NITAAI-Veda.nyf > All Scriptures By Acharyas > Baladeva Vidyabhushana > Vedanta Sutra > Chp 1 Chapter 1 Pada 1 Adhikarana 1 Inquiry Into Brahman The first adhikarana of the Vedanta-sutra discusses brahma-jijnasa (inquiry into Brahman). The adhikarana may be shown in its five parts in the following way: 1. Vishaya (statement): One should inquire about Brahman. This statement is confirmed by the following statements of Vedic scripture: yo vai bhuma tat sukham nanyat sukham asti bhumaiva sukham bhumatveva vijijnasitavyah "The Supreme Personality of Godhead (bhuma) is the source of genuine happiness. Nothing else can bring one actual happiness. Only the Supreme Personality of Godhead can bring one happiness. For this reason one should inquire about the Supreme Personality of Godhead. —Chandogya Upanishad 7.25.1 atma va are drashtavyah shrotavyo mantavyo nididhyasitavyo maitreyi "O Maitreyi, one should see, hear, remember, and inquire about the Supreme Personality of Godhead." —Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 2.4.5 2. Samshaya (doubt): If one has studied the Vedas and dharma-shastras, need he inquire about Brahman or not? The following statements of Vedic scriptures nourish this doubt: apama somam amrita abhuma "We have attained immortality by drinking the soma-juice." —Rig Veda 8.18.3 akshayyam ha vai caturmasyajinah sukritam bhavati "They who follow the vow of caturmasya attain an eternal reward." 3. Purvapaksha (presentation of the opposing view): There is no need to inquire about Brahman. Simply by discharging ordinary pious duties described in the dharma-shastras one can attain immortality and an eternal reward. 4. Siddhanta (the conclusive truth): In the first sutra Bhagavan Vyasadeva replies to his philosophical opponent. Sutra 1 athato brahma-jijnasa atha—now; atah—therefore; brahma—about Brahman; jijnasa—there should be inquiry. Now, therefore, one should inquire about Brahman.* Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In this sutra the word atha means "now", and the word atah means "therefore". The sutra means "Now one should inquire about Brahman." Atha (now): When a person has properly studied the Vedic literature, understood its meaning, adhered to the principles of varnashrama-dharma, observed the vow of truthfulness, purified his mind and heart, and attained the association of a self-realized soul, he is qualified to inquire about Brahman. Atah (therefore): Because material piety brings results of material sense-happiness, which is inevitably limited and temporary, and because the transcendental form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, which is realized by the proper attainment of real transcendental knowledge, and which is full of imperishable, limitless bliss, eternity, transcendental knowldege, and all transcendental attributes, brings eternal bliss to the devotee-beholder, therefore one should renounce all material pious duties for attaining material sense-gratification, and inquire about Brahman by studying the four chapters of Vedanta-sutra. At the point someone may object: Is it not true that simply by studying the Vedas one attains knowledge of Brahman, and as result of this knowledge one abandons the path of material piety and fruitive work and instead takes to the worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead? If this result is obtained simply by studying the Vedas,, what need is there to study the four chapters of Vedanta-sutra? To this objection I reply: Even if one carefully studies the Vedas, misunderstanding and doubt may destroy his intelligence and lead him away from the real meaning of the Vedas. For this reason it is necessary to study the Vedanta-sutra, to stregnthen the students's understanding. Performing the duties of ashrama-dharma are also helpful in purifying the heart and understanding the transcendental reality. How the ashrama duties of the brahmana help in this regard is described in the following statement of Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.22): tam etam vedanuvacanena brahmana vividisanti yajnena danena tapasanashanena "By Vedic study, sacrifice, charity, austerity, and fasting, the brahmanas strive to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead." The usefulness of the brahminical duties such as truthfulness, austerity, and mantra chanting is described in the following scriptural statements: satyena labhayas tapasa hy esha atma samyak jnanena brahmacaryena nityam "By constant truthfulness, austerity, transcendental knowledge, and austerity, one becomes eligible to associate with the Supreme Personality of Godhead." —Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.5 japyenaiva ca samsiddhyad brahmana natra samshayah kuryad anyan na va kuryan maitro brahmana ucyate "Whether he performs other rituals and duties or not, one who perfectly chants mantras glorifying the Supreme Personality of Godhead should be considered a perfect brahmana, eligible to understand the Supreme Lord." —Manu-samhita 2.87 Association with those who understand the truth also brings one transcendental knowledge. By this association Narada and many other spiritual aspirants attained interest to ask about spiritual life and were finally eligible to see the Supreme Personality of Godhead face-to-face. Sanat-kumara and many other great sages have also helped many devotees by giving their association in this way. The great value of contact with a self-realized soul is described in the following statement of Bhagavad-gita (4.34): tad viddhi pranipatena pariprashnena sevaya upadekshyanti te jnanam jnaninas tattva-darshinah "Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth."* The material benefits obtained by following the pious rituals of the karma-kanda section of the Vedas are all temporary in nature. This fact is confirmed by the following statement of Chandogya Upanishad (8.1.3): tad yatheha karma-cito lokah kshiyante evam evamutra punya-cito lokah kshiyate "By performing good works (karma) one is elevated to the celestial material world after death. One is not able to stay there forever, however, but one must lose that position after some time and accept another, less favorable residence. In the same way, by amassing pious credits (punya) one may reside in the upper planets. Still, he cannot stay there, but must eventually relinquish his comfortable position there, and accept a less favorable residence somewhere else." The following statement of Mundaka Upanishad (1.2.12) affirms that only transcendental knowledge will help one approach the Supreme Brahman: parikshya lokan karma-citan brahmano nirvedam ayan nasty akritah kritena tad-vijnanartham sa gurum evabhigacchet samit-panih shrotriyam brahma-nishtham "Seeing that the celestial material planets, which one may obtain by pious work, provide only temporary benefits, a brahmana, in order to understand the truth the of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, should humbly approach a bona-fide spiritual master learned in the scriptures and full of faith in the Supreme Lord." In contrast to the temporary material benefits obtained in the celestial material planets, the Supreme Brahman is the reservoir of eternal, limitless bliss. This is confirmed by the following statments of Taittiriya Upanishad (2.1.1): satyam jnanam anantam brahma "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is limitless, eternal, and full of knowledge." anando brahmeti vyajanat "He then understood that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of transcendental bliss." The Supreme Brahman is eternal, full of knowledge and endowed with all transcendental qualities. This is confirmed by the following statements of Shvetashvatara Upanishad: na tasya karyam karanam ca vidyate na tat-samash cabhyadhikash ca drishyate parasya shaktir vividhaiva shruyate sva-bhaviki jnana-bala-kriya ca "He does not possess bodily form like that of an ordinary living entity. There is no difference between His body and His soul. He is absolute. All his senses are transcendental. Any one of His senses can perform the action of any other sense. Therefore, no one is greater than Him or equal to Him. His potencies are multifarious, and thus His deeds are automatically performed as a natural sequence."* —6.8 sarvendriya-gunabhasam sarvendriya-vivarjitam asaktam sarva-bhric caiva nirgunam guna-bhoktri ca "The Supersoul is the original source of all senses, yet He is without senses. He is unattached, although He is the maintainer of all living beings. He transcends the modes of nature, and at the same time He is the master of all modes of material nature."* —3.17 bhava-grahyam anidakhyam bhavabhava-karam shivam kala-sarga-karam devam ye vidus te jahus tanum "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the creator and destroyer of the entire material cosmic manifestation. He is supremely auspicious, and He does not posesses a material body, for His body is spiritual in all respects. He may be reached and understood only by loving devotional service. Those who thus serve Him and understand Him may become free from having to repeatedly accept various material bodies for continued residence in the material world. They become liberated from this world, and obtain eternal spiritual bodies with which to serve Him." —5.14 That the Supreme Personality of Godhead grants eternal transcendental bliss to His devotees is confirmed by the following statement of Gopala-tapani Upanishad (1.5): tam pitha-stham ye tu yajanti dhiras tesham sukham shashvatam netaresham "The saintly devotees who worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the spiritual world attain eternal transcendental bliss. Except for them no others can attain this eternal bliss." This uselessness of the temporary benefits obtained by following the material piety of the karma-kanda section of the Vedas will be described in the third chapter of this Vedanta-sutra. This may be summed up by saying: One who has studied the Vedas, Upavedas, and Upanishads, understood them, associated with a self-realized soul, and in this way understood the difference between the temporary and the eternal, who has lost all attraction for the temporary and chosen the eternal, becomes a student of the four chapters of Vedanta-sutra. It cannot be said that simply by completely studying and understanding the karma-kanda section of the Vedas one will naturally take up the study of Vedanta-sutra. They who have studied karma-kanda but not associated with saintly devotees do not become eager to understand Brahman. On the other hand, they who have not studied karma-kanda, but who have become purified by association with saintly devotees, naturally become attracted to understand Brahman. Neither can it be said that simply by understanding the difference between the temporary and the eternal, and simply by attaining the four qualities of saintly persons, one will become attracted to understand Brahman. These things are not enough. However, if one attains the association of a self-realized soul and follows his instructions, then these ordinarily difficult-to-attain qualifications are automatically attained at once. Three kinds of persons inquire into the nature of Brahman: 1. Sa-nishtha (they who faithfully perform their duties); 2. Parinishtha (they who act philantropically for the benefit of all living entities); and 3. Nirapek\sha (they who are rapt in meditation and aloof from the activities of this world). According to their own respective abilities all these persons understand the nature of Brahman. They become more and more purified, and they eventually attain the association of