create it.”

Even accepting this theory for the sake of argument, it does not answer the question, “Who gave the mind its power to create?” Because certainly the living entity’s creative power is very limited. We do not have the power to empower our minds to create reality; therefore the power to do this must have come from some superior entity. If they answer that God gives the power, then they have to explain how He does so; and if they say that God is present within every living being, then it is the same as Vedānta philosophy. If they reply that the creative power is innate in the living entity, then again they have to explain where it comes from. Either way they have to accept the ultimate authority of the Lord. And we see in practice that undesired, unbeneficial events occur even to people who believe this theory. So actually the Lord as the Supersoul is the real creator, and all events occur by His power and authority. He may delegate some of His power to His servants, but if they misbehave He can easily withdraw it again. So the Lord alone is the original creator.

An objector may say, “If Brahman is the creator, then He also is liable to the objection of creating a world full of misery, and after creating it with great effort, enters into it as the Universal Form and Paramātmā. Thus He also voluntarily creates a world of misery and then enters into it and lives in it.”

The author replies to this objection in the following sūtra:

Sūtra 2.1.22

adhikaṁ tu bhedanirdeśāt

adhikaṁ – greater than the jīva; tu – but; bheda – difference; nirdeśāt – because of pointing out.

But [Brahman is] greater than jīva, because the scriptures declare His difference [from the jīva].

The word tu [but] in this sūtra sets aside the doubt raised above. Brahman is greater than man, because He possesses vast power and is therefore something infinitely superior to man. When Brahman enters into the world that He creates, it cannot bind Him or limit His power, while the jīva entering into a self-created world would certainly be a cause of bondage to him. The difference between man and God is expressly taught in the scriptures. The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [3.1.2] declares:

samāne vṛkṣe puruṣo nimagno
'nīśayā śocati muhyamānaḥ
juṣṭaṁ yadā paśyaty anyam īśam
asya mahimānam iti vīta-śokaḥ

“Although the two birds are in the same tree, the eating bird is fully engrossed with anxiety and moroseness as the enjoyer of the fruits of the tree. But if in some way or other he turns his face to his friend who is the Lord and knows His glories—at once the suffering bird becomes free from all anxieties.”

This verse clearly shows the difference between the jīva, full of sorrow and delusion, and the Supreme Self, full of lordliness and glory. So also in Bhagavad-gītā [15.16-17]:

dvāv imau puruṣau loke kṣaraś cākṣara eva ca
kṣaraḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni kūṭa-stho 'kṣara ucyate

uttamaḥ puruṣas tv anyaḥ paramātmety udāhṛtaḥ
yo loka-trayam āviśya bibharty avyaya īśvaraḥ

“There are two classes of beings: the fallible and the infallible. In the material world every entity is fallible, and in the spiritual world every entity is called infallible. Besides these two, there is the greatest living personality, the Lord Himself, who has entered into these worlds and is maintaining them.”

The Viṣṇu Purāṇa [1.2.16 and 24] declares:

“He who is higher than matter, pradhāna, jīvas, unmanifested world and time, He is the highest Viṣṇu, about whom the scriptures declare, ‘The wise see the highest pure form of that Lord Viṣṇu.’ Matter and the jīvas are distinct from Viṣṇu, though they are two aspects of Him. That aspect by which the Lord brings about the union of spirit with matter at the time of creation, and their separation from each other during pralaya, is called time. Thus the Supreme Viṣṇu has four aspects: the root of matter called pradhāna, the root of spirit called puruṣa, the manifested universe called vyakta and time called kāla.”

Similarly, in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa [1.11.38]:

etad īśanam īśasya
prakṛti-stho 'pi tad-guṇaiḥ
na yujyate sadātma-sthair
yathā buddhis tad-āśrayā

“This is the divinity of the Personality of Godhead: He is not affected by the qualities of material nature, even though He is in contact with them. Similarly, the devotees who have taken shelter of the Lord do not become influenced by the material qualities.”

The Lord’s transcendental body is so powerful that even the limbs of His body are capable of the actions of the whole:

aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya-vṛtti-manti
paśyanti pānti kalayanti ciraṁ jaganti
ānanda-cinmaya-sad-ujjvala-vigrahasya
govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi

“I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose transcendental form is full of bliss, truth, substantiality and is thus full of the most dazzling splendor. Each of the limbs of that transcendental figure possesses in Himself, the full-fledged functions of all the organs, and eternally sees, maintains and manifests the infinite universes, both spiritual and mundane.” [Brahma-saṁhitā 5.32]

Moreover in Sūtra 1.2.8 it has been shown that the Lord, though living in the world and in the jīvas, is not tainted by that contact. Thus the Lord, possessed of inconceivable infinite power, creates the world by His mere will, enters into it to sport in it and with it, and when it starts to decay, He destroys and rejuvenates it, just as a spider destroys its web and spins it again. Not the slightest taint of materialism accrues to the Lord as a result.

namaḥ samāya śuddhāya
puruṣāya parāya ca
vāsudevāya sattvāya
tubhyaṁ bhagavate namaḥ

“Dear Lord, You have no enemies or friends. Therefore You are equal to everyone. You cannot be contaminated by sinful activities, and Your transcendental form is always beyond the material creation. You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead because You remain everywhere within all existence. You are consequently known as Vāsudeva. We offer You our respectful obeisances.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.30.42]

An objector says: “Man and God are however one in essence, and the difference between them is that of degree alone, just as the difference between the limited space confined within a pot and the infinite space outside it. Space is one and not different.”

To this we reply, it cannot be so, because we do not admit that the Supreme Brahman is liable to division or limitation like space. We cannot cut off a portion of Brahman and say that it is a jīva and the rest is the Lord. Nor are the jīva and Brahman related like the moon and its reflection in the water of a pot.

The objector replies, “Reflection no doubt does not possess all the glory and perfection of the original, and man being a reflection of God is certainly lower than God, but essentially the same.”

