vyomādi-viṣayaṁ
gobhir
bibharti vijaghāna yaḥ
sa tāṁ mad-viṣayāṁ
bhāsvān
kṛṣṇaḥ praṇihaniṣyati
“May the brilliant sun of Lord Kṛṣṇa, who destroys a host of misconceptions about ether and the other elements with rays of logic, destroy the misconceptions in my heart.”
The Second Pāda revealed the fallacies of theories that say pradhāna is the the first cause, and that claim something other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the first cause. This Third Pāda will show:
That the various elements of the material world are manifested from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and that they merge into Him at the end;
That the individual spirit souls always existed, there not being any point in time when they were created;
That the individual spirit souls have spiritual bodies full of knowledge
That the individual spirit souls are atomic in size although by their consciousness they are all-pervading within the material body
That the individual spirit souls are part and parcel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead
That Matsya-avatāra and the other avatāras are directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead
That the variety of situations into which the conditioned souls are placed is caused by their previous karma.
All these will be proved by refuting theories that claim that these statements are untrue. Although Śrī Vedānta-sūtra was compiled over 5,000 years ago, a clue to its enduring value is that the same arguments that refute the atheistic theories of those times apply equally to the atheistic theories of today. Thus in the refutations of Sāṅkhya and Buddhist philosophies found in the previous Pāda we also find very strong arguments against the theories of materialistic science. These theistic arguments are developed further in this Pāda.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Ākāśa or ether is subject that modern science considers thoroughly debunked, but in the Vedic literature ākāśa means something very specific; it signifies material space. Space is not simply the absence of any obstruction or covering, as the Buddhists and Jainas think; it is a specific material substance emanated by the Lord at the beginning of creation. It is as difficult for us to conceive of space as it is for a fish to conceive of water, and for the same reason: it is the medium in which we exist.
That space is a medium is easy to understand from the example of electromagnetic radiation. Light, radio waves and other radiative energy must have a medium in which to propagate. They are vibrations, and any vibration is the alternating compression and rarefaction of some medium. This is proved by the fact that electromagnetic radiation has a specific frequency; therefore it must be a phenomenon of the vibration of some medium. In the case of electromagnetic vibration, the medium is ether or space itself.
The Vedas say that ether carries the quality of sound; not the ordinary sound that is carried by air, but anahata-nāda or subtle sound. Subtle sound is not produced in the ordinary way by vibrating a string or other material object; neither is it heard by the ordinary ear, but directly by the inner hearing. We are all familiar with inner hearing, in the constant subvocal conversation of the mind. So the sound carried by ether is electromagnetic vibration. We now know that planets, stars and other heavenly bodies radiate all kinds of vibratory energies, from radio waves to cosmic rays. The human brain also emits electromagnetic vibrations, which can be measured by an electroencephalogram. Ākāśa is the medium of these subtle vibrations.
Scientific experiments such as the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, which supposedly invalidated the idea of ether or space as a substance, are actually based on a number of false assumptions. The results of the Michelson-Morley experiment only proved that either the Doppler Effect does not apply to light; or if it does, then the earth planet has its own etheric field that moves along with it, and therefore the ether seems to be stationary from our point of view. Later work by Poincaré, Lorentz and Einstein showed that time and the dimensions of any objects at motion with respect to one another, adjust so that the speed of light remains constant for any observer. This is just another way of saying that the space [ether or ākāśa] contracts in the direction of motion, so that measurements such as those taken in the Michelson-Morley experiment will reveal no change in the speed of light. In either case, the existence of the ether or ākāśa is not invalidated; Relativity theory simply restates the experimental conditions in such a way that ether is replaced by ‘the space-time continuum.’ Modern science simply has given the medium of ether a more acceptable name.
Time, motion and distance are circularly defined in physics; they dance around the singularity of space or ākāśa, refusing to acknowledge or understand it. The entire structure of modern physics and other ‘hard science’ depends upon the properties of space or ākāśa, yet they deny its existence and simply call it something else. The space of the material creation is a product and thus a substance, albeit a subtle one; for we know from the scriptures that prior to the creation of the material world, only the spiritual world exists. Material space and time both are manifested only at the beginning of the material creation. The scientists cannot imagine that space could be created, because they have no conception of the spiritual world. Just as ether or ākāśa is the medium for sound vibration, similarly the spiritual world is the medium for the space of the material world. Hence ether or ākāśa is the subtle material substance of space, in which other material objects made of denser elements exist and move, and to which they are restricted just as the movements of a fish are limited to the water.
According to the Taittirīya Upaniṣad and other Vedic scriptures, the various aspects of the material world are created in the following sequence: 1. pradhāna, 2. mahat-tattva, 3. false ego, 4. the tan-mātras, 5. the senses, and 6. the gross elements, beginning with ether. This sequence is given in the Subala-śruti, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and other scriptures. The sequence found in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad and other scriptures will also be discussed in order to show that sequence does not contradict what has already been said. Chāndogya Upaniṣad [6.2.1-4] explains:
sad eva saumyedyam agra āsīt...
“O gentle one, in the beginning the Supreme Personality of Godhead alone existed, one only without an equal. Others say the void alone existed before the creation, and from that void was produced everything that exists. But, gentle one, how could that be so?” said the father, “How can the void give birth to all that exists? Therefore Sat, the Supreme Personality of Godhead alone existed in the beginning of creation, one without an equal.”
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead thought: ‘I shall become many. I shall father children.’ Then He created fire. Then fire thought: ‘I shall become many. I shall father children.’ Then fire created water; thus whenever anyone weeps or perspires, water comes out, for water is produced from fire. Then water thought: ‘I shall become many. I shall father children.’ Then water created grains; thus whenever it rains, much food is produced. From water alone is produced all food fit for eating.”
This shows clearly that fire, water, and grains were created by Brahman, and are therefore products. In this, however, there is a doubt.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Was ether ever created or not?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Because the Śruti-śāstra does not mention any creation of ether, therefore ether was never created, but was always existing.
This idea is expressed in the following sūtra.
na viyad aśruteḥ
na – not; viyat – ether; aśruteḥ – because of not being described in the Śruti-śāstra.
[Fire, water and food were created]; not so for ether, because that is not described in the Śruti-śāstra.
The Pūrvapakṣin says that ether is eternal and was never created. Why is that? The sūtra explains: “Because that is not described in the Śruti-śāstra.” The relevant passage of Chāndogya Upaniṣad mentions the creation of the other elements, but it does not mention the creation of ether. In the previously quoted passage of Chāndogya Upaniṣad the creation of fire, water, and grains is mentioned. However there is no mention of the creation of ether. For this reason ether must not have been created. That is the meaning.
This misconception is similar to the modern scientific idea that space is ever-existing. It is refuted in the following sūtra:
asti tu
asti – is; tu – indeed.
Indeed it is so [that ether was created].
The word tu [indeed] is used here to remove doubt. The word asti [it is so] means, “It is so that ether was created.” Although the creation of ether is not described in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, it is described in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad in the following words:
tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśaḥ sambhūtaḥ ākāśād vāyur vāyor agnir agner āpo ābhyo mahatī pṛthivī
“From the Supreme Personality of Godhead, ether was manifested. From ether, air was manifested. From air, fire was manifested. From fire, water was manifested. From water, earth was manifested.”
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—altogether these eight comprise My separated material energies.” [Bhagavad-gītā 7.4]
tāmasāc ca
vikurvāṇād
bhagavad-vīrya-coditāt
śabda-mātram abhūt
tasmān
nabhaḥ śrotraṁ tu śabdagam
“When egoism in ignorance is agitated by the sex energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the subtle element sound is manifested, and from sound come the ethereal sky and the sense of hearing.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.26.32]
Another doubt is expressed in the next sūtra.
gauṇy asambhavāc chabdāc ca
gauṇī – figure of speech; asambhavāt – because of being impossible; śabdāt – because of scripture; ca – also.
Because of scripture, and because it is impossible, it must be a mere figure of speech.
An objector may say, “It is not possible that ether was created. This is confirmed by Kaṇāda Muni and other great philosophers. The Taittirīya Upaniṣad’s description of the creation of ether is a mere figure of speech, as when, in ordinary speech one says, ‘Please make some space.’ For what other reasons is it not possible that ether is created? Because it is impossible to create ether. It is not possible to create ether because ether is formless and all-pervading, because it is not included in the chain of causes, and because scripture proclaims that ether is not created. Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [2.3.2-3] proclaims:
vāyus cāntarīkṣaṁ caitad amṛtam
“Air and ether are both eternal.”
This proves that ether was never created.”
However, if the passage from the Taittirīya Upaniṣad used the word sambhūta [created] only once to refer to the list of elements beginning with fire, how is it possible to claim that this word is used literally for all the elements and figuratively for ether alone?
The opponent of Vedānta replies in the next sūtra.
syāc caikasya brahma-śabda-vat
syāt – may be; ca – and; ekasya – of one; brahma – Brahma; śabda – the word; vat – like.
It may be for one, as in the word “Brahman” [in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad].
In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad [3.2] it is said:
tapasā brahma vijijñāsasva tapo brahma
“By performing austerities strive to understand Brahman, for austerities are Brahman.”
In this passage the word Brahman is used in two ways. Used to describe the object of knowledge attained by performing austerities, Brahman is used in its literal sense. Then, equated with austerities, it is used figuratively to mean “the way to know Brahman”. In the same way the word sambhūta in the previously discussed passage can be use literally and figuratively simultaneously. In this way the fact that the passage of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad makes no mention of it refutes the description in other Upaniṣads that ether was created.
The author of the sūtras refutes this idea in the following words.
pratijñāhānir avyatirekāc cabdebhyaḥ
pratijñā – statement of intent; ahāniḥ – non-abandonment; avyatirekāt – because of non-difference; śabdebhyaḥ – from the statements of scripture.
It is affirmed because it is not different and because of the statements of scripture.
The Chāndogya Upaniṣad [6.1.3] affirms:
yenāśrutaṁ śrutaṁ bhavati
“Now I will teach how to hear what cannot be heard.”
In these words the intention to teach about Brahman is expressed. If this intention is not broken, then all that follows must be about Brahman, and it must be affirmed that nothing is different from Brahman. The idea that something is different from Brahman is to be rejected. If everything is nondifferent from Brahman, then Brahman is clearly the ingredient of which everything is made. Thus, simply by knowing Brahman one knows everything. If this is accepted, then it is also accepted that ether was created, for Brahman is the original source of everything.
The Chāndogya Upaniṣad [6.2.1] again affirms:
sad eva saumyedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyam aitad-ātmyam idaṁ sarvam
“O gentle one, in the beginning the Supreme Personality of Godhead alone existed. He was alone. There was no one else. Everything has Him as its ingredient.”
These words affirm that in the beginning everything was manifested from Him, and after the creation was manifested everything had Him as its ingredient. This should be accepted.
Here someone may object: “How can you talk like that? There is no clear statement in that Upaniṣad that ether was created.”
In the following words the author of the sūtras replies to this objection.
yāvad vikāraṁ tu vibhāgo loka-vat
yāvat – to what extent; vikāram – creation; tu – indeed; vibhāgaḥ – creator; loka – the world; vat – like.
Indeed, if there is a creation there must be a creator, as we see in the world.
The word tu [indeed] is used here to remove doubt. The Chāndogya Upaniṣad explains:
aitad-ātmyam idaṁ sarvam
“Everything has Him as its ingredient.”
This statement shows that there is both a creator and a creation. When the Subala Upaniṣad and other scriptures explain that the pradhāna, mahat-tattva and other things are created, they imply that everything that exists was created. That is the meaning.
The following example from the material world may be given. A person may say, “All these are the sons of Caitra.” In this way he affirms that they were all born from a man named Caitra. In the same way, when the Upaniṣad affirms that, Everything has the Supreme Personality of Godhead as its ingredient,” it is clear that pradhāna, mahat-tattva, and everything else has come from the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Thus when the Upaniṣad states that fire, water, and grains come from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, it means to say that everything comesfrom Him. In this way it is understand that ether also was created.
The word vibhāgaḥ in this sūtra means “creation.” Sūtra 2.3.3 affirmed that it is not possible for ether to have been created. However, the Śruti-śāstra affirms that the Supreme Personality of Godhead has inconceivable powers. Even though it may be inconceivable, He can do anything without restriction. In some passages it is said that ether is immortal, which means that it is neither created nor destroyed. These statements may be taken as figures of speech because we can find other passages describing the creation and destruction of ether.
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]
Because ether is counted among the material elements, it must be created and also destroyed. Because ether has temporary material qualities, as fire and the other elements do, it must also be temporary, as the other elements are.
Whatever is not matter is spirit. Ether is not like eternal spirit; it is different because it is created. In this way the idea that ether was not created is disproved. Modern scientists and other philosophers who state that ether does not exist are wrong, because they are working with an incorrect definition of ether. They may as well state that “Space does not exist,” which of course is nonsense. Space simply has different properties than they assume in their experiments. It must be accepted on the authority of the Vedas that ether exists, and was created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the process of manifesting the material world.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Air is also created.
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Is air also created, or is it eternal?
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: Because it was never described in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, it is clear that air was never created.