Brahman. At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that the words om and atha are auspicious sounds that sprang from Lord Brahma's throat in ancient times? Is it not also so that these words are traditionally used at the beginning of books to invoke auspiciousness and drive away all obstacles? For this reason I think the word atha in this sutra does not mean "now". It is simply a word to invoke auspiciousness, and has no other meaning. To this objection I reply: This is not true. Shrila Vyasadeva, the author of Vedanta-sutra, is the incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, and therefore He has no particular need to invoke auspiciousness or drive away obstacles and dangers. That Vyasadeva is the Supreme Personality of Godhead is confirmed by the following statement of the smriti-shastra: krishna-dvaipayana-vyasam viddhi narayanam prabhum "Please understand that Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa is actually the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Narayana." Still, ordinary people may take it that Lord Vyasadeva has spoken the word atha at the beginning of Vedanta-sutra just to invoke auspiciousness, just as one may sound a conch-shell to invoke auspiciousness. In conclusion, we have described here how at a certain point in time, after certain understandings (atha), a person may become eager to inquire about the nature of Brahman. At this point someone may raise the following objection:Is it not so that the word bhuma or brahma may also refer to the individual spirit soul and not only to the Supreme Personality of Godhead? This fact is explained in Chandogya Upanishad. Even the dictionary explains: "The word brahma means that which is big, the brahmana caste, the individual spirit soul, and the demigod Brahma who sits on a great lotus flower." To clear away the misunderstanding of this objector, the following scriptural passages may be quoted: bhrigur vai varunir varunam pitaram upasasara adhihi bho bhagavo brahma. . . yato va imani bhutani jayante yena jatani jivanti yat prayanty abhisamvishanti tad brahma tad vijijnasasva "Bhrigu asked his father Varuna: `My lord, please instruct me about the nature of Brahman.' Varuna replied: `All living entities have taken their birth because of Brahman. They remain alive because they are maintained by Brahman, and at the time of death they again enter into Brahman. Please try to understand the nature of Brahman.'" At this point someone may doubt: "In this Vedanta-sutra does the word `Brahman' refer to the individual spirit soul or the Supreme Personality of Godhead?" Someone may indeed claim that the word "Brahman" here refers to the individual spirit soul, and to support his view he may quote the following statement of Taittiriya Upanishad (2.5): vijnanam brahma ced veda tasmac cen na pramadyati sharire papmano hitva sarvan kaman samashnute "If one understands the true nature of the Brahman who lives in the body and uses the senses of the body to perceive the material world, then such a knower of Brahman will never become bewildered by illusion. Such a knower of the Brahman in the body refrains from performing sinful actions, and at the time of leaving the body at death, he attains an exalted destination where all his desires become at once fulfilled." Our philosophical opponent may claim in this way that the word "Brahman" should be interpreted to mean the individual spirit soul. In order to refute this false idea, Shrila Vyasadeva describes the true nature of Brahman in the next sutra. Adhikarana 2 The Origin of Everything Sutra 2 janmady asya yatah janma—birth; adi—beginning with; asya—of that; yatah—from whom. Brahman is He from whom everything emanates.* Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word janmadi is a tad-guna-samvijnana-bahuvrihi-samasa, and it should interpreted to mean "creation, maintenance, and destruction." The word asya means "of this material universe with fourteen planetary systems, which is inhabitated by various creatures from the demigod Brahma down to the lowest unmoving blade of grass, who all enjoy and suffer the results of their various fruitive actions (karma), and who cannot understand the astonishing structure of the universe where they live." The word yatah means "from whom", and it refers to the Supreme Brahman who manifested the universe from His inconceivable potency. This is the Brahman about whom one should inquire. The words bhuma and atma both mean "all pervading". These words refer primarily to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This will be elaborately explained in the Bhumadhikarana (1.3.7) and Vakyanvayadhikarana (1.4.19). The word "Brahman" in particular means "He who possesses boundless exalted qualitites." Brahman, then, refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead and this is clearly confirmed in the following words of shruti-shastra: atha kasmad ucyate brahmeti brihanto by asmin gunah "From whom has this universe become manifest? From Brahman, who possesses an abundance of exalted transcendental qualities." Brahman primarily refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and only secondarily to the individual spirit souls, who manifest in small degree the spiritual qualitites of the Supreme Lord. In this way the individual spirit souls may be called Brahman, just as the royal title may be given not only to the king, but also to his associates and subordinates. Therefore, the individual spirit souls, who are all suffering the three-fold miseries of material life, should, in order to attain ultimate liberation, inquire about the Supreme Brahman, who is very merciful towards whose who take shelter of Him. For these reasons it should be understood that the Supreme Brahman, the Personality of Godhead is the object of inquiry in this Vedanta-sutra. This is not an imaginary description of Brahman's qualities. This is the truth about Brahman. The word jijnasa means "the desire to know." Knowledge is of two kinds: 1. Paroksha (knowledge gathered from sources other than the senses e.g. logic, knowledge obtained from authority, etc.) and 2. Aparoksha (knowledge gathered by the senses). An example of these two kinds of knowledge may be seen in the following quotation from the shruti-shastra: vijnaya prajnam kurvita "After learning about the Supreme Personality of Godhead one should become able to directly see Him in the trance of meditation." Paroksha knowledge helps bring us closer to the Supreme Brahman, and aparoksha knowledge manifests the Supreme Lord before us. If one understands his real identity as spirit soul, that is certainly very helpful in understanding Brahman, but that does not mean that the individual soul is the same as Brahman. The individual spirit soul is always different from Brahman, and even after liberation He remains eternally different from the Supreme Brahman. The difference between the individual soul and Brahman is described in sutras 1.1.16, 1.1.17, 1.3.5, 1.3.21, and 1.3.41. The Vedic literature gives the following guidelines for the interpretation of obscure passages: upakramopasamharav abhyaso 'purvata-phalam artha-vadopapatti ca lingam tatparya-nirnaye "The upakrama (beginning), upasamhara (ending), abhyasa (what is repeated again and again), apurvata (what is unique and novel), phalam (the general purpose of the book), artha-vada (the author's statement of his own intention), and upapatti (appropriateness) are the factors to consider in interpretation of obscure passages." If we apply these criteria to the shruti-shastra, we will clearly see that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the individual spirit soul are described here as two distinct entities. Let us analyze the following passage from Shvetashvatara Upanishad (4.6-7) in the light of these six criteria. dva suparna sayuja sakhaya samanam vriksham parishashvajate tayor anyah pippalam svadv atty anashnann anyo 'bhicakashiti "The individual spirit-soul and the Supersoul, Personality of Godhead, are like two friendly birds sitting on the same tree. One of the birds (the individual atomic soul) is eating the fruit of the tree (the sense-gratification afforded to the material body), and the other bird (the Supersoul) is not trying to eat these fruits, but is simply watching His friend. samane vrikshe purusho nimagno 'nishaya shocati muhyamanah jushtam yada pashyati anyam isham asya mahimanam iti vita-shokah "Although the two birds are on the same tree, the eating bird is fully engrossed with anxiety and moroseness as the enjoyer of the fruits of the tree. But if in some way or other he turns his face to his friend who is the Lord and knows His glories, at once the suffering bird becomes free from all anxieties." In this passage the upakrama (beginning) is dva suparna (two birds); the upasamhara (ending) is anyam isham (the other person, who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead); the abhyasa (repeated feature) is the word anya (the other person), as in the phrases tayor anyo 'shnan (the other person does not eat) and anyam isham ( He sees the other person, who is the Supreme Lord); the apurvata (unique feature) is the difference between the Supreme Lord and the individual spirit soul, which could never have been understood without the revelation of the Vedic scripture; the phalam (general purpose of the passage) is vita-shokah (the individual spirit soul becomes free from suffering by seeing the Lord); the artha-vada (the author's statement of his own intention) is mahimanam eti (one who understands the Supeme Lord becomes glorious) and the upapatti (appropriateness) is anyo 'nashan (the other person, the Supreme Lord, does not eat the fruits of material happiness and distress). By analyzing this passage and other passages from Vedic literatures, one may clearly understand the difference between the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the individual spirit soul. At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not true that when a scripture teaches something that had not been known to its readers, then it is useful, and if when a scripture simply repeats what its readers already know, it simply wastes time uselessly? People in general think they are different from the Supreme Brahman, and therefore if the scripture were to teach them something new it would have to be that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the indivdual spirit souls are completely identical. For this reason it should be understood that the individual spirit souls are identical with Brahman. To this objection I reply: This view is not supported by the words of the Vedic scriptures. For example the Shvetashvatara Upanishad (1.6) states: prithag-atmanam preritam ca matva jushtas tatas tenamritatvam eti "When one understands that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the individual spirit souls are eternally distinct entities, then he may become qualified for liberation, and live eternally in the spiritual world." The impersonalist conception of the identity of the individual and the Supreme is a preposterous phantasmagoria, like the horn of a rabbit. It has no reference to reality, and it is completely rejected by the people in general. They do not accept it. Those few texts of the Upanishads that apparently teach the impersonalist doctrine, are interpreted in a personalist way by the author, Vyasadeva himself. This will be described later on in Sutra 1.1.30. Adhikarana 3 The Supreme Personality of Godhead May be Understood by the Revelation of the Vedic Scriptures 1. Vishaya (Statement): The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the creator, maintainer and destroyer of the material universes. Because He is inconceivable to the tiny brains of the conditioned souls He must be understood by the revelation of Vedanta philosophy. This is confirmed by the following statements of the Upanishads: sac-cid-ananda-rupaya krishnayaklishta-karine namo vedanta-vedyaya gurave buddhi-sakshine Om namah. I offer my respectful obeisances to Shri Krishna, whose form is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss, who is the rescuer from distress, who is understood by Vedanta, who is the supreme spiritual master, and who is the witness in everyone's heart. —Gopala-tapani Upanishad tam tv aupanishadam purusham pricchami "I shall now inquire about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is revealed in the Upanishads." —Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 3.9.26 2. Samshaya (doubt): What is the best method for understanding supremely worshipable Lord Hari: the mental speculation of the logicians, or the revelation of the Vedanta scriptures? 