parayā nirasya
māyāṁ guṇa-
karmādīni yo bhajati nityam
devaś
caitanya-tanur manasi
mamāsau parisphuratu kṛṣṇaḥ
“May Lord Kṛṣṇa, who with the aid of His transcendental potency pushes aside the influence of māyā, who has a host of transcendental virtues eternally, who enjoys eternal transcendental pastimes, and who has now appeared as Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, appear in my heart.”
In this Pāda will be revealed the way of worshiping the Lord’s transcendental attributes. As in a vaidūrya jewel many splendid colors are always manifest, so in the Supreme Personality of Godhead many different transcendental forms, all perfect and without beginning, are also manifest eternally.
Understanding that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is supremely perfect, complete and pure, has many different forms, a devotee becomes attracted to one of the Lord’s forms and directs his worship to that form. If the various scriptures describe transcendental virtues present in that form of the Lord, all those virtues may also be ascribed to that single chosen form. Thus a person who worships the Supreme Personality of Godhead as present in His powers and opulences, such as the mind and the other powers of the world, should review the scriptures’ descriptions of the various qualities of these forms, but not of other forms of the Lord.
Others, however, speak in the following way: “The one Supreme Personality of Godhead assumes different forms as an actor assumes different roles on the stage. In this way the Lord has many different names and abodes. For this reason all the qualities and pastimes of the different forms of the Lord, as described in the scriptures, may be ascribed to any one of the Lord’s forms.”
Here someone may object: “Is it not so that many of the qualities of many of the Lord’s forms, qualities described in the scriptures, cannot be properly ascribed to all of the Lord’s forms? Is it not so that sweetness, opulence, peacefulness, austerity, ferociousness, and other qualities may be mutually contradictory, and it may also be contradictory to ascribe the features of having a horn, tail, mane, tusk, or other features appropriate to the Lord’s forms like Varāha and others to the Lord’s human-like forms, which carry a flute, conchshell, bow, arrows, and other paraphernalia? Therefore in the Mahābhārata it is said:
yo ‘nyathā santam
ātmānam
anyathā pratipadyate
kiṁ tena na kṛtaṁ
pāpaṁ
caureṇātmāpahāriṇā
“A person who ascribes to the Supreme Lord qualities that the Lord does not actually possess is a thief who robs himself. Does he not sin with his words?”
Therefore, because of both the injunction of Smṛti-śāstra and the experience of the wise sages, one should not ascribe the qualities of one of Lord’s forms to another of the Lord’s forms.”
If this is said, then the following reply may be given: The qualities of one of Lord’s forms may be ascribed to another of the Lord’s forms only when the qualities are appropriate to that particular form. Ascribing the qualities of one of Lord’s forms to another of the Lord’s forms is of two kinds: 1. cintana, and 2. dhī-mātra. They who perform this first kind of meditation are called sva-niṣṭha, and they who perform the second kind of meditation are called ekāntī. In the next Pāda three kinds of wise devotees, headed by the sva-niṣṭha devotees, will be described. The sva-niṣṭha devotees have equal love for all the Lord’s forms. They see all the qualities of all the Lord’s forms present equally in each of the Lord’s forms. They do not see anything improper in ascribing many contradictory qualities to each of the Lord’s forms. They consider that the Lord by His great potency may possess many mutually contradictory qualities, just as a vaidūrya jewel may display many different colors.
The ekāntī devotees, who are divided into two groups: pariniṣṭhita and nirapekṣa, do not have equal love for all the Lord’s forms. They meditate only on the qualities of one form the Lord, the form they have chosen. They see the qualities of this form alone. Even though they are well aware of the Lord’s other forms, they do not meditate or gaze upon them. On His part, the Lord generally does not reveal His other forms to these devotees. This will be revealed in another Adhikaraṇa. As for the passage quoted from the Mahābhārata, its true meaning is that it is a rebuke hurled at the impersonalists, who claim that the Supreme is consciousness and nothing else. The truth that the Supreme certainly does have qualities, and therefore the Lord’s qualities should be sought out by they who seek liberation, is described in Chāndogya Upaniṣad [8.1.1-6]. It is also said, in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.4.1]:
ānandaṁ brahmaṇo vidvān na bibheti kutaścana
“He who knows that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of bliss never fears anything.”
This means that they who understand the qualities of the Supreme become free of fear. In this way the scriptures affirm that the Supreme certainly does have qualities. The impersonalists claim that the Lord’s qualities are either falsely ascribed to Him or else are accepted only because of the material traditions of this world. However, because many of these qualities are present in the Lord alone and no one else, it cannot be said that these qualities are falsely ascribed to the Lord, and it cannot be said that the qualities of the Lord are accepted only because of the material traditions of this world, because the revelation of scripture does not describe them as such. They who claim that the qualities of the Lord are imagined to facilitate worship of the Lord, as in the statement, “Imagining the goddess of speech to be a cow, one should worship her,” are all fools. Their idea is destroyed by the simple statement of the scriptures:
satyam etyopāsīta
“Approaching the Supreme Reality, one should worship Him.”
Even the impersonalists, in their commentaries on Sūtras 3.3.12 and 3.3.38, affirm that the Supreme is bliss and there is no qualitative difference between the individual souls and the Supreme. In this way they accept the idea that the qualities of the worshipable Supreme are real and not metaphors. When the scriptures say that the Supreme has no qualities [nirguṇa], the intention is that He has no material qualities. Because it is clearly stated that the Lord is not different from His qualities, this objection of the impersonalists should not be taken seriously. For the purpose of meditation the Lord’s qualities should be understood to be of two kinds: aṅgi-niṣṭha [general qualities] and aṅga-niṣṭha [features of the Lord’s form]. It is said that one may collect from all the different parts of the Vedas descriptions of the Lord’s qualities.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: To understand the Lord’s qualities one should search all the texts of the Vedas.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Should one learn about the Supreme by studying the branch [śākha] of Vedic texts in one’s own community, or should one study all the branches of the Vedas?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Because all the branches of the Vedas are different, one should study only one’s own branch of the Vedas.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion:
sarva-vedānta-pratyayaṁ codanādy-aviśeṣāt
sarva – all; veda – Vedas; anta – end; pratyayam – meaning; codana – injunctions; ādi – beginning with; aviśeṣāt – because of not being different.
Because the Vedic injunctions and all other sources of real knowledge are not genuinely different, therefore knowledge of Him is the conclusion of all the Vedas.
The word anta [end] here means the conclusion. The word anta is also used in this way in Bhagavad-gītā [2.16]:
ubhayor api dṛṣṭo ‘ntaḥ
“This they have concluded by studying the nature of both.”
Thus knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the final conclusion taught by all the Vedas. Why is that? The sūtra explains, codanādy-aviśeṣāt: “because the Vedic injunctions and all other sources of real knowledge are not genuinely different.” The ‘other sources of real knowledge’ here refers to logic. In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [1.4.7] it is said:
ātmety evopāsīta
“One should worship the Supreme.”
These words, as well as the promptings of logic, confirm the truth that these statements and many others like them in passages of all the Vedas, all describe the same Supreme Lord. The same Supreme Lord is described in the same way in the Kaṇva, Madhyandina, and other recensions of the Vedas.
Here someone may object: “In one part of the Vedas [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.9.28] it is said:
vijñānam ānandam brahma
“The Supreme is knowledge and bliss.”
However, in another part of the Vedas [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.9] it is said:
yaḥ sarva-jñaḥ sarva-vit
“The Supreme knows everything.”
Because in this way each branch of the Vedas speaks differently of the Supreme, they do not all describe the same object as the Supreme.”
If this is said, the author of the sūtras gives the following reply.
bhedād iti cen naikasyām api
bhedāt – because of difference; iti – thus; cet – if; na – not; ekasyām – in one; api – also.
If it is said, “because they are different,” then I reply, “It is not so, for it is also in one.”
It is not so. That is so because these differences are seen even within the same branch of the Vedas. An example of this is the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, which gives the following two statements:
satyaṁ jñanam anantaṁ brahma
“The limitless Supreme is both knowledge and truth.”
ānando brahma
“The Supreme is bliss.”
In this way the many different branches of the Vedas describe the same form of the Supreme Lord. They do not contradict each other at all.
svādhyāyasya tathātvena hi samācāre ‘dhikārāc ca
svādhyāyasya – of Vedic study; tathātvena – by being so; hi – indeed; samācāre – in Vedic rituals; adhikārāt – because of being qualified; ca – also.
Because of being qualified to study the Vedas and to perform rituals.
In the Taittirīya Araṇyaka [2.15] it is said:
svādhyāyo ‘dhyetavyaḥ
“One should study the Vedas.”
In this way one is ordered to study all the Vedas. In the Smṛti-śāstra it is said:
vedaḥ kṛtsno ‘dhigantavyaḥ sa-rahasyo dvijanmanā
“A brāhmaṇa should study the entire Veda, including even its confidential portions.”
The word samācāre in this sūtra means “because all are qualified to perform all pious rituals.” The Smṛti-śāstra confirms this in the following words:
sarva-vedokta-mārgeṇa
karma kurvīta nityaśaḥ
ānando hi phalaṁ yasmāc
chākhā-bhedo hy aśakti-jaḥ
sarva-karma-kṛtau
yasmād aśaktāḥ sarva-jantavaḥ
śākhā-bhedaṁ
karma-bhedaṁ vyāsas tasmād acīkḷpad
“Following the path of all the Vedas, one should regularly perform pious rituals. The result attained by this is bliss. The Veda was divided into different branches because the people were not able to perform all the pious deeds described in the Veda. That is why Vyāsa divided the Veda into many branches and the one collection of pious rituals into many collections.”
Therefore, if a person is able to do so, he may understand the Supreme by performing all the spiritual practices described in all the branches of the Vedas. In the next sūtra the author gives an example of indirect reasoning leading to the same conclusion.
sava-vac ca tan niyamaḥ
sava – yajñas; vat – like; ca – and; tat – that; niyamaḥ – rule.
That rule is like the yajñas.
The savas here are the seven yajñas beginning with the saurya-yajña and ending with the śataudana-yajña which, because they are performed with only one fire, may be performed only by the followers of the Atharva-Veda. The worship of the Supreme Lord, however, can performed by the followers of all the Vedas.
The word salila-vat [like water] is an alternate reading of the first word in this sūtra. If this reading is accepted, then the sūtra means, “As all waters flow, without restriction, into the sea, so all the statements of the Vedas describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead, to the degree they have the power.” In the Agni Purāṇa it is said:
yathā nadīnāṁ
salilaṁ
śaktyā sāgaratāṁ vrajet
evaṁ sarvāṇi
vākyāni
puṁ-śaktyā brahma-vittaye
“As the water of rivers, as far as it has the power, always enters the sea, so all words should be employed to understand the Supreme Lord, as far as their speaker has the power.”
darśayati ca
darśayati – reveals; ca – also.
It also reveals it.
In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad [1.2.15] it is said:
sarve vedā yat-padam āmananti
“All the Vedas describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
This means that the Supreme Lord is known by all the Vedas, or, in other words, the Vedas reveal the truth of Lord Hari. The word ca [and] in this sūtra hints, “as far as one has the power.” They who have the power may worship the Supreme Lord by performing the pious rituals described in all the branches of the Vedas. They who do not have the power must worship the Supreme Lord by performing the pious rituals described in their own community’s branch of the Vedas. The conclusion is that the Supreme Lord is the final object of knowledge sought by all the branches of the Vedas. This truth was also described in the very beginning of Vedānta-sūtra [1.1.4]:
tat tu samanvayāt
“But that [Lord Viṣṇu is the sole topic of discussion in the Vedas] is confirmed by all scriptures.”
This truth is thus repeated here in the discussion of the properness of studying the different qualities of the Supreme Lord. Because this repetition strengthens the argument here, there is no fault in it.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now the author of the sūtras will show that the many qualities of the Lord may be understood by studying all the Vedas. For example, in the Atharva-Veda’s Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [1.8], the Supreme Lord is described as a cowherd boy dark like a tamāla tree, dressed in yellow garments, decorated with a Kaustubha jewel, wearing a peacock-feather, playing graceful melodies on a flute, and surrounded by gopas, gopīs and surabhi cows. He is the Deity of Gokula. In the Rāma-tāpanī Upaniṣad, however, He is described as the Lord whose left side is decorated by Jānakī-devī, holding a bow, the killer of Rāvaṇa and a host of demons, and the king of Ayodhyā. In the Rāma-tāpanī Upaniṣad it is said:
prakṛtyā sahitaḥ
śyāmaḥ
pīta-vāsā jaṭā-dharaḥ
dvi-bhujaḥ kuṇḍalī
ratna-
mālī dhīro dhanur-dharaḥ
“Decorated with earrings and a jewel necklace, His complexion dark, His garments yellow, and the hair on His head matted, saintly, two-armed Lord Rāma is accompanied by Goddess Sītā.”
In the scriptures the Lord’s form as Nṛsiṁha is described as having a frightening face and filling His enemies with fear. The word bhīṣaṇa [frightening], which occurs in Lord Nṛsiṁha’s mantra, is explained in the following words of the Nṛsiṁha-tāpanī Upaniṣad:
atha kasmād ucyate bhīṣaṇam iti. yasmād yasya rūpaṁ dṛṣṭvā sarve lokāḥ sarve devāḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni bhītyā palāyante svayaṁ yataḥ kutaścin na bibheti. bhīṣāsmād vātaḥ pavate bhīṣodeti sūryaḥ. bhīṣāsmād agniś cendraś ca mṛtyur dhāvati pañcamaḥ.
“Why is the Lord called frightening? Because when all the demigods, all the worlds, and all living entities see His form, they all flee in fear. He fears no one. Out of fear of Him the wind blows and the sun rises. Out of fear of Him fire, the moon, and death all flee.”
The Lord’s form as Trivikrama is described in the Ṛg-Veda [1.154.1]:
viṣṇor nu kaṁ vīryāṇi prāvocaṁ yaḥ pārthivāni vimame rajāṁsiyo askambhayad uttaraṁ sadhasthaṁ vicakramāṇas tredhorugāya
“How can I describe all the glories and powers of Lord Viṣṇu, who created the heaven and earth, established the worlds above and below, and with three steps passed over all the worlds?”
Therefore, like the yajñas, which are different because they are offered to different demigods, so the method of worship to be offered to the different forms of the Supreme Lord are all different because the qualities of the Lord’s different forms are different.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Should the Śruti-śāstra’s description of the Lord’s qualities in one kind of worship be added in another kind of worship, or not?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: The Śruti-śāstra’s description of the Lord’s qualities in one passage should be heard. One should not mix that description with other descriptions of the Lord in other passages.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
upasaṁhāro ‘rthābhedād vidhi-śeṣa-vat samāne ca
upasaṁhāraḥ – combination; artha – of meaning; abhedāt – because of non-difference; vidhi – of duties; śeṣa – remainder; vat – like; samāne – in being the same; ca – also.
In what is common there may be combination, for the meaning is not different. This is like what is appropriate for the rules and regulations.
The word ca [and] is used here for limitation.
When the method of worship is the same, when the pure Supreme Personality of Godhead is the object of worship, and when the Lord’s form is the same, then the qualities described in different places may be combined together. Why is that? The sūtra explains, arthābhedād: “For the meaning is not different.” This means because the worshipable qualities of the Supreme Lord are in all respects not different, that is because they are one, or harmonious. Here the sūtra gives an example: “This is like what is appropriate for the rules and regulations.” Descriptions of the rules for performing a yajña may be collected from different passages because the ritual of a yajña is everywhere the same. In the Atharva Veda’s Rāma-tāpanīa Upaniṣad it is said:
yo vai śrī-rāmacandraḥ sa bhagavān ye matsya-kūrmādy-avatārā bhūr bhuvaḥ svas tasmai namo namaḥ.
“bhūr bhuvaḥ svaḥ. Obeisances to Śrī Rāmacandra, the Supreme Lord who descends in a host of incarnations, such as Lord Matsya and Lord Kūrma.”
In this passage the forms of Lord Matsya and other incarnations are brought into a meditation on Lord Rāmacandra.
In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad it is said:
eko ‘pi san bahudhā yo ‘vabhāti
“Although He is one, He appears in many forms.”
In this passage the forms of Lord Rāmacandra and other incarnations are brought into a meditation on Lord Kṛṣṇa. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam it is said of Lord Kṛṣṇa:
namas te raghu-varyāya rāvaṇāntakarāya ca
“Obeisances to You, the best of the Raghus and the killer of Rāvaṇa.”
Many other passages may be quoted to show meditations where descriptions of different forms of the Lord are brought together.
Here someone may object: “In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [1.4.7] it is said:
atmety evopāsīta
“One should worship the Supreme.”
Therefore one should worship the Lord alone and not bring other forms into one’s method of worship.”
If this is said, then the author of the sūtras gives the following reply.
anyathātvaṁ śabdād iti cen nāviśeṣāt
anyathātvam – otherwise; śabdāt – because of the Śruti-śāstra; iti – thus; cet – if; na – not; aviśeṣāt – because of the lack of something specific.
If someone says, “It is otherwise because of the Śruti-śāstra”, then I reply, “It is not so, for there is nothing specific.”
If someone claims that Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [1.4.7] refutes the idea of thus bringing together the Lord’s qualities, then I reply: No. It is not so. Why not? The sūtra explains, aviśeṣāt: “For there is nothing specific.” This means that no scriptural passage declares, “The Lord’s qualities should not be worshiped together.” The word eva [indeed] in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [1.4.7] means that one should not worship what is not the Supreme Lord. It does not mean that the Lord’s qualities cannot be worshiped together. If it is said, “The king alone is seen,” that does not mean that the king’s royal parasol and other royal paraphernalia were absent.
It is said:
tasmād yathā-śakti-guṇāś cintyāḥ
“Therefore, as far as one is able, one should meditate on the Lord’s various transcendental qualities.”
