vittir viraktiś ca kṛtāṇjaliḥ
puro
yasyāḥ parānanda-tanor vitiṣñhate
siddhiś ca
sevā-samayaṁ pratīkṣate
bhaktiḥ pareśasya punātu sā
jagat
“May devotion to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, devotion that is filled with transcendental bliss, devotion before whom knowledge and renunciation stand, their hands folded with respect, devotion that mystic power yearns to serve, purify the entire world.”
Devotional service, by performing which one falls in love with the Supreme Personality of Godhead and attains His association, will be described in this Pāda. In order to strengthen the soul’s love and devotion for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Lord’s glorious creation of dreams and other states of being, the Lord’s identity with His many incarnations, His appearance as the all-pervading Supersoul, His non-identity with His worshipers, who are still one with Him in quality, His being attained only by devotional service, His appearance in both spiritual and material worlds, His transcendental blissfulness, His coming before His devotees according to the devotees’ love for Him, His supremacy over all, His supreme generosity, and a great host of the Lord’s other virtues and glories will also be described here. When a person desires to love, the beloved’s glories must be understood. Otherwise there can be no love.
The beginning of this Pāda describes the Lord’s creation of the world in a dream. The idea that someone other than the Supreme Lord had created the material world contradicts the scriptures’ statement that the Lord is the creator of everything. If the Lord is the creator of only some parts of the world, then it is not possible for the devotee to have full love for Him. For this reason now will be shown the glory of the Lord as the creator of all.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.3.10] it is said:
na tatra rathā na ratha-yogā na panthāno bhavanty atha rathān ratha-yogān pathaḥ sṛjate. na tatrānandā mudaḥ pramudo bhavanty athānandān mudaḥ pramudaḥ sṛjate. na tatra veśantāḥ puṣkariṇyaḥ sravantyaḥ sṛjate sa hi kartā.
“In that place there are neither chariots nor animals yoked to chariots. He creates the chariots and animals yoked to chariots. In that place there are neither happiness, nor pleasures, nor bliss. He creates the pleasures there. In that place there are neither streams nor ponds nor lotus flowers. He creates them. He is the creator.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Is the creator of this dream world with chariots and other things the individual spirit soul or the Supersoul?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: The individual spirit soul is the creator. In Chāndogya Upaniṣad [8.7.1] Prajāpati declares that the individual soul has the power to create by willing.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
sandhye sṛṣñir āha hi
sandhye – in the junction; sṛṣñir – creation; āha – says; hi – indeed.
Indeed, it says that in the junction there is creation.
The word sandhya [junction] here means dream. In the Śruti-śāstra it is said:
sandhyaṁ tṛtīyaṁ svapna-sthānam
“The third state is sandhya, or dreaming.”
Dreaming is called sandhya [junction] because it stands in the junction between wakefulness and dreamless sleep. The Supersoul creates the chariots and other things present in dreams. Why is that? The Śruti-śāstra explains:
sa hi kartā
“He is the creator.”
Thus the Śruti-śāstra affirms that the chariots and other things present in dreams are created by Him. The meaning is this: To give the results of very insignificant karmas, the Lord creates the chariots and other things present in dreams, things seen only by the dreaming person. The Lord, who has the inconceivable power to do anything by merely willing it be done, thus creates the things in dreams. In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad [4.4] it is said:
“A wise man, aware that whatever he sees in dreams or awake is all the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His potencies, never laments.”
In the liberated state the individual spirit souls also have the power to do anything by merely willing it be done, but what they create with that power is not a dream.
nirmātāraṁ caike putrādayaś ca
nirmātāraṁ – the creator; ca – and; eke – some; putra – sons; ādayas – beginning with; ca – also.
Others [say] that He is the creator. Sons and others also.
The Kaṭha Upaniṣad affirms that the Supersoul creates the objects of desire seen in dreams and other situations. It says [Kaṭha Upaniṣad 5.8]:
ya eṣu supteṣu jāgarti kāmaṁ kāmaṁ puruṣo nirmimāṇa
“Remaining awake, the Supreme Personality of Godhead creates the objects of desire seen in dreams.”
Here the word kāma refers to good sons and other blessings that the individual soul may desire. The word kāma is used in this way in Kaṭha Upaniṣad [1.1.25]:
sarvān kāmān chandataḥ prārthayasva
“You may ask for whatever you wish.”
In Kaṭha Upaniṣad [1.1.23] it is said:
śatāyuṣaḥ putra-pautrān vṛṇīṣva
“You may choose many sons and grandsons that live for a hundred years.”
In the Smṛti-śāstra it is said:
Etasmād eva putro jāyate. Etasmād bhrātā. Etasmād bhāryā. Yad enaṁ svapnenābhihanti.
“From the Supreme Personality of Godhead a good son is born. From Him a brother appears. From Him a wife appears. From Him these things appear in a dream.”
In the next passage the author of the sūtras describes the instrument the Supreme Personality of Godhead employs to create dreams.
māyā-mātraṁ tu kārtsnyenānabhivyakta-svarūpatvāt
māyā – the māyā potency; mātraṁ – only; tu – but; kārtsnyena – completely; an – not; abhivyakta – manifested; svarūpatvāt – because of the condition of having a form.
But it is the māyā potency only, because the forms are not completely manifested.
The Lord’s inconceivable māyā potency is the creator of what is seen in dreams. What is seen in dreams is not made of the five gross material elements, neither is it created by the demigod Brahmā. Why is that? The sūtra explains, kārtsnyenānabhivyakta-svarūpatvāt: “Because the forms are not completely manifested.” This means that they are not seen by everyone. In this way it is proved that the Supersoul is the creator of what is seen in dreams.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Are dreams reality or illusion?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: When a person wakes up he immediately knows that what he dreamed was an illusion. Therefore dreams are all illusions.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
sūcakaś ca hi śruter ācakṣate ca tad-vidaḥ
sūcakas – an indicator; ca – and; hi – indeed; śruter – of the Śruti- śāstra; ācakṣate – declare; ca – and; tad – that; vidaḥ – they who know.
It gives omens. The Śruti-śāstra and the experts affirm it.
Dreams show good and bad omens. They also reveal mantras and other things. Therefore dreams are reality. Why is it that dreams reveal these things? The sūtra explains, śruteḥ: “The Śruti-śāstra affirms it.” The Chāndogya Upaniṣad [5.2.9] affirms:
yadā karmasu kāmyeṣu
striyaṁ
svapne ‘bhipaśyati
samṛddhiṁ tatra jānīyāt
tasmin
svapna-nidarśane
“If, when the auspicious rites are completed, one sees a woman in a dream, he should know that the rites were successful.”
In the Kauṣītakī-brāhmaṇa it is said:
atha svapne puruṣaṁ kṛṣṇaṁ kṛṣṇa-dantaṁ paśyati sa enaṁ hanti
“If in a dream one sees a black man with black teeth, that man will kill him.”
The word tad-vidaḥ here means “they who know how to interpret dreams.” These persons affirm that dreams reveal omens of good and evil. For example, a dream of riding on an elephant is a good omen, and a dream of riding on a donkey is an omen of misfortune. In dreams one may also receive prayers. The Smṛti-śāstra affirms:
ādiṣñavān yathā svapne
rāma-rakṣām imāṁ haraḥ
tathā likhitavān
prātaḥ
prabuddho buddha-kauśikaḥ
“Then Lord Śiva appeared in a dream and taught him the Rāma-rakṣā prayer. Waking up in the morning, Buddha Kauśika at once wrote it down.”
Therefore, because in dreams one sometimes receives omens, prayers, medicines, and other things; and because sometimes a person will actually appear in a dream, therefore sometimes dreams are as real as what is seen in the waking state. That is the conclusion of Śruti-śāstra.
Here someone may object: “Is it not true that after waking up a person becomes convinced that what he saw in a dream was false? This proves that all dreams are unreal.”
In the following words the author of the sūtras answers this objection.
parābhidhyānāt tu tirohitaṁ tato hy asya bandha-viparyayau
para – of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; abhidhyānāt – by the will; tu – indeed; tirohitaṁ – withdrawn; tato – from Him; hi – indeed; asya – of him; bandha – bondage; viparyayau – release.
By the will of the Supreme Personality of Godhead it is withdrawn. Indeed, bondage and liberation also come from Him.
Because they are created by the will of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, chariots and other things seen in a dream are not unreal. They are not like the illusion of silver seen on a seashell. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the cause of bondage and liberation for the individual spirit soul. This is described in Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [6.16]:
saṁsāra-mokṣa-sthiti-bandha-hetuḥ
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of this cosmic manifestation in regard to bondage, the conditional state of material existence and liberation from that bondage.”
The Lord brings liberation from the bondage of repeated birth and death. Therefore it is not surprising that He has the power to bring dreams to their end. That is the meaning. Therefore it should be understood that dreams are manifested by Him and withdrawn by Him also. In the Kūrma Purāṇa it is said:
svapnādi-buddhi-kartā
ca
tiraskartā sa eva tu
tad-icchayā yato hy
asya
bandha-mokṣau pratiṣñhitau
“The Supreme Lord creates and ends dreams and other states of being. By His will both bondage and liberation are manifested.”
Therefore dreams are real, because they are created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now will be explained that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the creator of the waking state also. In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad [2.1.4] it is said:
svapnāntaṁ jāgaritāntaṁ
cobhau
yenānupaśyati
mahāntam vibhum ātmānaṁ
matvā dhīro na
śocati
“Aware that the all-powerful Supreme Person creates all that is seen in both waking and dreaming states, a wise man never laments.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Does the Supreme Personality of Godhead create the waking condition of the individual spirit souls, or not?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: The waking state is not created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for it is seen that the waking state is under the control of time and other factors.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
deha-yogād vā so ‘pi
deha – of the body; yogād – from contact; vā – or; so – that; api – even.