But we do not admit this, because the Lord being materially formless, it is impossible to have a reflection of Him. Reflection, being a material phenomenon, can affect only matter; no one has ever seen a reflection of spirit. The Vedānta philosophy of the relationship between the Lord and the living entities is not reflection, but the theory of emanation. Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [2.1] states:

yathāgneḥ kṣudrā visphuliṅgā vyuccaranty evam evāsmād ātmanaḥ sarve prāṇāḥ sarve lokāḥ sarve devāḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni vyuccaranti. tasyopaniṣat satyasya satyam iti.

“Just as small sparks emanate from a big fire, similarly all living entities, all planets, all the demigods, and all material elements such as the earth emanate from the supreme soul, Śrī Govinda. His instructions are the Supreme Truth.”

The third illustration given by the Advaitins is also inapt. “A king’s son brought up by shepherds considered himself one of them and never knew his lineage. A wise man passing that way recognized him, and told him that he was not a shepherd’s child but the son of the King. As soon as he heard this, his delusion vanished and he realized his own greatness. Similarly, as long as a man is overcome with ignorance, he thinks himself man, but as soon as he gets knowledge, he knows that he is actually God.” To this we reply that according to this theory, God being one, and man being essentially equal to God, the delusion that a man is under must affect God, and thus it would detract from the omnipotence and omniscience of God. Since according to this theory no other being but God actually exists, the ignorance that makes a man think himself separate from God must be an ignorance dwelling in God Himself. God then would be imperfect, subject to delusion and illusion, therefore this theory is impossible. In his commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [10.88.5], Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī cites the following passage from the Vedic literature:

nāti-bhedo bhaved bhedo
guṇa-dharmair ihāṁśataḥ
sattvasya śāntyā no jātu
viṣṇor vikṣepa-mūḍhate

“Lord Viṣṇu's peaceful mode of goodness does not differ substantially from His original, spiritual qualities, although it is only a partial manifestation of them within this world. Thus Lord Viṣṇu's mode of goodness is never tainted by agitation [in passion] or delusion [in ignorance].”

nirmāna-mohā jita-saṅga-doṣā
adhyātma-nityā vinivṛtta-kāmāḥ
dvandvair vimuktāḥ sukha-duḥkha-saṁjñair
gacchanty amūḍhāḥ padam avyayaṁ tat

“Those who are free from false prestige, illusion and false association, who understand the eternal, who are done with material lust, who are freed from the dualities of happiness and distress, and who, unbewildered, know how to surrender unto the Supreme Person attain to that eternal kingdom.” [Bhagavad-gītā 15.5]

arjuna uvāca
naṣṭo mohaḥ smṛtir labdhā
tvat-prasādān mayācyuta
sthito 'smi gata-sandehaḥ
kariṣye vacanaṁ tava

Arjuna said: “My dear Kṛṣṇa, O infallible one, my illusion is now gone. I have regained my memory by Your mercy. I am now firm and free from doubt and am prepared to act according to Your instructions.” [18.73]

dhāmnā svena sadā nirasta-kuhakaṁ satyaṁ paraṁ dhīmahi

“I therefore meditate upon Him, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is eternally existent in the transcendental abode, which is forever free from the illusory representations of the material world. I meditate upon Him, for He is the Absolute Truth.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.1.1]

If the perfected souls become free from illusion by hearing the instructions of the Lord or meditating on Him, then how could the Lord Himself be subject to illusion? Therefore the Lord is always in a superior transcendental position, and never comes under the influence of His illusory energy.

Sūtra 2.1.23

aśmādivacca tadanupapattiḥ

aśmādivat – like stone, etc.; ca – and; tat – of that; anupapattiḥ – impossibility.

And as stones, etc. [are not creators of the universe, so the jīvas, which are equally finite, have no power to create the world,] for it is impossible [for the jīva to create the world, just as it is impossible for a piece of iron, wood, etc.]

The jīvas, though sentient, have as little independence as a piece of stone, wood, or other inanimate object; consequently it is impossible for such a jīva to be the creator of the world. The Śruti also says that the Lord is the creator in the following text:

“He is the ruler of all beings; He is in every body.”

Similarly Bhagavad-gītā [18.61] says:

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.”

Sūtra 2.1.24

upasaṁhāradarśanānneti cet kṣīravaddhi

upasaṁhāra – completion; darśanāt – because of the seeing; na – not; iti – thus; cet – if; kṣīravat – like milk; hi – because.

[If it be said that the jīva is the creator] because we see him bringing many acts to conclusion, we say it is not so, as in the case with milk.

An objector may say, “The jīva is not perfectly inert like a piece of stone, etc.; he has the power of action, because we see him bringing various actions to their conclusions and getting the results. Nor is this agency of the jīva a delusion, because there is nothing to show that the jīva is not the real agent in the acts that he does. If it be said ‘Let the jīva be an agent, but he is an agent only subject to the will of God,’ we reply it is not so, for we have first to imagine a God, who we do not see in this world, and next to add that He is the mover of all other sentient beings in this world; the theory that God is the inciter of the souls to action therefore is wrong, on account of its very clumsiness. Therefore the jīva himself is the agent through his own self-initiated activity, and not because he is impelled to action by any external force.”

To this objection the author replies by saying that it is not so, as in the case of milk, for the jīva has the power of agency only as far as the cow produces milk. The cow has no power of her own to produce milk, for the production of milk is not a voluntary act by the cow. The primary agent in the production of milk is the force of prāṇa, as the Smṛti says, “It is the prāṇa that changes the food into the various humors of the body such as chyle, milk, etc.” Similarly, though we see the jīva apparently producing some effect, yet he is not acting independently; the primary agent is the Supreme Lord. This will be explained further in Sūtra 2.3.39, where it will be shown that the activity of every jīva proceeds from the Highest Self as the cause.

sa eṣa yarhi prakṛter
guṇeṣv abhiviṣajjate
ahaṅkriyā-vimūḍhātmā
kartāsmīty abhimanyate

“When the soul is under the spell of material nature and false ego, identifying the body as his self, he becomes absorbed in material activities, and by the influence of false ego he thinks that he is the proprietor of everything.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.27.2]

prakṛtyaiva ca karmāṇi
kriyamāṇāni sarvaśaḥ
yaḥ paśyati tathātmānam
akartāraṁ sa paśyati

“One who can see that all activities are performed by the body, which is created of material nature, and sees that the self does nothing, actually sees.” [Bhagavad-gītā 13.30]

Thus the living being is not at all free to act, but is fully under the control of material nature, which is fully under the control of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

If it be said that we do not see the hand of God in the acts of men, the author answers this by the next sūtra.