In this way it is proved that one may bring together the various qualities of the Lord. As a vaidūrya jewel manifests many different colors, so the Supreme Lord manifests many different forms. Each of these forms is the same perfect, complete, and pure Supreme Lord. In some forms the Lord displays all His qualities, and other forms the Lord does not display all His qualities. Therefore a wise devotee may meditate on all the Lord qualities, as described in the scriptures, as being present in the particular form of the Lord that is chosen for worship.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Although they are learned in the many branches of the Vedas, still the ekāntī devotees meditate only the Lord’s qualities as revealed in their own Upaniṣads, which they have carefully studied. Even though they are aware of other qualities, they do not meditate on them. In this way there is an exception to what was previously described. The subject matter here is a passage of Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: In the worship performed by the ekāntī devotees, should all the qualities of the Supreme Lord be brought together or not?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Because the Lord’s qualities are to be praised, the ekāntī devotees should meditate in this way, if they are able.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
na vā prakaraṇa-bhedāt parovarīyastvādi-vat
na – not; vā – or; prakaraṇa – of devotion; bhedāt – because of differences; parovarīyastva – greater than the greatest; ādi – beginning with; vat – like.
Certainly not. Because of the differences in devotion. Like the Parovarīya and others.
The word vā [or] is used in the sense of “certainly.” The ekāntī devotees do not bring the qualities of the Lord’s other forms into the specific form they have selected to worship. In this way the ekāntī devotees who are exclusively devoted to Lord Kṛṣṇa do not think of Lord Nṛsiṁha’s mane, teeth, fearsomeness, and other qualities as present in Lord Kṛṣṇa. In the same way the ekāntī devotees who are exclusively devoted to Lord Nṛsiṁha do not think of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s flute, stick, peacock feather and other qualities as present in Lord Nṛsiṁha. Why is that? The sūtra explains, prakaraṇa-bhedāt: “Because of the differences in devotion.”
The word prakaraṇa here means “the most exalted [pra] activity [karaṇa].” Therefore the word prakaraṇa here refers to devotional service. The word bhedāt here means “because of the differences.”
Because it is more intense and deep, the devotion of the ekaṇtī devotees is more exalted than the devotion of the sva-niṣṭha devotees. Here the author of the sūtras gives and example. He says: “Like the Parovarīya and others.” This means that the ekāntī devotees who are exclusively devoted to the Lord’s form as the Hiraṇya Puruṣa in the sun planet do not ascribe to their object of worship the qualities of the Lord’s form as Parovarīya, a form worshiped by the worshipers of Udgītha. The word Parovarīya means “greater than the greatest.” The example here is of the worshipers of Ugītha in relation to Parovarīya.
Here someone may object: “Is it not so that the ekāntīs and svaniṣṭhas are both called devotees of the Lord and therefore they must both meditate on all the Lord’s qualities just as they who call themselves brāhmaṇas must all meditate on the Gāyatrī mantra?”
If this is said, then the author of the sūtras gives the following reply.
saṁjñātaś cet tad uktam asti tu tad api
saṁjñātaḥ – by the name; cet – if; tat – that; uktam – spoken; asti – is; tu – but; tat – that; api – also.
If it is because of the name, then I reply, “But it was already said. That also.”
The word tu [but] is employed here to dispel doubt. If it is said that all who worship the Supreme must meditate on all His qualities, then the answer was already given in the previous sūtra: “Certainly not. Because of the differences in devotion.” Although they are certainly included in the general category of the Lord’s devotees, the ekāntīs are the best of the devotees, and therefore they do not meditate on all the qualities of the Lord.
If it were otherwise then they would not be the best of the devotees. Because the ekāntī devotees are passionately devoted to one particular form of the Lord, they are superior to the sva-niṣṭha devotees who are in a general way devoted to all the forms of the Lord. Also, even the sva-niṣṭha devotees are not able to meditate on every single one of the Lord’s qualities. In the Ṛg Veda [1.154.1] it is said:
viṣṇor nu kaṁ vīryāṇi prāvocaṁ
“How can I describe all the glories and powers of Lord Viṣṇu?”
In the Smṛti-śāstra it is said:
nāntaṁ guṇānām
aguṇasya jagmur
yogeśvarā ye bhava-pādma-mukhyāḥ
“Even Brahmā, Śiva, the demigods, and the masters of yoga could not find the end of the transcendental qualities of the Lord, who is beyond the touch of the modes of matter.”
The sūtra explains, asti [it is that], which here means, “the idea that all devotees are exactly alike because they all bear the name ‘devotee’ is the logical fallacy called ‘hetor anvaya-vyabhicāra’.” As the worshipers of the Parovarīya form of the Lord and the worshipers of the Hiraṇmaya form of the Lord have different conceptions of the Lord, even though both are considered worshipers of the Udgītha, in the same way the svaniṣṭha and ekāntī devotees also have different conceptions of the Lord, the svaniṣṭha devotees meditating on all the Lord’s qualities and the ekāntī devotees meditating only on the qualities of the particular form of the Lord they have chosen to worship. That is the conclusion of these two Adhikaraṇas.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now the author begins a discussion of bringing together in meditation the Lord’s qualities in His childhood and other ages. In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad it is said:
kṛṣṇāya devakī-nandanāya oṁ tat sat. bhūr bhuvaḥ svas tasmai vai namo namaḥ.
“oṁ tat sat. bhūr bhuvah svaḥ. Obeisances to Lord Kṛṣṇa, the son of Devakī.”
The author of Nāma-kaumudī defines the name Kṛṣṇa in the following way:
kṛṣṇa-śabdas tu tamāla-nīla-tviṣi yaśodā-stanandhaye rūḍhiḥ
“The word Kṛṣṇa means: Yaśoda’s infant son, who is dark like a tamāla tree.”
In the Rāma-tāpanī Upaniṣad it is said:
oṁ cin-maye ‘smin
mahā-viṣṇau
jāte dāśarathe harau
raghoḥ kule ‘khilaṁ
rāti
rājate yo mahī-sthitaḥ
“oṁ. Born as Daśaratha’s son in King Raghu’s dynasty, the spiritual Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is known as Maḥa-Viṣṇu and Hari, was splendidly manifested on the earth. He delighted everyone.”
In this way the Śruti-śāstra describes the qualities of the Supreme Lord in His childhood and other ages. Many similar descriptions are also found in the Smṛti-śāstra.
Saṁśaya [Doubt]: Should one meditate on these descriptions of the Lord in His childhood and other ages, or should one not meditate on them?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: One should not meditate on the form of the Lord in His different ages, for then the Lord’s form would be sometimes large and sometimes small. This would contradict the Śruti-śāstra’s advice that in one’s meditation the features of the Lord should be harmonious.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
vyāpteś ca samañjasam
vyāpteḥ - because of being all-pervading; ca – also; samañjasam – proper.
It is proper because He is all-pervading and for other reasons also.
It is proper to meditate on the Lord in His childhood and other ages because the Lord is all-pervading and because the Lord is not limited to His features in His different ages. In Sūtra 3.2.38 the Lord’s all-pervasiveness was confirmed. The Lord’s so-called ‘birth’ is not in reality a change of condition for Him. In the Puruṣa-sūkta prayer it is said:
ajāyamāno bahudhā vijāyate
“Although He is never born, the Lord takes birth again and again in many different forms.”
Therefore the word ‘birth’ here means the appearance of the Supreme Lord, who never really takes birth. The word ca [also] in this sūtra means, “also because He is the reservoir of transcendental mellows.” This is confirmed in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.7.1]:
raso vai saḥ
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the reservoir of transcendental mellows.”
By His inconceivable potency, the Supreme Lord appears in a particular form appropriate to the mellows and pastimes His devotees desire. This is perfectly proper. The Lord has numberless devotees, beginning with the liberated souls. This is described in the Ṛg Veda [1.22.20]:
tad viṣṇoḥ
paramaṁ padaṁ
sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ
“The wise and learned devotees always see the supreme abode of Lord Viṣṇu.”
The Supreme Lord, who is always one, simultaneously appears in His different ages before His different devotees. Something similar is seen in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [5.2.1-3], where the syllable da was interpreted in three ways by the demigods, human beings, and demons. In this way, because the Supreme Lord is all-pervading and because the Lord always remains one, one should certainly meditate on the Lord’s pastimes of childhood and other ages.
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: “Because the Supreme Lord is by nature eternal, it may be said that His activities performed with His associates in His childhood and other ages are also eternal. In this way His many different activities, from beginning to end, may all be considered to be eternal. However, it is illogical to say that there can be an eternal previous action that is followed by another action. If the previous action is followed by a subsequent action, then the eternality of the previous action is destroyed. If one action is eternal then any subsequent action must be performed by a different person. To say that the subsequent action is performed by the same person contradicts both scripture and direct experience. Every action has a beginning and an end. Without beginning and end no action can be brought to completion, and without such beginnings and ends there can be no experience of the nectar of transcendental mellows [rasa]. For these reasons, how can it be possible that the Lord’s activities are eternal? If the Lord’s activities were eternal they would be still and unchanging, like a painted picture. If it is said that the same actions are repeated again and again and in that way they are eternal, then I say that there are bound to be times when the beginning of the action is different, and thus the subsequent actions will become changed, and the action would then not be repeated in the same way as before. Therefore, how can it be that the activities of the Lord are eternal? Therefore it should not be accepted that the activities of the Lord are eternal.”
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His reply to this idea.
sarvābhedād anyatreme
sarva – all; abhedāt – because of non-difference; anyatra – in another place; ime – they.
Because of complete non-difference they are in another place.
Both Lord Hari and His associates are the same persons in both previous and subsequent actions. Why is that? The sūtra explains, sarvābhedād: “Because of complete non-difference.” This means that because there is no difference in their personalities, the same Lord Hari and the same associates present in the previous actions are also present in the subsequent actions. That Lord Hari remains one even though He expands into many forms is confirmed in the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad in these words:
eko ‘pi san bahudhā yo ‘vabhāti
“Although He is one, the Supreme Lord appears in many forms.”
Also, in the Smṛti-śāstra it is said:
ekāneka-svarūpāya
“Although He is one, the Supreme Lord appears in many forms.”
This is also true of the Lord’s liberated associates, who remain one even though they appear in many forms. In the Bhūma-vidyā [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 7.26.2] this is said of the liberated souls. In the Smṛti-śāstra this is also said in the description of the Lord’s marriage with many princesses and in other pastimes also. In this way the Lord and the liberated souls can, retaining their identities, expand themselves to be present eternally in different places in time. The sentence “It was twice-cooked” is understood by an intelligent person to mean that one thing was cooked twice, not that two separate foods were separately cooked. In the same way the sentence, “He called out the word ‘cow’ twice,” means that one cow was addressed twice, not that two cows were addressed. In this way Lord Hari, His eternal associates, and His transcendental abodes all retain their identities even though they are manifested in many different places and perform activities that are all eternal even though their activities have a beginning and an end. In this way it is said that a wonderful variety of transcendental mellows are manifested by this sequence of eternal events. It is not that these ideas do not have their root in the descriptions of scripture. In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [3.8.3] it is said:
yad bhūtaṁ bhavac ca bhaviṣyac ca
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead exists in the past, present, and future.”
In the Atharva Veda it is said:
eko devo nitya-līlānuraktaḥ
“The one Supreme Personality of Godhead is eternally engaged in many, many transcendental forms in relationships with His unalloyed devotees.”
The Supreme Lord Himself affirms [Bhagavad-gītā 4.9]:
janma karma ca me divyam
“One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna.”
Only a person who has attained the Supreme Lord’s mercy can understand and accept all of this, as the Supreme Lord Himself declares [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.9.32]:
yāvān ahaṁ
yathā-bhāvo
yad-rūpa-guṇa-karmakaḥ
tathaiva
tattva-vijñānam
astu te mad-anugrahāt
“All of Me, namely My actual eternal form and My transcendental existence, color, qualities, and activities, let all be awakened within you by factual realization, out of My causeless mercy.”
In this way it is proved that the Lord’s activities are eternal. However, only the actions that the Lord performs with the help of His spiritual potency are eternal, and the actions that the Lord performs with the help of His material potencies and material time are not eternal, for if the Lord’s creation of the material universes were eternal then the eventual dissolution of the universes could not occur.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now the author of the sūtras discuses the following point. In the Vedānta scriptures the Lord’s blissfulness and other transcendental qualities are all described.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Should all the qualities of the Lord be combined together in the devotees’ meditation, or should they not be combined in that way?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: The qualities of the Lord should not be combined in meditation, for there is not evidence to say that this should be done. Because it is not said in scripture that all the qualities of the Lord should be combined in meditation, therefore they should not be so combined.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
ānandādayaḥ pradhānasya
ānanda – bliss; ādayaḥ – beginning with; pradhānasya – of the Supreme.
Of the Supreme those qualities that begin with bliss.
The transcendental qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, such as His bliss and knowledge, and His paternal affection for they who take shelter of Him, are all described in the Śruti-śāstra. These qualities should all be combined in the devotees’ meditation, for all together they increase the devotees’ thirst to attain the Lord.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: In the Śruti-śāstra it is said that the blissful Supreme Personality of Godhead has a head and other limbs that are composed of transcendental pleasure. In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.5.1] it is said:
tasya priyam eva śiraḥ
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is like a bird whose head is composed of transcendental pleasure.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Are the qualities of the Supreme Lord to be remembered in every meditation, or are they not to be remembered in every meditation?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: It has already been explained that the Lord’s bliss and other qualities should be brought together when there is meditation on the Lord. Because the Lord’s pleasure, as described here in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, is not really different from the Lord’s bliss mentioned before, therefore it should be included in all meditations on the Lord.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
priya-śirastvādy-aprāptir upacayāpacayau hi bhede
priya – pleasure; śiraḥ – the head; tva – the state of being; ādi – beginning with; aprāptiḥ – non-attainment; upacaya – increase; apacayau – and decrease; hi – indeed; bhede – in the difference.
There is not attainment of the qualities that begin with His head consisting of pleasure. In the difference there is increase and decrease.
The truth that the Lord’s head is composed of pleasure, as well as other qualities of the Lord, are not to be employed in every meditation without exception. Lord Viṣṇu, who is full of transcendental bliss, has the shape of a human being, not the shape of a bird, as described in this passage of Taittirīya Upaniṣad.
Furthermore, the bird described in this passage of Taittirīya Upaniṣad is composed of happiness and joy that increase and decrease. Thus there is a difference. The Lord is not like that. His happiness never increase or decreases. Thus the qualities described in this passage of Taittirīya Upaniṣad should not be included in every meditation on the Lord.
itare tv artha-sāmānyāt
itare – others; tu – but; artha – of result;sāmānyāt – because of equality.
But others because of the sameness of the result.
However other passages of Taittirīya Upaniṣad, such as 2.5.1 [tasmād vā etasmāt... “The Supersoul is full of bliss. From Him this world has come.”], 2.6.2 [so ‘kāmayata... “The Supreme Personality of Godhead desired: I shall become many. I shall father many children.”], and 2.8.1 [bhīṣāsmāt... “Out of fear of the Supreme Lord the wind blows and the sun rises.”], which appear both before and after Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.5.1, and which describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead’s all-pervasiveness, spiritual bliss, creation of the material universes, supreme power and opulence, and many other of the blissful Supreme Lord’s transcendental qualities, may be included in the devotees’ meditations. Why is that? The sūtra explains, artha-sāmānyāt: “Because of the sameness of the result.”
Meditation on the Lord’s qualities, such as His supreme power, His opulences, His friendliness to all, His being the shelter of all, and His granting liberation, qualities described in the Vedānta scriptures, brings liberation as its result. Therefore one should meditate on these qualities of the Lord.
Here someone may ask: “Why is the Supreme Personality of Godhead described as a bird in Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.5.1?”
In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad it is said:
ātmānaṁ rathinam viddhi
“Know that the soul is the chariot driver.”
In this way the soul is described as the chariot driver and the material body is described as the chariot. The purpose of this little parable in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad is to teach that the devotees should diligently control their senses. However, in this parable of the bird in Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.5.1 no purpose is anywhere to be seen. What is the purpose then? The Vedas do not speak parables without a purpose behind them.
Fearing that someone may speak these words, the author of the sūtras next proceeds to explain the meaning of this parable of the bird.
ādhyānāya prayojanābhāvāt
ādhyānāya – for meditation; prayojana – other purpose; abhāvāt – because of the absence.
Because of the absence of another purpose, it is for meditation.
This sūtra means, “This parable is meant for meditation. This is so because of the absence of another purpose.” The word ādhyāna here means meditation. This is the meaning. In Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.1.2] it is said:
brahma-vid āpnoti param
“One who knows the Supreme attains the Supreme.”
The Supreme is manifested in two ways: 1. in His original form, and 2. in the forms of His pastime incarnations. In His original form the Lord has the names Nārāyaṇa, Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha.
They whose intelligence is firmly anchored in the world of matter find it very difficult to meditate on the Lord, who is spiritual, blissful, and all-pervading. Therefore, in order that the conditioned souls may more easily understand the Lord, the Taittirīya Upaniṣad describes the blissful Lord in this parable of “a bird whose head is pleasure.” In this way the conditioned souls attain elevated spiritual intelligence and are able to meditate on the Supreme directly.
Meditation on the annamaya-puruṣa feature of the Lord is given in Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.2. Meditations on the prāṇamaya, manomaya, and vijñānamaya-puruṣas are given in Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.2.1, and meditation on the Ananadamaya- puruṣa feature of the Lord is given in Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.5.1. These five aspects of the Supreme need not always been included in every meditation on the Supreme.
Here someone may object: “The Supreme is one. There is no basis for your statement that the Supreme is five.”