That also from contact with the body.
As explained in Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.1.4, the waking state, which occurs when the soul is in contact with the body, is manifested from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is so because time and the other factors are only inert matter. The word api [also] in this sūtra hints that the state of dreamless sleep and fainting are also created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is so because the Śruti-śāstra affirms that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is creator of everything.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now the condition of dreamless sleep will be considered. The Śruti-śāstra describes the state of dreamless sleep in the following passages. In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad [8.6.3] it is said:
āsu tadā nāḍīṣu supto bhavati
“Entering the nāḍīs, the soul sleeps.”
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [2.1.19] it is said:
tābhiḥ praty avasṛpya purī-tati śete
“Entering the membrane surrounding the heart, the soul sleeps.”
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [2.1.17] it is said:
ya eṣo ‘ntar hṛdaya ākāśas tasmin śete
“Entering the sky of the heart, the soul sleeps.”
Many other like verses may also be quoted. The “sky in the heart” here is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this way the Śruti-śāstra explains that dreamless sleep is manifested when the soul enters the nāḍīs, the membrane surrounding the heart, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Does the soul enter any one of these three places, or does the soul enter all of them?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: The soul may enter any one of these places. This is so because these three places are equally able to be the place where the soul sleeps. The Nyāya-śāstra explains:
tulyārthas tu vikalperan
“A list of things equally suitable for a certain thing indicates the option of choosing from them.”
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
tad-abhāvo nāḍīṣu tac chruter ātmani ca
tad – of that; abhāvo – the absence; nāḍīṣu – in the nadis; tat – that; śruter – from Śruti-śāstra; ātmani – in the Supreme Personality of Godhead; ca – also.
Its absence occurs in the nāḍīs and the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is so because of the Śruti-śāstra.
The word ca [and] here hints the inclusion of the membrane surrounding the heart. The word tad-abhāva [its absence] means “the absence of wakefulness and dream.” Thus it means “the state of dreamless sleep.” Dreamless sleep occurs in the nāḍīs, the membrane surrounding the heart, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead collectively. Why is that? The sūtra explains, tac chruteḥ: “This is so because of the Śruti-śāstra.” Thus the Śruti-śāstra declares that they are all, taken collectively, the place of dreamless sleep.
The idea that there is an option here, and that to perform the activity of deep sleep the soul chooses one of these places, is an idea that contradicts the statements of Śruti-śāstra. In the scriptures’ description of dreamless sleep, it is seen that the nāḍīs and prāṇas are described together. In the Kauśītaki Upaniṣad [4.19] it is said:
tāsu tadā bhavati. yadā suptaḥ svapnaṁ na kaṇcana paśyaty athāsmin prāṇa evaikadhā bhavati.
“Then the soul enters the nāḍīs. When sleeping, the soul does not see any dream. Then the soul becomes one with the prāṇas.”
The explanation that the soul has an option of one of these three places does not apply here, for if that option were to apply, then these three places would have to be equally suitable for the action of dreamless sleep, but the truth is they are not.
What occurs is the soul passes through the door of the nāḍīs, enters the palace of the membrane surrounding the heart, and sleeps on the bed of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this way all three places are involved in the activity of dreamless sleep, but the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the actual place where dreamless sleep occurs. The word purītat here means “the membrane surrounding the lotus of the heart.”
ataḥ prabodho ‘smāt
ataḥ – therefore; prabodho – waking; asmāt – from Him.
Therefore the waking state is from Him.
Because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the actual place where dreamless sleep occurs, and the nāḍīs and other things mentioned here are merely doors through which the soul passes in order to rest on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, therefore the waking soul rises from the bed of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad it is said:
satas cāgatya na viduḥ sata āgacchamahe
“We had departed from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, although we could not understand that we had departed from the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
In this way the idea that sometimes the soul sleeps in the naḍīs, sometimes in the membrane surrounding the heart, and sometimes in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is disproved. It is not like that. Therefore the soul sleeps on the bed of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad it is said:
satas cāgatya na viduḥ sata āgacchamahe
“We had departed from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but we did not know we had departed from the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Is the person awakening from the bed of the Supreme Personality of Godhead the same person who first went to sleep there, or is he a different person?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: It is not possible that the soul, having attained the Supreme Personality of Godhead, would again return to the same material body. Therefore it must be a different soul that awakens.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
sa eva tu karmānusmṛti-śabda-vidhibhyaḥ
sas – he; eva – indeed; tu – but; karma – karma; ānusmṛti – memory; śabda – of the Śruti-śāstra; vidhibhyaḥ – from the instructions.
It is he, because of the karma, the memory, the Śruti-śāstra and the teachings.
The word tu [but] removes the doubt. The same person who had gone to sleep arises from it, and no one else. The reasons are four: First, he finishes the work that he had begun before going to sleep. The world karma in the text means ordinary worldly work. Second, he has memory in the form “I am the person who went to sleep and have now awakened.” Thirdly, the text of Chāndogya Upaniṣad [6.9.3] states:
“Whatever these creatures are, whether a tiger or lion, or a wolf or a boar, or a worm or an insect, or a gnat or a mosquito, that they become again and again.”
This means that on awakening, the creatures come back into the same body they had before then went to sleep. Fourthly, scriptural injunctions like ātmānam eva lokam upāsīta: “One should worship with the aim of attaining the spiritual kingdom” [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.15] show that one should make efforts directed at attaining release. If everyone who went to sleep got liberation, then these injunctions about mokṣa would be redundant.
When it is said that a jīva enters into Brahman during sleep, what is meant is like a sealed jar of salt water being plunged into the Ganges. When he awakens, it is like the same jar taken out of the river with the same water in it. In the same way the jīva, covered by his desires, goes to sleep and for the time being puts aside all his sensory activities and goes to the resting place, namely the Supreme Brahman, and again comes out of it to get further experience. By this resting in Brahman he does not become similar to Brahman, as a person who has obtained mokṣa; therefore for these four reasons, the same person who had gone to sleep wakes up again into the same body.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now we shall consider the state of swoon, which is similar to the state of sleep.
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Does the jīva fully attain to Brahman in swoon, or only partially attain to Him?
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: Swoon being a special kind of deep sleep, the soul attains to Brahman fully, as in deep sleep.
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: The next sūtra sets aside this view.
mugdhe'rddhasampattiḥ pariśeṣāt
mugdhe – in the swooning person or state; arddha – half; sampattiḥ – combination or attaining; pariśeṣāt – on account of the remaining.
In the swooning condition, the jīva is in half combination with Brahman, because the rule of the remainder shows this.
When a man is in a swooning or stunned condition, he is in half combination with Brahman, because of the rule of the remainder. In this condition the jīva soul does not reach Brahman fully as in deep sleep, because he is conscious of pain. Nor is there total lack of attaining Brahman, as in the waking state, because the soul is unconscious of external objects. Thus by the rule of the remainder, we conclude that there is half combination. We find this described in the Varāha Purāṇa:
“When the soul is at a distance from the Supreme Lord in the heart—that is, when he is in the eyes—then he is in waking consciousness. When he is nearer to the Lord—that is, in the throat—then he is in the dream consciousness. But when he has entered into the Lord, then he is in deep sleep. Therefore these are the three states; but swoon is an intermediate state, in which there is half combination with Brahman, because on recovery, there is memory of the consciousness of pain.”
An objector says, “These books describe only three states: waking, dreaming and deep sleep. Where do you get this fourth state called mugdha [swoon]? This is not a new state, but one of the above three.”
To this objection we reply that it is a separate state altogether. It is not the waking state, because external objects are not perceived through the senses. Nor is it the dreaming state, because the person is unconscious. Nor is it the deep sleep state, because the peaceful look of the face and stillness of the limbs are absent. Moreover it is a well-known state, recognized by physicians and the wold. Therefore it is a different state and is to be inferred by the rule of the remainder.
Thus the purport of this Adhikaraṇa is that the Lord Hari alone must be worshiped and served with devotion, for His glory is such that He is the maker and controller of everything, even the conditions of consciousness such as waking, dreaming and the rest.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The preceding passages have shown the glory of the Lord as the creator and controller of everything. Now His inconceivable nature, whereby He retains unity in Himself, although appearing manifold in many different places. Though in Sūtra 2.2.44 described that the powers of the Lord are mysterious, yet no reconciliation has been made in these sūtras of the paradoxical statement that the Lord, though one, appears simultaneously in many forms, which are apparently different from each other. That reconciliation will now be made through the doctrine of inconceivability.
The Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [3.2] confirms this inconceivable potency of the Lord as follows:
eko 'pi san bahudhā yo 'vabhāti
Although the Lord is one, He is present in innumerable hearts as many.
Similarly, in the smṛti-śāstra it is said:
eka eva paro viṣṇuḥ
sarva-vyāpī
na saṁśayaḥ
aiśvaryād rūpam ekaṁ ca
sūrya-vat
bahudheyate
“Viṣṇu is one, and yet He is certainly all-pervading. By His inconceivable potency, in spite of His one form, He is present everywhere, as the sun appears in many places at once.”
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Are the various forms of the Lord found in different places mutually different from each other or not?
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: The difference of locality presupposes the difference in the objects occupying those localities; substances occupying different places cannot be identical, for the quality of being in different places separates them from one another. The above text is merely a general statement, and does not mean that One Lord exists in different places. Therefore, the fact is that there are many gods, occupying different places and having different jurisdictions. Thus the gods being many, there cannot exist that one-pointed devotion to one God, which you are trying to establish.
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: God is one only, and not many, as will be shown by the next sūtra.
na sthānato'piparasyobhayaliṅgaṁ sarvatra hi
na – not; sthānataḥ – on account of location; api – even; parasya – of the Highest Lord; ubhaya-liṅgaṁ – nondifferent on account of locality; sarvatra – everywhere; hi – because.