Sūtra 2.1.25

devādivaditi loke

deva-adi-vat – like devas and the rest; iti – thus; loke – in the world.

[God, though invisible, is the creator of the world,] just as the devas, [although invisible,] are seen to work in the world.

Devas like Indra and the rest are invisible, yet we see their activities, such as the production of rain, etc. in the world. Similarly, though God is not perceptible in the world, He is the unseen creator of it.

yaṁ vai na gobhir manasāsubhir vā
hṛdā girā vāsu-bhṛto vicakṣate
ātmānam antar-hṛdi santam ātmanāṁ
cakṣur yathaivākṛtayas tataḥ param

“As the different limbs of the body cannot see the eyes, the living entities cannot see the Supreme Lord, who is situated as the Supersoul in everyone's heart. Not by the senses, by the mind, by the life air, by thoughts within the heart, or by the vibration of words can the living entities ascertain the real situation of the Supreme Lord.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.3.16]

The author now gives another reason to show the absurdity of holding the view that a jīva can be the author of the universe.

Sūtra 2.1.26

kṛtsnapraṣaktirniravayavatvaśabdavyākopo vā

kṛtsna – entire; praṣaktiḥ – activity; niravayavatva – indivisible; śabda – text; vyākopaḥ – contradiction; vā – or.

[The jīva is] entirely absorbed in every activity, or else there would be a contradiction of the text [that the jīva is without parts.]

He who holds the theory that the jīva is the creator must accept the conclusion that inasmuch as the jīva is without parts, his entire self is present in every act. But this cannot be said, because in lifting a light thing like grass, we do not see the employment of the entire force of the jīva. When the jīva puts his entire self into any action, all his power is manifested therein. As in raising a heavy stone, the jīva puts in all his power, but he does not do so in raising a light straw, and so the exertion is infinitely less. Nor can one say that in the latter case, the entire jīva is not active, but only a portion; because it is an admitted fact that the jīva is without parts. Therefore we cannot say that the entire jīva is present in the act of lifting a stone but only a portion in lifting a straw. You may say, “What is the harm in admitting that the jīva has parts?” To this we reply that then you will be contradicting all those texts of the scriptures that declare that the jīva is without parts, for example:

“This self is atomic and is to be known by the mind alone, in which the chief prāṇa has completely withdrawn his five-fold activities. The mind of all beings is entirely interwoven by these five prāṇas and is consequently never quiet. But when the mind is perfectly pure, then the soul manifests his powers.”

nainaṁ chindanti śastrāṇi

“The soul can never be cut into pieces by any weapon.” [Bhagavad-gītā 2.23]

Thus the soul is atomic, and consequently partless and indivisible. As regards those texts that say that the world is produced by the jīva, we have already explained that the word jīva in those texts does not mean the individual soul, but the living Lord. Therefore, the theory that the jīva is the creator of the world is untenable.

Now we shall consider whether the above two objections apply to the agency of Brahman. The objector may say that Brahman is also entire and indivisible, therefore if in all acts He puts His entirety then in lifting straw, etc., He would employ His entire powers, but that is not possible because it is done by a fraction of His power, or rather it is possible to be accomplished by a portion of His power. On the other hand, if He puts in a only a portion of His power in any activity, then this does violence to those texts that declare Brahman to be partless and actionless. Thus the same two objections as in the case of the jīva being the agent also apply in the case of Brahman. To this the author replies in the next sūtra:

Sūtra 2.1.27

śrutestu śabdamūlatvāt

śruteḥ – from the scripture; tu – but; śabda – word; mūlatvāt – because of the root.

But [the above defects do not apply in the case of Brahman,] because the scriptures so declare it, and the revelation of God is the root [by which we learn anything about these transcendental subjects.]

The word tu [but] removes the above doubt. The word na [not] is to be understood in this sūtra, and is drawn from Sūtra 2.1.24. In the case of Brahman being the agent, the above imperfections do not apply. Why do we say so? Because scripture declares it to be so, such as:

“Brahman is transcendental, inconceivable pure consciousness and yet He has a form and possesses knowledge; and though He is partless He has parts, and though He is immeasurable He is yet measured. He is the creator of all, yet unmodified Himself.”

Similarly, in Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [3.1.7]:

“The Lord shines forth as great, divine and inconceivable. He appears as smaller than the smallest, He is far off as well as near, and to the discerning, He is present in the cavity of the heart.”

This text also shows the paradoxical and transcendental powers of Brahman. Similarly, another text says:

“Lord Govinda is one, without parts, His form is existence, knowledge and bliss.”

In the Gopala Upaniṣad we read, “Though one, He shines forth as many.” In the Māṇḍukya Upaniṣad we find Him described as partless and yet having parts.

“He who knows the Lord as partless and yet full of an infinity of parts, as the destroyer of all false knowledge and blissful, is verily a sage and no one else; he is verily a sage and no one else.”

Similarly in the Kaṭhopaniṣad [2.21] we find Him described as measured though immeasurable:

“Sitting, He goes afar; resting, He moves everywhere; who other than myself is able to know that God who is the dispenser of pleasure and pain?”

So also in the Ṛg Veda [10.81.3]:

“That one God, having His eyes, faces, arms and feet everywhere, when producing heaven and earth, forges them together with His arms and His wings.”

And in Śvetāṣvatara Upaniṣad [4.17]

“This God is the creator of all, is the Highest Self, He is always present in the hearts of men; the wise, who know Him with concentrated mind and heart full of love, become immortal. He is the creator of all, He is in the heart of all, the source of Ātman, omniscient, the creator of time, possessing all auspicious attributes and knowing all, He is the Lord of all matter and spirits, He is the Lord of all guṇas, He is the cause of transmigratory existence and liberation, bondage and freedom.”