To this objection the answer is given: In the Gopāla- tāpanī Upaniṣad it is said:
eko ‘pi san bahudhā vibhāti
“Although He is one, the Supreme Lord appears in many forms.”
In the Śruti-śāstra it is said:
ekaṁ santaṁ bahudhā dṛśyamānam
“Although He is one, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is seen to be many.”
In the Catur-veda-śikhā it is said:
sa śiraḥ sa dakṣiṇaḥ pakṣaḥ sa uttara-pakṣaḥ sa ātmā sa pucchaḥ
“He is the head. He is the right wing. He is the left wing. He is the Self. He is the tail.”
In the Bṛhat-saṁhitā it is said:
śiro nārāyaṇaḥ
pakṣo dakṣiṇaḥ savya eva ca
pradyumnaś cāniruddhaś ca
san deho vāsudevakaḥ
nārāyaṇo ‘tha
san deho vāsudevaḥ śiro ‘pi vā
pucchaṁ saṅkarṣaṇaḥ
prokta eka eva ca pañcadhā
aṅgāṅgitvena
bhagavān krīḍate puruṣottamaḥ
aiśvaryān na virodhaś ca
cintyas tasmin janārdane
atarkye hi kutas tarkas tv apramaye kutaḥ pramā
“Nārāyaṇa is the head. Pradyumna and Aniruddha are the right and left wings. Vāsudeva is the torso. Or, Nārāyaṇa is the torso, and Vāsudeva is the head. Saṅkarṣaṇa is the tail. In this way the one Supreme Personality of Godhead is manifested in five ways. In this way the Supreme Personality of Godhead enjoys pastimes as both the limbs and the possessor of the limbs. The Lord’s power and opulence have no limit. He is inconceivable. How can mere logic grasp Him? He is immeasurable. How can He be measured?”
ātma-śabdāc ca
ātma – ātmā; śabdāt – from the Śruti-śāstra; ca – also.
Also because the Śruti-śāstra employs the word ātmā.”
In Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.5.1 the bird is described as ātmā [the Supreme]. For this reason the bird here cannot be an ordinary bird with wings, a tail, and other like features. The bird here is a parable.
ātma-gṛhītir itara-vad uttarāt
ātma – ātma; gṛhītiḥ – understanding; itara – others; vat – like; uttarāt – from the following.
Ātmā here means “consciousness.” Because of the following it is like the others.
Here someone may object: “In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.2.3] it is said:
anyo ‘ntara ātmā vā prāṇamayaḥ
“The ātmā within is the prāṇamaya.”
The word ātmā is used to mean dull matter and it is also used to mean the individual spirit souls. In Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.5.1] it is said:
anyo ‘ntara ātmānandamayaḥ
“The ātmā within is the Ānandamaya.”
Since the word ātmā is thus used for these different puruṣas, how can it be said that the word ātmā means the all-pervading, all-knowing Supreme Personality of Godhead?”
To this I reply: The word ātmā here means the all-pervading, all-knowing Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is so because this word is used in that way in many other passages of scripture. For example, in the Śruti-śāstra it is said:
ātmā vā idam eka evāgra āsīt
“In the beginning only the Supreme Personality of Godhead [ātmā] existed.”
Why does the word ātmā here refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead? The sūtra explains, uttarāt: “Because of the following.” This description of the bird is followed by these words [Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.6.2]:
so ‘kāmayata bahu syām
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead desired: ‘I shall become many.’ ”
Thus this passage, which follows the parable of the bird, proves that ānandamaya bird in that passage is certainly the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this way it cannot be that the bird in that parable is not the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Therefore the purpose of that parable is to assist the meditation on the Supreme Lord. This must be so, for that is the appropriate explanation.
anvayād iti cet syād avadhāraṇāt
anvayāt – because of the connotation; iti – thus; cet – if; syāt – may be; avadhāraṇāt – because of the understanding.
If it is said, “This inference cannot be made,” then I reply, “It is right, for that is the understanding here.”
Here someone may object: “It is not possible to conclude, merely on the strength of the following passages, that the word ātma here refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. After all, in the previous passages the word ātmā referred to inanimate matter as well as the individual spirit souls.”
If this is said, then the sūtra replies, syāt: “It is right.” This means: “It is right that the word ātmā here refers to the all-pervading, all-knowing Supreme Personality of Godhead.” Why is that? The sūtra explains, avadhāranāt: “For that is the understanding here.” In the previous passages the word ātmā clearly referred to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There it was said [Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.5.1]:
tasmād vā etasmād ātmanaḥ
“The Supersoul is full of bliss. From Him this world has come.”
To interpret the word ātmā in any other way would do violence to the meditation described in this passage about the ānandamaya-puruṣa. In this passage, passing over the prāṇamaya-puruṣa and the other puruṣas, one comes to rest at the description of the ānandamaya-puruṣa, who is certainly the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As one may point to the star Arundhatī by first pointing to other stars as reference points, so the description of these other ātmās is meant to lead the reader to the ānandamaya-puruṣa, who is the Supreme. Thus the passages that precede and follow the parable of the bird clearly show that the ātmā here is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Thus it is proved without doubt.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Here the author of the sūtras begins his description of other qualities of the Supreme Lord, such as the Lord’s being the father of all. In the Śruti-śāstra it is said:
mātā pitā bhrātā nivāsaḥ śaraṇaṁ suhṛd gatir nārāyaṇaḥ
“Lord Nārāyaṇa is our mother, father, brother, home, shelter, friend, and goal.”
In the Jitānta-stotra, Chapter One, it is said:
pitā mātā suhṛd
bandhur
bhrātā putras tvam eva me
vidyā dhanaṁ ca kāmaś
ca
nānyat kiñcit tvaya vinā
“O Supreme Lord, You are my father, mother, friend, kinsman, brother, son, knowledge, wealth, and desire. I have nothing else but You.”
In the Jitānta-stotra, in the middle and end, it is said:
janma-prabhṛti
dāso ‘smi
śiṣyo ‘smi tanayo ‘smi te
tvaṁ ca svāmī
gurur mātā
pitā ca mama mādhava
“O Lord Mādhava, from the time of my birth I have been Your servant, disciple, and son. You are my master, guru, mother, and father.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Should the devotees meditate on the Lord as their father, son, friend, and master, or should they not meditate in that way?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: The Śruti-śāstra explains:
ātmety evopāsīta
“One should worship the Supreme Lord.”
That is how one should meditate on the Lord. One should not meditate on Him as one’s father or in these other ways.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
kāryākhyānād apūrvam
kārya – result; ākhyānāt – because of the statement; a – like; pūrvam – what was before.
Because of the description of the result it is like the former.
Here the word pūrva means “the previous qualities, such as being full of bliss.” The word apūrva means “the qualities, such as being the father, that are like these previous qualities.” The devotees should meditate on these qualities. Why? The sūtra explains, kāryākhyānād: “Because of the description of the result.” The result here is the result attained by worshiping the Lord with love. This is explained in Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [5.14]:
bhāva-grahyam anīḍākhyam
“The spiritual Supreme Personality of Godhead is attained only by love.”
The Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself declares [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.25.38]:
yeṣām ahaṁ
priya ātmā sutaś ca
sakhā guruḥ suhṛdo daivam iṣtam
“Because the devotees accept Me as their friend, their relative, their son, preceptor, benefactor, and Supreme Deity, they cannot be deprived of their possessions at any time.”
Therefore, as the devotees meditate on the Lord as full of transcendental bliss, so they should also meditate on Him as their father or other relative. The idea that the Śruti-śāstra’s declaration ātmety evopāsīta [One should worship the Supreme Lord] means that one should not think of the Lord as one’s father has already been refuted in this book.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now begins a discussion of the truth that one should meditate on the Supreme as having a form. In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [1.4.7] it is said:
ātmety evopāsīta
“One should worship the Supreme Lord.”
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [1.4.15] it is also said:
ātmānam eva lokam upāsīta
“Everyone should worship the Supreme Lord.”
In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [1.8-10] it is said:
tad u hovāca hairaṇyo gopa-veśam abhrābhaṁ taruṇaṁ kalpa- drumāśritam. tad iha ślokā bhavanti. sat-puṇḍarīka...
“Brahmā said: ‘The Supreme Personality of Godhead is a cowherd boy. His complexion is like a monsoon cloud. He stays under a desire tree. The following verses describe Him: His eyes are like lotus flowers...’ ”
After thus describing the form of the Supreme Lord, the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [1.10] concludes:
cintayaṁś cetasā kṛṣṇaṁ mukto bhavati saṁsṛteḥ.
“Meditating on Lord Kṛṣṇa in this way, a person becomes free from the cycle of repeated birth and death.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Does one attain liberation by worshiping the Lord in His formless feature or by worshiping the Lord in His feature with a form?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: One should worship the Lord in His formless feature. Only in that way will one attain liberation. Only by meditating on the Lord with undivided attention does one attain liberation. Because in the form of the Lord there are eyes and many other different limbs and features of the Lord it is not possible to give undivided attention to any of them, and therefore it is not possible to attain liberation by meditating on the form of the Lord.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
samāna evaṁ cābhedāt
samānaḥ – equal sentiment; evam – thus; ca – although; abhedāt – because of not being different.
Although it is not divided in that way, because of non-difference.
The word ca here means ‘although.’ Although the Lord’s eyes and other bodily features and limbs are all different, still they leave the same impression on the mind. The features of the Lord are like golden statues, which although present in a great variety of forms, still, because they are all made of gold, leave the same impression on the mind. Why is that? The sūtra explains, abhedāt: “Because of non-difference.” This means, “Because the Lord’s eyes and other features and limbs are not different from His soul or Self.” For this reason, by worshiping the form of the Supreme Lord one attains liberation. If this were not so, then the description in Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [1.10], cintayaṁś cetasā kṛṣṇaṁ mukto bhavati saṁsṛteḥ—“Meditating on the form of Lord Kṛṣṇa in this way, a person becomes free from the cycle of repeated birth and death”—would not be true. In the Smṛti-śāstra it is said:
satya-jñānānantānanda-mātraika-rasa-mūrtayaḥ
“The forms of the Supreme Lord are undivided. They are all full of eternity, knowledge, infinity, and bliss.”
In this way it is said that although the Lord’s forms present a very wonderful variety, still They are all one in essence. Although this truth was also described in Sūtra 3.2.14, the merciful teacher of Vedānta repeats the same teaching so this very difficult topic may be clearly understood.
In this section the truth that one should meditate on all the qualities of the different forms of the Lord has been explained. Now will be considered the nature of the qualities the Lord manifests in His āveśa incarnations, where He gives special powers to certain individual souls. In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad [7.1.1 and 3] it is said:
adhīhi bhagavan iti hopasasāda sanat-kumāraṁ naradas taṁ hovāca... taṁ māṁ bhagavān śokasya pāraṁ tārayatu.
“Nārada approached Sanat-kumāra and said, ‘O master, please teach me... O master, please take me across this ocean of grief’.”
Sanat-kumāra and some other individual spirit souls are śaktyāveśa-avatāras of the Lord. This means that the Lord has empowered them with knowledge or certain other virtues. That is why Sanat-kumāra is here addressed as bhagavān [master].
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Should one meditate on these great devotees as having all the transcendental qualities of the Supreme Lord, or should one not meditate on them in that way?
The author of the sūtras here considers this question; first He gives the positive view.
sambandhād evam anyatrāpi
sambandhāt – because of the touch; evam – thus; anyatra – in others; api – also.
Because of His touch it is like this in others also.
All the qualities of the Lord are present in the four Kumāras and the other śaktyāveśa-avatāras. Why is that? The sūtra explains, sambandhāt: “Because of His touch.” As fire transforms an iron rod, so the touch of the Supreme Lord transforms these great devotees.
Now the author of the sūtras gives the negative view.
na vāviśeṣāt
na – not; vā – or; aviśeṣāt – because of non-difference.
Or not, because of non-difference.
One should not meditate on all the qualities of the Supreme Lord being present in the śaktyāveśa-avatāras. Why not? The sūtra explains, aviśeṣāt: “Because of non-difference.” This means that even though the Lord has given them special powers, they remain individual spirit souls. They are not fundamentally different from other individual spirit souls. The word vā [or] here hints that because they are very dear to the Lord, these souls should be treated with great respect.
darśayati ca
darśayati – reveals; ca – and.
It also reveals it.
This truth is revealed in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad [7.1.3], for Nārada Muni, who is here seeking the truth, is himself a śaktyāveśa-avatāra. In this way it is clear that all the qualities of the Lord are not present in the śaktyāveśa-avatāras.
sambhṛti-dyu-vyāpty api cātaḥ
sambhṛti – maintenance; dyu – in the sky; vyāpti – spreading; api – also; ca – and; ataḥ – thus.
Therefore maintenance and being present everywhere in the sky also.
In this sūtra the words sambhṛti and dyu-vyāpti are brought together in a samāhāra-samāsa.
These two qualities should not be attributed to the śaktyāveśa-avatāras. The reason has been given in the previous sūtra. The reason is the śaktyāveśa-avatāras are individual spirit souls [jīvas]. In the Eṇāyanīya recension of the Vedas it is said [Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa 2.4.7.10]:
brahma jyeṣṭhā vīryā sambhṛtāni brahmāgre jyeṣṭhaṁ divam ātatāna. brahma bhūtānāṁ prathamaṁ tu jajñe. tenārhati brahmaṇā spardhituṁ kaḥ.
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead possesses all powers. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is present everywhere in the great sky. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the first of persons. Who can rival the Supreme Personality of Godhead?”
In these words the glories of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, beginning with His maintenance of all and His being present everywhere in the great sky, are described. These qualities cannot be ascribed to the individual spirit souls, for they are qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead alone.
Now the author of the sūtras gives another reason why these qualities cannot be ascribed to the individual spirit souls.
puruṣa-vidyāyām iva cetareṣām anāmnānāt
puruṣa – of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; vidyāyām – in the knowledge [the Puruṣa-sūkta prayers]; iva – like; ca – also; itareṣām – of others;anāmnānāt – because of not being mentioned.
It is taught of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the Puruṣa-sūkta prayers, and it is not mentioned of others.
In the descriptions of the four Kumāras and other śaktyāveśa-avatāras there is no description of their being the creator and controller of all or of having other qualities that belong to the Supreme Lord alone. For this reason all the qualities of the Supreme Lord should not be ascribed to them.
Giving an example of the difference between the individual souls and the Supreme Lord, the sūtra explains, puruṣa-vidyāyām: “It is taught of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the Puruṣa-sūkta prayers.” The word ca [and] here hints, “and in the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad and other scriptures also.” These qualities of the Lord are mentioned in the descriptions of the Lord in these places but they are not mentioned in the descriptions of Kumāras and other śaktyāveśa-avatāras.
The śaktyāveśa-avatāras may be compared to iron rods heated by a fire. As iron rods heated by a fire have two natures, so the śaktyāveśa-avatāras may have two natures also. One nature is like the heat generated by the fire. That nature is the specific qualities with which the Lord has empowered the śaktyāveśa-avatāra. They who meditate on these qualities in the śaktyāveśa-avatāra may thus meditate on all the qualities of the Supreme Lord. The other nature is like the iron rod itself.
That is the nature of the individual spirit soul who is empowered to be a śaktyāveśa-avatāra. They who meditate on his qualities may not ascribe to him all the qualities of the Supreme. However, they may meditate on the śaktyāveśa-avatāra’s possessing the qualities of a great devotee, such as his being very dear to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Because He dearly loves them, the Lord accepts the śaktyāveśa-avatāra devotees as His personal associates. That is why in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and other scriptures these great devotees are respectfully addressed as bhagavān [lord]. However, because they are individual spirit souls, the śaktyāveśa-avatāras are all humble and lowly in comparison to the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. This is the proper understanding of their nature.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: It has been said that one should meditate on the Supreme, especially by thinking of the Lord’s qualities as described in one’s own branch of the Vedas. However, it is said that they who desire liberation should not meditate on certain of the Lord’s qualities. In the Atharva Veda [8.3.4 and 17] it is said:
agne tvaṁ yātudhānasya bhindi
“O fiery Lord, please cut Yātudhāna into pieces!”
and
taṁ pratyañcam arciṣā bidhya marma
“O Lord, with Your flames please break open Yātudhāna’s heart!”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Should one meditate on the Lord as one who cuts others to pieces, or should one not meditate on Him in this way?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Because the Lord becomes violent only to stop the demons, therefore it is proper to meditate on the Lord in this way.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
vedhādy artha-bhedāt
vedha – cutting into pieces; ādi – beginning with; artha – of result; bhedāt – because of difference.
[Not] cutting into pieces and other violent acts because of a different result.
The word na [not] should be understood in this sūtra. One should not meditate on the Lord as the punisher who cuts others into pieces and performs other violent acts. Why not? The sūtra explains, atha-bhedāt: “Because of a different result.” The word artha here means result. The saintly devotees renounce violence and other negative qualities. That is the meaning here. The Lord Himself declares [Bhagavad-gītā 8.8]:
amānitvam adambitvam ahiṁsā kṣāntir arjavam
“Humility, pridelessness, nonviolence, tolerance, and simplicity... all these I declare to be knowledge.”
Also, in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam the Lord says:
nivṛttaṁ karma seveta pravṛttaṁ mat-paras tyajet
“My devotee should renounce materialism and cultivate renunciation.”
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: In the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [1.11] it is said:
jñātvā
devaṁ sarva-pāśāpahāniḥ
kṣīṇaḥ kleśair
janma-mṛtyu-prahāniḥ
tasyābhidhyānāt tṛtīyaṁ
deha-bhede
viśvaiśvaryaṁ kevala āpta-kāmaḥ
“By understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead, a person becomes free from all material bondage, his sufferings perish, and he escapes the cycle of repeated birth and death. By meditating on the Supreme Lord, when one is finally separated from the material body he enters the opulent spiritual world and attains a spiritual body where all his desires are fulfilled.”