[The essential nature] of the Supreme Lord, [though differentiated] by space, does not undergo any change of characteristics, because [He exists simultaneously] everywhere.
There is no change of nature in the adorable Supreme Lord by the mere fact of His existing simultaneously in many places. Though there is a difference of locality, there is no difference in the substance occupying those locations, because His essential nature simultaneously manifests itself in every place by His inconceivable power. The word sthānataḥ [localities] signifies the centers where the Lord manifests His glory, where He displays His līlā [sportive pastimes]. These sacred places are also called the Samvyoma, or the highest abode of the Lord.
The devotees of the Lord are also of various kinds [bhāvas]. For example, some worship Him as servants to the perfect Master, others as His beloveds, and so on. In all these various locations and with all His devotees, the Lord, though manifesting different aspects, is essentially one and the same. He undergoes no change in His essential qualities because of location.
na bhedāditicenna pratyekamatadvacanāt
na – not; bhedāt – on account of difference; iti – thus; cet – if; na – no; pratyekam – distinct; atad – the absence of that; vacanāt – on account of the statement.
If it be said, “This is invalid because of the statement of difference,” we reply no, because [with reference] to every statement [declaring difference there is always] a counter-statement declaring nondifference.
The objector says, “The statement made in the previous sūtra that the Lord remains one in all His manifestations is unreasonable. For in reality, these different manifestations are different entities, and cannot be called one. In fact, there is bheda or difference in the Lord.” This objection is raised in the first part of the sūtra and answered in the second part. With regard to every one of these manifestations, the texts take the precaution of saying that the Lord is one. Thus in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [2.5.19] we read the following:
Verily Dadhyañca [Dadhīci] proclaimed this nectar to the two Aśvins, and seeing this a Ṛṣi said, [Ṛg Veda 6.47.18]:
“An image of the Lord is in everyone of the forms in which the jīva is embodied, for every jīva has an image of the Lord in him. That image is for the sake of seeing and worshiping by that particular jīva. The Lord appears in multi-forms through His energies. Therefore it is right to say that these unlimited forms called Hari are all His. This Brahman is verily these Haris; this Brahman is the ten avatāras such as Matsya, etc.; this Brahman is the thousand avatāras of Viṣṇu such as Viśva, etc.; this Brahman is the Many, such as Parā, etc.; this Brahman is the Endless, such as Ajita, etc. This is the Brahman, without cause and without effect, besides whom there is nothing and outside whom there is nothing. This Ātman is Brahman, omnipresent and omniscient. This is the teaching of the Upaniṣads.”
This text of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad shows that every form of the Lord abiding in different individuals is the full and entire Supreme Brahman, and not a portion of Him, for an Infinity can have no parts.
api caivameke
api - also; ca - and; evam - thus; eke – some.
And also some teach thus: [that the Lord is one though multi-form].
The words api ca [and also] mean “moreover.” Thus in the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad we read:
“He who knows the oṁkāra as partless and yet full of an infinity of parts, as the destroyer of all false knowledge and as blissful, he is verily a sage and no one else.”
These texts teach that the Lord is one partless whole, having an infinity of parts, each one of which is a whole infinity. The word ‘partless’ means devoid of differences in itself. ‘Infinity of parts’ means having innumerable parts, each of whom is a complete infinity [svāṁśa]. It is thus written in the Matsya Purāṇa:
“The Supreme Viṣṇu is undoubtedly one only, though existing everywhere. He has one form, though through His glory, He appears as many, like the sun.”
The sense is this: as a prismatic crystal, though one only, appears to emit different colors to the eyes of the spectators when viewed from different angles, or as an actor on the stage appears playing different parts in different acts of the drama, while he remains one and the same, though expressing diverse emotions appropriate to the parts he is enacting for the time being; so the Lord Hari never abandons His essential unity of nature, though He appears as many, according to the different ideas or mental attitudes [bhāva] of His devotees meditating on Him, or according to the nature of His different pastimes or the works He is engaged in accomplishing. Thus in the Viṣṇu Tantra:
“As a prismatic crystal when looked at from different sides appears to possess blue, yellow, etc. colors, so the unchangeable Lord gets different forms in the eyes of His devotees, according to the different forms of meditation.”
And in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [8.18.12]:
yat tad vapur bhāti
vibhūṣaṇāyudhair
avyakta-cid-vyaktam adhārayad
dhariḥ
babhūva tenaiva sa vāmano vaṭuḥ
sampaśyator
divya-gatir yathā naṭaḥ
“The Lord appeared in His original form, with ornaments and weapons in His hands. Although this ever-existing form is not visible in the material world, He nonetheless appeared in this form. Then, in the presence of His father and mother, He assumed the form of Vāmana, a brāhmaṇa-dwarf, a brahmacārī, just like a theatrical actor.”
Thus that one reality, the Supreme Brahman, having inconceivable powers, and being the substrate of all contradictory attributes, simultaneously becomes many in His manifestation. This gives rise to the notion of His possessing paradoxical qualities; and instead of detracting from His greatness, this strengthens the love of His devotees for Him, the Lord of inconceivable powers. Thus bhakti towards the Lord increases by such contemplation of His contradictory attributes.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now the author establishes that the Lord’s body is pure spirit [ātman]. If the body of the Lord were separate from His Self [ātman], then ātman being a subordinate member, the devotion toward it would also be of a subordinate kind, and not a primary bhakti. But this is not the case; for devotion for the form of the Lord is felt, or rather experienced, as if it were drawn towards the primary object. The attraction the devotee feels for the beautiful form of the Lord is not secondary but primary. It therefore follows that the form of the Lord is the very Self of the Lord, the Lord Himself. The form of the Lord thus differs from other forms. Generally, the form embodies the soul, but the form of the Lord is the very Self or soul of the Lord; otherwise there would not be such an attraction for Him. Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad states:
“Obeisances to Kṛṣṇa, the destroyer of pain, whose transcendental form is being, knowledge and bliss.”
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.” [Śrī Brahma-saṁhitā 5.1]
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Does Brahman have any form, or not?
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: Brahman has a form, which consists of the very subtle matter of being, intelligence and bliss The phrase sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ is a bahuvṛīhi compound, meaning “He whose form is being, intelligence and bliss.” Therefore He has a form.
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: The Lord has no form distinct from His Self, as is shown in the next sūtra.
arūpavadevahi tatpradhānatvāt
arūpavat – without form; eva – indeed; hi – because; tat – of that; pradhānatvāt – because of being the Supreme Soul.
Indeed, Brahman has no ordinary form, because as the Supreme Soul, His form is His Self.
Brahman has no rūpa [form] or vigraha [shape]; hence He is called arūpavat [without form]. The word eva [indeed] is used to refute the argument of the pūrvapakṣin. Why do we say so? Because His form is His very Self. In ordinary cases, the form is always subordinate to the ātman or soul it embodies. But in the case of Brahman the Supreme Lord, the form is the ātman. Thus there is no difference between the form and self of Brahman—they are identical. The form of the Supreme Brahman possesses all the attributes of Brahman: all-pervading [vibhu], the knower [jñātṛtva], the Supersoul [paramātmā], etc. His form is both the substance and the attribute of the Supreme.
An objector may say, “But it is a well-known fact that by meditating on Brahman, the Supreme Self and substance, knowledge and bliss, one loses consciousness of its opposite, namely prakṛti, which is inert and painful by nature. How is it then possible that the author of the sūtras would predicate a form with regard to such a Brahman, for all form is a limitation of life, and inconsistent with the true conception of Brahman as set forth above: that He is without form?” This objection is answered in the next sūtra.
prakāśavaccāvaiyarthyāt
prakāśavat – in the same way as the sun consists of light; ca – and; avaiyarthyāt – on account of the lack of meaninglessness.
And [the conception of form in relation to Brahman] is not meaningless, just as the idea of a form with regard to the sun, which is pure light.
The word ca [and] in the sūtra is employed to remove the doubt expressed above. The suffix -va in prakāśavat has the force of iva [like] and it is added to the word prakāśa in the locative case. Thus as in the case of the sun, whose single form is pure light, a form is conceived for the purpose of meditation, and as such a conception is not without purpose, as it helps concentration of the mind; similarly in the case of Brahman, who is conceived to have an eternal transcendental form of knowledge and bliss, is conceived to have a form to facilitate meditation on Him, for meditation is impossible without concentrating on a form. The word dhyāna [meditation] is always used is conjunction with some form; as in the sentence, “The wife, separated from her husband, meditated on his form pictured in her mind.”
Nor must be thought that this mental picture of a form visualized for the sake of meditation is unreal, and actually Brahman has no form, because there is evidence of His having a form.
āha ca tanmātram
āha - the Śruti declares; ca - and; tanmātram - consisting of the essence of His Self.
The Śruti declares, however, that the form of the Supreme consists of the very essence of His Self.
The force of the word mātra is to denote exclusiveness. Since the scriptures declare this transcendental form of the Lord to be the Supreme Self, this form is a real entity, and not simply the imagination of the devotee. In the Atharva Veda, the Lord is thus described [Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad, Pūrva 12]:
sat-puṇḍarīka-nayanaṁ
meghābhaṁ
vaidyutāmbaram
dvi-bhujaṁ mauna-mudrāḍhyaṁ
vana-mālinam
īśvaram
“The Supreme Lord, appearing in His two-armed form, had divine lotus eyes, a complexion the color of a cloud, and garments that resembled lightning. He wore a garland of forest flowers, and His beauty was enhanced by His pose of meditative silence.”
In this description, attributes like ‘lotus-eyed’ etc. are shown to be the essential qualities of the Lord. The Lord and His form are clearly identical, for this form is called the Lord in the above-quoted verse. So also in the Padma Purāṇa we read:
“There is no distinction between the Lord’s life and His form—the form is His life.”