“He is partless and actionless, pure and taintless, all peace. He is the supreme bridge of immortality, He is like fire that remains when all fuel is burnt.” Śvetāṣvatara Upaniṣad [6.19]

These texts of Śvetāṣvatara Upaniṣad show very distinctly that the Lord possesses powers that appear to us to be self-contradictory, and hence impossible. But in transcendental matters we must be guided by scripture and not by mere human reason.

Says an objector, “But are we to renounce our reason in favor of scripture, when there is pure contradiction such as the statement, ‘The fire has drenched the cloth’? Is not such a statement a logical absurdity?”

To this the sūtra replies, śabdamūlatvāt: “The revelation of God is the root.” The knowledge of Brahman and His attributes being founded on the revelation of scripture, and scripture alone, we have no right to say that the scriptures are illogical, even if they describe God as having attributes that seem paradoxical from a material point of view. We must accept these inconceivable attributes of Brahman, because the only proof is the words of the scripture. Nor is it altogether mysterious. We see some distant analogy in the power of modern technology to produce apparently magical effects. Just because something is inexplicable or inconceivable to our tiny brains, there is no reason to hold that it is impossible.

There are three kinds of proofs: sense perception [pratyakṣa], inference [anumāna] and authority or the words of the scriptures [śabda]. In the first two cases, there is always room for error and illusion. A sensory perception may be a pure hallucination, caused by either hypnotic suggestion or a defect of the senses. Thus pratyakṣa or sensory experience is not absolutely reliable. Similarly, knowledge based on inference is also liable to error. We are all acquainted with the fragility of human reason. The only proof that is free from all these defects is the words of the scriptures, whether they are the words of God Himself, or those of an inspired sage or Āpta, meaning the perfect knowledge of one who is enlightened, competent and honest. Statements like “The Lord is omnipotent” and “the soul is eternal” are always true, even though we may be unable to verify them by our blunt sense perception. The scriptures not only corroborate reason and perception; they are sometimes independent of both, and often declare that which neither reason nor perception could ever tell us.

The scriptures are the voice of God, giving us wisdom for our own benefit. As an instrument of proof, they support and corroborate perception and inference. Thus a man may have a jeweled necklace on his throat, but having forgotten it may be searching for it everywhere. But when he is told “The necklace is on your throat,” he is saved all further trouble and anxiety. So also the scripture is the only means of knowing that which cannot be known either by perception or reason, or at least, cannot be known by the perception or reason of an ordinary man. For example, the movements of the heavenly bodies and their influences have been declared to us by the expert astronomers and astrologers. Therefore the words of these persons are the only means that we have of knowing when certain astronomical phenomena, such as eclipses or the equinoxes, will take place. We consult a physician and accept his advice in matters of health, and seek the expertise of lawyers, mechanics and other specialists. Thus even in such mundane matters, the words of experts are a means of higher knowledge than our own perception or inference. All the more so in transcendental matters, where we have to depend on the testimony of seers and saints, and the highest testimony of all, the words of God or scripture. As the Śruti says,

“One who does not know the Vedas cannot even think of the Supreme.”

vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham

“By all the Vedas am I to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.” [Bhagavad-gītā 15.15]

Therefore, the scripture being self-evident and self-manifest, is not open to any objections.

Sūtra 2.1.28

ātmani caivaṁ vicitrāśca hi

ātmani – in the Lord; ca – and; evam – thus; vicitrāḥ – variegated; ca – and; hi – because.

[And thus is the power] of the Lord, because manifold objects [are seen to be produced from the tree of all desires.]

As from the kalpa-vrkṣa [desire tree] or the Philosopher’s Stone, possessing inconceivable powers and energy, there come out animals and gold, and as these wonderful and mysterious creations are credible simply on the authority of the scriptures, similarly the inconceivable power of the Lord to create the world is understandable and believable by scriptural authority alone. The scriptures tell us that He creates the devas, men and lower animals by His power. If we believe in the wonderful powers of the desire tree or the Philosopher’s Stone simply on the authority of the scriptures, then why should we not believe in the inconceivable power of the Lord on the same authority?

The knowledge of these mysterious things comes from the scripture alone. When we hear that animals come out of the desire tree, we do not question whether they are created by the entire tree or a portion of it, or whether any particular part of the tree has the power to produce a particular animal. We accept the information and classify it as a mystery, admitting that it leaves no scope for reason. The case of the Lord’s creative agency is similar. It is useless to question whether the Lord is active in His entirety in any particular creative act, or whether it is done by a portion of His energy; we must simply accept the statement as we find it.

sarvam etad ṛtaṁ manye yan māṁ vadasi keśava

“O Kṛṣṇa, I totally accept as truth all that You have told me.” [Bhagavad-gītā 10.14]

The word ātmani in the sūtra appears in the locative case to show that the Lord is the receptacle or support of all effects. The second ca [and] indicates that when we believe such wonderful things as the desire tree or the Philosopher’s Stone, why should we hesitate to believe in the mysterious power of the Lord? The word hi [because] implies that the facts mentioned above are well-known in the Purāṇas and other scriptures. Therefore the conclusion is that the theory that Brahman is the agent of creation is far more reasonable than any jīva being the agent. The next sūtra strengthens this view.

Sūtra 2.1.29

svapakṣe doṣacca

sva-pakṣe – in the opponent's view; doṣat – because of the defect; ca – and

And because all these objections are similarly applicable to your own view, therefore it is not accepted.

The objections raised by the opponent equally apply to his own theory. If the jīva is the agent of creation, does he create with a portion of his energy or his entire energy? In the case of Brahman, we already answered the objection, but in the case if the jīva being the agent, there is no possibility of getting out of the difficulty.

Now the author raises another objection and answers it. The doubt arises whether Brahman shows any partiality to any jīva, and if so, whether it is possible for such a Brahman to be the creator. The text says that Brahman is pure truth, knowledge and infinity. He is pure being, knowledge and bliss. In these texts we do not find any energy attributed to Him. It is seen that only beings possessing energy or power [śakti] have the capacity to produce wonderful results, such as a carpenter or others. A man may have the whole knowledge of the art of carpentry, but if he has no energy, he cannot accomplish anything. To this objection, the author answers in the next sūtra.