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: The author of the sūtras gives the following explanation to show that the arguments of the previous Adhikaraṇa also apply to the creation of air.
etena mātariśvā vyākhyātaḥ
etena – by this; mātariśvā – air; vyākhyātaḥ – is explained.
This also refers to air.
This proof that ether was created clearly shows that air, which exists within ether, must also have been created. That is the meaning. This is so because the limbs of something must have the same qualities as the whole of which they are parts. This ontological principle technically is called inheritance; the properties of the cause exist in the effect. The passage of Taittirīya Upaniṣad quoted in the previous Adhikaraṇa also explains that air was created from ether.
Our opponent may object: “That description of the creation of air must have been a figure of speech, because the Śruti-śāstra explains that air is eternal.”
To this I reply: The Chāndogya Upaniṣad affirms in a pratijñā [promissory] statement, aitad-ātmyam idaṁ sarvam: “Everything was created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” Also Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [10.74.20-21] affirms this point almost in the same words:
eka evādvitīyo 'sāv
aitad-ātmyam
idaṁ jagat
ātmanātmāśrayaḥ sabhyāḥ
sṛjaty avati
hanty ajaḥ
“This entire universe is founded upon Him, as are the great sacrificial performances, with their sacred fires, oblations and mantras. Sāṅkhya and yoga both aim toward Him, the one without a second. O assembly members, that unborn Lord, relying solely on Himself, creates, maintains and destroys this cosmos by His personal energies, and thus the existence of this universe depends on Him alone.”
In this way the creation of air is proved. When it is said that ‘air is eternal,’ the intention is that its existence precedes and outlives the existence of some of the other elements. Air is manifested before water, as described above, and continues to exist after the annihilation of water, as described in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam:
anne pralīyate martyam annaṁ
dhānāsu līyate
dhānā bhūmau pralīyante bhūmir gandhe
pralīyate
apsu pralīyate gandha āpaś ca
sva-guṇe rase
līyate jyotiṣi raso jyotī rūpe pralīyate
rūpaṁ vāyau sa ca sparśe līyate
so 'pi cāmbare
ambaraṁ śabda-tan-mātra indriyāṇi
sva-yoniṣu
yonir vaikārike saumya līyate
manasīśvare
śabdo bhūtādim apyeti bhūtādir mahati prabhuḥ
sa līyate mahān sveṣu guṇesu
guṇa-vattamaḥ
te 'vyakte sampralīyante tat kāle līyate
'vyaye
kālo māyā-maye jīve jīva ātmani
mayy aje
ātmā kevala ātma-stho vikalpāpāya-lakṣaṇaḥ
“At the time of annihilation, the mortal body of the living being becomes merged into food. Food merges into the grains, and the grains merge back into the earth. The earth merges into its subtle sensation, fragrance. Fragrance merges into water, and water further merges into its own quality, taste. That taste merges into fire, which merges into form. Form merges into touch, and touch merges into ether. Ether finally merges into the sensation of sound. The senses all merge into their own origins, the presiding demigods, and they, O gentle Uddhava, merge into the controlling mind, which itself merges into false ego in the mode of goodness. Sound becomes one with false ego in the mode of ignorance, and all-powerful false ego, the first of all the physical elements, merges into the total nature. The total material nature, the primary repository of the three basic modes, dissolves into the modes. These modes of nature then merge into the unmanifest form of nature, and that unmanifest form merges into time. Time merges into the Supreme Lord, present in the form of the omniscient Mahā-puruṣa, the original activator of all living beings. That origin of all life merges into Me, the unborn Supreme Soul, who remains alone, established within Himself. It is from Him that all creation and annihilation are manifested.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.24.22-27]
Air is discussed in a separate Adhikaraṇa and sūtra from the discussion of ether to facilitate the argument of Sūtra 2.3.9.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The Chāndogya Upaniṣad [6.2.1] affirms:
sad eva saumyedam
“O gentle one, in the beginning the Supreme Personality of Godhead alone existed.”
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: A doubt may arise about this statement. Was the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead created or not?
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: Pradhāna, mahat-tattva, and many other things that are causes or creators of other things were created, so perhaps the Supreme Personality of Godhead was also created at some point. This may be so because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not really different from these other causes.
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: The author of the sūtras addresses this doubt in the following words.
asambhavas tu sato ‘nupapatteḥ
asambhavaḥ – the state of not being created; tu – indeed;sataḥ – of the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead; anupapatteḥ – because of impossibility
Indeed, the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead was never created, for such a creation is impossible.
The word tu [indeed] is used here to remove doubt and affirm the truth of this statement. The eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead was never created. Why not? The sūtra explains, anupapatteḥ: “Because that is impossible.”
There is no creator of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, because it is illogical and inappropriate to assume the existence of such a creator. That is the meaning here. Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [6.9] explains:
sa kāraṇaṁ kāraṇādhipādhipo
na
cāsya kaścij janitā na cādhipaḥ
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the cause of all causes. He is the king of all other causes. No one is His creator. No one is His king.”
It is not possible to say that because all other causes are created by something else, therefore the Supreme Personality of Godhead must have been created by someone else; for such a statement contradicts these words of the Śruti-śāstra. An Absolute root cause of everything must be accepted, for if it is not, then there is the infinite regress of an unending chain of causes. By definition the root cause of everything does not have another cause, a root from which it has sprung. This is described in the Saṅkhya-sūtra [1.67] in these words:
mūle mūlābhāvāt
“This is so because the root cause of everything is not caused by another root cause.”
īśvaraḥ paramaḥ
kṛṣṇaḥ
sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ
anādir ādir
govindaḥ
sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam
“Kṛṣṇa who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.” [Brahma-saṁhitā 5.1]
The modern atheistic philosophers, including the scientists, are unwilling to accept the truth of an Absolute cause because that would force them to accept the existence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. However, this means that they are forced to accept an infinite regress of causes without any end or resolution. All their speculation is inconclusive because every cause they find must have another cause behind it. In this way they are envious, not only of the Lord, but even of their own selves. They would rather live with constant uncertainty than accept the easy and simple conclusion that the Supreme Lord is the ultimate transcendental cause of everything.
In this way the doubt that “perhaps the Supreme Personality of Godhead is created by someone else,” is clearly refuted. Because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the first cause of all causes, by definition He is not caused by someone else. However, the secondary causes, such as the avyakta [unmanifest or subtle material elements] and the mahat-tattva [the sum total of all material elements] are all created by another cause: the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The sūtras explaining that ether and the other material elements were all created were given as examples of this general truth.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: After concluding this discussion, we will consider what seems to be a contradiction in the Śruti-śāstra’s description of fire. Chāndogya Upaniṣad [6.2.3] explains:
tat tejo ‘sṛjata
“Then the Supreme Personality of Godhead created fire.”
In this way it is explained that the Supreme Personality of Godhead created fire.
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: However, the Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.1.3] explains:
vāyor agniḥ
“From air, fire is manifested.”
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: These words explain that air created fire. Someone may say that in this second quote the word “vāyoḥ” is in the ablative case [meaning “after fire”], and in this way there is no contradiction because both elements were created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and fire was created after air was created.
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: Considering that someone may say this, the author of the sūtras speaks the following words.
tejo ‘tas tathā hy āha
tejaḥ – fire; ataḥ – from that; tathā – so; hy – indeed; āha – said.
Fire comes from it. Indeed, it said that.
From air comes fire. This is confirmed in the Śruti-śāstra, which explains:
vāyor agniḥ
“From air comes fire.”
The word sambhūta is used here. The use of that word shows that the meaning is that from air fire is created. Also, the primary meaning of the ablative case is “from.” If the primary meaning of a word makes sense, then the primary meaning should be accepted. In that circumstance the secondary meaning should not be accepted. As will be explained later, this statement does not contradict the statement that everything is created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
The entire sequence of the creation of the elements is explained in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam:
nabhaso 'tha vikurvāṇād abhūt
sparśa-guṇo 'nilaḥ
parānvayāc chabdavāṁś ca prāṇa
ojaḥ saho balam
vāyor api vikurvāṇāt
kāla-karma-svabhāvataḥ
udapadyata tejo vai rūpavat
sparśa-śabdavat
tejasas tu vikurvāṇād āsīd
ambho rasātmakam
rūpavat sparśavac cāmbho ghoṣavac ca
parānvayāt
viśeṣas tu vikurvāṇād ambhaso
gandhavān abhūt
parānvayād rasa-sparśa-śabda-rūpa-guṇānvitaḥ
“Because the sky is transformed, the air is generated with the quality of touch, and by previous succession the air is also full of sound and the basic principles of duration of life: sense perception, mental power and bodily strength. When the air is transformed in course of time and nature's course, fire is generated, taking shape with the sense of touch and sound. Since fire is also transformed, there is a manifestation of water, full of juice and taste. As previously, it also has form and touch and is also full of sound. And water, being transformed from all variegatedness on earth, appears odorous and, as previously, becomes qualitatively full of juice, touch, sound and form respectively.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.5.26-29]
Modern scientific thinkers should not reject this description just because it is not a literal account that can be verified in a laboratory. Such descriptions given by the scriptures in terms of consciousness, the senses and sense objects, not in terms of chemical elements, because consciousness or spirit and God are the ultimate subject matters of the scriptures. We are not interested in physical properties as much as the spiritual or psychological properties of the material creation, in order to understand the construction of the material trap and the means to winning our freedom from it. This will be described in detail in Adhyāyas 3 and 4 of Śrī Vedānta-sūtra.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now the author describes the origin of water from fire.
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Is fire really the origin of water, or not?
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: In some places the scriptures affirm that water is manifested from fire, and in other places the scriptures do not agree with this idea. In this way a doubt arises.
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: To remove this doubt, the author of the sūtras gives the following explanation.
āpaḥ
āpaḥ – water.
Water.
To this sūtra should be added the previous sūtra’s phrase atas tathā hy āha [Water comes from it. Indeed it said that.] This means that water is manifested from fire. This is so because the Śruti-śāstra declares it. Chāndogya Upaniṣad [6.2.3] explains:
tad āpo ‘sṛjata
“Fire created water.”
Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.1] also explains:
agner āpaḥ
“From fire water was manifested.”
These two quotes are clear and need no elaborate explanation. Why water comes from fire is explained in the following words of Chāndogya Upaniṣad already quoted above:
tasmād yatra kva ca śocati svedate vā puruṣas tejasa eva tad adhy āpo jāyante
“Heat makes a person produce water. This is so when a person perspires or weeps.”
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad it is said:
tā āpa aikṣanta bahvayaḥ syāma prajāyemahīti tā annam asṛjanta
“Water thought: ‘I shall become many. I shall father many children.’ Then water created anna.”
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: What is the meaning of the word anna here? Does it mean “barley and other food,” or does it mean “earth”?
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad it is said:
tasmād yatra kvacana varṣati tad eva bhūyiṣṭham annaṁ bhavaty adbhya eva tad adhy annādyaṁ jāyate
“Therefore, whenever it rains there is abundant anna. In this way anna is produced by water.”
This passage seems, therefore, to support the idea that the word anna here means “barley and other food.”
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: To explain the proper meaning here, the author of the sūtras speaks the following words.
pṛthivy-adhikāra-rūpa-śabdāntarebhyaḥ
pṛthivi – earth; adhikāra – context; rūpa – color;śabda – quotes from the Śruti-śāstra; antarebhyaḥ – because of other.
Because its color, its context, and other quotes from the Śruti-śāstra, all confirm that earth is the proper meaning.
Here the meaning “earth” should be accepted. Why? Because of the context and other reasons. It should be accepted because the context [adhikāra] of the passage is a description of the creation of the five material elements. It is also so, because the anna here is described as being black in color [rūpa], in the words:
yat kṛṣṇaṁ tad annasya
“That anna is black in color.”
It is also so because in other scriptures [śāstrāntarebhyaḥ] it is said [in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad]:
adbhyaḥ pṛthivī
“From water, earth is manifested.”
The passage: “Therefore, whenever it rains there is abundant anna. In this way, “anna is produced by water,” clearly uses the word anna to mean “food.” However, because this passage is in the context of a description of the five material elements being manifested one from the other, the “food” here is a metaphor for “earth.” Thus the two meanings “food” and “earth” combine in the word anna in this passage.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The description here, that the material elements are manifested in a particular sequence, beginning with ether, is given to remove controversy in regard to the sequence in which the elements are manifested. The fact that the pradhāna, mahat-tattva, and all the elements are created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead has already been proved in Sūtra 1.1.2 [janmādy asya yataḥ]. Now the author of the sūtras begins a more detailed description of that creation. In the Subala Upaniṣad it is said:
tad āhuḥ kiṁ tad āsīt tasmai sa hovāca na san nasan na sad asad iti tasmāt tamaḥ sañjāyate tamaso bhūtādir bhūtāder ākāśam ākāśād vāyur vāyor agnir agner āpo ‘dbhyaḥ pṛthivī tad aṇḍam abhavat
“They said: ‘What was in the beginning?’ He replied: ‘In the beginning was neither existence nor non-existence. Nothing existed and nothing did not exist. In the beginning there was darkness [tamaḥ]. From the darkness the origin of the material elements was born. From the origin of the material elements, ether was born. From ether, air was born. From air, fire was born. From fire, water was born. From water, earth was born. In this way the egg of the material universe was created.’ ”
Here it should be understood that akṣara [the inconceivable], avyakta [the unmanifest], mahat-tattva [the total material energy], tan-mātras [the attributes of the elements such as sound, touch, etc.], and the material senses should also be placed in this sequence, between darkness and ether. That is the meaning included in the phrase “the origin of the material elements.” This should be done to complement the following statement of Agnimalaya:
sandagdhvā sarvāṇi bhūtāni pṛthivy apsu pralīyate. Āpas tejasi pralīyante. Tejo vāyau pralīyate. Vāyur ākāśe pralīyate. Ākāśam indriyeṣv indriyāṇi tan-mātreṣu tan- mātrāṇi bhūtādau vilīyante. Bhūtādir mahati vilīyate. Mahān avyakte vilīyate. Avyaktam akṣare vilīyate. Akṣaraṁ tamasi vilīyate. Tama ekī-bhavati parasmin. Parasmān na san nasan na sad asat.