This verse means that by understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead a person cuts the ropes of false possessiveness that make him think that his body, house, and other things are all his property. Here the scripture glorifies knowledge of the Lord, saying that knowledge destroys the sufferings of repeated birth and death. By understanding the Lord and always meditating on Him, a person becomes free of both gross and subtle material bodies, travels beyond Candraloka and Brahmaloka, and enters the third realm, the realm of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. What is that realm of the Lord like? The scripture explains: it is viśvaiśvarya [full of spiritual opulences], it is kevala [untouched by matter], and it is āpta-kāma [all desires are fulfilled there]. Here it is clearly said that this abode is attained by understanding the truth of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, truth taught in the revealed scriptures.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Is meditation mandatory or optional?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Meditation is mandatory, for it increases faith and thus fixes the mind on the Lord.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
hānau tūpāyana-śabda-śeṣatvāt kuśācchanda-stuty- upagānavat tad uktam
hānau – in destruction; tu – indeed; upāyana – approaching; śabda – statement; śeṣatvāt – because of being a supplement; kuśa – kuśa grass; ācchanda – according to desire; stuti – prayer; upagāna – song; vat – like; tat – that; uktam – said.
But in liberation because of approaching, because of the Śruti-śāstra, and because of the means to the end it is like voluntary kuśa grass, prayers and hymns. This is said.
The word tu [but] is used here to begin the refutation of the opponent’s argument. When, by understanding the truth of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, a person becomes free from the ropes of matter, such a wise devotee falls in love with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In that condition he spontaneously meditates on the qualities of the Lord as they are described in the revealed scriptures. He does this as a person voluntarily takes kuśa grass, recites prayers, and sings hymns.
As a student, when his daily studies are completed, may of his own accord take kuśa grass in his hand and then recite prayers and sing hymns, so the liberated souls of their own accord meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is hinted by the use of the word abhidhyāna.
The reason for this is given in the word upāyana: “He has approached the Supreme Lord.” The word upāyana means that he loves the Lord and he has approached the Lord. The word śabda means “words of instruction.” The word śeṣatvāt means “because all these words are the means to attain a specific end.” This is described in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.4.21]:
tam eva dhīraḥ...
“A wise man, aware of the Lord’s true nature, should engage his intelligence in the Lord’s service. He should not meditate on other things. He should not waste many words speaking of other things.”
In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [3.9.41] the Lord Himself says:
pūrtena tapasā
yajñair
dānair yogaih samādhinā
brāhmaṁ
niḥśreyasaṁ puṁsāṁ
mat-prītis tattvavin-matam
“It is the opinion of expert transcendentalists that the ultimate goal of performing all traditional good works, penances, sacrifices, charities, mystic activities, trances, etc., is to invoke My satisfaction.”
For this reason the liberated souls of their own accord meditate on the Lord. That is the meaning. It is very difficult to understand the truth by studying the difficult Vedas and following the difficult path of logic, for there are many branches of the Vedas and many complicated arguments in logic.
One whose heart is softened with love for the blissful Supreme Lord is not attracted to follow the path of the Vedas or the path of logic, for these paths only make the heart harder and harder. There are times, however, where these two paths can be employed to increase one’s love and devotion to the Lord. In the following words the author of the sūtras gives the reason and evidence for all of this.
sāmparāye tartavyābhāvāt tathā hy anye
sāmparāye – in love for the Supreme Personality of Godhead; tartavya – of bondage; abhāvāt – because of the non-existence; tathā – so; hi – indeed; anye – others.
When there is love for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, because of the absence of bondage. So the others indeed.
The word sāmparāya here means the Supreme Personality of Godhead, because all truths meet in Him. Sāmparāya is therefore said to mean “love for the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” This word is formed by adding the affix aṇ [Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī 4.4.21].
For one who loves the Lord, meditation on the Lord is spontaneous and not ordered by rules. Why is that? The sūtra explains: tartavyābhāvāt: “Because of the absence of bondage.” This means, “Because there is nothing to cross beyond,” or “Because there are no ropes of bondage that must be severed.”
The Vājasaneyīs [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.21] explain:
tam eva dhīro vijñāya prajñāṁ kurvīta brāhmaṇaḥ. nānudhyāyed bahūn śabdān vāco viglāpanaṁ hi tat.
“A wise man, aware of the Lord’s true nature, should engage his intelligence in the Lord’s service. He should not meditate on other things. He should not waste many words speaking of other things.”
The Lord Himself explains [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.20.31]:
tasmād
mad-bhakti-yuktasya
yogino vai mad-ātmanaḥ
na jñānaṁ
na ca vairāgyaṁ
prāyaḥ śreyo bhaved iha
“For one who is fully engaged in My devotional service, whose mind is fixed on me in bhakti-yoga, the path of speculative knowledge and dry renunciation is not very beneficial.”
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Thus it has been explained that one should worship and meditate on the Lord as a person who possesses qualities. Now will be described two different ways to worship the Lord. In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad it is said:
tad u hovāca hairaṇyo gopa-veśam abhrābham...
“Brahmā said: The Supreme Lord appears like a cowherd boy, and His complexion is like a monsoon cloud.”
In the Rāma-tāpanī Upaniṣad it is said:
Prakṛtyā sahitaḥ śyāmaḥ...
“Decorated with earrings and a jewel necklace, His complexion dark, His garments yellow, and the hair on His head matted, saintly, two-armed Lord Rāma is accompanied by Goddess Sītā.”
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.4.22] it is said:
sa vā ayam ātmā sarvasya vaśī sarvasyeśānḥ.
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master and controller of all.”
By meditating on the Lord’s sweetness one attains the Lord. This method is called ruci-bhakti [the path of spontaneous love]. By meditating on the Lord’s glory and opulence one also attains the Lord. This method is called vidhi-bhakti [the path of following rules and regulations].
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Of these two kinds of meditation which is the best?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Because the result of both these kinds of meditation is uncertain, one should not desire to perform either of them.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
chandata ubhayāvirodhāt
chandataḥ – by the will; ubhaya – of both; avirodhāt – because there is no contradiction.
By His will [it is not so], for in these two there is no contradiction.
As a frog jumps from far away, so the word na [not] should be brought to this sūtra from Sūtra 22. The word chandataḥ here means, “by the Supreme Lord’s will the way of devotion is divided into two paths.” How is that? The sūtra explains, ubhayāvirodhāt: “For in these two there is no contradiction.” This means that the descriptions of these two paths do not exclude each other.
The beginningless and eternally perfect way of devotion flows like a heavenly Ganges river from the Lord’s personal associates to the newest beginners in devotional service. Lord Hari wishes that all the spirit souls in the material universes associate with His devotees and voluntarily follow the path of devotion to Him. By following that path they can attain Him. To attain this end one should seek the mercy of a kind madhyama-adhikārī devotee. The madhyama-adhikārī devotee is described in the following words:
īśvare
tad-adhīneṣu
bāliśeṣu dviṣatsu
ca
prema-maitrī-kṛpāpekṣā
yaḥ karoti sa madhyamaḥ
“A person who loves the Supreme Lord, befriends the devotees, is merciful to the people in general, and ignores the demons, is a madhyama-adhikārī devotee of the Lord.”
In this way it is clearly shown that Lord Hari is not cruel, unfair, or unkind.
gater arthavattvam ubhayathānyathā hi virodhaḥ
gateḥ – of the goal; arthavattvam – attainment; ubhayathā – on both; anyathā – otherwise; hi – indeed; virodhaḥ – contradiction.
In both ways the goal is attained, for otherwise there would certainly be a contradiction.
Both paths lead to the goal. By the path of meditating on the Lord’s sweetness and also by the path of meditating on the Lord’s glory and opulence, one may attain the goal. The word artha here means “the goal of life.” The attainment of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the highest goal of life.
That is the meaning. To say this is not so is to contradict the scriptural texts that describe these two paths. The word hi [certainly] in this sūtra is evidence that both paths are equal. One cannot quote Sūtra 3.3.6 to say that the methods of these two paths should be combined. These two paths are like the path of the ekāntī devotees, who do not wish to see in the Lord qualities other than those manifested by the Lord’s form they have chosen to worship. This will be described in Sūtra 3.3.56.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Here the author of the sūtras proves that ruci-bhakti [the path of spontaneous love] is the best.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Who is best: one who follows the path of spontaneous love [ruci-bhakti] or one who follows the path of following rules and regulations [vidhi-bhakti]?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Because he carefully follows all the rules, one on the path of vidhi-bhakti is the best.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
upapannas tal-lakṣaṇārthopalabdher lokavat
upapannaḥ – best; tat – of that; lakṣaṇa – characteristic; artha – of the goal; upalabdheḥ – because of attainment; loka – in the world; vat – like.
It is best, because of attainment of the goal that is He who has that nature, as in the world.
A person who worships Lord Hari by following the path of ruci-bhakti is the best, or is the one who has attained the goal of life. Why is that? The sūtra explains, tal-lakṣaṇārthopalabdheḥ: “For it brings the goal that is He who has that nature.” The phrase “He who has that nature” here means, “He who loves His devotees.” This refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead when He manifests His quality of sweetness. Here the word upalabdheḥ means “Because of independently attaining.” Then the author clarifies this by giving an example, lokavat: “As in the world.” The Lord is like a great king who himself comes under the control of an expert and devoted servant.
This nature of the Lord does not in any way diminish His supreme independence. This is so because the Lord’s being controlled by the love of His devotees is actually a great virtue on His part. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is attracted by the love of His devotees, and He reveals His own sweetness to the devotees that love Him. Seeing His sweetness, the devotees love Him all the more, and they respond by offering themselves to the Lord. The Lord accepts this offering, and by doing that, He sells Himself to His devotees in exchange for their love.
In this way the Lord makes His devotees very exalted and important so they can directly associate with the Lord. Without this it would not be possible for the devotees to see the Lord and associate with Him. Śrīmān Śukadeva Gosvāmī explains [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.9.21]:
nāyaṁ sukhāpo
bhagavān
dehināṁ gopikā-sutaḥ
jñānināṁ
cātma-bhūtānāṁ
yathā bhaktimatām iha
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, the son of mother Yaśodā, is accessible to devotees engaged in spontaneous loving service, but He is not as easily accessible to mental speculators, to those striving for self-realization by severe austerities and penances, or to those who consider the body the same as the self.”
Although the Lord is controlled by all His devotees, He especially places Himself under the control of the devotees filled with spontaneous love for Him. Therefore the path of spontaneous love [ruci-bhakti] is the best of all paths and the devotees who follow this path are the best of all devotees.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now the author of the sūtras shows that there are two kinds of devotional service, one kind having a single part, and another kind having many parts.
In the first chapter of the Atharva Veda’s Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad the eighteen-syllable mantra is described. There it is said [1.6]:
yo dhyāyati rasayati bhajati so ‘mṛto bhavati
“One who meditates on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, glorifies Him, and worships Him, becomes liberated.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Can one attain liberation by performing only one of these three, or must one perform them all?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: The Upaniṣad names all three of them, and, after naming them, says that then one becomes liberated. Therefore one must perform all three in order to become liberated.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: in the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
aniyamaḥ sarveṣām avirodhāc chabdānumānābhyām
aniyamaḥ – without a rule; sarveṣām – of all; avirodhāt – because there is no contradiction; śabda – Śruti-śāstra; anumānābhyām – and Smṛti-śāstra.
There is no rule for them all, for there is no contradiction with the Śruti-śāstra and Smṛti-śāstra.
No rule declares that meditation, glorification, and worship must all be performed in order to attain liberation. Any one of them is sufficient for liberation. Why is that? The sūtra declares, śabdānumānābhyām: “For there is no contradiction with the Śruti-śāstra and Smṛti-śāstra.” Later in the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [1.10] it is said:
cintayaṁś cetasā kṛṣṇaṁ mukto bhavati saṁsṛteḥ
“By meditating on Lord Kṛṣṇa a person becomes liberated from the cycle of repeated birth and death.”
In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [1.12] it is also said
pañca-padaṁ pañcāṅgaṁ japan dyāvābhūmī sūryācandramasau sāgnī
“By chanting these five names one attains the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose potencies are manifested as the heavenly planets, the earth, the sun, the moon, and fire.”
In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [12.3.51] it is said:
kīrtanād eva kṛṣṇasya mukta-saṅgaḥ paraṁ vrajet
“Simply by chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra one can become free from material bondage and be promoted to the transcendental kingdom.”
It is also said:
eko ‘pi kṛṣṇāya
kṛtaḥ pramāṇo
daśāśvamedhāvabhṛthair na
tulyaḥ
daśāśvamedhī punar eti janma
kṛṣṇa-pramāṇī
na punar-bhavāya
“Ten aśvamedhāvabhṛthas are not equal to once bowing down before Lord Kṛṣṇa. One who performs ten aśvamedhas again takes birth. One who bows before Lord Kṛṣṇa never takes birth again.”
These passages do not in any way oppose the statement of Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [1.6]. If this were so then each scriptural statement affirming that liberation is attained by performing a certain kind of devotional service would have to be rejected. Therefore the statement of Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [1.6] “He becomes liberated,” must be considered to be connected individually to each of the statements, “He who meditates on the Supreme Personality of Godhead,” “He who glorifies the Supreme Personality of Godhead,” and “He who worships the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
The meaning here is, “If even only one of the many kinds activities of devotional service brings liberation, then how much more effectively will the performance of many kinds of activities in devotional service bring one to liberation?” This is a hint pointing to the nine activities of devotional service, beginning with hearing and chanting about the Lord.
Here someone may object: “Is it not so that the Śruti-śāstras teach that liberation is attained by meditation alone? In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.5.6 and 2.4.5] it is said:
ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ
“In a trance of meditation one should gaze on the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
Therefore how can it be said that liberation is attained by other methods, such as chanting the glories of the Lord?”
To this I reply: Chanting the glories of the Lord and the other activities of devotional service are woven together with meditation on the Lord. They are not separate. Therefore when one chants the Lord’s glories or performs other activities of devotional service, meditation on the Lord is also present, and when one meditates on the Lord, chanting the Lord’s glories and the other activities of devotional service are also present.
Here someone may object: “It is not correct to say that one can attain liberation simply by understanding the truth about the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although they are perfect in knowledge of the Lord, Brahmā, Śiva, Indra, and the other demigods still remain in the material world. Indeed it is even seen that sometimes they oppose the Lord’s desires.”
If this is said, then the author of the sūtras gives the following reply.
yāvad-adhikāram avasthitir ādhikārikāṇām
yāvat – as long as; adhikāram – the post; avasthitiḥ – the situation; ādhikārikāṇām – of they who hold the posts.
The office-holders stay for the duration of their terms in office.
We do not say that everyone who has perfect knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead at once attains liberation.
However, their accumulated past karma is all destroyed by their knowledge of the Lord, and their present actions also bear no karmic result. When the term of life in their present body is exhausted, then they will attain liberation. Because they hold posts in the management of the universe, Brahmā and the other demigods do not become liberated until their terms of office expire. This is so even though their past and present karmic reactions are already destroyed.
When their terms of office expire, then they become liberated and enter the supreme abode of the Lord. This should be understood. The demigod Indra and the others like him that have relatively short terms of office go, at the end of their terms, to the demigod Brahmā, whose term of office is much longer. When Brahmā attains liberation they all attain liberation with him. The author of the sūtras will describe this later in Sūtra 4.3.10.
As for the demigods opposing the Lord’s desires, they do this only in conformance with His wish, to assist the Lord’s pastimes. These demigods may appear to be materialists engaged in sense gratification, but that is only a false show. In truth they are transcendentalists fixed in knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, when their terms of office expire, they all attain liberation. Of this there is no doubt.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now will be discussed the truth that qualities such as being neither great nor small should be attributed to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [3.8.8] it is said:
etad vai tad akṣaram gārgi brāhmaṇā abhivadanty asthūlam aṇava-hrasvam
“O Gārgī, the brāhmaṇas say that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is neither great nor small, tall nor short.”
It is also said:
atha parā yayā tad akṣaram adhigamyate yat tad adreśyam agrahyam agotram avarṇam acakṣuḥ-śrotram
“Please know that the Supreme never wanes nor does He ever die. The Supreme is never seen nor is He ever grasped. He is never born in any family. He cannot be described in words. The eyes and the ears cannot know Him.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Should these qualities of the Lord, where He is considered imperishable and neither great nor small be included in every meditation on Him, or should they not be included in every meditation on Him?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: In Sūtra 3.3.20 it was said:
samāna evaṁ cābhedāt
“Although it is not divided in that way, because of non-difference.”
These words are understood to mean that the Supreme certainly does have a form. However the previous description [of the Lord as being imperishable and neither great nor small] cannot be considered to be a description of a being with form.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
akṣara-dhiyāṁ tv avarodhaḥ sāmānya-tad-bhāvābhyām aupasada-vat tad uktam
akṣara – imperishable; dhiyām – in the idea; tu – but; avarodhaḥ – acceptance; sāmānya – equality; tat – of Him; bhāvābhyām – with the qualities; aupasada – the Aupasat mantra; vat – like; tat – that; uktam – spoken.
But because He has the same qualities the idea of imperishability should be accepted, as in the Aupasat mantra. This has been explained.
The word tu [but] here begins the refutation of the opponent’s argument. The idea that the imperishable Lord is neither great nor small should be included in all meditations on Him. Why is that? The sūtra explains, sāmānya-tad-bhāvābhyām: “Because He has the same qualities.” The Kaṭha Upaniṣad [1.2.15] explains:
sarve vedā yat-padam āmananti
“All the Vedas glorify the Supreme.”