3. Purvapaksha (the argument of the philosophical opposition): The sage Gautama (Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 4.5) and others maintain that the Supreme Personality of Godhead can be understood by the speculations of the logicians. 4. Siddhanta (the conclusion): In the Vedanta-sutra, Shrila Vyasadeva explains that scriptural revelation is the real way to understand the Supreme Brahman. He says: Sutra 3 shastra-yonitvat shastra—the scriptures; yonitvat—because of being the origin of knowledge. (The speculations of the logicians are unable to teach us about Supreme Personality of Godhead) because He may only be known by the revelation of the Vedic scriptures. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In this sutra the word "not" should be understood, even though it is not expressed. They who aspire after liberation are not able to understand the Personality of Godhead simply by logic and speculation. Why? Because He is known only by the revelation of the Vedic scriptures. Among the Vedic scriptures, the Upanishads especially describe the Supreme Person. For this reason it is said aupanishadam purusham (the Supreme Person is undertood through the revelation of the Upanishads). The process of logic and speculation as described by the word mantavya (to be understood by logic) as described in Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.5) should be employed to understand the revelation of the scriptures and not independently. This is confirmed by the following statement of shruti-shastra: purvapara-virodhena ko 'rtho 'trabhimato bhavet ity adyam uhanam tarkah shushka-tarkam vivarjayet "Logic is properly employed to resove apparent contradictions in the texts of the Vedas. Dry logic, without reference to scriptural revelation, should be abandoned." For this reason the dry logic of Gautama and others should be rejected. This is also confired in sutra 2.1.11. After understanding the Supreme Person by study of the Upanishads, one should become rapt in meditation on Him. This will be explained later insutra 2.1.27. The Supreme Lord, Hari, is identical with His own transcendental form. He and His form are not two separate identities. He is the witness of all living entities, He is the resting place of a host of transcendental qualitities, He is the creator of the material universes, and He remains unchanged eternally. By hearing about His transcendental glories, one may worship Him perfectly. At this point someone may raise the following objection: The Vedanta philosophy does not give either positive orders or negative prohibitions, but simply descriptions, as the sentence "On the earth there are seven continents." Men need instruction in how to act. Therefore, what is needed is a series of orders to guide men. Men need orders, such as the ordinary orders. "A man desiring wealth should approach the king," or "One suffering from indigestion should restrict his intake of water," or the orders of the Vedas: svarga-kamo yajeta (One desiring to enter the celestial material planets should worship the demigods), or suram na pibet (No one should drink wine). The Upanishads do not give us a string of orders and prohibitions, but merely a description of the eternally perfect Brahman. for example the Upanishads tell us satyam jnanam (The Supreme Personality of Godhead is truth and knowledge). This is of small help in the matter of orders and prohibitions. Sometimes the Upanishads' descriptions may be a little useful, as for example when they describe a certain demigod, the description may be useful when one performs a sacrifice to that demigod, but otherwise these descriptions afford us little practical beneifit, and are more or less useless. This is confirmed by the following statements of Jaimini Muni. amnayasya kriyarthatvad anarthakhyam atad-arthanam "The scriptures teach us pious duties. Any scriptural passage that does not teach us our duty is a senseless waste of our time." —Purva-mimamsa 1.2.1 tad-bhutanam kriyarthena samamnayo 'rthasya tan-nimittatvat "Just as a verb gives meaning to a sentence, in the same way instructions for action give meaning to the statements of the scriptures." —Purva-mimamsa 1.1.25 To this objection I reply: Do not be bewildered. Even though the Upanishads do not give us a series of orders and prohibitions, still they teach us about the Supreme Brahman, the most important and valuable object to be attained by any living entitiy. Just as if in your house there were hidden treasure, and a description of its location were spoken to you, those words would not be useless simply because they were a description. In the same way the Upanishads' description of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the greatest treasure to be attained by any living being, whose form is eternal, full of knowledge and full of bliss, who is perfect and beyond any criticism, who is the friend of all living entities, the Supreme Lord who is so kind that He gives Himself to His devotees, and the supreme whole of all existance, of whom I am a tiny part, is not useless, but of great value to the conditioned soul. The descriptions of the Supreme Brahman in the Upanishads are valuable, just as the description "your son is now born" is useful and a source of great joy, and the decription "This is not a snake, but only a rope partly seen in the darkness," is also useful and a great relief from fear. The specific benefit attained by understanding the Supreme Brahman are described in the following statement of Taittiriya Upanishad (2.1): satyam jnanam anantam brahma yo veda nihitam guhayam so 'shnute sarvan kaman "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is limitless. He is transcendental knowledge, and He is the eternal transcendental reality. He is present in everyone's heart. One who properly understands Him becomes blessed and all his desires are completely fulfilled." No one can say that the Upanishads teach about ordinary fruitive action (karma). Rather, one may say that the Upanishads teach one to give up all material, fruitive work. No one can say that the Upanishads describe anything other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the original creator, maintainer, and destroyer of all the universes, whose spiritual form is eternal, who is a great ocean of unlimited auspicious transcendental qualitities, and who is the resting-place of the goddess of fortune. Jaimini's description of the importance of karma, therefore, has no bearing on the Upanishads. In fact Jaimini was a faithful devotee of the Lord, and his apparent criticisms (in the two quotations presented above) of the Vedic texts that do not encourage fruitive work (karma) with sufficient enthusiasm, are his hint to us that there is more that pious fruitive work in the instructions of the Vedas. In this way it may be understood that the Supreme Brahman is the subject-matter described in the Vedic scriptures. Adhikarana 4 This is Confirmed by the Vedic scriptures 1. Vishaya (statement): That the Supreme Personality of Godhead is described in all Vedic scriptures is described in the following scriptural quotations: yo 'su sarvair vedair giyate "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is glorified by all the Vedas." —Gopala-tapani Upanishad sarve veda yat-padam amananti "All the Vedas describe the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead." —Katha Upanishad 1.2.15 2. Samshaya (doubt): Lord Vishnu is the subject-matter described in all the Vedas. Is this statement true or false? 3. Purvapaksha (the argument of our philosophical opponent): It is not true that the Vedas teach only about the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Actually the Vedas mainly describe various fruitive karma-kanda sacrifices, such as the kariri-yajna for bringing rain, the putra-kamyeshti-yajna for gaining a son, and the jyotishtoma-yajna for traveling to the celestial material planets (Svargaloka). For this reason it is not possible to say that Lord Vishnu is the only topic discussed in the Vedas. 4. Siddhanta (the proper conclusion): Vyasadeva replies to the objections in the following sutra: Sutra 4 tat tu samanvayat tat—this fact; tu—but; samanvayat—because of the agreement of all the Vedic scriptures. But that (Lord Vishnu is the sole topic of discussion in the Vedas) is confirmed by all scriptures. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word tu (but) in this sutra is used to rebut the previously stated opposing argument. It is proper to say that Lord Vishnu is the sole topic of discussion in all the Vedas. Why? The answer is: samanvayat (because the scriptures themselves bring us to this conclusion). The word anvaya means "understanding the actual meaning," and the word samanvaya means "perfect understanding after careful deliberation". When we apply the above-mentioned rules of interpretation (beginning with upakrama and upasamhara) to the texts of the Vedas, we will come to the conclusion that Lord Vishnu is the sole topic of discussion in all the Vedas. If it were not so, then why should the Gopala-tapani Upanishad state that Lord Vishnu is glorified by all the Vedas? This is also confirmed by the lotus-eyed Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, who says: vedaish ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedanta-krid veda-vid eva caham "By all the Vedas I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of the Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas."* —Bhagavad-gita 15.15 kim vidhatte kim acashte kim anudya vikalpayet ity asya kridayam loke nanyo mad veda kashcana mam vidhatte 'bhidhatte mam vikalpyapohyate hy aham "What is the direction of all Vedic literatures? On whom do they set focus? Who is the purpose of all speculation? Outside of Me no one knows these things. Now you should know that all these activities are aimed at ordaining and setting forth Me. The purpose of Vedic literature is to know Me by different speculations, either by indirect understanding or by dictionary understanding. Everyone is speculating about Me."