Sūtra 2.1.30

sarvopetā ca taddarśanāt

sarva – all powers; upetā – endowed with; ca – and, alone; tat – that; darśanāt – because it is seen.

The Lord alone possesses all powers, because it is so seen [in the text.]

The Supreme Lord is endowed with all kinds of energies [śaktis] because we find many Vedic texts to that effect:

te dhyāna-yogānugatā apaśyan devātmā-śaktim sva-gunair nigūḍām
yaḥ kāraṇāni nikhilāni tāni kālātmā-yuktāny adhi tiṣṭhaty ekaḥ

“One Supremely Energetic Personality is present within the time factor and the jīvas, and is the sum total cause of this material universe, which is regulated by His own desire. The Brahman realized souls meditate on the energy that is generated by the Energetic’s own will, possessing His selfsame qualities and influence. They perceive this energy as the cause of this material cosmos.” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 1.3]

ya eko ‘varno bahudha śakti-yogād
varṇānekān nihitārtho dadhāti

“The Supreme Lord is the one, non-dual Absolute Truth endowed with immense unlimited potencies equal only to Him. Although He does not have any tinge of material qualities, He gives birth to the material modes of nature through the agency of His multifarious potencies.” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.1]

na tasya kāryaṁ karaṇaṁ ca vidyate
na tat-samaś cābhyadhikaś ca dṛśyate
parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate
svābhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā ca

“Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is almighty, omnipotent. He has multifarious energies, and therefore He is able to remain in His own abode and without endeavor supervise and manipulate the entire cosmic manifestation through the interaction of the three modes of material nature—sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa and tamo-guṇa. These interactions create different forms, bodies, activities and changes, which all occur perfectly. Because the Lord is perfect, everything works as if He were directly supervising and taking part in it. Atheistic men, however, being covered by the three modes of material nature, cannot see Nārāyaṇa to be the supreme cause behind all activities.” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.8]

Similarly, in the Smṛti-śāstra we find Him described as possessing all kinds of powers, such as viṣṇu-śakti which is said to be the highest. No doubt these powers are all inconceivable as says the Smṛti:

“He is without hands and feet, yet He can walk faster than anyone. His power is inconceivable, He is the Lord of Self, not to be found by reasoning, possessing thousands of śaktis.”

Therefore it follows that Brahman is the agent in the act of creation, etc., because of His being endowed with wonderful and inconceivable powers. The texts declaring that Brahman is true knowledge, bliss, etc. reveal His essential nature, texts like Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [1.3] quoted above declare His manifold powers. Consequently the nature of Brahman is one who is endowed with powers. Thus when the texts use expressions like ‘He willed,’ ‘He saw,’ etc. we find Him possessing the power of will and the rest. Both kinds of texts—those declaring Brahman to be pure existence, knowledge and bliss, and those declaring Him as willing, thinking, creating, etc.—are of equal value and authority because both are Śruti, and there is thus no difference between them.

The author raises and answers another objection: “Brahman cannot be the creator or agent, because He has no sense organs. Devas and others possess powers, and they are seen to be active agents in creation because they not only have powers, they also have sense organs. But Brahman is without sense organs, so how can He be capable of worldly activity? Even the verse [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.19] that you quoted to prove the possession of all powers by Brahman, declares definitely that He has no sense organs:

apāṇi-pādo javano grahītā
paśyaty acakṣuḥ sa śṛṇoty akarṇaḥ
sa vetti vedyaṁ na ca tasyāsti vettā
tam āhur agryaṁ puruṣaṁ mahāntam

“Although the Supreme Lord is described as having no hands and legs, He nonetheless accepts all sacrificial offerings. He has no eyes, yet He sees everything. He has no ears, yet He hears everything.”

To this objection the author replies:

Sūtra 2.1.31

vikaraṇatvānneti cettaduktam

vikaraṇatvāt – on account of the absence of instruments of action and perception; na – not; iti – thus; cet – if; tat – that objection; uktam – answered.

[If it be objected that Brahman cannot be the agent of creation] because He does not possess sense organs, then we reply that this objection has already been met by the scripture.

The objection that Brahman cannot be the agent of creation because He has no sense organs is answered in the very text quoted by the objector to show that He possesses no sense organs. Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [6.7-8] asserts:

tam īśvarāṇāṁ paramaṁ maheśvaraṁ
taṁ devatānāṁ paramaṁ ca daivatam
patiṁ patīnāṁ paramaṁ parastād
vidāma devaṁ bhuvaneśam īḍyam

“O Supreme Lord, You are the Supreme Maheśvara, the worshipable Deity of all the demigods and the Supreme Lord of all lords. You are the controller of all controllers, the Personality of Godhead, the Lord of everything worshipable.”

na tasya kāryaṁ karaṇaṁ ca vidyate
na tat-samaś cābhyadhikaś ca dṛśyate
parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate
svābhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā ca

“Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is almighty, omnipotent. He has multifarious energies, and therefore He is able to remain in His own abode and without endeavor supervise and manipulate the entire cosmic manifestation through the interaction of the three modes of material nature—sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa and tamo-guṇa. These interactions create different forms, bodies, activities and changes, which all occur perfectly. Because the Lord is perfect, everything works as if He were directly supervising and taking part in it. Atheistic men, however, being covered by the three modes of material nature, cannot see Nārāyaṇa to be the supreme cause behind all activities.”