In every other being, the form embodies the life, but in the case of the Lord, the form is the life, directly manifest. In other words, the body of the Lord is the Lord Himself.
darśayati cāthopi smaryate
darśayati - the Śruti shows; ca - and; atho - fully; api - also; smaryate - the Smṛti declares.
Moreover, the scripture also fully shows this, and the tradition also declares it.
In answer to the question “How did Gopāla, the Supreme Self, who is above all prakṛti, descend on this earth and incarnate Himself in matter?” the Śruti describes the form of the Supreme Lord, and shows that His form is identical with His Self. The name Gopāla is primarily applied to the Lord’s most attractive form, with beautiful face, hands, feet and exquisite features of the entire body, which is the color of a blue raincloud. In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad, Pūrva 12, the sages ask Lord Brahmā the following question: “What is the form of the Lord, what is His sacred formula of worship, and what is the method of His worship? Please tell this to us who are anxious to know.” Lord Brahmā replies:
“Kṛṣṇa is dressed as a cowherd boy, has the color of a cloud, is a youth, and stands under a desire-tree. There are the following verses on this subject:
“He who meditates in his heart on Kṛṣṇa as described below is freed from rebirth. The Supreme Lord, appearing in His two-armed form, has divine lotus eyes, a complexion the color of a cloud, and garments that resembled lightning. He wears a garland of forest flowers, and His beauty is enhanced by His pose of meditative silence. He is surrounded by cows, gopas and gopīs, underneath a desire-tree, adorned with divine ornaments, seated on a throne inlaid with jeweled lotuses, and fanned by the cool breezes resonant with the music of the waves of the River Kālindī.”
The Smṛti also declares that the form and Self of the Lord are identical:
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.” [Śrī Brahma-saṁhitā 5.1]
Thus it is established that the form of the Lord is His Self. Though the usual concept of ātman as pure being logically excludes the idea of form, revelation is our sole guide in matters of transcendence; therefore we have to simply accept that Brahman’s form is identical with His Self. There is no room for argument with the inconceivable truths known only through Vedic revelation, so one must not doubt how the Lord’s form can be His very Self. It is one of the mysteries of Godhead, revealed by Śruti and confirmed by the experience of the self-realized souls. That transcendental form is perceived by the heart when it is purified by love, just as the form of music is perceived by the ear trained to perceive musical form. Therefore bhakti for the form of the Lord is not an inferior form of bhakti, for the form of the Lord is the Lord Himself.
If the Lord were formless, then the Śruti texts like vijñāna-ghana [form of intelligence] ānanda-ghana [form of bliss] would become meaningless, for they employ the word ghana [form]. Thus the form of the Lord is not only unlimited, being, knowledge and bliss, but also possesses all His transcendental qualities, such as being all-pervading and the Supersoul of all beings. To have any other conception of His form would be wrong and based upon error. As the Lord Himself says to Nārada in the Mokṣa-dharma:
“O Nārada, do not think that ‘I see this form because everything that has a form is visible.’ This form is not like other forms, because merely by willing, in a moment I can become invisible to you. For I am the Lord, and the teacher of the world by being the inner guide of all.”
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now the author establishes the difference between the worshiper and the worshiped, between the jīva and Brahman. For if the worshiper were identical with the worshiped—the result of the advaita notion “I am That,” then bhakti would not arise, for no sane person entertains the notion that his own self is fit for his adoration, for bhakti is by nature offered to a being of superior nature to oneself. Though the author has repeatedly established the proposition that the jīva is different from the Lord, he again reverts to that topic, dealing with it from a different point of view, to enlighten those misguided souls who are deluded through false teachings into the idea that they themselves are the Supreme Brahman, and therefore prayers and pūjā are useless to them.
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: The Śruti says,
“Just as many images of the sun are seen in various vessels of water, so in this world the various selves are to be considered reflections of the Supreme Self.”
Or as stated in the Brahma-bindu Upaniṣad:
“The Bhūta-ātman is indeed one, existing in every being. He appears as one or as many, like the reflection of the moon of water.”
Now arises the doubt. It has been demonstrated before that the Supreme Self is the very form of bliss and knowledge. Does that Supreme Self become the jīva under certain circumstances, or is He always separate from the jīva?
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: The Supreme Self Himself becomes the jīva. For a jīva is nothing but the reflection of the Supreme in material energy or nescience. A reflection is identical with the original, for it exists as long as the original exists, and vanishes when the original ceases to exist. Therefore it has been said, “If a person looks at a mirror in front of him he sees his own face, but if he turns away, he sees nothing.” Therefore the Supreme Self, by its conjunction with nescience, has become the jīva.”
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: The jīva is not a reflection of Brahman; this view is set aside by the next sūtra.
ataeva copamā sūryakādivat
ataḥ eva – for this very reason; ca – and; upamā – absolute identity; sūryakādivat – just as between the sun and its images.
Therefore the simile of the sun and its reflection applies to the jīva and the Supreme Self as showing difference.
Here is the meaning of the sūtra: Because the jīva is separate from the Supreme Self, therefore he is spoken of figuratively like the reflection of the sun. For the relationship of the original and the reflected cannot exist for two substances that are identically one. For if the reflection were identically the same as its source, then the reflection of fire would burn things, and the reflection of a sword would cut. But there is no such identity, for the original and the reflection are different. The word ca [and] in the sūtra indicates that there are other sources of difference as well. Therefore, it follows that the jīva is different from the Supreme Self.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The jīva is not a reflection of God.
Saṁśaya [arisal of doubt]: Admitted that, on account of the above simile, the jīva is different from the Supreme. But the very same simile, however, shows the jīva to be a reflection, at least, of the Lord’s consciousness.
Pūrvapakṣa [antithesis]: As the reflection of the sun in water is called sūryaka, so the reflection of the Supreme in avidyā [nescience] is called jīva. What is the harm of this understanding?
Siddhānta [Vedic conclusion]: This doubt is also set aside by the next sūtra.
ambuvadagrahaṇāttu na tathāttvam
ambuvat – like the reflection of the sun on water; agrahaṇāt – in the absence of perception; tu – but; na – not; tathāttvam – that state.
The jīva is not a reflection of the Supreme, like the sun reflected in water, because it is not so perceived.
The similarity of the sun and water does not hold here. The sun is at a distance from the water, and so it is possible for its reflection to exist in the water; but the Supreme Self is all-pervading, so so no object can be at a distance from Him. Thus the term ‘reflection’ is meaningless when applied to the Supreme. So the similarity of the sun reflected in water does not apply to the Self and the jīva. Therefore the jīva cannot be a reflection of the Supreme Self.
The Śruti also says, “He is colorless, reflectionless.” [Praśna Upaniṣad 4.10] On the other hand, the jīva is an intelligent entity like the Supreme Self. The Śruti says, nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām: “He is the chief eternal among the eternals; the chief conscious entity among all conscious entities.” [Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13]
This refutes the illustration taken from the reflection of space found in some commentaries. Space has no reflection; the so-called reflection of space seen in water is actually a reflection caused by the rays of the sun in particular limited portions of the sky. The ‘reflection of space’ is a wrong notion of the ignorant, otherwise one would also see the reflections of the directions, such as north, east, etc. Nor are the sound and its echo a proper illustration, because an echo is simply the reflection of the original sound, and that the Lord and the jīva are different was already proved above.
vṛddhihrāsabhāktvamantarbhāvādubhayasāmañjasyādevam
vṛddhi – increase; hrāsa – decrease; bhāktvam – being admitted of the difference; antarbhāvāt – because of being included in that; ubhaya – towards both; sāmañjasyāt – because of the appropriateness; evam – thus.
[The comparison is not appropriate in its primary sense, but in its secondary sense] of participating in increase and decrease; because [the purport of the scripture] is fulfilled thereby, and thus both comparisons become appropriate.
The comparison of the sun and its reflection does not hold in its primary sense, but it is a good illustration in its secondary sense of showing the increase of one—the greatness of the Supreme Lord—and the decrease of the other—the smallness of the jīva. The sun is great and powerful and so is the Supreme Lord, and the reflection is small and weak, and so is the jīva. Taking the illustration in this light, it holds good. Why do we say so? Because antarbhāvāt: the sense of the scriptures is fully satisfied by this mode of interpreting the simile. By explaining it thus, reconciliation between both the illustration and the object of illustration, and the standard of comparison and the subject of comparison, takes place.
The sense is this: In the preceding sūtra, the comparison of the sun and its reflection was set aside in its ordinary sense, but that same comparison was accepted in its secondary sense, namely, having regard to the attributes found in the sun and its reflection. Therefore it is to be understood in this way: the sun participates in increase; it is a large luminary, untouched by the limitations of the water in which it is reflected. It is independent and unvarying. Its reflections, the sūryaka [smaller suns] participate in decrease, for they are smaller than the original, and they vary in size according to the surface on which the refection is made. They are also limited by the size and reflectivity, etc. of the reflecting surface, therefore they are not independent like the sun, but depend on the conditions of the reflecting surface.
Thus the Supreme Self is all-pervading, untouched by the attributes of prakṛti [matter], and independent. The jīvas, which are His aṁsas [parts], are not all-pervading but atomic, and because they are affected by the material environment in which they exist, they are joined with the attributes of prakṛti, and are therefore not independent. Thus the comparison of the sun and its reflections to the Lord and the jīvas holds in that it illustrates the differences between the Lord and the jīvas, the subordination of the jīvas to the Lord, and also the similarity between them, inasmuch as both are conscious. However the simile fails if it is taken in the sense that the jīvas are identical with Brahman in the same way as the reflection is identical with the source. Therefore the Paiṅgalopaniṣad says that the jīva is a reflection, but without any upādhi [designation or medium]:
“The reflection is of two kinds: limited by upādhi and not so limited. The jīva is a reflection of the Lord, but not in any upādhi; just as the rainbow is a reflection of the sun, but not in any upādhi [like water, oil etc.].”
darśanācca
darśanāt – because it is seen; ca – and.