The worshipable Supreme is always the same. Therefore these features are present even though He has a form. Therefore the qualities like being neither great nor small are also present in the Lord’s form. This is the meaning. Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [1.11] affirms that by understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead one attains liberation. The knowledge here is knowledge of the Supreme as an extraordinary being, not as an ordinary being. To posit anything else is illogical and an insult to the Supreme. Therefore the qualities like being neither great not small should be included with the qualities like being all-pervading, all-knowing, and full of bliss. In this way there is the knowledge that the Supreme is an extraordinary being. From this it may be inferred that the Supreme is different from all other persons. In this way it is proved that the form of the Supreme is free from anything that is bad or to be rejected. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [8.3.24] it is said:
sa vai na
devāsura-martya-tiryaṅ
na strī na ṣaṇḍo na pumān na
jantuḥ
nāyaṁ guṇaḥ karma na san na cāsan
niṣedha-śeṣo
jayatād aśeṣaḥ
“He neither demigod nor demon, neither human nor bird nor beast. He is not woman, man, nor neuter, nor is He an animal. He is not a material quality, a fruitive activity, a manifestation or non-manifestation. He is the last word in the discrimination of ‘not this, not this,’ and He is unlimited. All glories to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
Prayed to with these words, which describe a being neither great nor small, the Supreme Personality of Godhead personally appeared in His transcendental form, a form that must be the same as the being described in these prayers. That appearance is described in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [8.3.30]:
harir āvirāsīt
“Then the Supreme Personality of Godhead personally appeared.”
In this passage Gajendra prayed to the Lord, addressing Him in a certain way, and the Lord reciprocated by appearing in the form that was described in the prayers. If those prayers were not appropriate to the form of the Lord, then the Lord would have appeared only as a vague impersonal knowledge in Gajendra’s heart. In this way the idea that the Supreme Lord is a material demigod or some other kind of material being is clearly disproved. However, the Lord does appear in a form like that of a demigod or a human being, but these are His own forms and they are not material.
With the words aupasada-vat the sūtra gives an example to show that secondary features inevitably follow primary features. The word upasat here refers to a specific mantra in a specific Vedic ritual. When in its chanted in the Jamadagnya ceremony where purodasa cakes are offered with the mantra agner vai hotram, the upasat mantra is chanted in the Sāma Veda style. However, when it is chanted in a Yajur Veda ceremony, the upasat mantra is chanted in the Yajur Veda style. In this way the secondary nature follows the primary nature. Thus the secondary qualities of the Lord must be understood according to His primary qualities. This is described in the Vidhi-khaṇḍa in the following words:
guṇa-mukhya-vyatikrame tad-arthatvān mukhyena veda-saṁyogaḥ
“When primary and secondary meanings are in conflict, the primary meaning should be accepted.”
Here someone may object: “The nature of the Lord’s form is described in the following words:
sarva-karmā sarva-gandhaḥ
“The Supreme does everything. The Supreme possesses all fragrances.”
For this reason all meditations on the Lord should include a meditation on His doing everything and possessing all fragrances.”
If this is said then the author of the sūtras gives the following reply.
iyad āmananāt
iyat – this; āmananāt – by the description.
It follows the description.
The word iyat means “in that way.” In that way one should always meditate on the qualities of the Supreme Lord’s transcendental form. In what way? The sūtra explains, āmananāt: “Following the description.” This means, “Following the description of the Lord’s primary qualities.” Meditating on the Lord’s primary qualities are compulsory in meditation on Him. Therefore it is not necessary that in every meditation on the Lord one must meditate on His doing everything or possessing all fragrances.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now it will be explained that one should meditate on the transcendental abode of the Lord. In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [2.2.7] it is said:
yaḥ sarva-jñaḥ sarva-vid yasyaiṣa mahimā bhuvi sambabhūva divye pure hy eṣa samvyomny ātmā pratiṣṭhitaḥ.
“The all-knowing Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose greatness is seen everywhere in the world, resides in His own effulgent city in the spiritual sky.”
However, it is also said [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 2.2.10]:
brahmaivedam viśvam idaṁ variṣṭham
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is present everywhere in the material world.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Is the description of the Lord’s city in the spiritual sky merely an allegory to describe the Lord’s glories, or is there in truth such a city with many wonderful palaces, gateways, surrounding walls, and other like features?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: What is the answer? The answer is that these words are an allegory to describe the Supreme Lord’s glory. In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad [7.24.1] it is said:
sa bhagavaḥ kasmin pratiṣṭhita iti. sva-mahimni.
“Where does the Supreme Personality of Godhead reside? He resides in His own glory.”
In this way the Śruti-śāstra describes the Lord’s glory.
Therefore the spiritual sky described before is in truth the Lord’s glory. It is not any other thing. Therefore it is not possible that the Supreme Lord has an abode in a specific place. This is confirmed by the passage beginning with the words brahmaiva.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
antarā bhūta-grāma-vat svātmanaḥ
antarā – within; bhūta – made of material elements; grāma – city; vat – like; svātmanaḥ – of himself.
Within it is like a material city to His own.
To His own that place in the spiritual sky is like a great city. The phrase “to His own” means “to His own devotee.” In the Śruti-śāstra [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.2.3 and Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.23] it is said:
yam evaiṣa vṛnute tena labhyaḥ
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is attained only by one whom He Himself chooses.”
Although everything in that city is perfectly spiritual, still it appears like a city made of earth and the other material elements. The word vat [like] used in the sūtra refutes the idea that this city is actually material in nature. The sūtra says that it is svātmanaḥ: “Manifested from Himself.” In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [2.2.11] it is said:
brahmaivedam amṛtam purastāt paścāc ca. Brahma dakṣiṇataś cottareṇādhaś cordhvaṁ prasṛtam. Brahmaivedaṁ viśvam idaṁ variṣṭham.
“The Supreme is eternal. He is in the east and the west. He is in the south and the north. He is below and He is above. He is everywhere in the universe. He is the greatest.”
As the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is full of transcendental knowledge and bliss, has a wonderful variety of features, such as His hands, feet, nails, and hair, so the Lord’s transcendental abode, which is manifested from His own personal form, also has a wonderful variety of features, such as the different forms in its land and water. Even though they are all spirit and nothing else, still they manifest a great variety, like a peacock feather or other colorful object.
anyathā bhedānupapattir iti cen nopadeśāntara-vat
anyathā – otherwise; bheda – difference; anupapattiḥ – non-attainment; iti – thus; cet – if; na – not; upadeśa – teaching; antara – another; vat – like.
If it is said, “It is otherwise, for there is no difference”, then I reply: No. It is not so. For it is like other teachings.
If it is said, “It is otherwise, for if there is no difference between them, then there must be no difference between the creator of the abode and the abode itself,” then the sūtra replies, “No. This is not a fault.” Why is that? The sūtra replies, upadeśāntara-vat: “For it is like other teachings.” In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad it is said:
ānandaṁ brahmaṇo vidvān
“A wise man knows the bliss of the Supreme.”
In this and other teachings it is said that even though the Supreme is one with His attributes, still He is also different from them. That is the meaning.
Here the opponent claims that because the Lord is not different from His transcendental abode, therefore it is not possible for the Lord to dwell in that abode, for He is not different from it. This is refuted by the scriptures’ assertion that the Lord is also different from His attributes, including His transcendental abode.
vyatihāro viśiṁṣanti hītara-vat
vyatihāro – changeable; viśiṁṣanti – distinguish; hi – indeed; itara – others; vat – like.
Like others, they say they are interchangeable.
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [1.4.15] it is said:
ātmānam eva lokam upāsīta
“One should worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead as identical with His spiritual abode.”
This passage of the Śruti-śāstra clearly shows that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is identical with His spiritual abode and the spiritual abode is identical with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this way it is proved that they are mutually identical. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the same as His spiritual abode, and the spiritual abode is the same as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad, in the passage beginning sat-puṇḍarīka-nayanam, as well as in the passage beginning sākṣāt prakṛti-paro ‘yam ātmā gopālaḥ, the Śruti-śāstra clearly explains that the form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is identical with the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is identical with His own form. Thus the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose form is full of knowledge and bliss, manifests Himself, by the agency of His inconceivable potency, as His own spiritual world, which He reveals only to His devotee and to no one else. In this way it is proved that as one meditates on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, so one should also meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead’s spiritual abode.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: To confirm what has already been said, the following explanation is now begun. Many texts that describe the specific features and qualities of the Lord are the subjects of discussion [viṣaya] here.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Are the features and qualities of the Lord spiritual realities or are they material illusions?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: In Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.4.19] it is said:
neha nānāsti kiñcana
“Variety is not present in the Supreme.”
In Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [2.3.6] it is said:
athāta ādeśo neti neti
“This is the teaching: It is not this. It is not this.”
In this way the Śruti-śāstra teaches that the Supreme has neither features nor qualities.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
saiva hi satyādayaḥ
sā – she; eva – indeed; hi – indeed; satya – truth; ādayaḥ – beginning with.
Indeed, she is those that begin with truth.
In the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [6.8] it is said:
parāsya śaktiḥ
“The Supreme has a potency that is spiritual.”
In the Viṣṇu Purāṇa [6.7.61] it is said:
viṣṇu-śaktiḥ parā
“Lord Viṣṇu has a potency that is spiritual.”
This potency is clearly different from the illusory material potency [māyā]. As heat is to fire, so this personal, spiritual potency is to the Lord. This potency is called parā śakti [spiritual potency] or svarūpa śakti [the Lord’s personal potency]. Because this spiritual potency manifests itself as the truthfulness and other qualities of the Lord, these qualities are not material or illusory. They are the actual qualities of the Lord. Two arguments proving that the Lord’s truthfulness and other qualities are manifestations of this spiritual potency will be given later. The neti neti passage quoted by the pūrvapakṣin has already been refuted in Sūtra 3.2.22.
The word ādi [beginning with] should be understood to imply the Lord’s other qualities, such as His purity, mercy, forgiveness, omniscience, omnipotence, bliss, handsomeness, and many others. That is why Parāśara Muni defines the word bhagavān as “The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is supremely pure, filled with spiritual good qualities, and the master of great potencies.” Then Parāśara Muni explains that the Lord has many transcendental qualities, such as His being the maintainer of all, the master of all, the master of all opulences, possessing all intelligence, and many other qualities also. In the Viṣṇu Purāṇa [6.5.72-75] Parāāsra Muni says:
śuddhe
mahā-vibhūty-ākhye
pare brahmaṇi śabdyate
maitreya
bhagavac-chabdaḥ
sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇe
“O Maitreya, the word bhagavān means ‘The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is supremely pure, who is the cause of all causes, and who is the master of great potencies.’
sambharteti tathā
bhartā
bha-kāro ‘rtha-dvayānvitaḥ
netā gamayitā
sraṣṭā
ga-kārārthas tathā mune
“The syllable bha means ‘the maintainer of all’ or ‘the protector of all’. O sage, the syllable ga means ‘the leader’, ‘the savior’, or ‘the creator’.
aiśvaryasya
samagrasya
vīryasya yaśasaḥ sriyaḥ
jñāna-vairāgyayos
cāpi
ṣaṇṇāṁ bhaga itīṅganaḥ
“Full wealth, strength, fame, beauty, knowledge, and renunciation: these are the six opulences of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
vasanti yatra
bhūtāni
bhūtātmany akhilātmani
sa ca bhūteṣv
aśeṣeśu
vakārārthas tato ‘vyayaḥ
jñāna-sakti-balaiśvarya.
. .
“The syllable va means ‘the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in whom everything abode, and who Himself abides in all beings.’ Therefore the word bhagavān means ‘The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who has all knowledge, power, and opulences’.”
Therefore the Supreme Personality of Godhead’s truthfulness and other qualities are not different from Him. In this way it is proved that one should meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead as being not different from His qualities.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now will be explained the truth that the goddess of fortune is the best of the Lord’s qualities. In the Śukla Yajur-Veda [31.22] it is said:
śrīś ca te lakṣmīś ca patnyau
“O Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrī and Lakṣmī are Your wives.”
Some say that Śrī is Ramā-devī and Lakṣmī is Bhāgavatī Sampat. Others say that Śrī is Vāg-devī and Lakṣmī is Ramā-devī. In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [.141] it is said:
kamalā-pataye namaḥ
“Obeisances to Lord Kṛṣṇa, the goddess of fortune’s husband.”
In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [1.42] it is also said:
ramā-mānasa-haṁsāya govindāya namo namaḥ
“Obeisances to Lord Kṛṣṇa, who is the pleasure of the cows, the land, and the senses, and who is a swan swimming in the Mānasa lake of the goddess of fortune’s thoughts.”
In the Rāma-tāpanī Upaniṣad it is said:
ramādhārāya rāmāya
“Obeisances to Lord Rāma, on whom the goddess of fortune rests.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Is the goddess of fortune material, and therefore not eternal, or is she spiritual, and therefore eternal?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: In Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [2.3.6] it is said:
athāta ādeśo neti neti
“This is the teaching: It is not this. It is not this.”
These words show that, ultimately, the Supreme has no qualities and therefore it is not possible that the goddess of fortune can be His wife. The goddess of fortune is a material illusion, a manifestation of the material mode of pure goodness. Therefore the goddess of fortune is material and not eternal.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
kāmādītaratra tatra cāya-tanādibhyaḥ
kāma – desires; ādi – beginning with; itaratra – in otherplaces; tatra – there; ca – also; āya – all-pervasiveness; tana – givingbliss and liberation; ādibhyaḥ – beginning with
Because She is all-pervading, the giver of bliss, and the giver of liberation, and because She has many other virtues, She is the source of what is to be desired, both there and in other places also.
The words sā eva [she indeed] are understood from the previous sūtra. The “She” here is the transcendental goddess of fortune, who in both the spiritual sky [tatra], which is untouched by matter, and also in the world of the five material elements [itaratra], fulfills the desires of her Master. She is the eternal goddess of fortune. The word kāma here means “the desire for amorous pastimes.” The word ādi [beginning with] here means “personal service and other activities appropriate for these pastimes.”
In this way the goddess of fortune is transcendental. Why is that? The sūtra explains, āya-tanādibhyaḥ. The word āya means “all-pervading.” The word tana means “giving liberation and bliss to the devotees.” In these two ways She is like the Lord Himself, who possesses truthfulness and a host of other virtues. The word ādi [beginning with] here hints that she is spiritual in nature. The statement of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [6.8] also affirms that she is spiritual. In this way she is spiritual and all-pervading. She has knowledge, compassion, and a host of other virtues, and she is also a giver of liberation. In these ways the goddess of fortune is not different from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the Viṣṇu Purāṇa it is said:
nityaiva sā
jagan-mātā viṣṇoḥ śrīr anapāyinī
yathā sarva-gato
viṣṇus tathaiveyaṁ dvijottama
“The goddess of fortune is the eternal companion of Lord Viṣṇu. She is the mother of the universe. O best of the brāhmaṇas, as Lord Viṣṇu is all-pervading, so is She also.”
It is also said in the scriptures:
ātma-vidyā ca devi tvaṁ vimukti-phala-dāyinī
“O goddess of fortune, You are the Lord’s spiritual knowledge. You are the giver of liberation.”
If the goddess of fortune were not spiritual it would be improper to ascribe these two qualities [all-pervasiveness and giving liberation] to Her. That the goddess of fortune is spiritual is described in the following words of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa:
procyate parameśo
yo
yaḥ śuddho ‘py upacārataḥ
prasīdatu sa no
viṣṇur
ātmā yaḥ sarva-dehinām
“May supremely pure Lord Viṣṇu, who is the Master of the spiritual goddess of fortune and the Supersoul of all living entities, be merciful to us.”
The word para-mā in this verse means “the spiritual [para] goddess of fortune [mā].” Because the goddess of fortune has been described as being all-pervading and having other spiritual attributes, it is not possible that She is material. In this way it is proved that the goddess of fortune is not material. For these reasons the goddess of fortune is spiritual and eternal.
Here someone may object: “Is it not so that if the goddess of fortune is the spiritual potency of the Lord, which is not different from the Lord, then it is not possible for her to have devotion for the Lord? After all, it is not possible for a person to have devotion to himself.”
If this objection is raised, then the author of the sūtras replies in the following words.
ādarād alopaḥ
ādarāt – because of devotion; alopaḥ – non-ending.
Because of devotion it does not cease.
Although in truth the goddess of fortune is not different from the Lord, still, because the Lord is a jewel mine of wonderful qualities, and also because He is the root of the goddess of fortune’s existence, the love and devotion that the goddess bears for Him never ceases. The branch never ceases to love the tree, nor the moonlight the moon. Her love and devotion for the Lord is described in many places in the Śruti-śāstra. In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [10.29.37] it is said:
śrīr yat-padāmbuja-rajaś cakame tulasyā labdhvāpi vakṣasi padaṁ kila bhṛtya-juṣṭam
“Dear Kṛṣṇa, the lotus feet of the goddess of fortune are always worshiped by the demigods, although she is always resting on Your chest in the Vaikuṇṭha planets. She underwent great austerity and penance to have some shelter at Your lotus feet, which are always covered by tulasī leaves.”
Here someone may object: “Is it not true that amorous love is possible only when there are two: the lover and the beloved? If there is no difference between the lover and the beloved, then love is not possible between them.”
If this is said, then the author of the sūtras gives the following reply.
upasthite ‘tas tad-vacanāt
upasthite – being near; ataḥ – thus; tat – of that;vacanāt – from the statement.
It is in His presence. It is so because of the statement.
The word upasthite means “nearness.” Even though the Lord’s potency and the Lord Himself, the shelter of that potency, are one, still, because the Lord is the best of males and His potency is the jewel of young girls, when They are together there is naturally the perfection of blissful amorous pastimes. How is that known? The sūtra explains, tad-vacanāt: “Because of the statement.” In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [2.25] it is said:
yo ha vai kāmena kāmān kāmayate sa kāmī bhavati. yo ha vai tv akāmena kāmān kāmayate so ‘kāmī bhavati.
“He who lusts after pleasures is lusty. He who enjoys without material lust is not lusty.”