In the verse beginning, “He has neither hands nor feet...” [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.19] it was mentioned that the Supreme Brahman can perform any action without the instrumentality of material sense organs, and the above-quoted verses clear up any remaining doubt how the Lord can be active without material sense organs. The Supreme Brahman is called puruṣam mahāntam, the Great Spirit, because He is the ruler of all living entities. When it is said that He has no activity or sense organs in His body, it is meant that His body is not made of ordinary matter, nor are His sense organs. Consequently His activity is also not material, but transcendental. Thus when the scriptures say that He has no activities, it only denies physical activity, because He does perform activities of the highest order through His parāśakti. That parāśakti is natural to Him, and therefore it is called svābhāvikī; in fact this supreme potency is the very essence of His Self. He manifests His threefold powers of knowledge [jñāna], strength [bala] and activity [kriyā] through this parāśakti. Since no one else possesses this transcendental attribute, parāśakti, therefore no one is equal to Him. It follows from this that no one can be superior to Him. So although He is devoid of material sense organs, He possesses transcendental organs as essential parts of His nature, therefore there is the possibility of action for Him.

Other commentators say that the above-quoted text about His grasping without hands and walking without feet does not prohibit His possessing sense organs; it only prohibits the exclusive use of a particular sense organ for a particular purpose. Ordinary beings grasp only with the hands and run only with the feet. But for the Lord there is no such restriction; every one of His senses can perform the activities of every other organ. In fact the same Upaniṣad later says that sarvataḥ pāṇi-pādam: all His sense organs are universal in their activity.

"He does not possess bodily form like that of an ordinary living entity. There is no difference between His body and His soul. He is absolute. All His senses are transcendental. Any one of His senses can perform the action of any other sense. Therefore, no one is greater than Him or equal to Him. His potencies are multifarious, and thus His deeds are automatically performed as a natural sequence." [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.7-8]

So also in the Brahma-saṁhitā, it is declared that every limb of His is endowed with the power of performing the functions of all the senses.

aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya-vṛtti-manti
paśyanti pānti kalayanti ciraṁ jaganti
ānanda-cinmaya-sad-ujjvala-vigrahasya
govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi

“I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose transcendental form is full of bliss, truth, substantiality and is thus full of the most dazzling splendor. Each of the limbs of that transcendental figure possesses in Himself, the full-fledged functions of all the organs, and eternally sees, maintains and manifests the infinite universes, both spiritual and mundane.” [Brahma-saṁhitā 5.32]

This extraordinary power of the sense organs of the Lord was manifested in the forest picnic in Vṛndāvana among His boyhood companions. In the view of the above verses, the word kāryam should be explained as ‘to be accomplished.’ In other words, when Śruti-śāstra says there is no kārya for Him, it means there is nothing to be accomplished by Him, because He is already perfect and full. In this interpretation the word karaṇa [sense organs] may also be explained as something to be done. The rest is the same as the first explanation.

In the next sūtra, the question is raised whether Brahman has any motive to create the universe. The prima facie view is that He has no motive because He is perfect, and this view is set forth in the next sūtra.

Sūtra 2.1.32

na prayojanavattvāt

na – not; prayojana-vattvāt – being endowed with a motive.

[The Lord has no inclination towards creation, because] He has no motive.

The word na [not] is understood in this sūtra from the preceding one. The word na-prayojana-vattvāt is a compound word meaning “because of being without motive.” The usual form would have been a-prayojana-vattvāt. The Lord has no urge to create, because being perfect, He has no motive to create. Every activity in the world is seen to exist on a motive beneficial either to one’s self or for the sake of another. The motive of benefiting His own self cannot exist in the case of the Lord, because being perfect, His wishes are automatically fulfilled, as the scriptures repeatedly declare. The Lord tells Prahlāda in the Hari-bhakti-sudhodaya [14.32]:

nityaṁ ca pūrṇa-kāmasya
janmāni vividhāni me
bhakta-sarveṣṭa-dānāya
tasmāt kiṁ te priyaṁ vada

“My desires are always automatically fulfilled, but I take various births in this world just to bestow on My devotees the satisfaction of all their desires. So please tell Me what you would like from Me.”

An objector may say, “Nor is His motive to do something beneficial to others, because the creation evidently is for the sake of punishing the conditioned souls, making them suffer the pains of birth and death. An all-compassionate Lord would not create such a universe, merely to punish the erring jīvas for their misdeeds. And no one creates anything without a motive. Therefore, it follows that the Lord has nothing to urge Him to creation.”

This objection is answered in the next sūtra.

Sūtra 2.1.33

lokavattu līlākaivalyam

loka-vat – as in the world; tu – but; līlā – pastimes; kaivalyam – merely.

[The motive of the Lord in creating the world is] to display His pastimes, as we see in ordinary life.

The word tu [but] removes the above doubt. Though all-full, complete and desiring nothing, the motive that impels the Lord toward the creation of this wonderful world is mere sport, which has nothing beneficial for Him in view. As in ordinary life, men in good spirit, full of cheerfulness, when awakening from sound sleep, begin to dance around without any object, but merely from exuberance of spirit, such is the case with the Lord. This līlā or sport of the Lord is natural to Him, because He is full of Self-bliss. Says the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad [1.9]:

“Some think that the creation is for the enjoyment of the creator, while others think that it is for the sake of recreation, to shake off the lethargy of yoga-nidrā or the solitude of pralaya. Actually, God’s act of creation is simply His nature, without any motive. What motive can there be for one who has all His desires satisfied?”

The Smṛti-śāstra confirms [Nārāyaṇa Saṁhitā]

“The creation, etc. of Hari does not depend on any motive; He creates out of sheer joy, as a drunkard dances because of intoxication. He who is full of bliss can have no motive whatsoever. When even the Muktas have got all their desires fulfilled through Him, what unfulfilled desire can there be for the Lord, who is the Self of the universe?”

But a man intoxicated with drink has no consciousness of what he is doing. Is the Lord also devoid of consciousness, like the drunkard? We say no, for then He would not be omniscient. All that we say is that as man plays and becomes sportive through sheer exuberance of spirit and joy of life, such is the case with Brahman. The Advaitins explain the words “as we see in ordinary life” in this sūtra as referring to the well-known example of respiration that goes on even in deep sleep, and which is therefore involuntary and motiveless. However, this analogy is open to the objection that the Lord is not subject to deep sleep and losing consciousness as a man does. The example given by the Viśiṣtādvaitins is that of a young prince, who amuses himself by playing games with a ball without any motive. However, this analogy is open to the objection that playing games with a ball is not altogether without motive, as the prince gets some pleasure by playing the game.