* —Shrimad-Bhagavatam (11.21.42-43) The Vedic literatures also state: sakshat-paramparabhyam veda brahmani pravartate "Either directly or indirectly, the Vedas describe Brahman." In the jnana-kanda section of the Vedas{.fn 1} the transcendental forms and qualitities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are directly described, and in the karma-kanda section of the Vedas the Lord is indirectly described in the discussion of fruitive action and various divisions of material knowledge That the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the sole topic of discussion in the Vedas is also confirmed by the following scriptural passages: tam tv aupanishadam purusham pricchami "I shall now ask about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is described in the Upanishads." —Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (9.21) tam etam vedanuvacanena brahmana vividishanti "Brahmanas study the Vedas to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead." —Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.22) As for the various fruitive results, such as the attainment of rain, a son, or residence in the celestial material planets, that are offered to the follwers of the karma-kanda rituals in the Vedas, these beneifts are offered to attract the minds of ordinary men. When ordinary men see that these material benefits are actually attained by performing Vedic rituals, they become attracted to study the Vedas. By studying the Vedas they become able to discriminate between what is temporary and what is eternal. In this way they gradually become averse to the temporary things of this world and they come to hanker after Brahman. In this way it may be understood that all the parts of the Vedas describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Vedic rituals bring material benefits as a result only when the performer of the ritual is filled with material desire. If the performer is materially desireless, then he does not gain a material result, but rather the result he obtains is purification of the heart and the manifestation of spiritual knowledge. Therefore, the meaning of the previously quoted text from Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.22) is that the demigods are considered to be the various limbs of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and by worshiping them, one actually worships the Supreme Lord, and the result of such worship is that one gradually become pure in heart and awake with spiritual knowledge. Adhikarana 5 Brahman Is Knowable 1. Vishaya (statement): Now, by the use of logic and scriptural quotation, we shall refute the misconception that Brahman cannot be described. One may argue, however, that many scriptural passages support the theory that Brahman cannot be described by words. For example: yato vaco nivartate aprapya manasa saha "The mind cannot understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead and words cannot describe Him." —Taittriya Upanishad 2.4.1 yad vacanabhyuditam yena vag abhyudyate tad eva brahma tad viddhi nedam yad idam upasate "No one has the power to describe Brahman with words, even though everyone's speech occurs by the power granted by Brahman. Know that this Brahman is not material. Worship this Brahman." —Kena Upanishad (1.5) 2. Samshaya (doubt): Is Brahman expressable by words or not? 3. Purvapaksha (the opponenet argues): The shruti-shastra states that Brahman cannot be described by words. If this were not so, it would not be said that the Supreme Brahman is self-manifested. That Brahman cannot be described with words is also explained in the following statement of {Shrimad-Bhagavatam (3.6.40): yato 'prapya nyavartanta vacash ca manasa saha aham canya ime devas tasmai bhagavate namah "Words, mind and ego, with their respective controlling demigods, have failed to achieve success in knowing the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, we simply have to offer our respectful obeisances unto Him as a matter of sanity."* 4. Shrila Vyasadeva refutes these arguments in the following sutra: Sutra 5 ikshater nashabdam ikshateh—because it is seen; na—not; ashabdam—indescribable by words. Because it is seen (that Brahman is vividly described in the Vedic scriptures, it should be understood that Brahman) is not indescribable by words. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Here the word ashabdam means "that which cannot be described by words." In this sutra Brahman is described as not (na) indescribable by words (ashabdam). Why is this so? Because ikshateh (because it is seen that Brahman is described in the passages of the scriptures). For example, Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad states: tam tv aupanishadam purusham pricchami "I shall now ask about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is described in the Upanishads." We may note in this connection that the word aupanishada means "that glorious person who is described in the Upanishads." We may also note that the word ikshateh is bhava (passive), and it is formed by adding the affix tip-pratyaya. The unusual usage here is arsha (a certain degree of grammatical liberty allowed to an exalted author). That the Supreme Personality of Godhead may be described in words is also confirmed by the following statement of Katha Upanishad (2.15): sarve veda yat-padam amananti "All the Vedas describe the feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead." When it is said that Brahman cannot be described in words, the intention is that He cannot be completely described in words. In the same way it is sometimes said that no one can see Mount Meru because no one can see the entire mountain, but only small parts of it at any one time. Without accepting this understanding, that Brahman is not completely expressible by words or understandable by the mind, we would not properly understand the meaning of the scritpural statements yato vaco nivartate (words cannot describe Brahman), aprapya manasa saha (the mind cannot understand Brahman), and yad vacanabhyuditam (No one has the power to describe Brahman with words). These statements explain that Brahman cannot be completely described in words. That Brahman can to some extent be described with words does not contradict the fact that Brahman reveals Himself by His own wish. The Vedas are actually the incarnation of Brahman, and therefore Brahman may reveal Himself in the words of the Vedas. 2. Samshaya (doubt): This may be so, but still the Suprme Person described in the words of the Vedas may be saguna (a manifestation of the Lord according to the modes of material nature), and not the perfect, complete and pure original Brahman who remains indescribable by words. If this doubt were to arise, Shrila Vyasadeva would answer it in the following sutra. Sutra 6 gaunash cen natma-shabdat gaunah—Saguna Brahman, or the Lord's potencies; cet—if; na—not; atma—atma; shabdat—because of the word. If (one says that the Brahman described in the Vedas is) Saguna Brahman (a manifestation of the modes of material nature, and not the original Supreme Lord Himself), Then I say this cannot be true, because Brahman is described in the Vedas as "Atma" (the Supreme Self). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The Brahman described in the Vedas is not merely a saguna manifestation of the mode of Goodness. Why? Because the Vedas use the word atma (the Supreme Self) to describe Him. For example: atmaivedam agra asit purusha-vidhah "The Supreme Self (atma), who is a transcendental person, existed before this material world was manifested in the beginning." —Vajasaneya-samhita atma va idam eka evagra asit nanyat kincana mishat sa ikshata lokan nu shrija "Before the material world was manifest, the Supreme Self (atma) alone existed. Nothing else was manifested at that time. The Supreme Self then thought, `Let me create the material planets.'" —Aitareya Aranyaka Both these texts clearly refer to the Supreme Self (atma) who existed before the creation of the material world. Also, In the commentary on sutra 1.1.2, I have already explained that the word atma primarily refers to the perfect Supreme Brahman, and not to anyone or anything else. For this reason the word atma used in the scriptures should be understood to refer to the transcendental Supreme Personality of Godhead, and not to any material manifestation of the mode of goodness. The transcendental Supreme Person is described in the following statements of Vedic literature: vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvam yaj jnanam advayam brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti shabdyate "Learned transcendentalist who know the Absolute Truth call this non-dual substance Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan."* 'Shrimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.11 shuddhe maha-vibhutakhye pare brahmani shabdyate maitreya bhagavac-chabdah sarva-karana-karane "O Maitreya, the word Bhagavan refers to the Supreme Brahman, who is full of all powers and opulences, the original cause of all causes, and the supreme transcendence, pure and always untouched by matter." —Vishnu Purana In this way the supremely perfect and pure Brahman is described by the statements of the smriti-shastras. If it were not possible to describe Him with words, then the scriptures would not have been able to describe Him in the above quotations. Sutra 7 tan nishthasya mok\shopadeshat tat—that; nishthasya—of the faithful devotee; mok\sha—of the liberation; upadeshat—because of the instructions. (The Brahman described in the scriptures is the transcendental Supreme Lord, and not a temporary manifestation of the mode of goodness, because the scriptures) teach us that they who become His devotees attain liberation. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word "not" is understood in this sutra and the following three sutras as well. The liberation of those devoted to Brahman is described in the following statement of Taittiriya Upanishad (2.7): asad va idam agra asit tato vai sad ajayata tad atmanam svayam akuruta. . . yada hy evaisha etasminn adrishye anatmye anirukte 'nilayane abhayam pratishtham vindate 'tha so 'bhayam gato bhavati yada hy evaisha etasminn udaram antaram kurute atha tasya bhayam bhavati "Before the material cosmos was manifested, it existed in a subtle form. At a certain time it became manifested in a gross form, and at a certain time the Supreme Brahman manifested as the Universal Form. When an individual spirit soul takes shelter of that Supreme Brahman, who is different from the individual spirit souls, invisible to the gross material senses, indescribable by material words, and self-effulgent, then the individual spirit soul attains liberation and is no longer afraid of the cycle of repeated birth and death. If one does not take shelter of this Supreme Brahman, he must remain afraid of taking birth again and again in this world." The Brahman described in this passage of the Vedic literature must be the Supreme Brahman who is beyond the limitations of the material world, and who is the creator of the material universes, and yet beyond them. This passage could not be interpreted to describe a Brahman that is actually a manifestation of the modes of material nature, for if this were so, then it would not have explained that they who become devoted to this Brahman attain ultimate liberation. They who are devoted to the manifestations of the modes of nature do not attain liberation by that material devotion. Therefore, because the devotees attain liberation, the Brahman mentioned here must be the transcendental Supreme Person, who is beyond the modes of nature, and completely non-material in nature. This non-material, transcendental Supreme Brahman is described in the following statement of Shrimad-Bhagavatam (10.88.5): harir hi nirgunah sakshat purushah prakriteh parah sa sarva-drig upadrashta tam bhajan nirguno bhavet "Shri Hari, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is situated beyond the range of material nature; therefore He is the supreme transcendental person. He can see everything inside and outside; therefore He is the supreme overseer of all living entities. If someone takes shelter at His lotus feet and worships Him, he also attains a transcendental position."