“When the all the elements are burned up, earth merges into water, water merges into fire, fire merges into air, air merges into ether, ether merges into the senses, the senses merge into the tan-mātras, the tan-mātras merge into the origin of the material elements, the origin of the material elements merges into the mahat-tattva, the mahat-tattva merges into the avyakta, the avyakta merges into the akṣara, and the akṣara merges into the great darkness. Then the great darkness becomes one with the Supreme. In the Supreme is neither existence nor nonexistence. Nothing exists and nothing does not exist.”
The word “origin of the material elements” here means ahaṅkāra [false ego]. False ego is of three kinds. From false ego in the mode of goodness, the mind and the demigods are manifested. From false ego in the mode of passion, the material senses are manifested. From false ego in the mode of ignorance are manifested the tan-mātras, from which are manifested the ether and the other elements. In this way these different explanations all corroborate each other.
In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad it is said:
pūrvam hy ekam evādvitīyaṁ brahmāsīt. Tasmād avkyataṁ vyaktam evākṣaraṁ tasmād akṣarān mahān mahato vā ahaṅkāras tasmād ahaṅkārāt pañca-tan-mātrāṇi tebhyo bhūtāni tair āvṛtam akṣaraṁ bhavati.
“Before the material world was manifest, only the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is one without a second, existed. From Him came the avyakta. From the avyakta came the akṣara. From the akṣara came the mahat-tattva. From the mahat-tattva came false ego [ahaṅkāra]. From false ego came the five tan-mātras. From them came the material elements. The akṣara is filled with all these.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Do the pradhāna and other parts of this sequence arise one from the other, or do they all arise directly from the Supreme Personality of Godhead?
Pūrvapakṣa: They arise from each other, for that is the statement of the texts.
Siddhānta [the conclusion]: The author of the sūtras gives His conclusion in the following words.
tad abhidhyānād eva tu tal liṅgāt saḥ
tat – that; abhidhyānāt – because of meditation; eva – indeed; tu – indeed; tat – that; liṅgāt – because of the body; saḥ – He.
Because of meditation and because of the body, it is indeed He.
The word tu [indeed] is used to dispel doubt. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of all potencies, including the potency of great darkness, the potency that begins the material creation. He is the direct cause, and the pradhāna, earth, and other features of the material creation are effects created by Him. Why is that? The sūtra explains: “Because of meditation and because of the body.” The Śruti-śāstra explains:
so ‘kāmayata bahu syāṁ prajāyeya
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead desired: ‘Let Me become many. Let me create the material world.’ ”
Thus, it is by the desire of the all-powerful Supreme Personality of Godhead that the pradhāna and other features of the material world are created. That is how He is the cause of the material world. Also, the material world is the body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Supreme Personality of Godhead enters the great darkness of the material world and transforms it into pradhāna and the other aspects of matter. In this sense, the material world is His body. This is confirmed by the Antaryāmi-brāhmaṇa of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, and also by the Subala Upaniṣad, which explains:
yasya pṛthivī śarīram
“The world is the body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
jagṛhe pauruṣaṁ
rūpaṁ
bhagavān mahad-ādibhiḥ
sambhūtaṁ
ṣoḍaśa-kalam
ādau loka-sisṛkṣayā
“In the beginning of the creation, the Lord first expanded Himself in the universal form of the puruṣa incarnation and manifested all the ingredients for the material creation. And thus at first there was the creation of the sixteen principles of material action. This was for the purpose of creating the material universe.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.3.1]
aṇḍa-kośe śarīre
'smin
saptāvaraṇa-saṁyute
vairājaḥ puruṣo yo
'sau
bhagavān dhāraṇāśrayaḥ
“The gigantic universal form of the Personality of Godhead, within the body of the universal shell, which is covered by sevenfold material elements, is the subject for the conception of the virāṭ-rūpa.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.1.25]
viparyayeṇa tu kramo ‘ta upapadyate ca
viparyayeṇa – by the reverse; tu – indeed; kramaḥ – sequence; ataḥ – from this; upapadyate – is manifested; ca – and.
Indeed, this sequence is also reversed.
The word tu [indeed] is used here for emphasis. In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [2.1.3] it is said:
etasmāj jāyate prāṇo manaḥ sarvendriyāṇi ca. Khaṁ vāyur jyotir āpaḥ pṛthivī viśvasya dhāriṇī
“From Him are born life, mind, all the senses, ether, air, fire, water, and earth, the support of the world.”
In the Subala Upaniṣad the sequence is reversed, with pradhāna and mahat-tattva coming first. But this is not really an issue, because everything actually comes from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is present within everything, beginning with the life-air and ending with earth, and when one feature of creation comes from another, the second feature actually comes from the all-powerful Supreme Personality of Godhead present within the first feature. If this were not so, then these two different versions would contradict each other.
The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the origin of all and the creator of all. By knowing Him everything becomes known. The pradhāna and other features of matter, being inert and unconscious, cannot by themselves create changes in the material world. That is why the word ca [also] is used here. Therefore the Supreme Personality of Godhead is in every case the real cause of these transformations in the material world.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now the author of the sūtras removes a specific doubt.
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Are the material elements generated by the Supreme Personality of Godhead or by one another?
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: It is not proper to assume that this quotation from Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [2.1.3] quoted in the previous purport, supports the idea that all the features of the material world are directly created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. The list given in that verse merely gives the sequence in which those material features were manifested. It says that first come the material senses and then comes the mind. This does not mean that everything comes directly from the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: To explain the proper meaning here, the author of the sūtras speaks the following words.
antarā vijñāna-manasī-krameṇa tal-liṅgād iti cen nāviśeṣāt
antarāḥ – in the middle; vijñāna – knowledge; manasī – and mind; krameṇa – with the sequence; tat – of that; liṅgāt – because of the sign; iti – thus; cet – if; na – not; aviśeṣāt – because of not being different.
If it is said that the sequence of mind and intelligence appears in this way, then I reply: No. Because they are not different.
The word vijñāna here means “the material senses of the conditioned soul.” If this objection is raised, then I reply: No. It is not so. Why not? The sūtra explains, na viśeṣāt: “Because they are not different.” This means that the material senses and the mind are not different from the life-force, the element earth, or any of the other material features. They have all come directly from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this passage the life-force and all the other material features all come from the Supreme Personality of Godhead [etasmāt: “from Him”]. That is the meaning. The following scripture quotes also declare that the elements are all created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead:
so ‘kāmayata bahu syāṁ prajāyeya
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead desired: Let Me become many. Let me create the material world.”
etasmāj jāyate prāṇaḥ
“The life-force and everything else was manifested from the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
In the Bhagavad-gītā [10.8] the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself declares:
ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo
mattaḥ
sarvaṁ pravartate
“I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from me.”
In the Vāmana Purāṇa it is said:
tatra tatra sthito viṣṇus
tat
tac chaktiṁ prabodhayet
eka eva mahā-śaktiḥ
kurute sarvam
añjasā
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Viṣṇu, enters everywhere and awakens the power dormant in everything. He is the supremely powerful one. He does everything perfectly.”
In this way it is shown that pradhāna and all other material features come directly from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That fact is not at all contradicted by the sequence of events presented in the Subala Upaniṣad and the other scriptures. This is so because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the creator of the original material darkness, the pradhāna and the other features of the material world. Thus when the scripture says tat tejo ‘sṛjata: “The Supreme Personality of Godhead created fire,” it is understood that He also created darkness, a host of other potencies, pradhāna, air, and other aspects of matter. When the scriptures say tasmād vai: “From the Supreme Personality of Godhead everything has come,” it is understood that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of material darkness and a host of other potencies, the pradhāna and other features of matter were born from Him, and the material element ether was also manifested from Him.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The Holy Names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are eternal and innumerable. During the temporary manifestation of the material creation, some of these names are also used to refer to material personalities and objects. But the primary meaning of these words remains the Lord, since at the end of the creation the material persons and objects cease to exist.
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Is it not so that if Lord Hari is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of all, and the all-pervading Supersoul, then the names of all that is moving and inert would also be names of Him?
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: It is not true that all names are names of the Lord, for words are primarily the names of the various moving and inert things. We accept the primary meaning of words as given in the dictionary, and if they also sometimes indicate Lord Hari, that is a secondary or indirect meaning.
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: Thinking that someone may accept this idea that words are primarily names of various things and only secondarily names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the author of the sūtras gives the following explanation.
carācara-vyapāśrayas tu syāt tad-vyapadeśo ‘bhāktas tad- bhāva-bhāvitvāt
cara – moving; acara – and unmoving; vyapāśrayaḥ – the abode; tu – indeed; syāt – may be; tat – of that; vyapadeśaḥ – name; abhāktaḥ – not figurative; tat – of Him; bhāva – the nature; bhāvitvāt – because of being in the future.
Indeed, He resides in all that move and does not move. Therefore it will be learned that every word is one of His names.
The word tu [indeed] is used here to dispel doubt. The word carācara-vyapāśrayaḥ means that “The Supreme Personality of Godhead resides in all moving and unmoving beings.” The word tad-vyapadeśaḥ means “the names of the moving and unmoving beings.” The word abhāktaḥ means “These names are primarily names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” Why is that? The sūtra explains: bhāva-bhāvitvāt [the real meaning of names will be learned in the future]. This means that by studying the scriptures one will come to understand that all words are names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Śruti-śāstras explain:
so ‘kāmayata bahu syām
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead desired: ‘Let Me become many. Let me create the material world.’ ”
sa vāsudevo na yato ‘nyad asti
“He is the all-pervading Supreme Personality of Godhead. Nothing is different from Him.”
In the Viṣṇu Purāṇa [3.7.16] it is said:
kaṭaka-mukuṭa-karṇikādi-bhedaiḥ
kanakam
abhedam apīṣyate yathaikam
sura-paśu-manujādi-kalpanābhir
harir
akhilābhir udīryate tathaikaḥ
“As golden bracelets, crowns, earrings, and other golden ornaments are all one because they are all made of gold, so all demigods, men, and animals are one with Lord because they are all made of Lord Hari’s potencies.”
The meaning is this: The names of potencies are primarily the names of the Master of these potencies. This is so because the Master is the very self of His potencies. Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was a teacher of grammar, He explained to His students the Vedic truth that the original meaning of every word is a Holy Name of the Lord. Material personalities and objects simply borrow their names from Him for the duration of the creation.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Because He is the origin of everything, the Supreme Personality of Godhead has no other origin from which He was created. This has already been described. Now we will determine the nature of the individual spirit soul.
The modern materialist philosophers do not want to admit the existence of the soul. This is because of their envy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As soon as one acknowledges the existence of the soul, the very next question will be about the source of the soul, and that line of inquiry has to end in the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Thus all materialist philosophies deny the existence and eternality of the soul.
Some modern theologians speculate that the soul is created at the beginning of human life, but exists forever in heaven or hell as a result of his actions in this life. They wish to avoid accepting the truth of reincarnation. However, this position leads to intractable philosophical problems, because it cannot explain how some souls are born into good families and favorable situations and others into poverty or other difficulties. It also implied that God is not fair, or that He may not be perfectly omnipotent. For if the soul is newly created, then how do we explain that some souls are born into difficult situations such as poverty and ignorance, and others are blessed with wealth, education and other advantages? This means that God is either not all-good, since He allows some new souls to suffer and others to enjoy; or that God is not all-powerful, because He cannot help that some children are born in worse circumstances than others. Of course, the real answer is that each soul exists eternally, and has specific karma resulting from his activities in previous lives.
We have discussed these issues earlier; the eternality of the soul, both in the past and the future, is necessary if we want to preserve the idea that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good. Eternal means beginningless and endless. Thus the idea that the soul is created at a particular time is incorrect. Therefore, first the idea that the individual soul has an origin in time will be refuted.
In the Taittirīya Araṇyaka, Mahā-Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad [1.4] it is said:
yataḥ prasūtā jagataḥ
prasūtī
toyena jīvān vyasasarja bhūmyām
“From the Supreme Personality of Godhead the universe was born. With water He created the living entities on the earth.”