Therefore the conclusion is that the Supreme Brahman is the sole operative, efficient and material cause of the creation, and that He creates the material world as a pastime to satisfy the desires of the materially conditioned living entities. He then enters within the creation to support and maintain it, controlling the actions and reactions of the modes of material nature by His potency of time. He does this in such a way that the conditioned living entities eventually grow weary of suffering the imperfections of this world, and begin to inquire as to why they are suffering, and how they may be permanently relieved from it. At this time the merciful Lord makes the path of pious activities leading to devotional service available to them through Vedānta-sūtra and other scriptures. Those who are fortunate take it up and attain the completion of all their desires.

Adhikaraṇa 10: The Lord is Neither Partial nor Cruel

Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: We see that some people are born into favorable situations, while others are born into difficult situations. We also observe that sometimes an apparently innocent person is punished, or a blameworthy person prospers. Some philosophers and theologians interpret this to mean that God is either not omnipotent or is partial and unfair. If God were equal to everyone, then He is not omnipotent, because He is incapable of creating a situation where everyone is offered an equal opportunity to prosper and enjoy life; and if He is omnipotent then He is unfair, because although all souls are inherently equal, we see that some are more fortunate and others less fortunate, and sometimes there is injustice.

Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: The author raises this objection and then goes on to remove the doubt.

Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: The theory that Brahman is the omnipotent creator is open to the objection that the Lord is either partial or cruel; for He creates devas and men, some of whom enjoy happiness and others suffer misery. This theory is therefore not congruous, for the texts say that the Lord is neither partial nor cruel. How then can such a Lord be the creator?

Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: The author answers this objection with the following sūtra:

Sūtra 2.1.34

vaiṣamyanaighṛṇyena na sāpekṣatvāt tathā hi darśayati

vaiṣamya – partiality; naighṛṇyena – cruelty; na – not; sāpekṣatvāt – because of having regard for karma; tathā – so; hi – because; darśayati – the scriptures declare.

Partiality and cruelty do not [exist in the Lord; the pleasure and pain experienced by beings is] in regard to their karma, and so the scriptures declare.

No fault of partiality or cruelty exists in Brahman the creator. The different conditions into which creatures are born and the pleasures and pains they suffer depend entirely on their own karma. The Lord creates the environment in which the creatures are placed with the strictest regard to their karma. The proof of this is in the scripture itself. In the Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad [3.8] we find the following:

ajño jantur anīśo 'yam
ātmanaḥ sukha-duḥkhayoḥ
īśvara-prerito gacchet
svargaṁ vāśv abhram eva ca

“He makes one who He wishes to lead up from these worlds do good deeds, and He makes one who He wishes to lead down from these worlds do bad deeds, according to the tendencies generated by their past karma. By the will of the Supreme he can go to heaven or hell, as a cloud is driven by the air. The living entity is completely dependent in his distress and happiness.”

The Lord is the operative cause of the enjoyment or suffering of the jīvas. They get promotion to the heavenly planets through the will of the Lord, and similarly they are degraded into hellish condition of life through the will of the Lord. But His will is always in regard to the karma of the jīva.

Sūtra 2.1.35

na karmāvibhāgātiti cennānāditvāt

na – not; karma – karma; avibhāgāt – because of non-distinction; iti – thus; cet – if; na – not; anāditvāt – because of beginninglessness.

[The theory of karma] cannot [explain the inequality and cruelty seen in this universe, because when the creation first started] there was no distinction [of souls, and consequently] of karmas. This [objection, however] is invalid, because there was no beginning of creation.

An objector may say, “Your theory of karma only pushes the difficulty one step back. No doubt, it explains the inequalities and sufferings of the jīvas in their present life, to some extent. That may indeed be due to the results of acts performed in a past life. But since in the beginning of creation there were no jīvas, nor their acts, they must have been created with inequalities in order to play different roles in the creation, such as the devas and demons. If they had been created all equal, there is no reason to hold that their acts would have been different. Śruti-śāstra also says,

sad eva saumyedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyam

“My dear boy, the Absolute Truth alone existed prior to this creation, one without a second.” [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.1]

This shows that when the creation started, there were no jīvas or karma distinguishable from Brahman. He alone existed, and nothing else.”

To this objection raised in the first half of the sūtra, the next half gives the answer by saying, “This is not so, because of the beginninglessness of the jīvas and creation.” The their karmas are beginningless, just like Brahman, and this is the theory adopted by the author. Thus there is no fault, for every subsequent action is motivated by the tendencies generated by past karmas. The good and bad karmas of the jīvas are not completely destroyed by pralaya; in the next kalpa, they are conditioned by the karmas of the previous creation. The Bhaviṣya Purāṇa states:

“The Lord makes the jīvas do good or bad deeds according to their past karma; nor is there any conflict in this position, because the karmas have no beginning.”

If an objector says, “If you say that karmas are beginningless, then your theory is tainted with an infinite regression,” we say it is not so, because we find authority for it in reason also. In point is the well-known case of the seed and the tree. Does the seed come first, or the tree? Nor is there any objection that God loses His independence by being bound to create by the past karma of the jīvas. The Lord is certainly independent, but He is not capricious or whimsical. If He would create the world with total disregard to the past karmas of the jīvas, He might demonstrate His omnipotence to some minds, but to the majority His act would appear capricious, arbitrary and unjust. In fact, the authorities show that substance, karma and time are co-eternal with the Lord, and He creates the universe with full regard to these three. The universe is conditioned not only by the karma of the jīvas; its substance and time are also important factors in the creation. Of course these three are subordinate to the will of Īśvara, but He never disregards them in His act of creation. The Lord is not partial or cruel, not is He lacking in omnipotence. In fact, the theory of the beginninglessness of karma and creation reconciles all the difficulties. You cannot say that this theory is open to the same objections as the theory of specific creation; you cannot say it is the unwitting falling of the smugglers into the hands of the tax-collectors.