* Sutra 8 heyatva-vacanac ca heyatva—worthy of being abandoned; vacanat—because of the statement; ca—also. (The Brahman described in the Vedic scriptures is not a manifestation of the modes of material nature,) because no scriptural passage advises one to abandon (Brahman in order to attain something higher). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana If the Brahman described in the scriptures were enmeshed in the modes of material nature, then why do the scriptures not direct men and women to abandon the worship of Brahman and worship something higher? If this Brahman were under the spell of the modes of nature, then why do those aspiring after liberation worship this Brahman to become free from the grip of the modes of nature? Clearly, the Brahman described in the scriptures is not entangled in the modes of material nature, and for this reason the scripture state: anya vaco vimuncatha "Give up talking about things that have no relation to the Supreme Brahman!" They who aspire for liberation should meditate with pure faith on this Supreme Brahman, who is eternal, filled with all transcendental qualities, and the orginal creator of the material universes. In this way it may be understood that the Brahman described in the Vedic scriptures is not a product of the modes of material nature. Sutra 9 svapyat sva—into Himself; apyat—because He merges. (The Supreme Brahman described in the Vedic literatures is not bound by the modes of nature,) because He merges into Himself, (unlike the creatures bound by nature's modes, who all merge into something other than their self). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (5.1.1) explains: om purnam adah purnam idam purnat purnam udacyate purnasya purnam adaya purnam evavashishyate "The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the complete whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the complete whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance."* This verse explains that that which is purna (perfect and complete), enters into itself. This cannot be said of that which is not perfect and complete. If the Supreme Brahman described in the scriptures were a product of the modes of material nature, then it would merge into the Supreme and not into itself. In this way it could not be described as truly perfect and complete. In this verse the word adah (this) refers to the aprakata (not manifested in the material world) form of the Supreme Lord, which is the root from which the various prakata forms of the Lord emanate. Both aprakata and prakata forms of the Lord are perfect and complete. The Lord expands from His aprakata form and appears in the material world in His prakata form, displaying His rasa-lila and other transcendental pastimes. When the prakata form of the Lord leaves the material world and enters the aprakata form of the Lord, the Lord remains unchanged, eternally perfect and complete. That the Lord is untouched by the modes of material nature, and that He expands into many forms, are confired by the following statement of smriti-shastra: sa devo bahudha bhutva nirgunah purushottamah eki-bhuya punah shete nirdosho harir adi-krit "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is faultless. Even though He is the original creator of the material world, He remains always untouched by matter. He expands in innumerable vishnu-tattva incarnations, and then these incarnations enter Him and He again becomes one." At this point someone may raise the following objection: There are actually two kinds of Brahman: Saguna Brahman (Brahman enmeshed in the modes of material nature), and Nirguna Brahman (Brahman untouched by the modes of material nature). The first, or Saguna Brahman, has a form constructed of the mode of material goodness. This Saguna Brahman is the omnisicent, all-powerful creator of the material universes. The second, or Nirguna Brahman, is pure transcendental existence only. This Nirguna Brahman is pure, perfect, and complete. The Saguna Brahman is the shakti (potency) described by the Vedas, and the Nirguna Brahman is the tatparya (meaning) of the Vedas. Shrila Vyasadeva refutes this argument by explaining, in the next sutra: Sutra 10 gati-samanyat gati—the conception; samanyat—because of uniformity. (This is not so) because the Vedas describe only one kind of Brahman. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In this sutra the word gati means "conception." The Vedic literatures describe Brahman as full of transcendental knowledge, omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, complete, pure, the all-pervading Supersoul, the original creator of the material universes, the object of worship for the saintly devotees, and the bestower of liberation. The Vedas do not describe two kinds of Brahman: Nirguna and Saguna. Rather, the Vedas describe only one kind of Brahman. This one Brahman is described by Lord Krishna in the following words (Bhagavad-gita 7.7): mattah parataram nanyat kincid asti dhananjaya mayi sarvam idam protam sutre mani-gana iva "O conqueror of wealth, there is not truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon me as pearls strung on a thread."* Thus the Vedic literatures describe only one kind of Brahman: Nirguna Brahman. Shrila Vyasadeva describes this Nirguna Brahman in the next sutra: Sutra 11 shrutatvac ca shrutavat—because of being described in the Vedas; ca—and. (There is only one kind of Brahman: Nirguna Brahman), because Nirguna Brahman is described throughout the Vedic literatures. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Nirguna Brahman is described in the following statement of Shvetashvatara Upanishad (6.11): eko devah sarva-bhuteshu gudhah sarva-vyapi sarva-bhutantaratma karmadhyakshah sarva-bhutadhivasah sakshi ceta kevalo nirgunash ca "The Supreme Personality of Godhead manifests Himself as the all-pervading Supersoul, the witness present in the hearts of all living entities. He witnesses all activities of the living entity. He is the supreme living force. He is transcendental to all material qualities." In this way Nirguna Brahman is described in the shruti-shastra. The shruti-shastra does not say that it is impossible to describe Brahman. Some say that Brahman may be understood not from the direct statements of the Vedic literatures, but merely indirectly, or from hints found in the Vedic texts. This is not the correct understanding, for if the Vedic scriptures had no power to directly describe Brahman, then naturally they would also not have any power to indirectly describe Him or hint about Him. The Vedic literatures may say that Brahman has no contact with gunas (either qualities, or the three modes of material nature), and He cannot be seen by material eyes (adrishya), still it does not say that the words of the Vedas have no power to describe Him. At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not said in the Vedas that Brahman has no gunas (qualities)? Your statement that Brahman has qualities contradicts the description of the scriptures. To this I reply: This is not true. You can only say this because you do not understand the confidential meaning of the word nirguna. Because the Supreme Brahman is all-knowing and possess many transcendental qualitites, when the scriptures say that He is nirguna, it should be understood to mean that He has no (nih) contact with the three modes of material nature (guna). This is confirmed by the following statements of smriti-shastra: sattvadayo na shantishe yatra caprakrita gunah "The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who possesses numberless transcendental qualities, is eternally free from the touch of the three modes of material nature: goodness, passion, and ignorance." samasta-kalyana-gunatmako 'sau "The Supreme Personality of Godhead possesses all auspicious qualities." For all these reasons it should be accepted that the Vedic literatures have the power to describe the perfect, pure, complete Supreme Brahman. When it is said by the scriptures that the Supreme Brahman has no names, forms, or qualities it should be understood that the Supreme Brahman has no material names, forms, or qualities, and that His names, forms and qualities are limitless and beyond the counting of limited spirit souls. At this point someone may object, saying that the literal interpretation of the Vedic statements is that Brahman is without qualities (nirguna), and your interpretation of the word nirguna is wrong. To this objection I reply: Does this description that Brahman has no qualities help to positively undertand Brahman? If you say yes, then you have to admit that the Vedas do have the power to describe Brahman; and if you say no, then you have to admit that your careful studies of the Vedic literature have been a great waste of time, and as a result you remain wholly ignorant of Brahman's real nature. Adhikarana 6 The Supreme Brahman is Full of Bliss Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana shabda vacakatam yanti yantranandamayadayah vibhum ananda-vijnanam tam shuddham shraddadhimahi Let us place our faith in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is supremely pure, all-powerful, all-knowing, and full of transcendental bliss. He is perfectly described in the anandamaya-sutra and the other statements of Vedanta-sutra. From the 12th Sutra (anandamaya) to the end of this First Chapter, Shrila Vyasadeva will prove that the statements of the Vedic literatures are intended to describe Brahman. In the First Pada, Shrila Vyasadeva discusses those words of the Vedic literatures, which, taken by themselves, whould not necessarily refer to Brahman, but which, in their Vedic context, certainly do refer to Brahman. 1. Vishaya (Statement): In the passages from Taittiriya Upanishad beginning brahma-vid apnoti param and sa va esha puruso 'nna-rasamayah, we find a description of the annamaya, pranamaya, manomaya, and vijnanamaya stages of existence, and after that we find the following statement: tasmad va etasmad vijnanamayad anyo 'ntaratmanandamayas tenaisha purnah. sa va esha purusha-vidha eva tasya purusha-vidhatam anvayam purusha-vidhah. tasya priyam eva shirah. modo dak\shinah pak\shah. pramoda uttarah pak\shah. ananda atma. brahma-puccham pratishtha. "Higher than the vijnanamaya stage is the anandamaya stage of existence. The anandamaya stage is a person whose head is pleasure (priya), whose right side is joy (moda), whose left side is delight (pramoda), and whose identity is bliss (ananda). The anandamya is Brahman." 2. Samshaya (doubt): Is the anandamaya person the individual spirit soul or the Supreme Brahman? 3. Purvapaksha (the opposition speaks): Because anandamaya is described as a person it must refer to the conditioned spirit soul residing in a material body. 4. Siddhanta (the proper conclusion): Shrila Vyasadeva answers this argument by speaking the following sutra: Sutra 12 anandamayo 'bhyasat ananda—bliss; mayah—full of ; abhyasat—because of repetition. The word anandamaya (full of bliss) used in the Vedic literatures must refer to the Supreme Brahman, for it is repeatedly used to describe Him. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The Supreme Brahman is the anandamaya described in Vedic literature. Why do we say so? Because the word anandamaya is repeatedly used to describe the Supreme Brahman. Directly following the description of anandamaya in the Taittiriya Upanishad (2.6.1), we find the following statement: asann eva sambhavati asad brahmeti veda cet asti brahmeti ced veda santam enam tato viduh "One who thinks, `The Supreme Brahman does not exist' becomes a demonic atheist, and one who thinks, `The Supreme Brahman does exist' is known as a saint." In this passage the word Brahman was repeated. This repetition is called abhyasa. In the previous quotation from Taittiriya Upanishad, the word Brahman appeared in the word brahma-puccham, but in that case the word only occurred once, and therefore there was no abhyasa. The four verses of Taittiriya Upanishad beginning with the verse annad vai prajah prajayante describe the annamaya, pranamaya, manomaya, and vijnanamaya levels of existence. Each of these levels is progressively higher than the preceding one, and after them the anandamaya level, which is different in quality, is the highest of all. This will be more elaborately explained in the passage following the sutra: priya-shiras tv adya-prapter (3.3.13) of this book. At this point someone may raise the following objection: These stages of existence describe the conditioned souls who have fallen into the raging river of material suffering. Why has the stage of blissfulness (anandamaya) been made the chief of these stages of suffering?" To this objection I reply: There is no fault in this. The all-blissful Personality of Godhead is pesent in the hearts of all the suffering conditioned souls, and therefore it is perfectly appropriate to mention them together. The Vedic literatures speak in this way to make a difficult subject-matter intelligible for the unlettered common man. Just as one may point out the small, difficult-to-see star Arundhati by first pointing to a nearby large easy-to-see star, and then lead the viewer from that reference-point to the tiny Arundhati, in the same way the Vedic literatures first describe the suffering-filled life of the conditioned souls, and then from that reference point teach about the all-blissful Supreme Personality of Godhead. At this point someone may raise the following question: Is it, then, that the Vedic literatures mostly describe topics other than the Supreme Brahman, (because mostly they describe these "reference-points" to lead the reader to the Supreme), or do they mostly describe Brahman directly?" I answer this question: Brahman is directly described in the Vedic literatures. For example, in the next chapter of Taittiriya Upanishad, Varuna, upon being asked by his son to teach him about Brahman, explained to him that Brahman is the original creator, maintaner, and destroyer of the material universes. He further explains that the annamaya, pranamaya, manomaya, and vijnanamaya stages of existence, one by one, are all Brahman. Then he explained that the anandamaya stage is the final Brahman. After explaining this, Varuna concluded his teaching by confirming that he has spoken a true description of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He said: etam anandamayam atmanam upasankramya iman lokan kamani kama-rupy anusancarann etat sama gayann aste "After leaving his material body, one who understands the supreme anandamaya person leaves this material world and enters the spiritual world. All his desires become fulfilled, he attains a spiritual form according to his own wish, and he dedicates himself to glorifying that supreme anandamaya person." That the anandamaya person in the Vedic literatures is actually the Supreme Brahman is also described in the following statement of Shrimad-Bhagavatam (10.87.17): purusha-vidho 'nvayo 'tra caramo 'nnamyadishu yah sad asatah param tvam atha yad eshv avasheshamritam "O Lord, of these persons beginning with the annamaya-purusha, You are the Supreme." We may note in this connection that it is not contradictory or illogical to say that the Supreme Brahman has a form. The form of the Supreme is described in the Vedic literatures. For example, the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (3.7.3) explains: prithivi shariram "The material universe is the body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead." It is because the Supreme Personality of Godhead has a form (sharira), that this book, the Vedanta-sutra, is also called Shariraka-sutra (sutras glorifying the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who has a form). Some may say that the word anandamaya does not refer to the Supreme Brahman, and that only the word brahma-puccham refers to Brahman. This proposal is not very intelligent. Some others may say that the word anandamaya does not refer to Brahman because the wordmaya means "transformation". These persons say the word anandamaya (transformation of bliss) cannot refer to the Supreme Brahman, for Brahman is naturally full of bliss, and not a transformation of some pre-existing state of happiness. For this reason the word anandamaya must refer to the individual spirit soul, and not Brahman. In order to refute this argument, Shrila Vyasadeva speaks the following sutra: Sutra 13 vikara-shabdan neti cen na pracuryat vikara—transformation; shabdat—from the word; na—not; iti—thus; cet—if; na—not; pracuryat—because of abundance. If (someone argues that the Supreme Brahman cannot be the same as the anandamaya person described in the Vedas) because the affix maya means "transformation", (and the Supreme Brahman is not a transformation of ananda, or bliss, then I reply by saying that) because the affix maya used here means "abundance", this interpretation is not correct, (and therefore the word anandamaya should be understood to mean "He who is filled with limitless bliss"). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word anandamaya does not mean "he who is a transformation of bliss." Why? Because the affix maya here means "abundance", and therefore the word anandamaya means "He who is filled with limitless bliss." The rules of Sanskrit grammar state that the affix maya may not be used to mean "transformation" in vaidika words of more than two syllables. The word ananda has three syllables, and therefore when the word anandamaya appears in the vaidika text of the Taittiriya Upanishad, it cannot be interpreted to mean "he who is a transformation of bliss." The Supreme Brahman, therefore, is not only free from all suffering, but filled with limitless bliss. This is confirmed by the following statements of Vedic scripture: esha sarva-bhutantaratmapahata-papma divyo deva eko narayanah "There is one Supreme Personality of Godhead: Lord Narayana. He is the transcendental Supersoul in the hearts of all living entities, and He is completely free from all sin." —Subala Upanishad parah paranam sakala na yatra kleshadayah santi paravareshah "Suffering is not experienced by the Supreme Personality of Godhead." When the affix maya means "abundance", it also implies the meaning "essential nature." Therefore, when we use jyotirmaya (full of light) to mean the sun, the affix maya can also be understood to mean "essential nature". In this way the word jyotirmaya means "that of which the essential nature is light." In this way the word anandamaya may also be interpreted to mean "He whose essential nature is full of bliss." From all this it may be understood that the word anandamaya clearly refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It does not refer to the individual spirit soul. Sutra 14 tad-hetu-vyapadeshac ca tat—of that; hetu—the origin; vypadeshat—because of the statement; ca—also. Because the Vedic literatures declare that the anandamaya person is the source of bliss for others, (it should be understood that the anandamaya person is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and not the individual spirit soul). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana This is confirmed by the following statement of Taittiriya Upanishad (2.7): ko hy evanyat kah pranyat yady esha akasha anando na syat. esa evanandayati. "Who is that person, without whom the living entities cannot feel happiness? That is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who delights the individual spirit souls." This passage explains that the Supreme Brahman is the origin of happiness for the individual spirit souls. From this we may understand that the cause of happiness (the Supreme Personality of Godhead), and the receiver of happiness (the individual spirit soul) must be different persons. They cannot be indentical. Therefore the word anandamaya refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead only. We may also note that the word ananda used in this passage of Taittiriya Upanishad (is identical with the word anandamaya.. Sutra 15 mantra-varnikam eva ca giyate mantra—by the mantra portion of the Vedas; varnikam—described; eva—certainly; ca—also; giyate—is described. (The same Supreme Personality of Godhead) described in the mantra-portion of the Vedas is also described (as the anandamaya-person in the text of the Taittiriya Upanishad). Purport by Baladeva Vidyabhushana The same Supreme Brahman described in the Vedic mantra, Satyam jnanam anantam brahma (the Supreme Brahman has no limits. He is eternal and full of knowledge), is also described in the Taittiriya Upanishad by the word anandamaya. In this way the above sutra explains that the word anandamaya does not refer to the individual living entitiy. Further, the Taittiriya Upanishad explains: brahma-vid apnoti param "One who understands the Supreme Brahman attains the Supreme Brahman." This sentence explains that the individual living entity worships the Supreme Brahman and then attains the association of that Supreme Brahman. This is the same Supreme Brahman previously described in the mantra, satyam jnanam anantam brahma. This is the Supreme Brahman described by the word anandamaya. This is the Supreme Brahman described in the Taittiriya Upanishad in the passage begining with the words tasmad va etasmat. Because the Supreme Brahman is the object of attainment for the individual spirit soul, and because the object of attainment and the attainer must be two distinct entities, and they cannot be identical, therefore the Supreme Brahman and the individual living entities must be distinct persons, and therefore the word anandamaya refers only to the Supreme Personality of Godhead and not to the individual living entites. At this point someone may raise the following objection: If the Supreme Brahman described in the Vedic mantras were different from the individual living entity, then the individual living enitites could not be the anandamaya person described in the scriptures. The actual fact is that the Supreme Brahman and the individual living entities are identical. The Vedic mantras state that when the individual spirit soul is free from ignorance and liberated from material bondage, then he become identical with the Supreme Brahman. To answer this objection, Shrila Vyasadeva speaks the following sutra. Sutra 16 netaro 'nupapatteh na—not; itarah—the other; upapatteh—because it is illogical. The other person (individual living entity) is not described (in the mantra "satyam jnanam anantam brahma"), because such an interpretation of the mantra is illogical. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The itara (other person) mentioned in this sutra is the individual living entity. This sutra, therefore, states that the individual spirit soul, even in the liberated condition, cannot be the Supremem Person described in the mantra, satyam jnanam anantam brahma. This is confirmed by the following statement of Vedic literature: so 'shnute sarvan kaman saha brahmana vipashcita "The liberated soul enjoys the fulfillment of all his desires in the company of the omniscient Supreme Brahman." In this passage the difference between the liberated spirit-soul and the Supreme Brahman is described in the words "He enjoys in the company of the Supreme Brahman." The word vipascit means "He whose consciousness (cit) sees (pashyati) the great variety of that which exists (vividham). The word pashya is changed to pash in this word by the grammatical formula prishodaradi-gana (Panini 6.3.109). In this way the liberated individual soul attains the association of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is expert at enjoying many varieties of transcendental bliss, and with Him, the individual spirit soul enjoys, fulfilling all his desires. The word asnute should be understood to mean "enjoys" in this context. The verb ash means "to enjoy", and although we would expect it to be conjugated in the parasmaipada, (ashnati), in this passage it is conjugated in the atmanepada (ashnute). The reason for this is explained by Panini in the sutra vyatyayo bahulam iti chandasi tatha smriteh (3.1.85). The Supreme Personality of Godhead is naturally the Supreme Enjoyer, and the individual spirit soul is His subordinate in the matter of enjoyment also. Still, the Supreme Personality of Godhead glorifies the liberated souls, when He says: vashe kurvanti mam bhaktah sat-striyah sat-patim yatha "My pure devotees bring Me under their control, just as faithful wives bring a kind-hearted husband under their control." Sutra 17 bheda-vyapadeshac ca bheda—difference; vyapadeshat—because of the statement; ca—also. (The Supreme Personality of Godhead and the individual spirit soul are) different, because the Vedic literature teaches this fact. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The Taittiriya Upanishad (7.1) explains: raso vai sah rasam hy evayam labdhvanandi bhavati. "When one understands the Personality of God, the reservoir of pleasure, Krishna, he actually becomes transcendentally blissful."* This passage clearly shows the difference between the liberated individual spirit soul and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whom the Vedic mantras describe as anandamaya, and who is the transcendental nectar attained by the individual spirit soul. This difference is also described in the following statement of Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.6): brahmaiva san brahmapnoti "After becoming Brahman, the individual spirit soul attains Brahman." This statement does not mean that after liberation the individual spirit soul becomes non-different from the Supreme Brahman, but rather the liberated soul becomes similar to Brahman and in this condition meets Brahman and attains His association. This is confirmed by the folllowing statementof Mandukya Upanishad (3.1.31): niranjanah paramam samyam upaiti "This liberated soul becomes like the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Also, in the Bhagavad-gita (14.2), the Supreme Personality of Godhead declares: idam jnanam upashritya mama sadharmyam agatah "By becoming fixed in this knowledge, one can attain to the transcendental nature, which is like My own nature."* In this way the Vedic literatures teach us that the liberated souls become like the Supreme Personality of Godhead. At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that the pradhana feature of the mode of material goodness (sattva-guna) is the actual origin of the anandamaya person? Shrila Vyasadeva answers this objection in the following sutra. Sutra 18 kamac ca nanumanapeksha kamat—because of desire; ca—also; na—not; anumana—to the theory; apeksha—in relation. (The anandamaya person) cannot be (a product of the mode of material goodness), because (the mode of goodness is insentient and desireless, whereas the anandamaya person) is filled with desires. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The Taittiriya Upanishad explains: so 'kamayata bahu syam prajayeya "The Supreme Personality of Godhead desired: Let Me become many. Let Me father many living entities." In this way the shruti-shastra explains that the universe was created by the desire of the anandamaya person. Because the anandamaya person is thus filled with desires, it is not possible for the pradhana mode of material goodness, which is lifeless, insentient, and desireless, to be that anandamaya person. Sutra 19 asminn asya ca tad-yogam shasti asmin—in that anandamaya person; asya—of the individual spirit soul; ca—also; tat—of fearlessness; yogam—contact; sasti—the Vedic scriptures teach. (The anandamaya person cannot be manifested from the pradhana mode of material goodness, because) the Vedic scriptures teach that contact with the anandamaya person brings fearlessness (to the individual spirit soul). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The shruti-shastra teaches that by taking shelter of the anandamaya person, the individual spirit soul attains fearlessness, and by declining to take shelter of Him, the soul becomes plagued with fears. This confirmed by the Taittiriya Upanishad (2.7.2) in the passage beginning with the words yada hy eva. On the other hand, contact with the material nature brings fear to the individual spirit souls. The material nature does not bring a condition of fearlessness to the living entities, and for this reason it is not possible that the pradhana mode of material goodness is the anandamaya person. Therefore, the anandamaya person is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Hari. The anandamaya person is not the individual spirit soul or the material nature. Adhikarana 7 The Nature of the Person Within 1. Vishaya (Statement): The Chandogya Upanishad explains: atha ya so 'ntar adityo hiranmayah purusho drishyate hiranya-shmashrur hiranya-kesha apranakhat sarva eva suvarnas tasya yatha kapyasam pundarikam evam ak\shini tasyodeti nama sa esha sarvebhyah papmabhyah udita udeti ha vai sarvebhyah papmabhyo ya evam veda tasya rik sama ca gesnau tasmad udigithas tasmat tv evodgataitasya hi gatha sa esha ye camushmat paranco lokas tesham ceshte deva-kamanam cety adhidaivatam. . . athadhyatmam atha ya esho 'ntar-ak\shini purusho drishyate saiva rik tat sama tad uktham tad yajus tad brahma tasyaitasya tad eva rupam yad amushya rupam. yav amushya gesnau tau gesnau yan nama tan nama. "Within the sun-globe is a golden person, with golden hair, a golden beard, and a body golden from His fingernails to all His limbs. His eyes are like lotus flowers. He is above all sin. One who understands Him also becomes situated above all sin. The Rig and Sama Vedas sing His glories. From Him the highest spiritual planets, where the demigods desire to go, have become manifested. This is the golden person present among the demigods. . . Now I shall describe the person within the human mind and heart. Within the eyes a wonderful person may be seen. The Rig, Sama, and Yajur Vedas glorify Him. He is identical with the golden person who resides in the sun." 2. Samshaya (doubt): "Is this an individual spirit soul who by great piety and spiritual knowledge has attained this exalted position, or is this the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who appears as the all-pervading Supersoul?" 3. Purvapaksha (the opposing argument): Because this person has a form and various humanlike features, He must be a pious spirit soul. By his piety and spiritual knowledge he has become able to become the great controller of demigods and human beings, who fulfills their desires, and grants them the results of thier actions. 4. Siddhanta (Conclusion): Shrila Vyasadeva addresses these views in the following sutra. Sutra 20 antas tad-dharmopadeshat antah—within; tat—of Him; dharma—nature; upadeshat' because of the instruction. The person within (the sun and the eye is the Supreme Personality of Godhead), because the Vedic literatures explain that His nature fits the description of the Lord. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The person within the sun and the eye is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is present everywhere as the Supersoul. This person is not the individual spirit soul. Why? Because the Vedic literatures describe Him as being sinless and possessing all the qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. For example, He is free from all sin and all karma. The slightest fragrance of karma cannot touch Him. This is not possible for the individual spirit souls, who remain subject to the laws of karma. In many other ways also the individual spirit soul does not fit the description of this perosn within the sun and the eye. For example: the individual spirit soul is not the fulfiller of the desires of the living entities, nor is he the awarder of the fruits of action, nor is he the object of the worship of the living entities. At this point someone may raise the following objection: Because the person within the sun and the eye is described as having a body, therefore He must be an individual spirit soul, for the Supreme Brahman has no body. To this objection I reply: This is not necessarily so. The purusha-sukta prayers (Rig Veda 10.90) and many other Vedic verses describe the transcendental body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Svetashvatara Upanishad also describes the Supreme Lord's transcendental body in the following words: vedhaham etam purusham mahantam aditya-varnam tamasah parastat "I know that Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose form is transcendental to all material conceptions of darkness."* Sutra 21 bheda-vyapadeshac canyah bheda—difference; vyapadeshat—because of the statement; ca—also; anyah—another. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is different from the individual spirit soul because this doctrine is taught in all Vedic literatures. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The golden person within the sun is not the individual spirit soul who is the solar diety and who thinks the sun-planet is his own body, but rather that golden person is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Supersoul who is present in every atom. This is confirmed by the following statement of the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad: ya aditye tishthann adityad antaro yam adityo na veda yasyadityah shariram ya adityam antaro yamayaty esha ta atmantaryamy amritah "That person situated within the sun, who is not the sun-god, whom the sun-god does not know, who manifests the sun-planet as His own body, who controls the sun-planet from within, that person is the immortal Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is present within the heart of every living entity as the Supersoul." From this description we may understand that the golden person within the sun is not the individual spirit soul who is the sun-god, but the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Both this passage and the previous quoted passage from the Chandogya Upanishad agree on this point. Adhikarana 8 The Word "Akasha" Refers to Brahman 1. Vishaya (Statement): The Chandogya Upanishad states: asya lokasya ka gatir iti akasha iti hovaca sarvani ha va imani bhutany akashad eva samutpadyante. akasham pratyastam yanty akashah parayanam iti. "He asked: What is the ultimate destination of all living entities? He replied: Akasha is the ultimate destination. All living entities and all material elements have emanated from akasha, and they will again enter into akasha." 2. Samshaya (doubt): What is the meaning of the word akasha here? Does it mean the element ether, or does it mean the Supreme Brahman? 3. Purvapaksha (the opposing argument): The word akasha here means "the element ether", because air and the other elements evolve from it. Indeed, ether is the origin of all the other elements. 