In these words the amorous pastimes of the Lord are described. The word a-kāmena here means “with something that bears certain similarities to lust.” This thing with some similarities to material lust is the Lord’s pure spiritual love. That is the meaning. With spiritual love He enjoys the goddess of fortune, who is actually Himself. In this way He finds pleasure and fulfillment. For this there is no fault on His part. By touching the goddess of fortune, who is actually Himself, the Lord enjoys transcendental bliss. It is like a person gazing at his own handsomeness [in a mirror]. That is what is said here.
Different from His spiritual potency [parā-śakti] is the potency of the Lord’s form [svarūpa-śakti]. The Śruti-śāstras and other scriptures explain that through the svarūpa-śakti the Supreme Lord manifests as the best of males, and through the parā-śakti the Lord manifests His various transcendental qualities. It is through the parā śakti that the Lord manifests His knowledge, bliss, mercy, opulence, power, sweetness, and other qualities.
It is also through the parā-śakti that the Vedic scriptures are manifested. In the same way is manifested the earth and other places. Manifesting as the Lord’s pleasure potency [hlādinī-śakti], the parā-śakti appears as Śrī Rādhā, the jewel of teenage girls. Although the Lord and His parā-śakti are not different, still, for enjoying different pastimes, They are manifested as different. In this way the Lord’s desires are perfectly and completely fulfilled.
These manifestations of the parā-śakti, beginning with the manifestation of the Lord’s qualities, are not manifested only recently. They are beginningless and eternal. They will never cease to exist. Therefore the devotees should meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead as accompanied by the goddess of fortune.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [1.54] it is said:
tasmāt eva kṛṣṇaḥ paro devas taṁ dhyāyet taṁ raset taṁ bhajet taṁ yajet. iti. oṁ tat sat.
“Therefore, Lord Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. One should meditate on Him, glorify Him, serve Him, and worship Him. oṁ tat sat.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Must one always worship Lord Hari as Kṛṣṇa, or is it possible to worship Him in another form also?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Because this passage ends the Upaniṣad, the proper interpretation is the worship of Lord Hari must always be directed to the form of Lord Kṛṣṇa alone.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
tan nirdharaṇāniyamas tad dṛṣṭaiḥ pṛthag hy apratibandhaḥ phalam
tat – of that; nirdharaṇa – of determination; a – not; niyamaḥ – rule; tat – that; dṛṣṭaiḥ – by what is seen; pṛthak – distinct; hi – indeed; a – not; pratibandhaḥ – obstruction; phalam – fruit.
There is no restriction in that regard. It is different because of what is seen. Non-obstruction is the result.
There is no rule that says one must worship Lord Hari in His form as Kṛṣṇa only, and not in His form of Lord Balarāma or any of His other forms. Even when He is a tiny infant as Yaśodā’s breast, Lord Kṛṣṇa is always all-pervading, all-knowing, and full of bliss. How is that known? The sūtra explains, tad-dṛṣṭaiḥ: “Because of what is seen.” In Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [2.48] it is said:
yatrāsau saṁsthitaḥ
kṛṣṇas
tribhiḥ śaktyā
samāhitaḥ
rāmāniruddha-pradyumnai
rukmiṇyā sahito
vibhuḥ
catuḥ-śabdo bhaved eko
hy oṁkāras hy aṁśakaiḥ
kṛtaḥ
“Lord Kṛṣṇa, accompanied by His three potencies and by Balarāma, Aniruddha, Pradyumna, and Rukminī, stays in delightful Mathurā Purī. These four names are identical with the name oṁ.”
Lord Balarāma and the other incarnations are all forms of Lord Kṛṣṇa and so They also should be worshiped. That is the meaning.
Here someone may object: “If that is so then the phrase kṛṣṇa eva [Kṛṣṇa indeed], emphasizing Lord Kṛṣṇa would become meaningless.”
To this objection the sūtra replies: pṛthak [it is different]. This means, “the result is different.” What is that different result? The sūtra explains, apratibandhaḥ: “Non-obstruction is the result.” This means, “The removal of the obstructions to the worship of Lord Kṛṣṇa, obstructions caused by thinking any other form is the highest form of the Lord.” Therefore, if one is able and if one is so inclined, he may worship other forms of the Lord, which are all non-different from Lord Kṛṣṇa.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now will be explained the truth that Lord Kṛṣṇa is attained by one who approaches a genuine spiritual master. In its description of transcendental knowledge, the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [6.23] explains:
yasya deve parā
bhaktir
yathā deve tathā gurau
tasyaite kathitā hy
arthāḥ
prakāśante mahātmanaḥ
“Only to those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master are all the imports of Vedic knowledge automatically revealed.”
In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad [6.14.2] it is said:
ācāryavān puruṣo veda
“One who approaches a bona fide spiritual master can understand everything about spiritual realization.”
In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [1.2.12] it is said:
tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet
“To learn the transcendental subject matter, one must approach a spiritual master.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Is the result obtained merely by hearing the scriptures from the spiritual master, or must that hearing be accompanied by the attainment of the spiritual master’s mercy?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: The result is obtained merely by hearing the scriptures. Why would one need to attain the spiritual master’s mercy?
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
pradāna-vad eva tad uktam
pradāna – gift; vat – like; eva – indeed; tat – that;uktam – said.
It is like a gift. That is said.
When the spiritual master is pleased with a person, that person is able to hear the scriptures and follow the path of spiritual advancement. In this way one attains the Lord. But one will not be able to attain the Lord by merely hearing the scriptures and following the spiritual path. Therefore it is said that the spiritual master’s mercy is essential. The prefix pra in this sūtra hints at the word prasāda [mercy]. The lotus-eyed Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself explains in the Bhagavad-gītā [13.8]:
ācāryopasanaṁ śaucam
“Knowledge means to approach a bona fide spiritual master and become pure.”
In this way the scriptures explain that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is attained by the mercy of the spiritual master.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Which is more important: one’s own efforts or the spiritual master’s mercy?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: If one does not endeavor on one’s own part, then the spiritual master’s mercy will not be effective. Therefore one’s own effort is more important.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
liṅga-bhūyastvāt tad dhi balīyas tad api
liṅga – of indications; bhūyastvāt – because of an abundance; tat – that; hi – indeed; balīyaḥ – more powerful; tat – that; api – also.
Because of many symptoms it is more powerful. That also.
Even though some demigods assuming the forms of a bull and other creatures had already taught him the truth of the Supreme, the disciple Satyakāma nevertheless requested his spiritual master [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 4.9.2]:
bhagavāṁs tv eva me kāmaṁ brūyāt
“O master, please teach me the truth.”
In the same way Upakośala [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 4.10.1- 4.14.3], even though he had already attained spiritual knowledge from the sacred fires, nevertheless approached his spiritual master for instruction. In these two passages of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad it is clearly seen that the mercy of the spiritual master is the most important.
Here someone may say: “If that is so, then what is the need of doing anything at all? One should not think in that way. One should still study the scriptures and follow the spiritual path.”
In the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [6.23] it is said:
yasya deve parā bhaktiḥ
“One should engage in devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
In the Śruti-śāstra it is said:
śrotavyaḥ mantavyaḥ
“One should meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead and hear His glories.”
In the Smṛti-śāstra it is said:
guru-prasādo
balavān
na tasmād balavattaram
tathāpi śravaṇādiś
ca
kartavyo mokṣa-siddhaye
“The spiritual master’s mercy is most important. Nothing is more important. Still, in order to attain liberation one should certainly hear the glories of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and serve Him in many ways.”
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: In this way it is proved that by attaining the spiritual master’s mercy and by worshiping the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who has the most glorious transcendental qualities, one attains the desired result. Now an apparent contradiction will be resolved.
In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad the sages ask Brahmā questions beginning with, “Who is the supreme object of worship?” Brahmā answers that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the supreme object of worship, and devotional service is the way to attain Him. However, in the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [2.49] it is also said:
tasmād eva paro rajasa iti so ‘ham ity avadhārya gopālo ‘ham iti bhāvayet. Sa mokṣam aśnute sa brahmatvam adhigacchati sa brahma- vid bhavati.
“One should think, ‘I am the Supreme Lord beyond the passions of the material world’. One should think, ‘I am Lord Gopāla.’ In this way one attains liberation. In this way one attains the state of being the Supreme Lord. In this way one understands the Supreme.”
The words so ‘ham [I am He] clearly show the idea that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the individual spirit souls are not different.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Do the words so ‘ham [I am He] here teach the doctrine that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the individual spirit souls are identical, or do they teach some aspect of the doctrine of devotional service, a doctrine already been described in this book?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: The natural meaning of the words here is that the doctrine of oneness is the way to liberation.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
pūrva-vikalpaḥ prakaraṇāt syāt kriyā-mānasa-vat
pūrva – previous; vikalpaḥ – concept; prakaraṇāt – from the context; syāt – may be; kriyā – actions; mānasa – mind;vat – like.
Because of the context it is like what goes before. It is like the thoughts and deeds.
The declaration so ‘ham [I am He] in the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad should be understood according to the passages that precede it. Why is that? The sūtra declares, prakaraṇaāt: “Because of the context.” In the beginning of Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [1.14] it is said:
bhaktir asya bhajanaṁ tad ihāmūtropādhi-nairāśyenāmusmin manaḥ kalpanam etad eva naiṣkarmyam.
“Without any desire for material benefit in this life or the next, one should engage in devotional service to Lord Kṛṣṇa. That will bring freedom from the bonds of karma.”
Devotional service is also described at the end of the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad in these words:
sac-cid-ānandaika-rase bhakti-yoge tiṣṭhati.
“One should engage in devotional service, which is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss.”
The middle portion of the Upaniṣad cannot deal with a topic different from what is discussed in the beginning and end. Here the sūtra gives an example, kriyā-mānasa-vat: “It is like the thoughts and deeds.” The deeds here are the activities of devotional service, which begin with worship of the Lord. The thoughts here are meditation on the Lord.
Devotional service was described in the beginning and end of the Upaniṣad. Therefore the declaration so ‘ham [I am He] should be understood as a description of some feature of the same devotional service already described in the preceding passages. Pushed by intense love or fear, a person may sometimes call out, “I am he!” In this way a person may sometimes call out, “I am Kṛṣṇa!” or “I am that lion!”
In beginning of the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [1.2] the question is asked:
kaḥ paramo devaḥ
“Who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead?”
In that passage the sages asked Brahmā about the identity of Supreme, who is the supreme object of worship, the deliverer from the world of repeated birth and death, the shelter of all, the first cause of all causes. Brahmā replied:
śrī-kṛṣṇo vai paramaṁ daivatam
“Lord Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
Then, to help enable meditation on the Lord, Brahmā described Lord Kṛṣṇa’s various qualities. Then Brahmā says [Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad 1.6]:
yo dhyāyati. . .
“One who meditates on Lord Kṛṣṇa, glorifies Him, and worships Him, becomes liberated. He becomes liberated.”
Thus Brahmā shows that by meditating on Lord Kṛṣṇa, chanting mantras glorifying Lord Kṛṣṇa, and engaging in other activities of devotional service, one becomes liberated from the world of birth and death. The again it is said [Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad 1.7]:
te hocuḥ kiṁ tad-rūpam
“The sages said: What is His form?”
This question is about devotional service and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is worshiped in devotional service. Brahmā answered this question in these words [1.8]:
tad u hovāca hairaṇyo gopa-veśam abhrābham
“Brahmā said: He is a cowherd boy. He is dark like a monsoon cloud.”
Then, after describing Lord Kṛṣṇa’s form, Brahmā describes the mantra to be chanted. He says [1.11]:
ramyaṁ punā rasanam
“Lord Kṛṣṇa’s mantra should chanted repeatedly.”
Then Brahmā describes devotional service in these words [1.14]:
bhaktir asya bhajanam
“One should engage in devotional service to Lord Kṛṣṇa.”
Then Brahmā describes the mantra one should chant in order to see Lord Kṛṣṇa’s form. Brahmā says [1.24]:
oṁkāreṇāntaritaṁ yo japati. . .
“To one who chants this mantra beginning with oṁ, Lord Kṛṣṇa reveals His own transcendental form.”
Then, in Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad 1.38 [tam ekaṁ govindam], Brahmā describes Lord Kṛṣṇa’s transcendental form, which is full of knowledge and bliss. Finally Brahmā concludes [1.54]:
tasmāc chrī-kṛṣṇa eva paro devaḥ
“Therefore Lord Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
In the second chapter of Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad it is said that the gopīs, after enjoying pastimes with Lord Kṛṣṇa, and after asking Him questions, and after attaining His permission, presented a great feast before the sage Durvāsā. Pleased, the sage blessed them. When they asked him about Lord Kṛṣṇa, the sage described to them in the passage beginning with the words śrī kṛṣṇaḥ the extraordinary nature of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes. He told them that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the first cause of all causes, that He is conquered by the pure love of His devotees, that He is dear to His devotees, and many other glories of Lord Kṛṣṇa. Then in the passage beginning with the words sā hovāca, Durvāsā is asked about Lord Kṛṣṇa’s birth, activities, mantra, and abode. In the passage beginning with the words sa hovāca tām the sage answered the question by recounting a conversation of Brahmā and Lord Nārāyaṇa. In that account he explained that Lord Kṛṣṇa is perfect and complete, and he also explained that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the savior from the world of birth and death. Then, in the passage beginning with the words vanair anekair ullasat, Brahmā described the Lord’s spiritual abode named Mathurā, which is protected by the Lord’s cakra and which is splendid with many forests. At this point the so ‘ham passage occurs [Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [2.49]:
tasmād eva paro rajasa iti so ‘ham
“One should think, ‘I am the Supreme Lord beyond the passions of the material world’.”
In this way it is said that the condition of thinking oneself non-different from the Lord is the cause of liberation.
Because devotional service was described previously in this Upanisad as the cause of liberation, the oneness with the Lord here must but a certain feature of that devotional service. It must be a symptom of ecstatic love, like the shedding of many tears or other symptoms of ecstatic love. The passages aham asmi [I am He], brahmāham asmi [I am the Supreme], and other similar passages in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad and other scriptures, passages declaring the oneness of the individual soul and the Supreme, should all be taken as expressions of persons overwhelmed with ecstatic love, expressions that are actually proof that the individual souls and the Supreme are indeed different persons and are not at all identical. This truth has already been explained in this book.
In the following sūtra will be presented further proof that the words so ‘ham [I am He] are indeed a symptom of devotional love, and do not at all mean that the individual souls and the Supreme are identical.
atideśāc ca
atideśāṭ – by comparison; ca – and.
Also by comparison.
In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [2.63] Lord Nārāyaṇa tells Brahmā:
yathā tvaṁ saha
putraiś ca
yathā rudro gānaiḥ saha
yathā śriyābhiyukto
‘ham
tathā bhakto mama priyaḥ
“Anyone who becomes My sincere devotee becomes very dear to Me. As dear as you and your sons are, as dear as Lord Śiva and his associates, as dear as the goddess of fortune.”
In this verse it is seen that as Brahmā is accompanied by his sons, so Lord Kṛṣṇa is always accompanied by His devotees. The word ca [and] is explained in the following words of Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [2.91], where the Supreme Personality of Godhead declares:
dhyāyen mama priyo
nityaṁ
sa mokṣam adhigacchati
sa mukto bhavati
tasmai
svātmānam ca dadāmi vai
“One who meditates on Me is eternally dear to Me. He attains liberation. He becomes liberated. I give Myself to him.”
In these words the Lord declares that the devotees are eternally dear to Him and He also declares that he gives Himself as a gift to His devotees. If the individual souls and the Supreme Lord are ultimately one, these two statements cannot be at all possible. Therefore the scriptures’ statement so ‘ham [I am He] should be understood as the description of a specific symptom of ecstatic love. The statement so ‘ham, when found in the Rāma-tāpanī Upaniṣad and other Upaniṣads, should also be explained in this way.
In conclusion, it is said that one attains liberation by the mercy of the spiritual master and by devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is no fault with that statement.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: True knowledge is defined as the scriptures’ description of devotional service. That knowledge leads to liberation. Here begins an elaborate description of that truth. In the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [3.8] it is said:
tam eva viditvāti
mṛtyum eti
nānyaḥ panthā nvidyate ‘yanāya
“I know the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is transcendental to all material conceptions of darkness. Only he who knows Him can transcend the bonds of birth and death. There is no way for liberation other than this knowledge of that Supreme Person.”
In the Puruṣa-sūkta prayers of the Ṛg Veda it is said:
tam eva vidvān amṛta iha bhavati
“A person who knows the Supreme attains liberation.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Is liberation caused by the performance of Vedic rituals [karma], by spiritual knowledge [vidyā], or by rituals and knowledge together?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: How is liberation attained? It is attained by performing Vedic rituals. This is proved in Sūtras 3.4.2-7. Or, if there must be some knowledge, then Vedic rituals and knowledge should be combined together to bring liberation. In the Śruti-śāstra it is said:
tad-dhetor na tu tayor ekataram taṁ vidyā-karmaṇī
“Vedic rituals and spiritual knowledge must be combined together to bring liberation. Either of them alone is not enough.”
It is also said:
ubhābhyām eva
pakṣābhyāṁ
yathā khe pakṣiṇo gatiḥ
tathaiva
karma-jñānābhyāṁ
mukto bhavati mānavaḥ
“As a bird needs two wings to fly in the sky, so a man needs both Vedic rituals and spiritual knowledge to attain liberation.”
Or, perhaps spiritual knowledge alone is in truth the cause of liberation. After all, the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [3.8] declares:
tam eva viditvāti mṛtyum eti
“Only one who knows the Supreme Personality of Godhead can transcend the bonds of birth and death.”