In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad it is said:
san-mūlāḥ saumyemāḥ sarvāḥ prajāḥ
“O gentle one, all living entities have their roots in the Supreme.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Do the individual spirit souls have an origin or not?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Because He is the creator of the material universe, which contains both sentient living entities and insentient matter, the Supreme Personality of Godhead must be the creator of the individual spirit souls. Any other idea would be illogical.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: The author of the sūtras gives the following conclusion.
nātmā śruter nityatvāc ca tābhyaḥ
na – not; ātmā – the individual spirit soul; śruteḥ – from the Śruti-śāstra; nityatvāt – because of being eternal; ca – and; tābhyaḥ – from them.
Because the individual spirit soul is eternal, and because of the statements of Śruti-śāstra and other scriptures, [this idea about the individual spirit soul is not true.]
The individual spirit soul was never created. Why not? The sūtra explains, śruteḥ: “Because of the statements of Śruti-śāstra.” In Kaṭha Upaniṣad [1.2.18] it is said:
na jāyate mriyate vā
vipaścin
nāyaṁ kutaścin na babhūva kaścit
ajo nityaḥ
śāśvato ‘yaṁ purāṇo
na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre
“O wise one, for the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.”
That the individual spirit soul was never born is also declared in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [1.9]:
jñājñau dvāv ajāv īśānīśau
“Neither the Supreme Personality of Godhead nor the individual spirit souls were ever born.”
The word tābhyaḥ in the sūtra means “The eternality of the individual spirit soul is described in the Śruti and Smṛti-śāstras.” The word ca [and] in the sūtra means that the individual spirit soul is also conscious and full of knowledge.
In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad [2.5.13] it is said:
nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām
“Of all eternal living souls there is one who is the leader. Of all eternal souls there is one who is the leader.”
In the Bhagavad-gītā the Supreme Lord explains:
ajo nityaḥ śāśvato ‘yaṁ purāṇaḥ
“The soul is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, and primeval.”
Therefore, when it is said, “Yajñadatta is born and again he dies,” such words refer only to the external material body. The jāta-karma ceremony and other ceremonies like it also refer to the external material body. The individual spirit soul is different from the external material body and resides in it like a passenger. In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.3.8] it is said:
sa vā ayaṁ puruṣo jāyamānaḥ śarīram abhisampadyamānaḥ sa utkraman mriyamāṇaḥ
“At the moment of birth the spirit soul enters a material body, and at the moment of death the soul leaves the body.”
In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad [6.11.3] it is said:
jīvopetam vāva kiledaṁ mriyate na jīvo mriyate
“The soul resides in the material body. When the body dies, the soul does not die.”
Here someone may object: “How can this be? If this is so, then this fact disagrees with the scriptural description of the individual souls’ creation.”
To this objection I reply: The individual spirit souls are said to be created because they are effects of the Supreme. The Supreme Personality of Godhead has two potencies—internal and external—and these are said to be His effects. Here is what makes these two potencies different. One potency is the pradhāna and other inert, unconscious, nonliving potencies that are meant to be objects of enjoyment and various experiences. The other potency is the individual spirit souls, who are not inert, dull matter, but conscious living beings, and who are able to enjoy and perceive various experiences. These two potencies share one common feature: that they are both the effects of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this way the scriptural description of the souls’ creation is not contradicted; the scriptures are correct, and the individual spirit souls are never born.
All transcendental entities are eternal; they have no beginning or end. The difference between material and spiritual things is precisely that material things are temporary but spiritual things are eternal.
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]
nātmā jajāna na mariṣyati
naidhate 'sau
na kṣīyate savana-vid vyabhicāriṇāṁ
hi
sarvatra śaśvad anapāyy upalabdhi-mātraṁ
prāṇo
yathendriya-balena vikalpitaṁ sat
“The eternal soul was never born and will never die, nor does it grow or decay. That spiritual soul is actually the knower of the youth, middle age and death of the material body. Thus the soul can be understood to be pure consciousness, existing everywhere at all times and never being destroyed. Just as the life air within the body, although one, becomes manifest as many in contact with the various material senses, the one soul appears to assume various material designations in contact with the material body.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.3.38]
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now that he has cleared away the obstacles of spurious, non-Vedic philosophical systems, the author of the sūtras considers the nature of the individual spirit soul. In this context, “knowledge” refers not to discursive thought, verbal information or symbolic manipulation, but to consciousness. Thus the soul is both conscious and consciousness, knowledge and the knower.
Consciousness is the primary issue in life. Indeed, in the absence of consciousness there are no other issues. Consciousness and its corollaries are fundamental to every thought, word and action. Yet how strange that there is no universally accepted, comprehensive theory of consciousness in Western science. The reason for this is clear: if the existence and transcendental nature of the soul is accepted, the next question will be “Then what is the origin of the soul?” Because they want to avoid the Supreme Personality of Godhead, science has intentionally restricted its domain to empirical investigations of the manifest objective world, while consciousness and the soul are intrinsically subjective and immanent.
Consciousness is the primary experiential fact. Without a practical theory of consciousness, science cannot adequately explain the world in which we live. Any observer must be conscious, and therefore the consciousness of the observer is critical to the outcome of any experiment. Quantum Mechanics does recognize the role of the observer in determining the outcome of an experiment; however, so far it still treats the observer’s consciousness as a ‘black box,’ as if consciousness were proscribed from serious scientific inquiry.
Considering the profound importance of consciousness in human life, comparatively little scientific research has been done on it. And this research is deeply flawed, because it tries to treat consciousness as a material substance. This ontological error is technically called elementalism. Consciousness is not a thing but a quality of a transcendental entity, the soul. Unless we admit the existence of the soul, we can never understand consciousness, because a quality is different from a substance.
Here is a perfect example of how language can differ from reality. Just because it is possible to isolate the word ‘consciousness,’ it does not follow that one can isolate consciousness, because consciousness is not a thing. In reality, consciousness is inseparable from the living entity—he who is conscious of being conscious. Consciousness is never found separate from senses, form and personal identity. Any attempt to split off consciousness from its structural relationships with the living entity, form (whether material or spiritual) and identity, is a futile endeavor that can never lead to any practical application because it is against the structure of reality.
In other words, consciousness is only one member of a higher-order transcendental reality: ontologically, the soul or living entity is the root class, and his qualities such as consciousness, identity, ideation, action etc. are subclasses. Our whole experience is a very large series of instances of these subclasses. We can very easily illustrate this in an ontological class diagram.
The living entity himself is ontologically inconceivable to us because we ourselves are living entities, and living entities are the taṭasthā-śakti [marginal potency] of the Supreme. The ontological conception of the Supreme and His potencies as seen by the Supreme Himself is closed to the living entities. We can never be conscious of ourselves as God sees us, just as we can never see our own eyeballs; and His consciousness and intelligence are unlimited. Therefore the ultimate meaning of the soul and his eternal relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead can only be revealed by the scriptures. But we can be conscious of our own consciousness, the objects of consciousness and the relationships between and among them. So in the ontology of consciousness, the living entities are the superclass or senior order, and the symptoms of the living entity, which are all subjective, are the subclasses composing the living entities’ field of experience.
This ontological analysis of consciousness also explains why bhakti is the only path that actually leads to self-realization, because it is completely non-dual. The practices of all other forms of yoga change upon attainment of liberation. The haṭha-yogī develops mystic powers; the karma-yogī becomes a renunciant; the jñāna-yogī becomes an avadhuta. But the bhakta just keeps on doing bhakti-yoga eternally, in this world and the next, in heaven or hell, in saṁsāra or in Vaikuṇṭha. In other words, the practices of devotional service are performed in the context of an exalted transcendental ontological conception. Because this conception is transcendental, it is eternal and changeless. The practices of bhakti, such as chanting the Holy Name of the Lord, are both the sādhana [practice] and the sādhya [object of realization], and thus are complete, eternal and transcendental. One has to experience this to fully appreciate it.
When the mind is unified and one-pointed, such samādhi opens the door to connection with God. If our ontological platform is going to change, then we have not yet attained the Absolute Truth: only that which is true at all levels of form regardless of time, person, place, condition or state is the real Absolute Truth. Realization of this truth is the real goal of Vedānta and all the Vedic literature, and this is possible only through the non-dual methods of bhakti-yoga.
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [3.7.22] it is said:
yo vijñāne tiṣṭhan
“The individual spirit soul is situated in knowledge.”
In another passage it is said:
sukham aham asvapsaṁ na kiñcid avediṣi
“I slept happily. I did not know anything.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Is the individual spirit soul unalloyed knowledge only, or is the soul the knower that experiences knowledge?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: The individual spirit soul consists of knowledge only. This is confirmed by the statement of Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [3.7.22]: “The individual spirit soul is situated in knowledge.” The soul is not the knower or the perceiver of knowledge. The intelligence is the knower. Therefore the statement “I slept happily; I did not know anything,” is spoken by the intelligence, not by the soul.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: The author of the sūtras gives the following conclusion.
jño ‘ta eva
jñaḥ – knower; ataḥ eva – therefore.
Therefore he is the knower.
The individual spirit soul is both knowledge and knower. In the Praśna Upaniṣad [4.9] it is said:
eṣa hi draṣṭā spraṣṭā śrotā rasayitā ghrātā mantā boddhā kartā vijñānātmā puruṣaḥ
“The individual spirit soul is the seer, the toucher, the hearer, the taster, the smeller, the thinker, the determiner, the doer, and the knower.”
This truth is accepted because it is declared by scripture, not because it is understood by logic. Our acceptance of the truth of scripture is described in Sūtra 2.1.27:
śrutes tu śabda-mūlatvāt
“The statements of Śruti-śāstra are the root of real knowledge.”
In the Smṛti-śāstra it is said:
jñātā jñāna-svarūpo ‘yam
“The individual spirit soul is both knower and knowledge.”
Therefore the individual spirit soul is not knowledge alone without being anything else, and this is not at all proved by the statement, “I slept happily. I did not know anything,” for such an idea would contradict these scripture statements that affirm the soul to be the knower. Therefore it is concluded that the individual spirit soul is both knowledge and knower. Of course, such a conclusion is beyond the limitations of Aristotelian logic; but Aristotelian logic is based on the properties of material objects, and the soul is a transcendental object, so he is not subject to the same limitations.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now the author of the sūtras considers the size of the individual spirit souls.
keśāgra-śata-bhāgasya
śatāṁśa-sadṛśātmakaḥ
jivaḥ sūkṣma-svarūpo ’yaṁ
saṅkhyātīto hi cit-kaṇaḥ
“If we divide the tip of a hair into a hundred parts and then take one of these parts and divide it again into a hundred parts, that very fine division is the size of but one of the numberless living entities. They are all cit-kaṇa, particles of spirit, not matter.”
This is quoted from the commentary on the portion of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam wherein the Vedas personified offer their obeisances unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The jīva or living entity is an atomic particle of spirit, in exactly the same way as a photon is an atomic particle of light. In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [3.1.9] it is said:
eṣo ‘ṇur ātmā cetasā veditavyo yasmin prāṇaḥ pañcadhā samviveṣa
“When the life-breath withdraws from the five activities, the mind can understand the atomic soul.”
As long as our life energy is engaged with the senses, even though we may know intellectually that we are a spirit soul, the tendency to identify with the material body persists. When the life energy is withdrawn from the senses and sense objects and remains focused on the soul or consciousness itself, then the actual nature of the soul is revealed.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Is the individual spirit soul atomic or all-pervading?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: The individual spirit soul is all-pervading. Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.4.14] declares that the soul is mahān [great]. The statement that the soul is atomic is merely a poetic metaphor.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: The author of the sūtras gives the conclusion in the following words.
utkrānti-gaty-āgatīnām
utkrānti – departure; gati – travel; āgatīnām – and of return
Because of departure, travel and return.
In this sūtra the word aṇuḥ [the atomic soul] should be understood from the previous sūtra. In this sūtra the genitive case is used in the sense of the ablative. The individual spirit soul is atomic and not all-pervading. Why is that? The sūtra explains: “Because of departure, travel and return.”
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.4.2] it is said:
tasya haitasya hṛdayasyāgraṁ pradyotate. Tena pradyotenaiṣa ātmā niṣkrāmati cakṣuṣo vā mūrdhno vānyebhyo vā śarīra-deśebhyaḥ
“The soul shines in the heart. At the moment of death the effulgent soul leaves through the opening of the eyes, the opening at the top of the the head, or another opening in the body.”
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.4.11] it is said:
anandā nāma te lokā
andhena
tamasāvṛtāḥ
tāṁs te pretyābhigacchanti
avidvāṁso
‘budhā janāḥ
“Sinful fools enter into planets known as the worlds of torment, full of darkness and ignorance.”
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.4.6] it is said:
prāpyāntaṁ karmaṇas tasya
yat
kiñcedam karoty ayam
tasmāt lokāt punar etya
yasmai
lokāya karmaṇe
“At the time of death the soul reaps the results of his works. He goes to the world where he deserves to go. When the results of his past deeds are exhausted, again he returns to the middle planets, the world of karma.”
In this way the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad describes the soul’s travel from one place to another. If he were all-pervading, the soul would not be able to travel from one place to another, for he would already be everywhere.
In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [10.87.30] it is said:
aparimitā dhruvās tanu-bhṛto
yadi sarva-gatās
tarhi na śāsyateti niyamo dhruva netarathā
“O Lord, although the living entities who have accepted material bodies are spiritual and unlimited in number, if they were all-pervading there would be no question of their being under Your control.”
However, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, although all-pervading, can travel from place to place. This is possible because He possesses inconceivable powers.
Here someone may object: “The individual spirit soul can be all-pervading and unmoving, and still, because he mistakenly identifies with the external material body, he imagines that he goes and comes. He is like the ruler of a village who never really leaves his realm.”
To this the reply is given: Because it is said that he both departs and returns it is not possible that the soul is actually stationary and unmoving. The author of the sūtras confirms this in the following words.
svātmanaś cottarayoḥ
sva – own; ātmanaḥ – of the soul; ca – and; uttarayoḥ - of the latter two.
Also because the last two refer to the soul.
The word ca [also] is used here for emphasis. Here the word uttarayoḥ [the last two] means “of the coming and going.” The coming and going here definitely occur to the individual spirit soul. This is so because the coming and going in the pervious sūtra clearly refer to an agent, to the performer of the action. The coming and going here are understood to be coming and going from a material body. This is clearly seen in the first passage of Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.4.2] quoted in the previous purport. It is also seen in the following words of Bhagavad-gītā [15.8]:
śarīraṁ yad avāpnoti
yac
cāpy utkrāmatīśvaraḥ
gṛhītvaitani samyāti
vāyur
gandhān ivāśayāt
“The living entity in the material world carries his different conceptions of life from one body to another as the air carries aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it to take another.”
If someone says that the soul actually never goes anywhere, although it seems to go places because of the misidentification of the external material body as the self, then I say this is a foolish idea. In the following words the Kauśitakī Upaniṣad refutes this idea:
sa yadāsmāt śarīrāt samutkrāmati sahaivaitaiḥ sarvair utkrāmati
“At the time of death the soul, accompanied by all his powers, leaves the material body.”
The word saha [accompanied by] is used when the more important is accompanied by another of lesser importance. An example is the sentence: “The father took his meal, accompanied by [saha] his son.” In this way the foolish example pushed forward by the impersonalists, the example of the air in the jar and in the sky, is clearly refuted.
nāṇur atac chruter iti cen netarādhikārāt
na – not; aṇuḥ – atom; atat – not that; śruteḥ - from the scriptures; iti – thus; cet – is; na – not; itara – other; adhikārāt – because of being appropriate.
If it is claimed that the Śruti-śāstra denies the idea that the soul is atomic, then I reply that it is not so, because those descriptions apply to someone else.
Here someone may object: “Is it not so that that the individual spirit soul is not atomic? After all, the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.4.22] affirms:
sa vā eṣa mahā-jana ātmā
“The soul is very great.”
After all, to be great in size is the very opposite of being atomic.”
If someone claims this, then the sūtra replies: “No. It is not so.” Why not? The sūtra explains, itara: “Because these descriptions apply to someone else.” These words are descriptions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the all-pervading Supersoul. In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.3.7] it is said:
yo ‘yam vijñānamayaḥ prāṇeṣu
“He is full of knowledge. He stays among the life-airs.”
Although this passage begins by describing the individual spirit soul, it proceeds with a description of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as is seen in a following passage [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.13]:
yasyānuvittaḥ pratibuddha ātmā
“He is the Self who knows everything.”
These words clearly describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead and not the individual spirit soul.
sva-śabdonmānābhyāṁ ca
sva – own; śabda – word; unmānābhyām – with measure;ca – and.
Because of its word and measurement.
The word sva-śabda [the word describing it] here means that the word ‘atomic’ is used to describe the individual spirit soul. An example of this is in Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [2.1.9]:
eṣo ‘ṇur ātmā
“The soul is atomic in size.”
The word unmāna here means “Its measurement is atomic in size.” The precise measurement of the individual spirit soul is given in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [4.9]:
bālāgra-śata-bhāgasya
śatadhā
kalpitasya ca
bhāgo jīvaḥ sa vijñeyaḥ
sa
cāntantyāya kalpate
“When the upper point of a hair is divided into one hundred parts and again each of these parts is further divided into one hundred parts, each such part is the measurement of the dimension of the spirit soul.”
In these two ways the atomic size of the soul is proved. The word ānantya here means “liberation.” Anta means “death,” and an means “without.” Therefore the word ānantya means “the condition of being free from death”.
Here someone may object: “Is it not so that if it is atomic in size and situated in a specific place in the material body, the soul could not perceive sensations in all other parts of the body, where the soul is not actually present?”
If this is said, then the author of the sūtras replies in the following words.
avirodhaś candana-vat
avirodhaḥ – not contradicting; candana – sandal; vat – like
It does not contradict; it is like sandal paste.
As a drop of sandal paste placed on one part of the body brings a pleasant sensation to the body as a whole, so the soul, although situated in one place, perceives what happens in the entire body. Therefore, there is no contradiction. In the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa it is said:
aṇu-mātro ‘py ayaṁ
jīvaḥ
sva-dehaṁ vyāpya tiṣṭhati
yathā vyāpya
śarīrāṇi
haricandana-vipruṣaḥ
“As the sensation created by a drop of sandal paste pervades the entire body, so the individual spirit soul, although atomic in size, is conscious of what happens in the entire body.”
avasthiti-vaiśeṣyād iti cen nābhyupagamād dhṛdi hi
avasthiti – abode; vaiśeṣyāt – because of being specific; iti – thus; cet – if; na – not; abhyupagamāt – because of acceptance; hṛdi – in the heart; hi – certainly.
If it is denied because it has no specific abode, then I say no, because it resides in the heart.
Here someone may object: “Is it not so that the drop of sandal paste has a single, clearly visible, place where it resides on the body but the soul has no such single residence in the body? There is no reason to make guesses about the location of the soul in the body. The soul is clearly present everywhere in the body, just as the element ether is present everywhere. Therefore the sandal-paste example is clumsy and wrong.”
If this objection is raised, then the author of the sūtras replies: “No. It is not so.” Why not? The sūtra explains, “Because it resides in the heart.” This means that the soul really does reside in a single place in the material body. The soul resides in the heart. This is confirmed in the following words of Praśna Upaniṣad [3.6]:
hṛdi hy eṣa ātmā
“The soul resides in the heart.”
In the final conclusion the spirit soul, although atomic in size is, in one sense, all-pervading throughout the entire material body. This is explained in the following sūtra.
guṇād vālokavat
guṇāt – by quality; vā – or; āloka – light; vat – like.
By quality or like light.
Although the soul is atomic in size, it pervades the body by the quality of consciousness. Like light it pervades the entire body. As the sun, although situated in one place, fills the universe with light, so the soul fills the body with consciousness. The Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself declares this in Bhagavad-gītā [13.34]:
yathā prakāśayaty ekaḥ
kṛtsnaṁ
lokam imaṁ raviḥ
kṣetraṁ kṣetrī tathā
kṛtsnaṁ
prakāśayati bhārata
“O son of Bharata, as the sun alone illuminates all this universe, so does the living entity, one within the body, illuminate the entire body by consciousness.”
When the sun emanates sunlight it does not lose any atoms from its mass, nor does it become diminished in any way. Rubies and other jewels also emanate light without losing atoms from their mass or becoming diminished in any way. It is not possible to say that when light is emanated from them these things become diminished in size. The light they emanate is their quality, not their mass.
The quality can function in a plane apart from the substance that possesses it. The author of the sūtras explains this in the following example.
vyatireko gandhavat tathā hi darśayati
vyatirekaḥ – difference; gandha – fragrance; vat – like;tathā – so; hi – indeed; darśayati – shows.
As a fragrance is in a different place, so it [the soul] is also in a different place. This the scripture shows.
As the fragrance of flowers or other objects may travel to a place far from its source, so the consciousness that emanates from the soul may travel from the heart and enter the head, feet, or other parts of the body. The Kauśitaki Upaniṣad [3.6] explains:
prajñayā śarīraṁ samāruhya
“The soul is all-pervading in the material body by consciousness.”
Even though the fragrance may travel very far it is never actually separated from its source, just as the light of a jewel is also not separated from its source. In the Smṛti-śāstra it is said:
upalabhyāpsu ced gandhaṁ
kecid
brūyur anaipuṇāḥ
pṛthivyām eva tam vidyād
apo vāyuṁ
ca saṁśritam
“They who do not understand may sometimes say that fragrance is present in water. Earth is the natural home of fragrance, although it may sometimes take shelter of water or air.”
In the Praśna Upaniṣad [4.9] it is said:
eṣa hi dṛṣṭā
“The soul is the person who sees.”
Someone may doubt: “Is the consciousness that the soul possesses eternal or not? The soul is by nature unconscious. It is like a stone. Consciousness only arises when the soul comes in contact with the mind. This is seen in the scriptures’ statement: ‘I slept happily; I was not conscious of anything.’ This statement shows that consciousness is not an inherent quality of the soul but rather is attained by contact with something else. It is like iron and fire. When placed in fire, an iron rod gradually assumes the qualities of fire. If it were an inherent quality of the soul, then consciousness would not be lost in deep sleep.”
The author of the sūtras gives the conclusion in the following words .
pṛthag-upadeśāt
pṛthak – separate; upadeśāt – because of the teaching.
Because there is a specific teaching.
The soul is eternally conscious. How is that known? The sūtra explains. “Because there is a specific teaching.” Some examples of that teaching follow.
In the Praśna Upaniṣad [4.9] it is said:
eṣa hi dṛṣṭā
“The soul sees eternally.”
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.5.14] it is said:
avināśī vā are ayam ātmānucitti-dharmā
“The soul’s consciousness is never destroyed.”
The soul does not become conscious merely by contact with the mind, for soul and mind are both indivisible and cannot interact. Turning away from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the soul obscures its natural spiritual knowledge. Turning towards the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the soul revives its natural spiritual consciousness. This is described in the Smṛti-śāstra:
yathā na kriyate
jyotsnā
mala-prakṣālanān maṇeḥ
doṣa-prahāṇān na
jñānam
ātmanah kriyate tathā
“As by washing away the dirt that covered a jewel, the jewel’s splendor is not created but merely uncovered, so by removing the dirt of materialism that covered the soul, the soul’s splendor is not created, but merely uncovered.
yathodapāna-khananāt
kriyate
na jalāntaram
sad eva niyate vyaktim
asataḥ sambhavaḥ
kutaḥ
“As by digging a well, water is brought forth but not created, so by spiritual activities the nature of the soul is brought forth but not created. How would it be possible to create the the soul’s qualities from nothing?
tathā
heya-guṇa-dhvaṁsād
avarodhādayo guṇāḥ
prakāśyante
na jānyante
nitya evātmano hi te
“When material faults are destroyed, the soul’s qualities become revealed. The soul’s qualities are eternal. They are never created.”
Here someone may object: “These quotes from scripture merely show that the soul is synonymous with consciousness. They do not prove that the soul itself is conscious.”
To this objection the author of the sūtras replies in the following words.
tad-guṇa-sāratvāt tad vyapadeśaḥ prājña-vat
tat – of that; guṇa – quality; sāratvāt – because of being the essence; tat – that; vyapadeśaḥ – designation;prājña – intelligent; vat – like.
It is called that because that is its essential nature, just as He who is intelligent.
Because the soul is consciousness itself, therefore it is conscious. Why is that? The sūtra explains: “It is called that because that is its essential nature.”
In this sūtra the word guṇa [quality] refers to the soul’s quality of consciousness. The word sāra means “the essential nature of the thing, the absence of which makes the thing non-existent.” The word prājña-vat means “Like Lord Viṣṇu, who is known as prājña [all-knowing] because He is all knowledge.
Because He is all knowledge personified, Lord Viṣṇu is said to know everything. In the same way, because the soul is consciousness personified, therefore the soul is conscious. That the statement “The soul is consciousness personified,” means the same thing as “The soul is conscious,” is also confirmed in the next sūtra.
yāvad ātma-bhāvitvāc ca na doṣas tad-darśanāt
yāvat – as long as; ātma – of the soul; bhāvitvāt – because of existence; ca – and; na – not; doṣaḥ – fault; tat – ofthat; darśanāt – because of the sight.
It exists as long as the soul exists. There is no fault in this, because it is clearly seen.
There is no fault in saying that the two sentences “The soul is consciousness,” and “The soul is conscious,” mean the same thing. That is the meaning here. Why is that? The sūtra explains: “It exists as long as the soul exists. There is no fault in this, because it is clearly seen.” The soul’s consciousness exists for as long as the soul exists.
As long as the soul exists, the soul’s consciousness will not be destroyed. The soul exists eternally, without a beginning or end in time, and the soul’s consciousness also exists eternally. The sun may be given here as an example. The sun is both light and the bringer of light. As long as the sun exists it will have these two features, which are actually not different. In the same way the soul is both consciousness and conscious.
Here someone may object: “Is it not true that consciousness is born from the modes of material nature? Is it not true that, because it does not exist in the state of dreamless sleep, consciousness is not eternal? Is it not true that even when the living entity is fully awake his consciousness is in fact created by a barrage of various sense-objects?”
If these objections are raised, the author of the sūtras replies in the following words.
puṁstvādi-vat tv asya sato ‘bhivyakti-yogāt
puṁstva – virility; ādi – beginning with; vat – like;tu – but; asya – of him; sataḥ – of the existing; abhivyakti-yogāt – because of manifestation.