Moreover, it is thus seen [in the world that comparisons are taken in the secondary sense.]
In similes like “Devadatta is a lion,” we find that the ordinary worldly usage is in favor of taking the comparison to apply only as far as it applies or is relevant. In other words, we accept the simile “Devadatta is a lion” only in terms of Devadatta’s courage; we do not accept it to indicate that he has claws, fur, etc. Therefore, the scriptural texts of comparison between the Lord and the jīva should be taken in the sense of a simile, only as far as they apply appropriately to the actual characteristics of of both.
Here someone may object: “It is not true that the individual spirit soul is a separate conscious person in some ways like the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The individual soul is only a reflection of the Supreme.”
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [2.3.1] it is said:
dve vāva brahmaṇo rūpe mūrtaṁ caivāmūrtaṁ ca
“The Supreme has two forms: the subtle and the gross.”
After dividing the five elements into two categories, the Upaniṣad declares that all are forms of the Supreme. Then the Upaniṣad [2.3.6] declares:
tasya haitasya puruṣasya rūpaṁ yathā mahārajanaṁ vāso yathā pāṇḍv-āvikaṁ yathendragopo yathāgny-arcir yathā puṇḍarīkaṁ yathā sakṛd vidyutaṁ sakṛd vidyutaiva ha vā asya śrīr bhavati ya evaṁ veda.
“That person’s form is like gold, like white wool, like an indragopa, like a burning flame, like a white lotus, like a lightning flash. He who understands this becomes splendid like a lightning flash.”
Then, having described this person splendid like gold, the Upaniṣad [2.3.6] declares:
athāta ādeśo neti neti. na hy etasmād iti. nety anyat param asti. atha nāmadheyam satyasya satyam iti. prāṇa vai satyaṁ teṣām eva satyam.
“This is the teaching: No. No. Not than Him. Nothing is greater than Him. Nothing is greater than Him. His name is the truth of the true. He is life. He is truth. He is truth.”
The meaning of this passage is this: the Supreme is greater that all the subtle and gross things in the material world. No person or thing is greater than Him. That is the meaning of the words, “No. No.” in this passage. The words No. No.” therefore mean “Not than the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” The word “no” is repeated twice to mean, “the material elements and material desires are not greater than Him” or to mean, “inanimate matter and the conscious living beings are not greater than Him”, or to mean “other groups of two are not greater than Him.” Thus he speaks the teaching [ādeśa]: “No” [na]. In this way he says, “No person or thing is greater than the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
Here someone may object: “Is it not so that this passage means, ‘As the material world does not exist in reality, so the Supreme Personality of Godhead also does not exist in reality? That is the meaning of the Upaniṣad’s assertion no.’ The form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, which is eternal and spiritual, and which ends all illusions, is not different from the visible material world. This also means that the individual spirit soul is also not different from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The spirit soul is a reflection of the Supreme. The individual spirit soul, who is atomic, and the Supreme, who is all-pervading, are not different. They are like the air in a pot and the air in the great sky. Therefore it is not correct to say that they are different.”
If this objection is raised, then the author of the sūtras gives the following reply:
prakrtaitāvattvaṁ hi pratiṣedhati tato bravīti ca bhūyaḥ
prakrtā – the topic under discussion; etāvattvam – being like that; hi – indeed; pratiṣedhati – denires; tataḥ – then; bravīti – says; ca – and; bhūyaḥ – more.
The previous statement denies that He is like them. It affirms that He is greater.
This passage of Śruti-śāstra does not teach that the one Supreme has no qualities. It teaches only that the Supreme is not like other persons. It teaches that the Supreme is superior to all others. In this way the Śruti-śāstra affirms that the Supreme is not like other persons or things. The Bṛhad- āraṇyaka Upaniṣad’s [2.3.1] statement that the subtle and gross elements of the world are forms of the Supreme does not mean that the Supreme is like the things of this world. The forms of the Supreme are not material. Therefore it is said that the Supreme is superior to everything in the material world and therefore He has the name “the truth of the true.” That is the teaching here. He is more than the forms of this world.
Because His form has no limit, therefore the Upaniṣad declares, “No. No.” that is the meaning here. The meaning is that the form of the Lord is not like the subtle and gross forms of the material world. He is not like them because His form is eternal and true, and therefore He has the name “the truth of the true.” This is what the Śruti-śāstra teaches. Then the scriptures affirm, na hy etasmāt: “No person or thing is greater than Him.” Because nothing is greater than Him, therefore He has the name “the truth of the true.” That is why the text here says, “No.” By this explanation of a small part of the Lord’s nature, the Lord’s nature as a whole may be understood.
Now the word nāmadheyam will be explained. The Lord’s name here is satyasya satyam: “The truth of the true.” This name describes the form of the Supreme. Then the text declares that the Supreme is prāṇa. Prāṇa here means “the life of all that live.” In this way the Lord’s forms are superior to all others. This proves that the Lord’s form is better than all other forms, either spiritual or material. No other form is better than His. In the material world the material forms are of two kinds: subtle and gross. That the Supreme Lord’s forms are not material is explained in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [2.3.6].
Then the text declares that the Supreme is the truth of life. Because both the Lord and the individual spirit souls are not made of the material elements, which begin with ether, therefore they are both called truth. However, unlike the individual spirit souls, the Supreme is not subject to the different transformations of the material nature, which grant and remove true knowledge in different circumstances. Thus the individual spirit soul is certainly spiritual and conscious.
However, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is superior to the individual souls for the Supreme Lord has limitless auspicious qualities. When they are understood, then devotion for the Lord naturally develops. Thus the Śruti-śāstra does not deny the existence of the Lord’s form, for in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [2.3.6] the Lord’s spiritual form was described. Only a madman would state one thing and then immediately contradict his own words.
Therefore the author of the sūtras says that “the Supreme is not like that.” The author does not say “the Lord has no form at all.” Thus the proper explanation is given.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now it will be proved that the Supreme Lord’s form is spiritual and not perceivable by the material senses. This must be so, for if the Lord were not spiritual—that is if he were an ordinary, common, easily available material object, like a pot or something of that nature—then it is not possible that there should be love and devotion for Him. The Śruti-śāstra also affirms this, for it says:
sac-cid-ānanda-rūpāya kṛṣṇāya
“I offer my obeisances unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, who is the eternal blissful form of knowledge” [Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad 1.1]
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Is the Supreme Lord’s form spiritual, and thus beyond the understanding of the material senses, or is it material, and thus easily seen by the material senses?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: “The Lord’s form must be material, for many demigods, demons, and human beings have certainly seen Him.”
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
tad avyaktam āha hi
tat – that; avyaktam – unmanifest; āha – said; hi – indeed.
Scripture says it is unmanifest.
The Lord can be seen only by spiritual senses. This is described in Kaṭha Upaniṣad [6.9]:
na sadṛśe tiṣṭhati rūpam asya na cakṣuṣā paśyati kaścanainam
“The Supreme Lord’s form is not like that. Material eyes have never seen His form.”
In Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [3.9.26] it is said:
agṛhyo na hi gṛhyate
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is not perceived by material senses.”
In the Bhagavad-gīṭa [8.21] it is said:
avyakto ‘kṣara ity uktas
tam
āhuḥ paramāṁ gatim
“They say He is unmanifest and infallible. They say He is the supreme destination.”
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now will be revealed the truth that although the Supreme Lord is spiritual by nature, still He can be seen by they who have love, devotion, and spiritual wisdom. If the Supreme Personality of Godhead were always invisible and never to be seen, then it would not be possible to have love and devotion for Him. In the Kaivalya Upaniṣad [2] it is said:
śraddhā-bhakti-dhyāna-yogād avaiti
“One who has faith and devotion, and who meditates on Him, can see the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
In this way it is explained that a faithful devotee who meditates on Lord Hari attains the direct sight of Lord Hari.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Is the Supreme Lord seen by the mind or by the eyes and other senses?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: The Supreme Lord is seen by the mind. This is described in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.4.19]:
manasaivānudraṣṭavyam
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is indeed seen by the mind.”
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
api samrādhane pratyakṣānumānābhyām
api – certainly; samrādhane – in worship; pratyakṣa – by the Śruti-śāstra; anumānābhyām – by the Smṛti-śāstra.
Certainly it is in worship because of the Śruti-śāstra and Smṛti-śāstra.
The word api [certainly] is used here to mock the pūrvapakṣa [opponent]. When one has sincere devotion [samrādhane] with one’s eyes and other senses one can directly see the Lord. Why is that? The sūtra explains, pratyakṣānumānābhyām: “Because of the Śruti-śāstra and Smṛti-śāstra.” In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad [2.4.1] it is said:
parāñci khāni vyatṛṇat
svayambhūs
tasmāt parān paśyati nāntarātman
kaścid
dhīraḥ pratyag ātmānam aikṣad
āvṛta-cakṣur amṛtatvam
icchan
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead made the conditioned souls gaze at external things and not at what is within the heart. A rare saint who yearns for liberation will look inside his heart and see the Supreme Lord staying there.”
In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [3.1.8] it is said:
jñāna-prasādena
viśuddha-sattvas
tatas tu taṁ paśyati niṣkalam dhyāyamānaḥ
“In the course of his meditation a pure-hearted saint will become enlightened. Then he sees the perfect Supreme Lord directly.”