After all is said and done, it is not possible to reach a final conclusion in this matter.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
vidyaiva tu tan-nirdharaṇāt
vidyā – knowledge; eva – indeed; tu – certainly; tat – ofthat; nirdharaṇāt – because of the conclusion.
It is knowledge indeed, for that is the conclusion.
The word tu [indeed] is used here to dispel doubt.
Spiritual knowledge, and not Vedic ritual, is the cause of liberation. Neither is it necessary that spiritual knowledge be combined with the performance of Vedic rituals in order to bring liberation. Why is that? The sūtra explains, tan-nirdharaṇāt: “For that is the conclusion.” The conclusion is given in Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad [3.8]. The word vidyā [knowledge] here means “the knowledge that leads to devotional service.” In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.4.21] it is said:
vijñāya prajñāṁ kurvīta
“One should understand the Supreme, and thus become wise.”
The wisdom here is clearly devotional service. In the Smṛti-śāstra the word vidyā is used in both these senses. One example is in the following words:
vidyā-kuṭhāreṇa śitena dhīraḥ
“With the sharpened ax of knowledge a wise person cuts asunder the darkness of ignorance.”
Another example is in Bhagavad-gītā [9.2]:
rāja-vidyā rāja-guhyam
“This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all secrets.”
The word vidyā may be interpreted in two ways. It is like the words kaurava and mīmāṁsā. The former may mean either the Pāṇḍavas or the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, and the latter may mean either “the knowers of Vedic rituals” or “the knowers of the Supreme.”
Liberation is thus attained by knowledge, knowledge here being the direct perception of the Lord standing outside the heart. The author of the sūtras declares this in the following words.
darśanāc ca
darśanāt – by seeing; ca – also.
Also by seeing.
In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [2.2.8] it is said:
bidyate
hṛdaya-granthiś
chidyante sarva-saṁśayāḥ
kṣīyante
cāsya karmāṇi
tasmin dṛṣṭe parāvare
“Thus the knot in the heart is pierced, and all misgivings are cut to pieces. The chain of fruitive actions is terminated when one sees the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
The meaning here is that one becomes liberated by seeing the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Here someone may object: “Do the scriptures not say, ‘One attains liberation by performing Vedic rituals’? Do the scriptures not say, ‘One attains liberation by performing Vedic rituals and attaining spiritual knowledge’? These words of yours contradict the scriptures.”
If this is said then the author of the sūtras give the following reply.
śruty-ādi-balīyastvāc ca na bādhaḥ
śruti – the Śruti-śāstras; ādi – beginning with; balīyastvāt – because of being stronger; ca – and; na – not; bādhaḥ – refutation.
Also, it is not refuted, for the authority of the Śruti-śāstras and other scriptures is greater.
The Śruti-śāstra’s declaration, “liberation is attained by transcendental knowledge” cannot be refuted by our opponent’s two scripture quotes. Why is that? The sūtra declares, śruty-ādi-balīyastvāt: “For the authority of the Śruti-śāstras and other scriptures is greater.” This means, “for the authority of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.8 and other passages of the Śruti-śāstras and other scriptures is greater.” The word ādi [beginning with] here means that there are also passages where this truth is hinted or explained indirectly. In the scriptures it is said:
indro ‘śvamedhāc chatam iṣṭvāpi rājā brahmāṇam īḍyaṁ samuvācopasannaḥ na karmabhir na dhanair nāpi cānyaiḥ paśyet sukham tena tattvam bravīhi
“After performing a hundred aśvamedha-yajñas, King Indra approached the demigod Brahmā and said, ‘Neither Vedic rituals, nor giving charity, nor any other thing has made me happy. Please tell me how I may see happiness.’ “
In the scriptures it is also said:
nāsty akrtaḥ kṛtena
“He who was never born is not attained by Vedic rituals.”
As for the six sūtras [3.4.2-7] quoted by the opponent, the author of the sūtras Himself will refute them in Sūtras 3.4.8-14. The word ādi [beginning with] means that many other scriptural passages may also be quoted. The word ca [also] again means that many more statements of scripture may be quoted to prove that spiritual knowledge uproots all past karmic reactions. The passage beginning with the words tam vidyā and the other passages quoted by our opponent will all be refuted in Sūtra 3.4.11 by the author of the sūtras Himself. In this way it will be proved that spiritual knowledge is the true cause of liberation.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now will be discussed the truth that liberation is attained by worshiping the saintly devotees. In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad [1.11.2] it is said:
atithi-devo bhava
“Treat a guest as if he were a visiting demigod.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Is the worship of saintly devotees a cause of liberation or is it not?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Liberation is already available by the mercy of the spiritual master and the worship of the Supreme Lord. What need is there to worship the saintly devotees?
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
anubandhādibhyaḥ
anubandha – repeated instructions; ādibhyaḥ – beginning with.
Because of many instructions.
The word anubandha here means, “because of many instructions declaring that one should worship the saintly devotees.” The Taittirīya Upaniṣad’s phrase, “treat him as if he were a visiting demigod” means “worship him.” This is so because by the mercy of great devotees one attains liberation. If this were not so then the Taittirīya Upaniṣad would not have spoken in this way. Many great sages who know the truth have also taught this in the Smṛti-śāstra. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [5.12.12], Jaḍa Bharata explains:
rahūgaṇaitat
tapasā na yāti
na cejyayā nirvapaṇād gṛhād vā
na
cchandasā naiva jalāgni-sūryair
vinā mahat-pāda-rajo-’bhiṣekam
“My dear King Rahūgaṇa, unless one has the opportunity to smear his entire body with the dust of the lotus feet of great devotees, one cannot realize the Absolute Truth. One cannot realize the Absolute Truth simply by observing celibacy [brahmacarya], strictly following the rules and regulations of householder life, leaving home as vanaprastha, accepting sannyāsa, or undergoing severe penances in winter by keeping oneself submerged in water or surrounding oneself in summer by fire and the scorching heat of the sun. There are many other processes to understand the Absolute Truth, but the Absolute Truth is only revealed to one who has attained the mercy of a great devotee.”
In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [11.12.1-2], Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself explains:
na rodhayati māṁ
yogo
na saṅkhyaṁ dharma uddhava
na svādhyāyas tapas
tyāgo
neṣṭa-pūrtaṁ na dakṣiṇā
vratāni yajñās
chandāṁsi
tīrthāni niyamā yamāḥ
yathāvarundhe
sat-saṅgaḥ
sarva-saṅgāpaho hi mām
“My dear Uddhava, neither through aṣṭāṅga-yoga [the mystic yoga to control the senses], nor through impersonal monism or an analytical study of the Absolute Truth, nor through study of the Vedas, nor through practice of austerities, nor through charity, nor through acceptance of sannyāsa, nor through many pious deeds, nor through giving dakṣiṇā, nor through following vows, nor through performing many yajñas, nor through chanting Vedic hymns, nor through visiting holy places, nor through controlling the senses can one bring Me under his control as much as one can by associating with saintly devotees. Their association frees one from the touch of matter.”
Here Lord Kṛṣṇa personally teaches the importance of associating with saintly devotees. The Lord here teaches a great secret of how to engage in devotional service. The word ādi in this sūtra indicates that one should also visit holy places of pilgrimage and one should avoid they who commit blasphemy. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [1.2.16] it is said:
śuśrūṣoḥ
śraddadhānasya
vāsudeva-kathā-ruciḥ
syān mahat-sevayā
viprāḥ
puṇya-tīrtha-niṣevaṇāt
“O twice-born sages, by serving those devotees who are completely freed from all vice, great service is done. By such service one gains affinity for hearing the message of Vāsudeva.”
In the Padma Purāṇa it is said:
harir eva
sadārādhyaḥ
sarva-deveśvareśvaraḥ
itare
brahma-rudrādyā
nāvajñeyā kadācana
“Lord Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of all the demigods, and He should always be worshiped. Still, one should never disrespect Brahmā, Śiva, and the other demigods.”
Here someone may object: “The mercy of the spiritual master and the association of saintly devotees are both attained by the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore the real cause of liberation is His mercy. Even good fortune does not happen independently. That also is caused by the Lord’s mercy. Indeed, all actions are caused by the Lord’s mercy, as was explained in sūtra 2.3.39. Therefore it is not right to say that liberation is caused by the mercy of the spiritual master or by any cause other than the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
To this objection I reply: Even though they are themselves caused by the Lord Himself, still the spiritual master’s mercy and the other causes like it are also causes of liberation in their own right. This was already explained in the passage beginning with Sūtra 2.3.40. The truth is that the Supreme Personality of Godhead becomes conquered by His devotees and He gives them the power to grant His own mercy to others. In this way the devotees are independent agents who can deliver the Lord’s mercy to others. When the devotees give their mercy to someone, then the Supreme Lord also gives His mercy to that person. In this way all seeming contradictions and the different passages of the scriptures are all resolved.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad [3.14.1] it is said:
atha khalu kratumayaḥ puruṣo yathā kratur asmil loke puruṣo bhavati tathetaḥ pretya bhavati sa kratuṁ kurvīta.
“Man is meant to worship the Supreme Lord. As one worships the Lord in this life, so one will attain Him after death. Therefore one should worship the Lord.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: The worship of the Supreme Lord is naturally accompanied by the worship of the spiritual master and the saintly devotees. This worship is is of many kinds, some higher and some lower. Does the higher or lower level of one’s worship lead to a higher or lower result, or does it not lead to a higher or lower result?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [3.1.3] it is said:
nirañjanaḥ paraṁ samyam upaiti
“Liberated souls are all equal.”
In this way the Śruti-śāstra affirms that different levels of worship do not lead to different results. Travelers who enter a city by different paths do not enter different cities. They enter the same city. In the same way, although they have attained Him by different paths, the liberated souls see the same Supreme Lord.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
prajñāntara-pṛthaktva-vad dṛṣṭiś ca tad uktam
prajñā – knowledge; antara – other; pṛthaktva – variety; vat – possessing; dṛṣṭiḥ – sight; ca – and; tat – that;uktam – said.
As there are differences of knowledge, so also there are differences in sight. That is stated.
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [4.4.21] it is said:
vijñāya prajñāṁ kurvīta
“One should understand the Supreme, and thus attain wisdom.”
Here are the words understanding and wisdom. The meaning of the first is straightforward, but the second really means devotional service to the Lord. As there are different kinds of knowledge, so also the devotees see the Lord in different ways.
The sūtra explains, tad uktam: “That is stated.” These words mean, “It is stated that according to the devotees’ different kinds of worship different higher and lower results are obtained.” Thus according to the way the Lord was worshiped in their sādhana, the devotees see the Lord in different ways. This is reflected in their liberation. The sameness described above means that the liberated souls see the same Supreme Lord.
Here someone may object: “That may be. However, you say that without knowledge one cannot see the Lord and without first seeing the Lord one cannot attain liberation. Both statement are illogical. When the Supreme Lord was personally present on the earth many persons who had no knowledge nevertheless saw Him and many who saw Him did not attain liberation.”
To this objection the author of the sūtras gives the following reply.
na sāmānyād apy upalabdher mṛtyu-van na hi lokāpattiḥ
na – not; sāmānyāt – ordinary; apy – even; upalabdheḥ – of perception; mṛtyu – death; vat – like; na – not;hi – indeed; loka – of the world; āpattiḥ – attainment.
Not by ordinary vision, as not by death. Indeed not. There is attainment of that world.
The word api [also] is here used for emphasis.
As merely dying does not bring liberation, in the same way ordinary seeing of the Lord also does not bring liberation. What then is the result obtained by ordinary seeing of the Lord? The sūtra explains: lokāpattiḥ: “There is attainment of that world.” This is like the Vidyādhara Sudarśana and the king Nṛga, who both attained ordinary sight of the Lord and from that attained the higher material worlds.
Here someone may object: “Did they did not attain liberation?”
If this is said, then the sūtra replies, na hi: “Indeed not.” They did not. They attained a higher world. That is the meaning. In the Nārāyaṇa Tantra it is said:
sāmānya-darśanāl lokā muktir yogyātma-darśanāt
“By seeing the Supreme Lord with ordinary vision one attains the higher material worlds. By seeing the Lord with spiritual vision one attains liberation.”
This is the meaning here. There are two ways of seeing. One is covered by matter and the other is not covered by matter. The first way of seeing the Supreme Personality of Godhead is attained by many pious deeds. It brings one to Svargaloka and the other higher material planets. The second way of seeing the Supreme Personality of Godhead is attained by understanding the truth of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This way of seeing destroys the subtle material body [of mind, intelligence and false ego], gives one a spiritual body filled with bliss, and makes one a dear associate of the Lord. In this way it brings liberation. In this way everything is explained.
The sages say that they who are killed by the Lord see the Lord at the moment of their death and in this way they also become liberated. This occurs because the splendor of the Lord’s cakra or other weapon destroys their subtle material body [of mind, intelligence, and false ego]. It should be understood that by seeing the Lord these persons attain love for Him. To say otherwise would contradict many statements of the scriptures.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: This section is begun to give firm proof that by seeing the Lord with eyes of spiritual knowledge, one attains liberation. In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad [3.2.3] and Kaṭha Upaniṣad [1.2.23] it is said:
nāyam ātmā
pravacanena labhyo
na medhayā na bahunā śrutena
yam evaiṣa
vṛṇute tena labhyas
tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanuṁ
svām
“The Supreme Lord is not attained by expert explanations, by vast intelligence, or even by much hearing. He is attained only by one who He Himself chooses. To such a person He manifests His own form.”
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Does the Lord appear before a person only because the Lord chooses to appear or does He appear because of a specific person’s devotion to Him and renunciation of the material world?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: the Lord appears only because He chooses to appear, for that is what the scripture says.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
pareṇa ca śabdasya tādvidhyaṁ bhūyastvāt tv anubandhaḥ
pareṇa – by what follows; ca – also; śabdasya – of the word; tādvidhyam – being like that; bhūyastvāt – because of being more important; tu – indeed; anubandhaḥ – what corresponds.
According to what follows, it is the same. It is because of being more important.
The statement here that the Lord appears before one whom He chooses is actually the same as the statement that the Lord is attained by devotional service. This is clearly stated in the verse that immediately follows this statement. Therefore the meaning is not that the Lord appears only because He chooses to appear. Here is the verse that immediately follows [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.2.4]:
nāyam ātmā
bala-hīnena labhyo
na ca pramādāt tapaso vāpy aliṅgāt
etair
upāyair yatate yas tu vidvān
tasyaiṣa ātmā viśate
brahma-dhāma
“The Supreme Lord is not attained by one who has no spiritual strength, who is wild or careless, or whose austerities are not appropriate. The Lord appears before a person who strives by right means to attain Him. Such a person enters the spiritual world.”
The ‘right means’ are described in the beginning of this verse. They are spiritual strength, sober carefulness, and appropriate austerities. The word ‘spiritual strength’ here means devotional service. The Supreme Lord Himself explains:
vaśe kurvanti māṁ bhaktyā sat-striyaḥ sat-patiṁ yathā
“As faithful wives control their saintly husband, so My devotees bring Me under their control.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 9.4.66]
In the Bhagavad-gītā [8.22], it is said:
puruṣaḥ sa paraḥ pārtha bhaktyā labhyas tv ananyayā
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is greater than all, is attainable by unalloyed devotion.”
Here is the verse immediately following the nāyam ātmā pravacanena verse when it appears in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad [1.2.24]:
nāvirato
duścaritāt
nāśānto nāsamāhitaḥ
nāśānta-mānaso
vāpi
prajñānenainam āpnuyāt
“Neither a person who has not abandoned sins, nor a person who is not peaceful, nor a person who does not strive to attain Him, nor a person who does not control his mind can, even though he may be very intelligent and learned, attain the Supreme Lord.”
A person who controls his senses, acts in a saintly manner, and meditates on Lord Hari becomes able to see Lord Hari directly. Therefore one should engage in the activities of devotional service. In this way the first and second statement together mean that the Supreme Lord chooses to reveal Himself to they who engage in His devotional service.
The first statement is that the Lord chooses who will attain Him. The Lord chooses they who please Him and are dear to Him. He does not choose they who do not please Him. He is pleased by they who engage in His devotional service. He is not pleased by they who do not engage in devotional service. He personally explains [Bhagavad-gītā 7.17]:
teṣāṁ jñānī
nitya-yukta
eka-bhaktir viśiṣyate
priyo hi jñānino
‘tyartham
ahaṁ sa ca mama priyaḥ
“Of these, the one who is in full knowledge and who is always engaged in pure devotional service is the best. For I am very dear to him, and he is dear to Me.”
In the Kaivalya Upaniṣad [2] it is said:
śraddhā-bhakti-dhyāna-yogād avehi
“With devotion, meditation, and faith one should try to understand the Supreme.”
If it were not true that the Lord reveals Himself to they who love and serve Him, and if instead it were true that He reveals Himself only on a whim to people chosen at random, and if He thus did not care for the love and devotion of they who serve Him] then one might justly become angry with the Lord and claim that He is unfair.
Here someone may object: “If this is so then why does the scripture explain that the Lord reveals Himself to those whom He chooses?”
To this objection the sūtra replies, bhūyastvāt: “Because of being more important.” The word tu [indeed] in the sūtra is used for emphasis. The meaning here is that the Lord’s choosing is the most important aspect in His directly appearing before a person. Actually the Lord’s choosing is the last of a chain of causes. Here is the sequence of events: First there is association with saintly devotees and service to them. By that service one learns the truth of the Supreme Lord and also about one’s own self. Then one becomes disinterested in whatever has no relation to the Lord. Then one develops devotion and love for the Lord. That love pleases the Lord and makes one dear to the Lord. Then the Lord chooses to reveal Himself to that person.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: They who with the mellows of servitude, friendship, or other mellows, from the beginning worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead who always stays in the spiritual sky, will attain that spiritual sky and there they will directly see their Lord. It is seen that some others, who are situated in the mellows of neutrality [śānta-rasa], worship the Supreme Lord as present in their bellies and in other parts of their bodies.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Many statements in the scriptures describe this worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead as present in the devotee’s stomach and other bodily organs.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Should one worship Lord Hari as present in one’s belly and other bodily organs, or should one not worship Him in this way?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: One should not worship Lord Hari as present in one’s belly and other bodily organs, for these things are all material. However one should worship the Lord as eternally present in the spiritual sky.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
eka ātmanah śarīre bhāvāt
eke – some; ātmanah – of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; śarīre – in the body; bhāvāt – because of existence.