But like virility and other things it exists and then is manifest.
The word tu [but] is used here to dispel doubt. The word na [it is not like that] is understood in this sūtra. It is not true than consciousness is non-existent in dreamless sleep and only exists in the waking state. Why is that? The sūtra explains: “But like virility and other things it exists and then is manifest.” In the state of dreamless sleep the soul’s consciousness exists in a dormant state, and in the state of wakefulness that dormant consciousness becomes fully manifested. Here the sūtra gives the example of virility. In childhood virility and other qualities associated with it exist in a dormant state. Then, at the beginning of adulthood, they become manifested. In the same way consciousness is dormant in dreamless sleep and fully manifested in the waking state. This is described in the following words of Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.3.30]:
yad vai tan na vijānāti vijānan vaitad vijñeyam na vijānāti na hi vijnātur vijñānāt viparilopo vidyate avināśitvān na tu tad dvitīyam asti tato ‘nyad vibhaktaṁ yad vijānīyāt
“In the state of dreamless sleep the soul is both conscious and unconscious. The soul is always conscious, and consciousness can never be separated from it, because the soul and its consciousness can never be destroyed. Still, in the state of dreamless sleep no object is presented before the soul for it to be conscious of.”
When there is no object for consciousness to perceive, then consciousness is dormant. Therefore in dreamless sleep consciousness is dormant. When the senses contact the sense objects, then consciousness becomes manifested. Had it not existed in a dormant state during dreamless sleep, consciousness could not have manifested itself in the waking state, just as a person born a eunuch cannot manifest virility at the beginning of adulthood. In this way it is proved that the individual spirit soul is atomic, is consciousness, and is conscious eternally.
Now the author of the sūtras refutes the theory of the Saṅkhya philosophers. “Is the individual spirit soul consciousness and nothing else? Is the individual spirit soul all-pervading? The individual spirit soul is all-pervading. This is so because the results of its actions are seen everywhere. Had it been atomic, the soul would be unable to perceive the pains and pleasures present in different parts of the body. Had it been of a medium size, the soul would not be eternal. Therefore the individual spirit soul must be all-pervading.”
In the following words the author of the sūtras gives the proper conclusion.
nityopalabdhy-anupalabdhi-prasaṅgo ‘nyatara-niyamo vānyathā
nitya – eternal; upalabdhi – perceptionl; anupalabdhi – non- perception; prasaṅgaḥ – result; anyatara – otherwise; niyamaḥ – restriction; vā – or; anyathā – otherwise.
Otherwise there would be eternal consciousness, eternal unconsciousness, or the limited existence of one or the other.
If the soul were only consciousness and nothing else, and if it were all-pervading, then the soul would be either always conscious or always unconscious. Either that, or there would be a limited existence of one or the other. This is the meaning: It is clear to the entire world that consciousness and unconsciousness both exist. If the cause of this were a soul that is consciousness only and also all-pervading, then consciousness and unconsciousness would both be perceived simultaneously at every moment by the entire world. If this all-pervading soul were the cause of consciousness only and not unconsciousness, then no one would ever be unconscious, and if this all-pervading soul were the cause of unconsciousness only and not consciousness, then no one would ever be conscious.
It cannot be said that consciousness is created by contact with the senses and unconsciousness is created when there is no contact with the senses, because if the soul is all-pervading then it would be always in contact with the senses. Furthermore, if the individual spirit soul were all-pervading then everyone would simultaneously experience the pains and pleasures of everyone else. If this were so there would be no meaning to individual experience, individual desire or individual destiny. This effectively refutes the theory that the individual spirit soul is all-pervading.
However, our theory, which affirms that the spirit soul is atomic in size and different in each material body, is not refuted by these considerations. Although atomic in size, the individual spirit soul can act in any place, although it cannot act in every place simultaneously. By its quality of consciousness the individual spirit soul can pervade its material body and perceive the happiness and other sensations present in the various parts of the material body.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now the author of the sūtras will consider another point. Modern science and other atheistic philosophies consider that material nature is the cause of all actions. They say that the combination and reactions of aggregates of atoms under the laws of material nature are the cause of everything. But we have already proven that matter cannot act without the initiative and superintendence of spirit. Thus the actual causes of all actions are the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the individual spirit soul.
In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.5.1] it is said:
vijñānaṁ yajñaṁ tanute. karmāṇi tanute ‘pi ca.
“Consciousness performs yajñas; consciousness performs actions.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Does the individual soul, indicated in this passage by the word “consciousness,” perform actions or not?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad [2.18] it is said:
hantā cen manyate hantuṁ
hataś
cen manyate hatam
ubhau tau na vijānītau
nāyaṁ hanti na
hanyate
“Neither he who thinks the living entity the slayer nor he who thinks it slain is in knowledge, for the self slays not nor is slain.”
These words clearly declare that the individual spirit soul never performs actions. In the Bhagavad-gītā [3.27] it is said:
prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni
guṇaiḥ
karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ
ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā
kartāham
iti manyate
“The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature.”
In the Bhagavad-gītā [13.21] it is also said:
kārya-kāraṇa-kartṛtve
hatuḥ
prakṛtir ucyate
puruṣaḥ sukha-duḥkhānāṁ
bhoktṛtve
hetur ucyate
“Nature is said to be the cause of all material causes and effects, whereas the living entity is the cause of the various sufferings and enjoyments in this world.”
Therefore the individual spirit soul does not perform actions. When a person understands the truth he understands that all actions are actually performed by the material energy, and the individual spirit soul is merely the person who experiences the fruits of action.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives the proper conclusion.
kartā śāstrārthavat-tvāt
kartā – the doer; śāstra – of the scriptures;ārtha – meaning; vat – possessing; tvāt – because of having the nature.
He performs actions. This is so because the scriptures are meaningful.
It is the individual spirit soul who performs actions, not the modes of material nature. Why is that? The sūtra explains: “Because the scriptures are meaningful.” In the scriptures it is said:
svarga-kāmo yajeta
“A person who desires Svargaloka should perform yajñas.”
and
ātmānam eva lokam upāsīta
“One should worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
These statements have meaning only if the individual spirit soul does actually perform actions. If all actions are performed by the modes of nature and the individual spirit soul never does anything, these statements of the scriptures are meaningless.
These statements of scripture are intended to motivate the individual spirit soul to act in a certain way so he can enjoy the results of his actions. It is not even possible in this way to try to motivate the inert material modes to act in any way at all.
That the individual spirit soul does actually perform actions is also confirmed in the next sūtra.
vihāropadeśāt
vihāra – of pastimes; upadeśāt – because of the teaching.
Because of the teaching about pastimes.
The Chāndogya Upaniṣad [8.12.3] describes the activities of the liberated souls:
sa tatra paryeti jakṣan krīḍan ramamāṇaḥ
“In the spiritual world the individual spirit soul eats, plays, and enjoys.”
Therefore action by itself does not brings pain and unhappiness to the soul, rather it is the bondage of the three modes of nature that brings unhappiness. This is so because the three modes of nature obscure the reality of the soul’s spiritual nature.
upādānāt
upādānāt – because of taking.
Because of taking.
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [2.1.18] it is said:
sa yathā mahā-rājaḥ . . . evam
evaiṣa etān prāṇān
gṛhītvā sve śarīre yathā-kāmaṁ
parivartate
“In the dreaming state the individual spirit soul acts like a king. The soul grasps the life-airs and does as he wishes.”
In the Bhagavad-gītā [15.8] it is also said:
gṛhītvaitāni samyāti
vāyur
gandhān ivāśayāt
“The living entity in the material world carries his different conceptions of life from one body to another as the air carries aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it to take another.”
In these passages it is seen that the individual spirit soul does perform actions, for the soul moves the life-airs as a magnet moves iron. The life-airs may move many things, but it is the individual spirit soul who moves the life-airs. Nothing else moves them.
In the following words the author of the sūtras now gives another reason.
vyapadeśāc ca kriyāyāṁ na cen nirdeśa-viparyayaḥ
vyapadeśāt – because of designation; ca – and; kriyāyām – in action; na – not; cet – if; nirdeśa – grammatical construction; viparyayaḥ – different.
Also because of the name in the action. If this were not so the grammatical structure would be different.
In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.5.1] it is said:
vijñānaṁ yajñaṁ tanute. karmāṇi tanute ‘pi ca.
“Consciousness performs yajñas; consciousness performs actions.”
These words clearly show that the individual spirit soul is the primary performer of Vedic and ordinary actions. If the word vijñānam is interpreted to mean not the individual spirit soul, but the intelligence, then the grammatical structure of the sentence would be different. Then the word vijñāna would be in the instrumental case, for the intelligence would be the instrument by which the action is performed. However, the word is not in the instrumental case. If the intelligence were the performer of the action here, then another word must be given in the instrumental case to show with what instrument the intelligence performs the action, for there must be an instrument in every action. However, if the individual spirit soul is the performer of the action there is not need for another word in the instrumental case to show the instrument used, for in that situation the individual spirit soul is both the performer of the action and the instrument employed.
Here someone may object: “Is it not so that the individual spirit soul, being independent and able to act as he likes, will naturally act for his own welfare and will not perform actions that bring him harm?”
To this I reply: No. It is not like that. The individual spirit soul desires to benefit himself, but because his past karma acts against him, he sometimes creates his own misfortune.
For these reasons it is clear that the individual spirit soul certainly performs actions. When the scriptures sometimes say that the individual spirit soul does not perform actions, the meaning is that the soul is not independent and free to do exactly everything he wishes.
Here someone may object: “It is not possible that the individual spirit soul is the performer of actions, for it is clearly seen that these actions often bring him suffering.”
To this I reply: No. It is not so. If the individual spirit soul is not the performer of actions, then the scriptural descriptions of the agnihotra, darśa, paurṇamāsa, and other yajñas would not make any sense.
In the following words the author of the sūtras refutes the idea that material nature is the real performer of actions.
uplabdhi-vad aniyamaḥ
uplabdhi – consciousness; vat – like; aniyamaḥ – uncertainty.
As in the situation of consciousness, it would be indefinite.
In previous sūtras it was shown that if the individual spirit soul were all-pervading, then consciousness would be vague and indefinite. In the same way if all-pervading material nature were the sole performer of all actions, then all actions would bring the same result to all spirit souls simultaneously. Clearly this is not so. Also, it could not be said that the individual spirit soul would need to be near the place where a certain action was performed in order to experience the result of that action. The Saṅkhya philosophers cannot say this, for in their theory each individual spirit soul is all-pervading and is thus already near the places where all actions are performed.
śakti-viparyayāt
śakti – of power; viparyayāt – because of difference.
Because the power is changed.
If the material nature is the performer of actions, then material nature must also experience the good and bad results of those actions. However, the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [1.8] affirms:
bhoktṛ-bhāvāt
“The individual spirit soul enjoys the good and bad results of actions.”
In this way the idea that the material nature is the performer of actions is refuted. Because the individual spirit soul enjoys the good and bad results of actions, the individual spirit soul must also be the performer of those actions.
samādhy-abhāvāc ca
samādhi – of liberation; abhāvāt – because of the nonexistence; ca – also.
Also because there is no liberation.
Actions are meant to bring one to liberation from the material world. Because it is not possible for the material nature to act in such a way and attain such a goal, the idea that the material nature is the performer of actions cannot be entertained. Liberation means understanding the truth “I am different from matter.” It is not possible for the material nature to come to this understanding because it is unconscious, and also because it really is matter. In this way it is proved that the individual spirit soul is the performer of actions.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The soul is always active, as shown by the following śloka:
na hi kaścit kṣaṇam api
jātu
tiṣṭhaty akarma-kṛt
kāryate hy avaśaḥ karma
sarvaḥ
prakṛti-jair guṇaiḥ
“All men are forced to act helplessly according to the impulses born of the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment.” [Bhagavad-gītā 3.5]
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Are the spirit souls always engaged in action? Is there no time when they become free from activity?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: The soul may become free from activity during deep sleep, or at the time of liberation. Or maybe all these activities are performed by material nature, and the soul actually does nothing at all.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives an example to show that the individual spirit soul performs actions, using either its own potency or some other instrument to perform them.
yathā ca takṣobhayathā
yathā – as; ca – and; takṣa – carpenter; ubhayathā – in both ways.
In both ways like a carpenter.
As a carpenter performs actions, employing both his own power and a host of tools, so does the individual spirit soul, employing both his own power and the various life airs. Thus the soul employs the material body, and other instruments also, to perform actions. It is the pure spirit soul who thus uses the modes of material nature to perform actions. That is why the scriptures sometimes say that the modes of material nature are the performer of actions.
That the individual spirit soul is indeed the performer of actions is confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā [13.22], where it is said:
kāraṇaṁ guna-saṅgo
‘sya
sad-asad-yoṇi-janmasu
“The living entity in material nature thus follows the ways of life, enjoying the three modes of nature. Thus he meets with good and evil among the various species.”