In the Bhagavad-gītā [11.53-54] The Lord Himself declares:
nāhaṁ vedair na tapasā
na
dānena na cejyayā
śakya evam-vidho draṣṭuṁ
dṛṣṭavān
asi māṁ yathā
“The form you are seeing with your transcendental eyes cannot be understood simply by studying the Vedas, nor by undergoing serious penances, nor by charity, nor by worship. It is not by these means that one can see Me as I am.”
bhaktyā tv ananyayā śakya
aham
evam-vidho ‘rjuna
jñātuṁ draṣṭuṁ ca
tattvena
praveṣṭuṁ ca parantapa
“My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.”
In this way it is proved that with the aid of devotional service one can see Lord Hari directly. Thus with the aid of the eyes and other senses one can perceive the Lord directly. Thus the Lord can be perceived by the senses. Thus the word eva [indeed] in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.4.19] does not hint that one cannot see the Lord with the aid of senses.
prakāśādi-vac cāvaiśeṣyāt
prakāśa – fire; ādi – beginning with; vat – like; ca – and; na – not; vaiśeṣyāt – with differences.
He is [not] like fire or other things, for He has no such different features.
The word na [not] should be taken from a previous sūtra [3.2.19] and placed here also.
Here someone may object: “As fire has two forms: subtle and gross, the subtle form invisible and unmanifest, and the gross form visible and manifest, so does the Supreme Lord also have two forms in the same way.”
If this objection is stated, then I reply: “No. It is not so.” Why not? The sūtra explains: “Because He is not subtle and gross like fire.” The Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [3.4.4] explains:
asthūlam anaṇv ahrasvam
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is neither subtle, nor gross, nor short, nor tall.”
In the Garuḍa Purāṇa it is said:
sthūla-sūkṣma-viśeṣo ‘tra
na
kaścit parameśvare
sarvatraiva prakāśo ‘sau
sarva-rūpeṣv
ajo yataḥ
“Because He appears everywhere and in every form, the distinctions of subtle and gross do not apply to the unborn Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
Here someone may object: “Is it not so that the Supreme Lord does not always appear before the devotees when they worship Him with devotion. For this reason it must be true that the Lord does not always appear when He is worshiped with love.”
Fearing that someone may doubt in this way, the author of the sūtras gives the following explanation.
prakāśaś ca karmaṇy abhyāsāt
prakāśaḥ – appearance; ca – and; karmaṇi – in activity; abhyāsāt – by repetition.
And when the activity is repeated, then He appears.
The word ca [and] is used here to dispel doubt.
When activities like meditation and worship are repeated, then the Lord appears. In the Dhyāna-bindu Upaniṣad [18] it is said:
dhyāna-nirmathanābhyāsād
devaṁ
paśyen nigūḍhavat
“By repeated meditation one is able to see the Supersoul hidden in the heart.”
By repeated meditation one develops love for the Lord, and at that time one is able to see the Lord. However, in the Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa it is said:
na tam ārādhayitvāpi
kaścid
vyaktī-kariṣyati
nityāvyakto yato devaḥ
paramātmā
sanātanaḥ
“No one, simply by engaging in worship, can force the Lord to become visible. To a person who tries to force Him in this way, the eternal Lord is always invisible.”
The worship described here is worship performed without sincere love for the Supreme Lord.
Here someone may object: “Is it not true that the Supreme Lord is present within everything? If He is present within, then it is a contradiction to say that He can come out. He remains within and He does not come out. Therefore the statement that the Supreme Lord comes out and becomes directly visible is a collection of meaningless words, words that contradict the truth that the Lord is always present within everything.”
If this objection is raised, then the author of the sūtras gives the following reply.
ato ‘nantena tathā hi liṅgam
ataḥ – therefore; anantena – by the infinite; tathā – so; hi – indeed; liṅgam – evidence.
It is so by the infinite. There is evidence.
There is evidence to support both ideas: that the Supreme Lord is present within everything, and that the Supreme Lord becomes visible to they who meditate on Him. The unlimited Supreme Lord, pleased by His devotees’ worship of Him, shows His own form to them. He does this by His inconceivable mercy. That should be accepted. How is this known? The sūtra explains, liṅgam: “There is evidence.” In the Atharva Veda it is said:
vijñāna-ghanānanda-ghana-sac-cid-ānandaika-raso bhakti-yoge tiṣṭhati
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose sweet form is eternal and full of bliss and knowledge, becomes visible when He is worshiped with devotion.”
This means that by His mercy the Lord appears before they who worship Him with devotion. In the Nārāyaṇādhyātma it is said:
nityāvyakto ‘pi bhagavān
īkṣate
nija-śaktitaḥ
tām ṛte paramātṁanaṁ
kaḥ paśyetām
itaṁ prabhum
“Although He is always invisible, the Supreme Personality of Godhead becomes visible by His own power. Without first obtaining His mercy, who can see Him?”
This means that the Lord becomes visible by His own wish. The Supreme Lord Himself declares [Bhagavad-gītā 7.24]:
avyaktaṁ vyaktim āpannaṁ
manyante
mām abuddhayaḥ
paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto
mamāvyayam
anuttamam
“Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.”
Because the Lord becomes visible in response to His devotees’ love, that does not mean that He is not also all- pervading, present within everything. He does both these actions by the power of His own internal potency. However, to they who do not love Him, He presents only a reflection or a shadow of Himself. The Lord Himself affirms [Bhagavad-gītā 7.25]:
nāhaṁ prakāśaḥ
sarvasya
yogamāyā-samāvṛtaḥ
“I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My internal potency.”
Therefore, even though He is full of transcendental bliss and other auspicious qualities, He appears terrible and ferocious to they who have no love for Him. Therefore to they who do not love Him He remains invisible.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now will be proved the truth that the Lord’s qualities are not different from His self. If the Lord’s qualities were different from His self, then His qualities would be secondary and unimportant, and thus love for the Lord, love inspired by those qualities, would also become secondary and unimportant. However, love for the Lord is not secondary and unimportant. It is clearly seen that love for the Lord is of the greatest importance. The Lord’s qualities are described in the Śruti-śāstra:
vijñānam ānandaṁ brahma
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of knowledge and bliss.”
yaḥ sarva-jñaḥ sarva-vid
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is all-knowing.”
ānandam brahmaṇo vidvān
“A wise man knows that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of bliss.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Is the worshipable Supreme Truth the actual qualities of bliss and knowledge themselves, and thus impersonal, or is the Supreme Truth a person who possesses the qualities of bliss and knowledge?”
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Because both ideas are described in the scriptures it is not possible to come to a final conclusion.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
ubhaya-vyapadeśāt tv ahi-kuṇḍala-vat
ubhaya – of both; vyapadeśāt – because of the description; tu – indeed; ahi – the snake; kuṇḍala – and the coils; vat – like.
Because indeed there is description of both, He is like a snake and its coils.
The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the qualities of knowledge and bliss themselves, and He is also a person who possesses the qualities of knowledge and bliss. He is like a snake and its coils. As a snake both is and possesses its coils, so the Supreme Personality of Godhead both is and possesses His qualities. How is this known? The sūtra explains, ubhaya-vyapadeśāt: “Because there is description of both.” The Śruti-śāstra describes both. That is the meaning. The word tu [indeed] here hints that the passages of the Śruti-śāstra have a single meaning. The meaning here is that the Lord is inconceivable. The Lord is not divided. It is not that these two kinds of explanations of the scriptures mean that one part of the Lord has one nature and another part of Him has a different nature. He is not divided into parts in that way.
prakāśāśrayavad vā tejastvāt
prakāśa – of light; āśraya – the shelter; vat – like;vā – or; tejastvāt – because of being splendid.
Or, because He is effulgent He is like an abode of light.
Because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is effulgent, that is to say because He is full of consciousness, therefore He is the abode of light. That is the conclusion. As the effulgent sun is the abode of light, so the all-knowing Supreme Personality of Godhead is the abode of knowledge. That is the meaning. The word tejaḥ is defined to mean either “the destroyer of ignorance” or “the destroyer of darkness.”
pūrvavad vā
pūrva – past; vat – as; vā – or.
Or, as the past.
As it is said that time both possesses the past and also is the past itself, so the Supreme both possesses knowledge and bliss and also is knowledge and bliss. Thus the Supreme is both the quality and the possessor of the quality. In the Brahma Purāṇa it is said:
ānandena tv abhinnena
vyavahāraḥ
prakāśavat
pūrvavad vā yathā kālaḥ
svāvecchedakatāṁ
vrajet
“As the sun is not different from its light or time is not different from its quality of the past, so the Supreme is not different from His bliss.”
In this series of analogies [Sūtras 28-30] each analogy is more subtle than the one before it.
pratiṣedhāc ca
pratiṣedhāt – because of denial; ca – also.
Also because it is denied.
The word ca [also] is used here for emphasis. In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad [2.4.11 and 14] it is said:
manasaivedam āptavyaṁ
neha
nānāsti kiñcana
mṛtyoḥ sa mṛtyum āpnoti
ya iha
nāneva paśyati
“A pure heart can understand that the Lord and His attributes are not different. He who sees them as different travels from death to death.”
yathodakaṁ durge vṛṣṭaṁ
parvateṣu
vidhāvati
evāṁ dharmān pṛthak paśyaṁs
tān
evānuvidhāvati
“One who thinks the Lord and His attributes are different falls into hell as rainwater glides down a mountain peak.”
In the Nārada-pañcarātra it is said:
nirdoṣa-pūrṇa-guṇa-vigraha
ātma-tantro
niścetanātmaka-śarīra-guṇaiś ca
hīnaḥ
ānanda-mātra-kara-pāda-mukhodarādiḥ
sarvatra ca
svagata-bheda-vivarjitātmā
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is independent, faultless, filled with virtues, not residing in a material body, untouched by the modes of nature or a material body fashioned of inanimate matter, but still possessing a face, belly, hands, feet and other features of a spiritual body filled with bliss. He is not different from His various limbs, features, and qualities.”