“Certain merchants went by a roundabout way to avoid the customs-house and evade customs duties. In the dark of night, they missed their path and after wandering for some time, took shelter in a roadside house. in the morning it was found that the same house in which they had taken shelter was the customs-house they were trying to avoid. Thus they not only had to pay the duty, but were punished for trying to cheat the customs. This maxim is called ‘Morning in the customs-house.’ ”

Our theory is not open to this objection of “morning in the customs house,” but yours certainly is. To avoid the imputation of cruelty and inequality to the Lord, we have explained the eternity of creation. But if you say that since the Lord is not bound to regard the karmas of the living entities because of His independence, He creates a world of misery just to punish the errant souls, that brings you back around to to the same difficulty that you were trying to avoid. The Lord, being perfectly independent, could just as easily have created a world of perfect joy, with complete disregard to the karmas of the jīvas. But then in either case His action, instead of being regulated by any law or justice, would have been lawless and unfair, and these are not credible attributes of the Lord. Therefore his creation of a world with regard to the karmas of the jīvas, and to time and substance, does not detract from His omnipotence. Though He certainly can act against all the laws of matter, spirit and karma, nevertheless He does not do so, and thus His making the jīvas act according to the tendencies of their beginningless previous karmas is a matter for His glory, and not an instance of His partiality.

Adhikaraṇa 11: The Grace of the Lord is not Partiality

Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The previous Adhikaraṇa showed that Brahman is neither partial nor cruel. Now the author takes up the question of whether the Lord is open to the objection of partiality by showing special grace to His devotees. It is a fact that the Lord shows special grace to His devotees, for He especially protects them and specifically fulfills their desires.

Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Is this special protection of the devotees by the Lord and fulfilling their desires a mark of partiality by the Lord?

Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: He will protect His devotees even from the mouth of the lion, but allow ordinary men to be devoured by the beast.

Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: The author answers this objection by saying that it is not so.

Sūtra 2.1.36

upapadyate cā'pyupalabhyate ca

upa-padyate – it is reasonable that it should be so; ca – and; api – even; upalabhyate – is found; ca – and.

[Such partiality to His devotees by the Lord] is reasonable, and is also observed in the scriptures.

The special grace shown by the Lord to His devotees is no doubt ‘partiality,’ but the Lord, the kind lover of His devotees, has such ‘partiality,’ and it is reasonable that it should be so. It is the natural, inherent power of the Lord to show forth His grace on those who have bhakti or devotion for Him. This special grace is not an arbitrary function of the Lord’s will, but it also has regard to the factor of bhakti or devotion of the jīva on whom such special grace is shown. Nor does this favor contradict the statement that the Lord is free from partiality. For this sort of ‘partiality’ to the devotees, instead of being a fault with the Lord, has been praised in the scriptures as adding to His glory. For the scripture says that this grace upon His devotees is the highest jewel among the perfections of the Lord. If the Lord did not have this quality of showing special grace, then then all His other attributes, however great, would not have been attractive to the jīvas, and would not have evoked devotional love towards Him. This shows the reasonableness of the existence of this ‘partiality’ of the Lord. Not only is it reasonable, but revelation and tradition also declare it [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.2.3]:

nāyam ātmā pravacanena labhyo
na medhasā na bahunā śrutena
yam evaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyas
tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanuṁ svām

“The Supreme Lord is not obtained by expert explanations, by vast intelligence, or even by much hearing. He is obtained only by one whom He Himself chooses. To such a person, He manifests His own form.”

teṣāṁ jñānī nitya-yukta
eka-bhaktir viśiṣyate
priyo hi jñānino 'tyartham
ahaṁ sa ca mama priyaḥ

“Of these, the wise one who is in full knowledge in union with Me through pure devotional service is the best. For I am very dear to him, and he is dear to Me.” [Bhagavad-gītā 7.17]

samo 'haṁ sarva-bhūteṣu
na me dveṣyo 'sti na priyaḥ
ye bhajanti tu māṁ bhaktyā
mayi te teṣu cāpy aham

“I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him.” [Bhagavad-gītā 9.29]

kṣipraṁ bhavati dharmātmā
śaśvac-chāntiṁ nigacchati
kaunteya pratijānīhi
na me bhaktaḥ praṇaśyati

“He quickly becomes righteous and attains lasting peace. O son of Kuntī, declare it boldly that My devotee never perishes.” [Bhagavad-gītā 9.31]

Sūtra 2.1.37

sarvadharmopapatteśca

sarva – all; dharma – qualities; upapatteḥ – because of the reasonableness; ca – and.

And because it is reasonable that all attributes are present in Brahman, [however contradictory they may be, therefore He is just to all, and ‘partial’ to His devotees.]

In has been proved above that all attributes exist in the Supreme Lord, whose essential nature is inconceivable, whether they are harmonious among themselves or contradictory with each other. It follows that along with His perfect justice and equality, He shows favor and partiality to His devotees. The wise, therefore, do not find any greater difficulty in reconciling the existence of these two heterogeneous qualities in Him than in any other pair of opposites that also exist in Him. For example, He is all-knowledge or unlimited consciousness, and yet He possesses knowledge of His individual identity and form, and consciousness of His difference from other beings; He is essentially formless and colorless, and yet possessing the most ravishing form that enchants the hearts of His devotees; similarly although He is perfectly just and equal to all, yet He does show special favor and grace to his devotees. Not only do all pairs of opposite qualities exist in Him, but also all harmonious qualities are found in Him, such as He is forgiving, kind, compassionate and merciful to all. The Smṛti-śāstra also says [Kūrma Purāṇa]:

asthūlaś cānaṇuś caiva sthūlo ’ṇuś caiva sarvataḥ
avarṇaḥ sarvataḥ proktaḥ śyāmo raktānta-locanaḥ

“The Lord is personal although impersonal, He is atomic although great, and He is blackish and has red eyes although He is colorless. Although He is described as possessing self-contradictory and opposite attributes, no evil or falsehood should ever be attributed to Him. On the contrary, all these conflicting attributes are reconciled by His supreme power.”

Thus it has been proved that the Lord, though equal to all, is yet the eternal Friend of His devotees.

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