These words explain the scripture passages that declare the modes of nature to be the performers of action. It is foolish for a person to think himself the sole performer of action and ignore the five factors of action. Of course it is not that the individual spirit soul never performs any action. The idea that the soul never does anything is clearly refuted by the many scriptural statements urging the soul to act such a way that he may attain liberation. When in the Bhagavad-gītā [2.19] the Lord says:
nāyaṁ hanti na hanyate
“The self slays not nor is slain.”
that does not mean that the individual spirit soul never performs any action, but rather that the eternal spirit soul can never be cut or slain. The meaning of the statement that the soul never acts has thus already been explained.
The devotees perform various actions of devotional service to the Lord, in both this life and the next. Because these actions are free from the touch of the modes of nature, because they are under the jurisdiction of the Lord’s spiritual potency and because they lead to liberation, these actions are said not to be action, for they are not material actions. This is explained by the Supreme Lord Himself in these words:
sāttvikaḥ kārako
‘saṅgī
rāgāndho rājasaḥ smṛtaḥ
tāmasaḥ
smṛti-vibhraṣṭo
nirguṇo mad-apāśrayaḥ
“One who acts without attachment is in the mode of goodness. One who is blinded with desire is in the mode of passion. One whose intelligence is broken is in the mode of ignorance. One who takes shelter of Me is free from the grip of the modes of nature.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.25.26]
That the pure spirit soul experiences the results of his actions is described in Bhagavad-gītā [13.21]:
puruṣaḥ
sukha-duḥkhānāṁ
bhoktṛtve hetur ucyate
“The living entity is the cause of the various sufferings and enjoyments in this world.”
The soul experiences the results of his actions, because he is by nature conscious; the modes of nature do not experience them. This refutes the idea that the modes are active and the soul is not. In this way it is proved that it is the conscious soul who experiences happiness and other sensations. In this way the individual spirit soul brings knowledge to himself and others. Both kinds of action, direct and through the use of tools, exist for the soul. In the Praśna Upaniṣad [4.9] it is said:
eṣa hi draṣṭā spraṣṭā śrotā
“It is the soul who sees, touches, and hears.”
Thus, by this example of the carpenter, the idea that the individual spirit soul is the only factor in action, and there are no others, is clearly refuted.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now another doubt is considered. In Bhagavad-gītā [18.14] Lord Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna,
adhiṣṭhānaṁ tathā
kartā
karaṇaṁ ca pṛthag-vidham
vividhāś ca pṛthak
ceṣṭā
daivaṁ caivātra pañcamam
“The place of action [the body], the performer, the various senses, the many different kinds of endeavor, and ultimately the Supersoul—these are the five factors of action.”
Although the individual soul certainly performs actions and experiences their results, he is ultimately dependent on the Supersoul for his ability to act. He cannot act independently.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Is the individual spirit soul independent in his actions, or does he depend on another?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: The scriptures say:
svarga-kāmo yajeta
“One who desires Svargaloka should perform yajñas.”
and
tasmād brāhmaṇaḥ surāṁ na pibet pāpmanotsaṁsṛja
“A brāhmaṇa should not drink liquor and should not commit sins.”
That the scriptures give orders and prohibitions for the soul to follow is proof that the soul is independent, for independence means to have the power to do one thing and to refrain from doing another.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives his conclusion.
parāt tu tac-chruteḥ
parāt – from the Supreme; tu – but; tat – of that; śruteḥ – from the scriptures.
But from the Supreme, because of the scriptures.
The word tu [but] is used to remove doubt. The Supreme Personality of Godhead inspires the individual spirit soul to act. How is that known? The sūtra explains, tac-chruteḥ: “It is known from the scriptures.” The scriptures give the following explanations:
antaḥ praviṣṭaḥ śāstā janānām
“Entering their hearts, the Supreme Personality of Godhead controls all living entities.”
ya ātmani tiṣṭhann ātmānam antaro yamayati
“Entering their hearts, the Supreme Personality of Godhead controls all living entities.”
eṣa eva sādhu karma kārayati
“The Lord engages the living entity in pious activities so he may be elevated.”
Here someone may object: “So be it. However, if the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the actual performer of actions, then the orders and prohibitions of the scriptures are all meaningless. The scriptures can give orders and prohibitions only if the individual spirit soul is independent and thus has the power to make choices.”
If this is said, then the author of the sūtras gives the following reply.
kṛta-prayatnāpekṣas tu vihita-pratiṣiddhāvaiyarthyādibhyaḥ
kṛta – done; prayatna – effort; āpekṣaḥ – relation; tu – but; vihita – ordered; pratiṣiddha – forbidden; a – not; vaiyarthya – meaninglessness; ādibhyaḥ – beginning.
But it is by effort, because then orders and prohibitions are not without meaning.
The word tu [but] is used here to dispel doubt. The individual spirit soul performs pious and impious deeds. Taking into consideration the individual soul’s efforts, the Supreme Personality of Godhead gives him facility to act in a certain way. Therefore the previously stated objection is not valid.
The pious and impious deeds of the individual spirit soul are like different seeds that sprout into different kinds of plants. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is like the rain that falls on these seeds and makes them grow. Therefore in this situation is the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the instrument by which these seeds of karma bear fruit. The seeds of various trees, vines, and other plants are the specific cause of these plants, and the rain that makes them grow is the general cause.
If no rain cloud brings water, there will not be any variety of sweet flowers or other plants. If there is no seed there will not any flowers or plants either. In this way the Supreme Personality of Godhead gives the results of the pious and impious deeds performed by the individual spirit soul. Even though dispatched by another, a person is still the performer of the actions he does. Therefore it cannot be said that the individual spirit soul does not perform actions.
Why is that? The sūtra explains: “Because then orders and prohibitions are not without meaning.” The word ādi [beginning with] in this sūtra means that the Supreme Personality of Godhead gives mercy and punishment according to the pious and impious actions of the individual spirit souls. If that interpretation is accepted, then the orders and prohibitions of the scriptures are not without meaning. If the Supreme Personality of Godhead actually forces the individual spirit soul to act piously or impiously, and the soul is like a rock or a log and has no independence, then the orders of the scripture to perform pious deeds and avoid impious deeds are all worthless and should be rejected.
The scriptures say:
eṣa u hy eva sādhu karma kārayati taṁ yamebhyo lokebhya unninīṣate eṣa u evāsādhu karma kārayati yamadho ninīṣate. ajño jantur anīso 'yam ātmanaḥ sukha-duḥkhayoḥ īśvara-prerito gacchet svargaṁ vāśvabhram eva ca.
“The Lord engages the living entity in pious activities so he may be elevated. The Lord engages him in impious activities so he may go to hell. The living entity is completely dependent in his distress and happiness. By the will of the Supreme he can go to heaven or hell, as a cloud is driven by the air.”
If this means that the individual living entity has no choice, and pious and impious deeds are forced on him by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then the Supreme Personality of Godhead is cruel and unjust, a monster. Therefore it must be concluded that the individual spirit soul does have free will and is responsible for his actions, although he does not have the power to transfer his desire and will into concrete action unless the Supreme Personality of Godhead permits. In this way everything is explained.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Next, to corroborate the previous explanation the author of the sūtras explains that the individual spirit soul is part and parcel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [3.1.1] it is said:
dvā suparṇā
“The soul and the Supersoul within the body are compared to two friendly birds sitting together.”
The first bird here is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the second is the individual spirit soul.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Is the individual spirit soul in truth the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only seeming to be different because of the illusion of māyā, or is the the individual spirit soul part and parcel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, different from the Lord, but related to Him as a ray of sunlight is related to the sun?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: What is the truth? The truth is the individual spirit soul covered by the illusion of māyā is in truth the same as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Brahma-bindu Upaniṣad [13] explains:
ghaṭa-samvṛtam ākāśaṁ
nīyamāne
ghaṭe yathā
gato līyeta nākāśaṁ
tadvaj jīvo
nabhopamaḥ
“The space within a jar is not moved when the jar is moved, nor is it destroyed when the jar is broken. The spirit soul is like that unbreakable space.”
The Chāndogya Upaniṣad also [6.8.7] affirms:
tat tvam asi
“You are that [Brahman].”
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives his conclusion.
aṁśo nānā vyapadeśād anyathā cāpi dāsa-kitavāditvam adhīyate eke
aṁśaḥ – part; nānā – many; vyapadeśāt – because of the teaching; anyathā – otherwise; ca – and; api – also; dāsa – servant; kitava – gambler; ādi – beginning with; tvam – the state of being; adhīyate – is read; eke – some.
He is a part because of the description of being many, and also because some scriptures describe him as a servant, as a gambler, or as something else.
The individual spirit soul is a part and parcel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead as a ray of sunlight is part and parcel of the sun. The individual spirit soul is different from the Lord, dependent on the Lord, and related to the Lord. That is the meaning. Why is that? The sūtra explains: “Because of the description of being many.” The Subala Upaniṣad explains:
udbhavaḥ sambhavo divyo deva eko nārāyaṇo mātā pitā bhrātā nivāsaḥ śaraṇaṁ suhṛd gatir nārāyaṇaḥ
“Nārāyaṇa is the transcendental Supreme Personality of Godhead. Nārāyaṇa is the creator, destroyer, mother, father, brother, home, shelter, friend and goal.”
In Bhagavad-gītā [9.18] Lord Kṛṣṇa declares:
gatir bhartā prabhuḥ
sākṣī
nivāsaḥ śaraṇaṁ suhṛt
“I am the goal, the sustainer, the master, the witness, the abode, the refuge, and the most dear friend. I am the creation and the annihilation, the basis of everything, the resting place, and the eternal seed.”
The words nānā vyapadeśād in this sūtra describe the many relationships that exist between the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the individual spirit soul, relationships like that between the creator and created, controller and controlled, shelter and person who takes shelter, master and servant, friend and friend, and goal and seeker. Some passages in the Atharva Veda declare that because the Supreme is all-pervading, the individual spirit souls and the Supreme are identical. The Atharva Veda declares:
brahma dāsā brahma dāśā brahma kitavāḥ
“These servants are the Supreme. These fishermen are the Supreme. These gamblers are the Supreme.”
It is not possible that this passage intends to say that the individual spirit soul is actually not different from the Supreme. It is not possible that the Supreme is simultaneously both the creator and created, the pervader and pervaded, nor is it possible that supremely intelligent Lord becomes a servant, fisherman or other lowly being. If it were true that the individual spirit souls are identical with the Supreme, then the scriptures’ advice to renounce the world would become meaningless. Nor is it possible that the Supreme has become covered by the influence of illusion, for illusion has no power to bewilder the Lord. Nor is it possible that the individual spirit souls are parts of the Supreme like fragments cut with a chisel from a great stone, for that would contradict the scriptures’ statements that the Supreme can neither be broken nor changed. Therefore the individual spirit soul is different from the Supreme, but related to Him as created to creator, and in other ways also. The individual spirit soul is thus a part and parcel of the Supreme. The truth is that the individual spirit soul is a potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is described in Viṣṇu Purāṇa [6.7.61]:
viṣṇu-śaktiḥ parā
proktā
kṣetrajñākhyā tathā parā
“Originally, Kṛṣṇa’s energy is spiritual, and the energy known as the living entity is also spiritual.”
When it is said that the individual spirit soul is a part of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the word “part” is used in the same way as in the sentence, “The circle of Venus is a one-hundredth part of the moon’s circle,” or the same way as in the definition, “A part, although situated in a smaller area than the whole, is identical with the whole in substance.” The use of the word “part” here is not different from that definition. Thus the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of all potencies, and the individual spirit soul is a part of the Lord’s spiritual potency. This, by being a localized manifestation of one of the Lord’s potencies, the individual spirit soul is a part of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is their relationship.
The example of the pot means that when the mistaken identification of the soul for the body is broken, the individual soul meets the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Chāndogya Upaniṣad’s statement tat tvam asi [You are that] therefore means “You are dependent on the Supreme.” The context of that passage supports this view. It does not support any other interpretation. Therefore the individual spirit soul and the Supreme Personality of Godhead are separate and different. One is the controller, the other the controlled. One is all-pervading, the other atomic in size. This is directly seen in the scriptures. It is not possible to prove otherwise. In the next sūtra the author continues his explanation.
Mantra-varṇāt
mantra – of the mantras; varṇāt – from the description.
Because of the description in the Vedic mantras.
In the Rg Veda [10.90.3] it is said:
pādo ‘sya sarvā bhūtāni
“All living entities are part and parcel of the Supreme.”
In this way the Vedic mantras declare that the individual spirit souls are part and parcel of the Supreme. The word pāda here means “part.” No other meaning makes sense in this context. The word sarvā bhūtāni [all living entities] here is in the plural, whereas the word aṁśaḥ [part] in Sūtra 2.3.41 is in the singular. The singular here is used in a generic sense to denote all spirit souls. This kind of usage is also seen in many other places.
api smaryate
api – also; smaryate – in the Smṛti-śāstra.
Also in the Smṛti-śāstra.
In the Bhagavad-gītā [15.7] Lord Kṛṣṇa explains:
mamaivāṁśo
jīva-loke
jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ
“The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts.”
By using the word sanātana [eternal], the Lord refutes the idea that the living entities referred to here are the temporary external bodies in which the eternal souls reside.