Because in this way the scriptures deny that the Lord is different from His attributes, therefore the Lord is not different from His attributes. Therefore the word Bhagavān [the all-opulent Supreme Lord] is defined in terms of the Lord’s knowledge and other attributes. In the Viṣṇu Purāṇa it is said:
jñāna-śakti-balaiśvarya-
vīrya-tejāṁsy
aśeṣataḥ
bhagavac-chabda-vācyāni
vinā heyair guṇādibhiḥ
“The word bhagavān means ‘He who has all knowledge, strength, wealth, power, heroism and splendor, but no faults’.”
Although the Lord and His attributes are actually one, they are spoken of as being two in the same way that a body of water and its waves are spoken of as being two. The Lord is blissful. He is also bliss itself. Therefore His form is full of bliss. Because the Lord’s activities are eternal, therefore the Lord’s form is also eternal. However, for the sake of ordinary dealings a pretended distinction is made between the Lord and His attributes, even though there is in truth no distinction at all.
If this is not done then it would not be possible to speak tautological sentences like, “Existence exists,” “Time is always,” and “Space is everywhere,” statements that are useful in ordinary discourse. Nor are statements like “Existence exists” foolish illusions. They are meaningful statements, as the sentence “The jar exists” is a meaningful statement. These statements are not metaphors like the sentence “Devadatta is a lion”, for the statement “Existence does not exist” can never be truthfully said. Nor do these statements hint that attributes do not exist, for in the previously stated example of water flowing from a mountain peak there are certainly attributes. However, the idea that the Supreme Lord is different from His attributes is certainly denied here. In this way the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not different from the attributes He possesses.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now will be described the truth that the bliss and other attributes of the Lord are all of the highest nature. If the bliss and other attributes of the individual spirit souls were equal to the bliss and attributes of the Lord, love and devotion for the Lord would not be possible. Now will be discussed the texts that describe these attributes of the Lord.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Are the bliss and other attributes of the Supreme Lord greater than the bliss and other attributes of the individual spirit souls, or are they not greater than them?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Because the bliss of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is described in the same terms used to describe the ordinary bliss of the material world, therefore the Lord’s bliss is not greater. After all, when one speaks the word ‘jar’ one doesn’t mean something greater than a jar.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
param ataḥ setūnmāna-sambandha-bheda-vyapadeśebhyaḥ
param – greater; ataḥ – than this; setu – of a bridge; unmāna – immeasurable; sambandha – relationship; bheda – difference; vyapadeśebhyaḥ – from the descriptions.
It is greater because of the statements about a bridge, immeasurability, a relationship and a difference.
The bliss and other attributes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are greater than the bliss and attributes of the individual spirit souls. Why is that? The sūtra declares, setūnmāna-sambandha-bheda-vyapadeśebhyaḥ: “Because of the statements about a bridge, immeasurability, a relationship and a difference.” The statement about a bridge is given in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad [8.4.1], where the bliss of the Supreme Lord is described in these words:
eṣa setur vidhṛtiḥ
“It is the highest bridge.”
The statement about immeasurability is given in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.4.1]:
yato vāco nivartante
“Unable to describe the immeasurable bliss of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, words return and become silent.”
The statement about a relationship is given in the Bṛhad- āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.3.32]:
etasyaivānandasyānyāni bhūtāni mātram upajīvanti
“The bliss of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the highest. All others experience only a small portion of that bliss.”
The statement about a difference is given in the following words:
anyaj jñānaṁ tu
jīvānāṁ
anyaj jñānaṁ parasya ca
nityānandāvyayaṁ
pūrṇaṁ
paraṁ jñānam vīdhiyate
“The knowledge possessed by the individual spirit souls is one thing and the knowledge possessed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead is another. The perfect, complete, blissful, and immutable knowledge possessed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead is higher.”
The bliss and other attributes described in these statements are not at all like the ordinary bliss and other attributes found in this world.
Here someone may object: “Still, what is described with the word ‘jar’ cannot really be different from a jar.”
To answer this objection the author of the sūtras speaks the following words.
sāmānyāt tu
sāmānyāt – because of resemblance; tu – but.
But because of a common quality.
The word tu [but] is used here to dispel doubt. As the word ‘jar’ is used to describe many different kinds of jars, which all have a single quality of ‘jarness’ in common, so the word ‘bliss’ describes many different kinds of ordinary and extraordinary bliss, which all have a single quality of ‘bliss-ness’ in common. However the different kinds of bliss and other attributes are not alike in all respects. Therefore it is said:
para-jñānamayo
‘sadbhir
nāma-jāty-ādibhir vibhuḥ
na yogavān na yukto
‘bhūn
naiva pārthiva yokṣyati
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead has the highest transcendental knowledge. He never is, was, or will be touched by the temporary names and forms of the material world.”
It this way it is demonstrated that the knowledge possessed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead is superior to the knowledge possessed by the individual spirit souls.
Here someone may object: “If the Supreme Personality of Godhead is actually superior to the individual spirit souls and to the inanimate material world, then why does the Chāndogya Upaniṣad [3.14.1] declare:
sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma taj jalān iti śānta upāsīta
“Everything is the Supreme. Everything is manifested from Him. A peaceful sage should worship Him.”
In the following words the author of the sūtras answers this objection.
buddhy-arthaḥ pāda-vat
buddhi – of understanding; arthaḥ – for the purpose; pāda – foot; vat – like.
It is for understanding, like the word ‘foot.’
This teaching is meant to increase understanding. The understanding here is that everything belongs to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is like the explanation of the word ‘foot’ in the scriptures. In the Rg Veda [10.90.3] it is said:
pādo ‘sya viśvā bhūtāni
“The entire material universe is His one foot.”
By understanding that the entire material universe is a single foot of the Supreme, a person no longer hates anyone, and then his heart becomes devoted to the Lord. This does not mean, however, that one should become attracted to everything, for that would bewilder the intelligence.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now will be explained the truth that because there is a great variety of kinds of love and devotion for Him, worshipable Lord Hari assumes a great variety of forms. If this were not so, then many kinds of love for the Lord would be thwarted. These many forms of the Lord are all beginningless and eternal. In the Śruti-śāstra it is said:
eko ‘pi san bahudhā yo ‘vabhāti
“Although He is one, He appears in many forms.”
Thus the one Supreme Personality of Godhead appears eternally in many different places.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Are there varieties of greater and lesser in these forms, or not?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Because these forms are all equally the Supreme Lord, therefore they are all the same and they are not different.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
sthāna-viśeṣāt prakāśādi-vat
sthāna – of places; viśeṣāt – from the variety; prakāśa – light; ādi – beginning with; vat – like.
Like light and other things, so He also is different in different places.
Although the Supreme Personality of Godhead is one, nevertheless in different places and before different devotees He manifests different kinds of opulence, power, and sweetness.
In this way, in the presence of devotees in the various mellows, such as the mellows of peacefulness, servitude, and friendship, the Lord manifests many different kinds of forms. He does this in the same way as light or other things also manifest many different kinds of forms. As the light of a lamp appears clear or red when reflected from crystals or rubies set in a temple’s walls, and as sound, although originally one, appears different when sounded by a conchshell, mṛḍaṅga, flute, or other musical instrument, so the Supreme Personality of Godhead manifest sweetness and other attributes according to the different circumstances. That is the meaning. When the Lord manifests His great opulence, He is worshiped by the rules and regulations of vidhi-bhakti. That manifestation is compared to the light reflected from crystal.
When the Lord manifests His great sweetness, He is worshiped by the spontaneous love of ruci-bhakti. That manifestation is compared to the light reflected from rubies. In this way the Lord’s many manifestations in different abodes and in relation to the different kinds of devotion of different kinds of devotees, are basically of these two kinds [opulence and sweetness].
upapateś ca
upapateḥ – because of reasonableness; ca – also.
Also because it is reasonable.
This is also described in Chāndogya Upaniṣad [3.14.1], which explains: “As one has faith in the Lord, so one is rewarded.” It is not otherwise. As there are different kinds of love for the one Supreme Lord, so the one Lord expands into many different forms.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now will be explained the truth that the Supreme Lord is the highest. If anyone were superior to the Supreme Lord, then it would not be possible to develop love and devotion to Him. Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [3.4] clearly states that the Lord is the greatest. However, Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [3.10] describes something superior to the Supreme Lord.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Is there a person or thing greater than the worshipable Supreme Lord, or is there not?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: There is something greater than the Supreme Lord. This is clearly described in Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [3.10].
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
tathānya-pratiṣedhāt
tathā – so; anya – of another; pratiṣedhāt – because of the denial.
It is so, for another is denied.
Nothing is greater than the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Why is that? The sūtra explains, anya-pratiṣedhāt: “for another is denied.” In the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [3.9] it is said:
yasmāt paraṁ nāparam asti
kiñcid
yasmān nāṇīyo na jyāyo ‘sti kiñcit
“There is no truth superior to that Supreme Person because He is the supermost. He is smaller than the smallest, and He is greater than the greatest.”
In this way the scriptures deny the existence of anything greater than the Supreme Lord. That is the meaning here. In Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [3.8] it is said:
vedāham etaṁ puruṣam
mahantam
āditya-varṇaṁ tamasaḥ parastāt
tam eva
viditvāti mṛtyum eti
nānyaḥ panthāḥ vidyate ‘yanāya
“I know that Supreme Personality of Godhead who is transcendental to all material conditions of darkness. Only he who knows Him can transcend the bonds of birth and death. There is no way for liberation other than knowledge of that Supreme Person.”
After thus teaching that no path but knowledge of the Supreme Person leads to liberation, the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [3.9] explains:
yasmāt paraṁ nāparam asti
“There is no truth superior to that Supreme Person.”