Some because of the Lord’s existence in the body.
Here the word eke [some] means “some followers of the Vedas.” The word śarīre means “in the body”; that is, “in the belly, the heart, and the brahma-randhra.” The word ātmanaḥ means “of Lord Viṣṇu.” The phrase “the worship of Lord Viṣṇu should be performed” is understood here. Why is that? The sūtra explains, bhāvāt, which means “Because He exists there.” In the Nyāya-śāstra it is said:
akke cen madhu vindeta kim arthaṁ parvataṁ vrajet
“If one finds honey in a nearby tree, why should one search for honey in a faraway mountain?”
The meaning here is that when the Lord is pleased when one worships Him as present in the devotee’s body and He will give the devotee residence in His own abode. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [10.87.18] it is said:
udaram upāsate ya
ṛṣi-vartmasu kūrpa-dṛśaḥ
parisara-paddhatiṁ hṛdayam
āruṇayo daharam
tata udagād ananta tava dhāma śiraḥ
paramaṁ
punar iha yat sametya na patanti kṛtānta-mukhe
“Among the followers of the methods set forth by great sages, those with less refined vision worship the Supreme as present in the region of the abdomen, while the Aruṇis worship Him as present in the heart, in the subtle center from which all the prāṇic channels emanate. From there, O unlimited Lord, these worshipers raise their consciousness upward to the top of the head, where they can perceive You directly. Then, passing through the top of the head toward the supreme destination, they reach that place from which they will never again fall to this world, into the mouth of death.”
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: In Chāndogya Upanisad 3.14.1 and in other places in the scriptures, the worship of the Lord in sweetness [mādhurya] and the worship of the Lord in opulence [aiśvarya] have been described. Also it has been shown that the living entities, by engaging in devotional service and associating with saintly devotees, by the Lord’s will attain Him as he appears in a specific form with specific qualities, a form chosen by the devotee. In this way it is shown that these two features of the Lord [sweetness and opulence] are not incompatible with each other.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: When the devotee worships the Lord as having certain qualities, does the devotee attain a form of the Lord having those qualities alone or does he attain a form of the Lord having other qualities also.
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Whether the devotee meditates on the Lord in sweetness or opulence, the devotee will meet a form of the Lord who has all the qualities of both sweetness and opulence. This is so because whether meditated on in sweetness or opulence, the Lord remains one person.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
vyatirekas tad-bhāva-bhāvitvān na tūpalabdhi-vat
vyatirekaḥ – difference; tat – of that; bhāva – of the nature; bhāvitvāt – because of the being; na – not; tu – indeed; upalabdhi – of the understanding; vat – like.
Not different, because of the nature of the meditation. Indeed, it is like knowledge.
The word tu [indeed] is used here to dispel doubt.
The sūtra declares that other qualities are not manifested. Why is that? The sūtra explains, tad-bhāva-bhāvitvāt, which means, “Because of the nature of the qualities that were the object of meditation.” This means that when one attains the Lord, the Lord appears in the same form as was the object of the devotee’s meditation. The word upalabdhi-vat means “like knowledge.” This means, “One meets a form of the Lord like the form one knew in his meditation on the Lord.”
Even though the meditator is aware that the Lord has many other qualities, still when the devotee meets the Lord, the Lord will manifest only the qualities that were included in the devotee’s meditation and not the Lord’s other qualities. In this way the description in Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.1 is not contradicted.
In the following sūtra the author gives an example to show that the devotee meets a form of the Lord corresponding to what had been the object of the devotee’s meditation.
aṅgāvabaddhas tu na śākhāsu hi prativedam
aṅga – parts; avabaddhaḥ – connected; tu – indeed; na – not; śākhāsu – in the branches; hi – indeed; prativedam – according to the Vedas.
Indeed, each has his part according to the different branches of the Vedas.
The performer of a yajña assigns different priests to perform the different parts of the yajña. The priests are thus named according to the function they fulfill in the yajña. The performer of the yajña thus tells the priests, “You become the adhvaryu priest. You become the hotā priest. You become the udgātā priest.” In this way a certain priest, even though he is expert in performing all the different functions, accepts the limited role in the yajña. He does not perform all the functions in the yajña. It is not possible for him to perform all the functions in all the different branches of the Vedas. The duties are distributed among the different Vedas. The hotā priest chants mantras of the Ṛg Veda, the adhvaryu priest chants mantras of the Yajur Veda, the udgātā priest chants mantras of the Sāma Veda, and the brahmā priest chants mantras of the Atharva Veda.
In this way, according to the wish of the person performing the yajña, the different priests accept different roles in the yajña and different priestly rewards [dakṣiṇā] also. In the same way, according to the wish of the Supreme Lord, the individual living entities accept different roles in their service to the Lord and they also meet the Lord in different ways according to the roles they play.
Now, to explain the mellows of mixed emotions, which were displayed by Uddhava and others, and which are less pleasing, the author of the sūtras gives another example.
mantrādi-vad vāvirodhaḥ
mantra – mantras; ādi – beginning; vat – like; vā – or; avirodhaḥ – not a contradiction.
Or, there is no conflict, as in the case of mantras and other things.
The Lord’s desire here is to increase devotion of various kinds. It is like mantras. As one mantra may be used in many rituals, another mantra may be limited to two rituals, and another mantra used in one ritual only, so the Lord engages His devotees to worship Him some in many ways and some in one way only.
The word ādi [beginning with] in this sūtra means “time and action.” As at any given time some trees may be sprouting leaves and flowers and other trees may be shedding their leaves, and as at any given time one person may be an infant, and another a teenager, so at any given time the different devotees may serve the Lord in many different ways, each person acting differently according to the Lord’s wish.
The sūtra explains, vāvirodhaḥ: “Thus there is no conflict.” Thus after liberation a person will attain the same relationship with the Lord that the person desired while worshiping Him before he became liberated. In this way it is proved that qualities the Lord manifests to the liberated soul are not different from the qualities the soul meditated on before attaining liberation.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: Now the following texts from the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad will be considered:
eko ‘pi san bahudhā yo ‘vabhāti
“Although He is one, Lord Kṛṣṇa appears in many forms.”
ekaṁ santaṁ bahudhā dṛśyamānam
“Although He is one, the Supreme Personality of Godhead appears to be many.”
atha kasmād ucyate brahma
“Why is He called the Supreme?”
He Supreme Personality of Godhead has many very different forms. In this way He is like a vaidūrya jewel. Although He is one, He has many different forms and many different qualities.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Should one meditate on the fact that the Supreme Personality of Godhead has many different forms and many different qualities, or should one not meditate on this fact?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: The Lord’s blissfulness and other like qualities should always be the object of meditation [as was explained in Sūtra 3.3.12]. However, the plurality of forms contradicts the Lord’s oneness. Therefore the Lord’s plurality of forms should not be an object of meditation.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
bhūmnaḥ kratu-vaj jāyastvaṁ tathā hi darśayati
bhūmnaḥ – of the plurality; kratu – yajña; vat – like; jāyastvam – pre-eminence; tathā – si; hi – indeed; darśayati – shows.
Like a yajña, plurality is most important. So, indeed, it reveals.
The Lord’s plurality of forms is His most important feature. As yajñas should always be performed, so the Lord’s plurality of forms should always be an object of meditation, for this plurality is an essential feature of the Lord.
As in an agniṣṭoma-yajña, from its beginning until the avabhṛta ceremony at its end, it remains always a yajña, in the same way among all the qualities of the Lord, His plurality of forms is always present and of prime importance. The evidence for this is given in this sūtra in the words, tathā hi darśayati: “So, indeed, the scriptures reveal.” In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad [7.23.1] it is said:
bhūmaiva sukham nālpe sukham asti
“The bliss of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is in His abundant variety. His bliss is not present in a lack of variety.”
Thus the Lord’s bliss and other qualities are present in great abundance and great variety. They should be meditated on in this way. The scriptures reveal this of them. The word darśayati in this sūtra means, “They teach this in every circumstance.” Without accepting the Lord’s plurality of forms, it is not possible to accept that His actions are all eternal.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Are these many forms of the Lord worshiped in one way only or are there many ways to worship them?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Because the object of worship certainly remains one, there must be only way way to worship Him.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
Nānā śabdādi-bhedāt
nānā – variety; śabda – words; ādi – beginning; bhedāt – because of the difference.
They are different because of different words and other things.
There are different kinds of worship for the different forms of the Lord. For each form there is a different kind of worship.
Why is that? The sūtra explains, śabdādi-bhedāt: “Because of different words and other things.” This means, “Because the names of Lord Nṛsiṁha and the Lord’s other forms are different, the mantras for worshiping these forms are different, the forms themselves are different, and Their activities are also different.” In the Smṛti-śāstra it is said:
kṛtaṁ tretā
dvāparaṁ ca
kalir ity eṣu
keśavaḥ
nānā-varṇābhidhākāro
nānaiva vidhinejyate
“In the Satya, Tretā, Dvāpara, and Kali yugas, Lord Kṛṣṇa appears in different forms with different colors and different names, forms that are worshiped in different ways.”
In this way it is proved that the Lord’s different forms are worshiped in different ways.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: That the forms of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, beginning with the form of Lord Nṛsiṁha, should be worshiped in ways that are different for each form has thus been described.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Must the worshipers of these various forms meditate on all the Lord’s forms together, or is such meditation only optional?
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
vikalpo ‘viśiṣṭha-phalatvāt
vikalpaḥ – option; aviśiṣṭha – not better; phalatvāt – because of the result.
It is optional, for a better result is not obtained.
They have an option. One should worship the Supreme Lord according to the truths taught by a particular community of saintly devotees. One should remain steadfast in that form of worship and not leave it. Why is that? The sūtra explains, aviśiṣṭha-phalatvāt: “For a better result is not obtained.” This means that of all the ways to worship the Lord no one way is better than the others. They are all equal. They are all said to bring the same result, which is that liberation where one directly associates with the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
If by following one such method of worship one attains perfection, what is the need of accepting another method of worship? The lesson taught in the sūtra that begins with the words tad viduṣām should not be forgotten. Therefore, in order to give more evidence to the truth that the ekānti devotees are the best, this instruction is repeated. There is no fault in this.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: The different kinds of worship of the Lord’s different forms, such as the form of Lord Nṛsiṁha and the other forms, all bring liberation as their result. Therefore these activities of worship should be regularly performed by the ekānti devotees. However, in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad and other scriptures are also described other kinds of worship of the Lord, kinds of worship meant for attaining fame, followers, victory, wealth, and other like benedictions.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: May one choose any form of the Lord for such worship, or must one direct this kind of worship to one’s chosen deity alone?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Because the worship of any form of the Lord brings the same result as the worship of any other form of the Lord, one should direct this worship to one’s chosen Deity alone, as was previously explained.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
kāmyās tu yathā-kāmaṁ samuccīyeran na vā pūrva-hetv-abhāvāt
kāmyāḥ – for the objects of desire; tu – but; yathā – as; kāmam – desire; samuccīyeran – may collect; na – not; vā – or; pūrva – previous; hetu – reason; abhāvāt – because of the non-existence.
For attaining a desire one may accept another or not, as one wishes, for the previous reason is now absent.
To fulfill desires other than direct association with the Supreme Lord, desires like the attainment of fame in this world, one may worship any form of the Lord, as one wishes, or one need not worship another form of the Lord, and may instead to continue to worship one’s own chosen Deity. Why is that? The sūtra explains, pūrva-hetv-abhāvāt: “For the previous reason is now absent.” This is is so because the result to be obtained is different. When there is a desire to attain these various material benedictions, then one may worship any form of the Lord. When one does not desire these material benefits, one may not adopt the worship of forms of the Lord other than one’s chosen Deity.
The meaning here is that if one who desires liberation also desires some material benediction, then he should worship Lord Hari alone in order to attain it. He should not worship the demigods to attain his desire. This is explained by Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [2.3.10] in the following words:
akāmaḥ sarva-kāmo
vā
mokṣa-kāma udāra-dhīḥ
tīvreṇa
bhakti-yogena
yajeta puruṣaṁ param
“A person who has broader intelligence, whether he be full of all material desire, or desiring liberation, must by all means worship the supreme whole, the Personality of Godhead.”
Thus have been explained the various kinds of worship of the Lord, beginning with the chanting of the ten-syllable mantra. As explained before, this worship should be directed to one’s chosen Deity.
Viṣaya [thesis or statement]: In the previous passages meditation on the Lord’s qualities and virtues has been described. Now will be described meditation on the Lord’s bodily limbs and features. In Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [1.38], the demigod Brahmā explains:
tam ekaṁ govindaṁ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaṁ pañca-padaṁ vṛndāvana-sura-bhūruha-talāsīnaṁ satataṁ sa-marud-gaṇo ‘ham paramayā stutyā toṣayāmi.
“With eloquent prayers I and the Maruts please Lord Govinda, whose form is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss, who stays under a desire tree in Vṛndāvana, and who is this five-word mantra.”
In the verses that follow Brahmā speaks prayers describing the gentle smile, merciful glance, and other features on the Supreme Lord’s face, eyes, and other parts of the body.
Saṁśaya [doubt]: Are the gentle smile and other features on the Lord’s face and the other parts of His body to be meditated on or not?
Pūrvapakṣa [the opponent speaks]: Because by meditating on the Lord’s general qualities and virtues one attains the goal of life, and because that goal thus attained is so great and exalted, there is no need to meditate on the features of the Lord’s body.
Siddhānta [conclusion]: In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion.
aṅgeṣu yathāśraya-bhāvaḥ
aṅgeṣu – on the limbs; yathā – as; āśraya – shelter; bhāvaḥ – nature.
Appropriate meditation on the limbs.
One should appropriately meditate on the Lord’s mouth and the other parts of His body. This means that one should meditate on the qualities that have taken shelter of the parts of the Lord’s body. Thus, on the Lord’s mouth there are a gentle smile and sweet words, on His eyes there is a merciful glance, and on the other parts of His body there are other features.
śiṣṭaiś ca
śiṣṭaiḥ – by the disciples; ca – and.
Also by the disciples.
In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad [1.51] it is said:
atha haivaṁ stutibhir ārādhayāmi tathā yūyaṁ pañca-padaṁ japantaḥ kṛṣṇaṁ dhyāyantaḥ samsṛtiṁ tariṣyatha.
“Brahmā said: As I worship Him, so should you. Chanting this five-word mantra, and meditating on Lord Kṛṣṇa, you will transcend the world of birth and death.”
In this way Brahmā teaches his disciples to meditate on the qualities present in Lord Kṛṣṇa’s form. That is the meaning.
Here someone may object: “In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad [1.6.7] it is said:
yathā kapyāsaṁ puṇḍarīkam evam akṣiṇī
“The Supreme Lord’s eyes are like lotus flowers.”
Here there is no mention of the Lord’s merciful glance or His other features.”
If this is said, then the author of the sūtras gives the following reply.
samāhārāt
samāhārāt – because of being collective.
Because of being together.
The word na [it is not so] should be added here from three sūtras previous. The word applies to both sūtras. In this passage of Chāndogya Upaniṣad many other features of the Lord’s body are implied. This passage does not mean that the Lord has only lotus eyes and no other bodily features.
Here someone may object: “The idea that one should meditate on the parts of the Lord’s body as having only certain attributes and not others is wrong.”
I refute it with the following words.
guṇa-sādhāraṇya-śruteś ca
guṇa – of qualities; sādhāraṇya – commonness; śruteḥ – from the Śruti-śāstra; ca – also.
Also because the Śruti-śāstra declares that the qualities are held in common.
In Bhagavad-gītā [13.14] it is said:
Sarvataḥ pāṇi-pādam tat
“Everywhere are His hands and legs.”
This passage shows that one should meditate on the parts of the Lord’s body as all having the same qualities in common. In Brahma-saṁhitā [5.32] it is said:
aṅgāni yasya
sakalendriya-vrttimanti
paśyanti pānti kalayanti tathā jaganti
“Each of the limbs of the Lord’s transcendental figure possesses in Himself the full-fledged functions of all organs and eternally sees, maintains, and manifests the infinite universes, both spiritual and mundane.”
In this way the scriptures declare that each part of the Lord’s body has all the qualities of all the other parts.
In the following words the author of the sūtras refutes this idea.
na vā tat-saha-bhāvāśruteḥ
na – not; vā – or; tat – that; saha – together;bhāva – being; a – not; śruteḥ – from the Śruti-śāstra.
Or not, for the Śruti-śāstra does not declare that they have the same nature.
The word vā [or] is used here for emphasis. One should not meditate on the different parts of the Lord’s body as all having the same features in common. Why is that? The sūtra explains, tat-saha-bhāvāśruteḥ: “For the Śruti-śāstra does not declare that they have the same nature.” This means that the Śruti-śāstra does not declare that the qualities of one part of the body are present in the other parts. So, one should not meditate on the parts of the Lord’s body as having the same qualities as the other parts. The descriptions in Bhagavad-gītā 13.14 and other passages in the scriptures should be understood to mean that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, being all-powerful, can do anything with any part of His body. That is the meaning.
darśanāc ca
darśanāt – from seeing; ca – also.
By seeing also.
Therefore the Lord’s gentle smile should be understood to be present in His face and His other qualities to be present in the other parts of His body, each in its appropriate place. In this way it is both seen and described.