In this way it is seen that the individual spirit souls are part and parcel of the Supreme and have an relationship with Him. The Supreme is the creator and dominant in other ways also, and the individual spirit souls are dependent on Him. The nature of the individual spirit souls is described in the following passage of Padma Purāṇa:
jñānāśrayo
jñāna-guṇaś
cetanaḥ prakṛteḥ paraḥ
na jāto
nirvikāraś ca
eka-rūpaḥ svarūpa-bhāk
“The individual spirit soul is the shelter of knowledge, has knowledge asone if his qualities, is consciousness, is beyond the world of matter, is never born, never changes, and has one form, a spiritual form.
aṇur nityo
vyāpti-śīlaś
cid-ānandātmakas tathā
aham artho ‘vyayaḥ
sākṣī
bhinna-rūpaḥ sanātanaḥ
“The soul is atomic, eternal, is present by consciousness everywhere in the material body, is by nature full of spiritual bliss and knowledge, has a sense of individual identity, is unchanging, is a witness within the body, is eternal, and is different from the Supreme.
adāhyo ‘cchedyo ‘kledyo
‘śoṣyo
‘kṣara eva ca
evam-ādi-guṇair yuktaḥ
śeṣa-bhūtaḥ
parasya vai
“The soul can never be burned, cut, moistened, withered, or killed. It has these and many more qualities. It is part and parcel of the Supreme.
ma-kareṇocyate jīvaḥ
kṣetra-jñaḥ
paravān sadā
dāsa-bhūto harer eva
nānyasyaiva kadācana
“Thus the word ma refers to the individual spirit soul. The soul is the knower of the field of activities. The soul is spiritual. The soul is an eternal servant of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The soul is never the servant of anyone else.”
The phrase evam-ādi-guṇaiḥ [with these and many more qualities] refers to the soul’s other qualities, such as his ability to perform actions, to experience sensations, to attain enlightenment, and to enlighten others. The word “enlightenment” here has two features. In the first feature the soul itself attains enlightenment. In the second feature the soul brings enlightenment to others. That is the nature of the soul. A lamp sheds light on itself and on other objects also. A jar or similar object has no power to bring light. Although a lamp may shine, because it is inanimate matter it cannot benefit from its own light. The individual soul, however, can benefit from the light it brings. Because the soul can thus become illuminated, it is said that the soul is spiritual and full of knowledge.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Digressing from the main topic for the moment, the author of the sūtras next considers the nature of the Lord’s incarnations.
In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad it is said:
eko vaśī sarva-gaḥ kṛṣṇa
iḍya
eko ‘pi san bahudhā yo ‘vabhāti
“Lord Kṛṣṇa is the worshipable, all-pervading supreme controller, and although He is one, He manifests in many forms.”
In the Viṣṇu Purāṇa [1.2.3] it is said:
ekāneka-svarūpāya
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is one, although He has many forms.”
Here it is said that the Lord is one because He remains one person, even though He appears in many forms, and He is also called many because of the great variety of these forms. That is the meaning.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Are the incarnations of the Lord, such as the incarnation Matsya, part and parcel of the Lord in the same way the individual spirit souls are, or are They different from the individual spirit souls?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: There is no difference between the individual spirit souls and the incarnations of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
prakāśādi-van naivaṁ paraḥ
prakāśa – light; ādi – beginning with; vat – like; na – not; evam – thus; paraḥ – the Supreme.
The Supreme is not like light or other things.
Although the Lord’s incarnations, such as Lord Matsya, are called “parts” of the Supreme, They are not like the individual spirit souls. Here the author of the sūtras gives and example: “The Supreme is not like light or other things.” As the sun and a firefly may both be called “light,” but are in truth very different, and as nectar and wine may both be called “liquid,” but in truth are very different, so the individual spirit souls and the incarnations of the Lord do have a similar nature in that they are all spiritual beings, but are very different in terms of size and power.
bhāvayaty eṣa sattvena
lokān
vai loka-bhāvanaḥ
līlāvatārānurato
deva-tiryaṅ-narādiṣu
“Thus the Lord of the universes maintains all planets inhabited by demigods, men and lower animals. Assuming the roles of incarnations, He performs pastimes to reclaim those in the mode of pure goodness.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.2.34]
How could the Lord assume incarnations to maintain the universe and deliver the souls in the mode of goodness, unless He were in a superior position to the ordinary living entities? The Lord is a living entity, and the jīva souls are also living entities, but He is the Supreme living entity who creates and maintains all others. In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad [2.2.13] it is confirmed:
nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān
“He is the supreme eternally conscious person who maintains all other living entities.”
As proved in Adhikaraṇa 12, the living entities are atomic in size, but the Lord is unlimited. Therefore in His original form or in any of His incarnations, He is the Supreme.
smaranti ca
smaranti – the Smṛti-śāstras say; ca – and.
The Smṛti-śāstras also say it.
In the Varāha Purāṇa it is said:
svāṁśaś cātha vibhinnāṁśa
iti
dvedhāṁśa iṣyate
aṁśino yat tu sāmarthyaṁ
yat-svarūpaṁ
yathā sthitiḥ
“It is said that there are two kinds of parts and parcels of the Supreme: direct parts and separated parts. Direct parts have exactly the same nature as the Lord.
tad eva nāṇumātro ‘pi
bhedaḥ
svāṁśāṁśino kvacit
vibhinnāṁśo ‘lpa-śaktiḥ
syāt
kiñcit sāmarthya-mātra-yuk
“Separated parts are different from the Lord. They are atomic in size and have very slight powers.
sarve sarva-guṇaiḥ
pūrṇāḥ
sarva-doṣa-vivarjitāḥ
“All direct parts of the Lord are filled with all virtues and glories and free of all vices and defects.”
In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [1.3.28] it is said:
ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ
puṁsaḥ
kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam
“All the above mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead.”
Thus Lord Kṛṣṇa is the original Supreme Personality of Godhead and the various incarnations, such as Lord Matsya, are parts of Him, but they are not different from Lord Kṛṣṇa, as the individual spirit souls are. Lord Kṛṣṇa is like a vaidūrya stone, which manifests different colors from moment to moment. In this way Lord Kṛṣṇa appears in different forms.
In His various incarnations Lord Kṛṣṇa may display all or only some of His powers. That is the description of the scriptures. Lord Kṛṣṇa, the source of all incarnations, displays all of His six transcendental opulences in full. When the Lord does not display all His opulences in full, He appears as an aṁśa incarnation, and when He displays even fewer of His opulences, He appears as a kalā incarnation. In this circumstance He is like a great teacher, learned in the six sciences, who in certain circumstances teaches only a small portion of what he actually knows.
In the Puruṣa-bodhinī Upaniṣad it is said that Lord Kṛṣṇa appears with all His transcendental potencies, headed by Goddess Rādhā. In the Tenth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam it is said that various transcendental qualities, such as being supreme over all, being filled with great love, being accompanied by loving associates, filling with wonder Brahmā, Śiva, and all the demigods, sages, and wise devotees, manifesting many pastimes, such as sweetly playing the flute, that fill everyone with wonder, displaying a great sweetness of transcendental handsomeness, and being very kind and merciful, are eternally manifested in Yaśodā’s infant Kṛṣṇa. Lord Matsya and the other incarnations manifest some but not all of these qualities. Still, the incarnations of the Lord are not like the individual spirit souls, for the incarnations actually are the Lord Himself.
Now the author of the sūtras presents another argument.
anujñā-parihārau deha-sambandhāt jyotir-ādi-vat
anujñā – permission to act; parihārau – cessation from action; deha – of the body; sambandhāt – from the contact; jyotiḥ – eye; ādi – beginning with; vat – like.
Bondage and liberation come from contact with the material body, like the eye and other things.
Even though they are parts and parcels of the Supreme, the individual spirit souls, because beginningless ignorance, and also because of contact with material bodies, are subject to material bondage and liberation. The incarnations of the Lord, such as Lord Matsya, however, are not subject to such things.
This is the description of the Śruti-śāstra. In the Śruti-śāstra it is also said that the incarnations of the Lord do not have material bodies, but are directly the Lord Himself. That is the great difference between the individual spirit souls and the incarnations of the Lord.
The word anujñā here means “permission.” It is by the Lord’s permission that the individual spirit souls can perform pious and impious deeds, as the Kauśītaki Upaniṣad [3.8] explains:
eṣa eva sādhu karma kārayati
“The Lord engages the living entity in pious activities so he may be elevated.”
The word parihāra means “liberation”. This is described in the Śruti-śāstra:
tam eva viditvāti mṛtyum eti
“By understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead one is able to cross beyond this world of death.”
Next, speaking the words jyotir-ādi-vat [like the eye], the author of the sūtras gives an example to explain this.
The eyes of the living entities are like small portions of the sun. However, the eyes depend on the sun for the power of sight, and if the sun does not give permission in the form of the sunlight, the eyes cannot see. In this way the eyes are dependent on the sun. The sunlight on the sun-planet, however, is identical with the sun itself, and thus it makes no sense to say they are dependent on the sun. The difference between the individual spirit souls and the incarnations of the Lord is like that, the incarnations being like the sunlight and the souls being like the eyes.
asantateś cāvyatikaraḥ
asantateḥ – because of imperfection; ca – not; avyatikaraḥ – without bewilderment.
Because it is imperfect there can be no mistake.
Because he is imperfect, the individual spirit soul cannot be mistaken for an incarnation of the Lord. The individual spirit souls are therefore not the same as or equal to the incarnations of the Lord, beginning with Lord Matsya, who are all perfect. In the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [5.9], the individual spirit soul is described in the following words:
bālāgra-śata-bāgasya
“If we divide the tip of a hair into one hundred parts and then take one part and divide this into another one hundred parts,that ten-thousandth part is the dimension of the living entity.”
Instead of being atomic and limited, as the individual spirit souls are, the Lord’s incarnations, beginning with Lord Matsya, are perfect and complete in every way, as the Īśopaniṣad explains:
pūrnam adaḥ pūrṇam idam
“The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete.”
In the following words the author of the sūtras shows the great fault in thinking the individual soul identical with the Supreme.
ābhāsa eva ca
ābhāsaḥ – fallacy; eva – indeed; ca – also.
It is also a fallacy.
In this sūtra is refuted the idea that because they are both called aṁśas, or parts of the Lord, therefore the individual spirit souls and the incarnations of the Lord are identical. This idea is based on the logical fallacy of sat-pratipakṣa [undistributed middle]. We have discussed this logical error earlier. Therefore this idea is wrong because of imperfect reasoning.
The word ca [also] here hints that some examples may be given to show this. One example is that of earth and sky. Earth and sky are both substances, but that does not mean that they are identical. Existence and non-existence are both categories, but that does not mean they are equal. A drop of seawater and the ocean are both salty, but they are not equal. In the same way the individual spirit souls and the incarnations of the Supreme Personality of Godhead may both be parts of the Supreme, but that does not mean that they are equal.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Concluding this digression, the author of the sūtras now returns to His original topic. In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad [2.5.13] it is said:
nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś
cetanānām
eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān
“The Supreme Lord is eternal and the living beings are eternal. The Supreme Lord is cognizant and the living beings are cognizant. The difference is that the Supreme Lord is supplying all the necessities of life for the many other living entities.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: In this way it is said that the individual spirit souls are eternal and cognizant. Are the individual spirit souls all alike or are they not?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: The individual spirit souls are not different. They are all exactly alike.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
ddṛṣṭāniyamāt
adṛṣṭa – of fate; aniyamāt – because of difference.
Because of different fates.
As a frog jumps a long distance, the word na [not] should be inserted from Sūtra 44. In this way this sūtra means the individual spirit souls are not all alike. Why is that? The sūtra explains: “Even though the individual spirit souls have the same nature, they have different fates.” Their fates are beginningless, because the jīvas are eternally conditioned by material consciousness; they are different, because they have different activities and therefore different karma.
Here someone may object: “Are the different fates not created because the individual spirit souls have different desires and aversions?”
The author of the sūtras says, “No it is not so,” and gives the following explanation.
abhisandhy-ādiṣv api caivam
abhisandhi – inclinations; ādiṣu – beginning with;api – also; ca – and; evam – thus.
In this way there are different desires and other things.
The different natures of the individual spirit souls are to be explained in a different way. These differences exist because of different fates. The word ca [and] hints that these differences exist at every moment. Desire is not the cause of material conditioning or liberation; action is. When the living entity performs impious actions, he gradually sinks down into t hellish condition of life. When the living entity performs pious actions, he gradually approaches liberation. Thus his fate is determined by actions, not words or desires.
Here someone may object: “Is it not so that these differences are created by differing environments, such as the environment of Svargaloka, the earth, or other places?”
To this the author of the sūtras replies, “No. It is not so.” He gives the following explanation.
pradeśād iti cen nāntar-bhāvāt
pradeśāt – from the environment; iti – thus; cet – if; na – not; antar-bhāvāt – because of being understood.
If it is said that this is because of environment, then the answer is: No, because there is another reason.
The other reason mentioned here is the differing fates of the individual spirit souls. The differences here cannot be attributed to different environments, for souls in the same environment often manifest great differences. For example, sometimes a person born in a pious family may perform very bad activities, and a person born in an impious family may become a great saintly person. Therefore a jīva’s fate is due to his activities and not to his environment.