In this way is proved that there is no truth superior to the Supreme Lord. In Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [3.10] it is said:
tato yad uttarataraṁ
tad
arūpam anāmayam
ya etad vidur amṛtās te bhavanty
athetare
duḥkham evāpi yānti
“They who know that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is greater than the greatest, and has no material body and no faults, become immortal. They who do not know Him suffer.”
In this way the scriptures declare that there is no truth superior to the Lord. In this way the false idea of our opponent is disproved. In Bhagavad-gītā [7.7], the Supreme Lord Himself declares:
mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat
kiñcid
asti dhanañjaya
“O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me.”
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now, to show that the object of worship is always nearby, the truth that the Supreme Lord is all-pervading will be described. Otherwise, if the Supreme Lord were not always nearby, then there would not be enthusiasm to love the Lord, and love for the Lord would become slackened. In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad it is said:
eko vaśī sarva-gaḥ kṛṣṇa īḍyaḥ
“Lord Kṛṣṇa, the supreme controller and the supreme object of worship, is present everywhere.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Is Lord Hari, the supreme object of meditation, all-pervading, or does He stay only in one place?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Because the Lord is of moderate height, and because He stays aloof from the material world, the Lord cannot be everywhere and does not go to every place. Therefore the Lord is not all-pervading.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
anena sarvagatatvam āyāma-śabdādibhyaḥ
anena – by Him; sarva – everywhere; gata – going; tvam – the state of being; āyāma – all-pervasiveness; śabda – Śruti-śāstra; ādibhyaḥ – beginning with.
He is everywhere, for the Śruti-śāstra and other scriptures declare that He is all-pervading.
Even though His form is of a moderate height, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is all-pervading. Why is that? The sūtra explains, āyāma-śabdādibhyaḥ: “The Śruti-śāstra and other scriptures declare that He is all-pervading.” Here the word āyāma means ‘all-pervading.’ The word ādi [beginning with] here means “Because He has inconceivable potencies.”
In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad it is said:
eko vaśī sarva-gaḥ kṛṣṇa īḍyaḥ
“Lord Kṛṣṇa, the supreme controller and the supreme object of worship, is present everywhere.”
In the Taittirīya Araṇyaka it is said:
yac ca kiñcij jagat
sarvaṁ
dṛśyate śrūyate ‘pi vā
antar bahiś ca tat
sarvaṁ
vyāpya nārāyaṇaḥ sthitaḥ
“Lord Nārāyaṇa is present everywhere. He is within and without everything. He is within everything that has ever been seen or heard.”
In this way it is declared that, even though He has a form of moderate height, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is certainly all-pervading. Because of His inconceivable potencies the Lord is greater than all and present everywhere, even though His form is of a moderate height. In Bhagavad-gītā [9.4-5], the Supreme Lord Himself declares:
mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ
jagad
avyakta-mūrtinā
mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni
na cāhaṁ teṣv
avasthitaḥ
na ca mat-sthāni bhūtāni
paśya me yogam
aiśvaram
“By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence!”
Because the Supreme Lord is different from matter does not mean that He cannot be all-pervading within the material world, for the Śruti-śāstra clearly declares that He is certainly present within and without. The scriptures also affirm that as oil is present in sesame seeds and as butter is present in yogurt, so the Supreme Lord is present everywhere. In this way it is proved that worshipable Lord Hari is present everywhere. This is clearly shown in His Dāmodara pastime. Even though He was a small child, still He displayed His power of being all-pervading.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now will be described the truth that the Supreme Lord awards all the fruits of action. Otherwise, if He did not award the fruits of action, or if He awarded only some of the fruits of action, it would be difficult to develop love for Him because of His miserliness. In the Praśna Upaniṣad [3.7] it is said:
puṇyena puṇyaṁ lokaṁ nayati
“The Supreme Lord takes the pious to the world of the pious.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Are the pious results that begin with entrance into Svargaloka attained by performing yajñas and other pious deeds, or are they attained by the sanction given by the Lord?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: These results are caused by performance of yajñas and other pious deeds. The Supreme Lord has nothing to do with it.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
phalam ata upapatteḥ
phalam – fruit; ataḥ – from Him; upapatteḥ – because it is reasonable.
The result is from Him, for that is reasonable.
The attainment of Svargaloka and other pious benefits, benefits attained by performing yajñas and other pious deeds, are actually awarded by the Supreme Lord Himself. Why is that? The sūtra explains, upapatteḥ: “for that is reasonable.” In this way it is shown that the eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, and supremely generous Lord, when He is worshiped by the performance of yajñas and other pious deeds, after some time has elapsed grants the rewards of these pious deeds. The deeds themselves, which are only inert matter and which perish in a moment as soon as they are performed, do not grant these rewards. That is the meaning.
In the next sūtra the author gives the proof of this.
śrutatvāc ca
śrutatvāt – because of being described in the Śruti-śāstra; ca – also.
Also because it is affirmed by the Śruti-śāstra.
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [3.9.28] it is said:
vijñānam ānandaṁ brahma rātir dātuḥ parāyaṇam
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of knowledge and bliss. It is He who gives the fruits of actions to they who perform yajñas.”
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.4.24] it is also said:
sa vā eṣa mahān aja ātmā annādo vasu-dānaḥ
“The unborn Supreme Personality of Godhead gives the fruits of work.”
These two passages explain that the Supreme Lord gives the fruits of action. The word dātuḥ means “of the performer of yajña,” and rātiḥ means “the giver of the results.”
dharmaṁ jaiminir ata eva
dharmam – piety; jaiminiḥ – Jaimini; ataḥ – from Him;eva – indeed.
Jaimini affirms that piety comes from Him.
Jaimini holds that piety comes from the Supreme Lord. The pious deed that gives an auspicious result itself comes from the Supreme Lord. In the Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad [3.8] it is said:
eṣa eva sādhu karma kārayati
“The Lord engages the living entity in pious activities.”
According to Jaimini, the Supreme Lord does not give the results of actions, either directly or indirectly. The Lord creates only the actions themselves and the results are given by the actions.
Here someone may object: “Is it not so that actions are over in a moment, whereas there is often a great lapse of time before actions bear their karmic result? If the actions quickly cease to exist they cannot create the karmic results, for something that has ceased to exist cannot create something new.”
To this objection Jaimini may reply: “No. It is not so. Even though the action itself comes to an end, it leaves behind a potential result. Only when this result is fulfilled is the action actually completed. Even if there is a considerable lapse of time, the action itself gives the result to the person, a result appropriate to that particular action. Thus actions are the givers of results.”
In the following words Śrīla Vyāsadeva, the author of the sūtras, gives His opinion.
pūrvaṁ tu bādarāyaṇo hetu-vyapadeśāt
pūrvam – previous; tu – but; bādarāyaṇaḥ – Vyāsadeva; hetu – of the cause; vyapadeśāt – from the description.
But Vyāsadeva holds the previous view, for the Lord is described as the cause.
Here the word tu [but] is employed to dispel doubt. Vyāsadeva holds the previous view, that the Supreme Personality of Godhead awards the fruits of action. Why so? The sūtra explains, hetu-vyapadeśāt: “for the Lord is described as the cause.” In the Praśna Upaniṣad [3.7] it is said:
puṇyena puṇyaṁ lokaṁ nayati pāpena pāpam
“The Supreme Lord takes the pious to the world of the pious and the sinful to the world of the sinful.”
In this way the scriptures teach that the Supreme Lord awards the results of action. That is the meaning. Because they already have ceased to exist, the actions themselves cannot be the cause of the karmic results. Also, it is the Supreme Lord Himself who is the creator of karma, for the scriptures say:
dravyaṁ karma ca kālaś ca
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is creator of matter, karma, and time.
In this way it is proved that the Lord is the creator of karma. The idea that actions leave behind a potential result is a lame and foolish idea. Actions are inanimate and unconscious. They are like a block of wood or a stone, and therefore they have no power to award the results of actions. Also, the Śruti-śāstra never describes them as awarding the results of actions.
Here someone may object: “Is it not so that the demigods are worshiped in the performance of yajñas, and it is the demigods themselves who give the results of these yajñas?”
If this is said, then I reply: It is by the sanction of the Supreme Lord that the demigods are able to give these results. This is clearly described in the Antaryāmi Brāhmaṇa. Therefore the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself awards the results of actions. The lotus-eyed Supreme Lord Himself affirms this in the following words [Bhagavad-gītā 7.21-22]:
yo yo yaṁ yaṁ tanuṁ
bhaktaṁ
śraddhayārcitum icchati
tasya tasyācalāṁ
śraddhāṁ
tām eva vidadhāmy aham
“I am in everyone’s heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship some demigod, I make his faith steady so he can devote himself to that particular deity.”
sa tayā śraddhayā
yuktas
tasyārādhanam ihate
labhate ca tataḥ kāmān
mayaiva
vihitān hi tān
“Endowed with such a faith, he endeavors to worship a particular demigod and obtain his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone.”
In this way worshiped by the performance of yajña, the Supreme Lord Himself gives the auspicious results to the worshiper. When He is thus pleased by devotion, the Supreme Lord will give everything, even Himself to His devotee. This will be described later on with quotes from the Śruti-śāstra.
Thus, in these first two Pādas of the second Adhyāya has been seen:
The fault of the material world, which is an abode of many sufferings, beginning with repeated birth and death,
The faultless glories of the Lord,
The Lord’s being the controller of all,
The Lord’s form of pure spirit, and
The Lord’s being not different from His attributes.
By hearing of these things one develops a great thirst to attain the Lord’s association and a great disgust for all that is far from the Lord. In this way one comes to attain the Lord. That is what was revealed in these two Pādas.