4. Siddhanta (Conclusion): Shrila Vyasadeva refutes this argument in the following sutra. Sutra 22 akashas tal-lingat akashah—the word akasha; tat—of Him; lingat—because of the qualities. The word "akasha" in the Vedic literature refers to the Supreme Brahman, for the description of "akasha" aptly fits the description of the qualities of Brahman. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word akasha here refers to Brahman and not the material element ether. Why? Because the akasha described here has alll the characteristics of Brahman. The akasha described here is the source from which the material elements emanate, the maintainer who sustains them, and the ultimate refuge into which they enter at the time of comsic annihilation. That is Brahman. The scriptures explain: sarvani ha va imani bhutani (All material elements have emanated from akasha). Because ether is one of the material elements, it is included in the word sarvani (all the elements). It is not the independent origin of the causal chain, but merely one of the links. For this reason it cannot be the akasha that is the source of all the elements (including ether). The use of the word eva (certainly) in this context reinforces the interpretation that akasha refers to Brahman because eva implies "there is no other cause". For this reason akasha cannot refer to the material element ether. For example, clay is the origin from which clay pots are produced, and other material substances are the origins of other objects, but all these "origins" are not primal origins, but merely intermediate steps in a great causal chain. By using the word eva (the sole cause) the text clearly refers to the primal, uncaused cause, Brahman, and not ether or any other particular intermediate stage in the causal chain. The Vedic literatures describe Brahman as the master of all potencies and the source of all forms, and therefore, because the akasha is described (eva) as the "sole cause", it can refer only to the primal cause Brahman and not the material element ether. Although the word akasha generally means "ether" in ordinary usage, in this context the secondary meaning "Brahman" is far more appropriate. Adhikarana 9 The Word "Prana" Refers to Brahman 1. Vishaya (Statement): The Chandogya Upanishad explains: katama sa devateti. prana iti hovaca. sarvani ha vai imani bhutani pranam evabhisamvishanti pranam abhyujjihate. "They asked: Who is this deity of whom you speak? He replied: It is prana. From prana all the material elements have emanated, and into prana they enter at the end." 2. Samshaya (doubt): Does the word pranahere refer to the breath that travels in and out of the mouth, or does it refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead? 3. Purvapaksha (opposing argument): The ordinary meaning of the word prana is "the breath that travels in and out the mouth." That meaning is intended here. 4. Siddhanta (Conclusion): Shrila Vyasadeva refutes this view by speaking the following sutra. Sutra 23 ata eva pranah atah eva—therefore; pranah—the word prana. The word "prana" in the Vedic literatures refers to the Supreme Brahman, for the same reasons expressed in the previous sutra. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word prana in this passage from Chandogya Upanishad refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and not to the transformations of air. Why? Because this text describes prana as the original cause from which the material elements have emanated, and into which they enter at the end. These are the characteristics of the Supreme Brahman, and not the material element air. Adhikarana 10 The Word "Jyotis" Refers to Brahman Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The Chandogya Upanishad (3.13.7) states: atha yad atah paro divo jyotir dipyate vishvatah prishtheshu sarvatah prishtheshv anuttameshuttameshu lokeshu idam vava tad yad idam asminn antah purushe jyotih "Jyotis shines in the spiritual world, above all the material planets. Jyotis forms the background on which all material universes and all material planets, from lowest to highest, rest. This jyotis is present in the heart of every living being." 2. Samshaya (doubt): What is the jyotis described here? Is it the light of the sun and other luminous objects, or is it the Supreme Brahman? 3.Purvapaksha (the opposing argument): Because there is no mention of Brahman in this passage, the word jyotis in this text must refer to the light of the sun and other luminous objects. 4. Siddhanta (Conclusion): Shrila Vyasadeva replies in the following sutra. Sutra 24 jyotish-caranabhidhanat jyotih—of the jyotih; carana—of the feet; abhidhanat' because of the mention. Because the "jyotis" in this text is described as having feet, (it must refer to the Supreme Brahman). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word jyotis here should be understood to mean "the Supreme Brahman". Why? Because this jyotis is described as having feet. The Chandogya Upanishad (3.12.6) states: etavan asya mahimato jyayams" ca purushah. pado 'sya sarva-bhutani tri-pad asyamritam divi "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of glory and opulence. His one foot is all material elements and all living entities, and His three feet are the eternal spiritual world." In the previously quoted text of Chandogya Upanishad (3.13.7), as well as in this text from Chandogya Upanishad (3.12.6), (where Brahman is described as having four feet), the spiritual world is mentioned. Although both texts are separated by a little distance, they are brought together by joint mention of the spiritual world, as well as by use of the relative and co-relative pronouns yat and tat. For these reasons it should be understood that both texts describe the all-powerful Supreme Personality of Godhead. For these reasons the jyotis described in this text is the all-powerful Supreme Personality of Godhead, and not the light of the sun and other luminous objects. Sutra 25 chando-'bhidhanan neti cen na tatha ceto 'rpana-nigadat tatha hi darshanam chandah—of a meter; abhidhanat—because of being the description; na—not; tatha—in that way; cetah—the mind; arpana—placing; nigadat—because of the instruction; tatha hi' furthermore; darshanam—logical. If someone were to claim: “The word {.sy 1682}jyotis" here does not refer to Brahman, but to the Gayatri meter," then I would reply: This is not true. The Gayatri meter is taught to assist meditation on Brahman. For this reason it is logical and appropriate to interpret the word jyotis to mean "Brahman". Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana At this point someone may raise the following objection:Is it not true that the Vedic literatures state: gayatri va idam sarvam bhutam yad idam kincit "Gayatri is everything that exists." tam eva bhuta-vak-prithivi-sharira-hridaya-prabhedaih "Gayatri is everything. Gayatri is speech, earth, body, and mind." caisha catush-pada shad-vidha gayatri tad etad ricabhyuktam "The Gayatri meter, of which there are four feet and six varieties, is extensively employed in the mantras of the Vedas." etavan asya mahima "Gayatri is glorious." For these reasons it should be understood that the word jyotis in the Vedic literatures refers to the Gayatri mantra. Why, without any good reason, do you insist that the word jyotis refers to Brahman? To this objection I reply: Gayatri is a meter, and therefore it is not sensible to claim that it is everything, and everything has emanated from it. For this reason it is only reasonable to assume that the word jyotis in this context refers to Brahman and not Gayatri. Why? Because in this sutra Shrila Vyasadeva states: tatha hi darshanam (that the word jyotis refers to Brahman is only logical and consistent. Any other interpretation is illogical). The truth is that the Supreme Brahman has incarnated in this world in the form of the Gayatri mantra to enable the living entities to meditate on Him. This fact is confirmed by the statements of Vedic literature. If we accept that Gayatri is an incarnation of Brahman, then the scriptural statement "Gayatri is everything" is perfectly sensible. Otherwise, the interpretation we concoct is illogical and forced. In this way we have demonstrated that the Gayatri mantra is an incarnation of Brahman. Sutra 26 bhutadi-pada-vyapadeshopapattesh caivam bhuta—the living entities; adi—beginning with; pada—feet; vyapadesha—of the statement; upapatteh—for the reason; ca—also; evam—in this way. Because the Vedic literatures state that the living entities, (their speech, bodies, and minds are the four) feet (of Gayatri), it should be understood (that Gayatri is an incarnation of Brahman). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Gayatri should be considered the same as Brahman. Why? Because Gayatri is described in the words: tam eva bhuta-vak-prithivi-sharira-hridaya-bhedaih "Gayatri is everything. The four feet of Gayatri are speech, earth, body, and mind." Without Gayatri being an incarnation of Brahman, it is not possible for these four things to be Gayatri's feet. For this reason, as previously explained, it is only natural to interpret the word "Gayatri" to mean "Brahman". In the two quotations from Vedic literature that have formed the basis of our discussion, the word dyu (the spiritual world) has occurred. This appearance of the word dyu in both passages further confirms that the ambiguous words in these two passages refer to Brahman, and not to something else. At this point someone may raise the following objection: The word dyu appearing in these two passages refers to different things. To answer this objection, Shrila Vyasadeva speaks the following sutra. Sutra 27 upadesha-bhedan neti cen nobhayasminn apy avirodhat upadesha—of instruction; bhedat—because of the difference; na—not; iti—thus; cet—if; na—not; ubhayasmin—in both places; api—also; avirodhat—because of non-contradicition. The objection that because the two scriptural passages employ the word "dyu" in two different cases (locative and ablative), therefore they describe two different objects, which cannot both be Brahman, is not a valid objection. The use of the two different causes does not mean that the two passages must describe two different things. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that two contradictory descriptions of Brahman are found in the scriptures? In one place the scriptures state: tri-padasyamritam divi "The eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead resides in the spiritual world, which constitutes three-quarters of all existence." In another place the scriptures state: paro divah "The Supreme Personality of Godhead resides on top of the spiritual world." In the first quotation the spiritual world was placed in the locative case. Since this is so, both passages contradict each other, They describe two different objects, one within the spiritual world, and the other above it. To this objection I reply: Why do you say this? Both passages refer to the same object. The uses of the locative and ablative cases in these quotations does not present a contradiction. for example, in the material world a parrot may be said to be "in" a tree or "on" it. There is no real difference in the two statements. In the same way the Supreme Personality of Godhead may be said to be "in" the spiritual world or "on" it. There is no real difference. Adhikarana 11 The Word "Prana" Refers to Brahman 1. Vishaya (Statement): In the Kaushitaki Brahmana, Pratardana, the son of Maharaja Divodasa, was able, by virtue of His chivalry and heroism, to enter the favorite residence of Maharaja Indra. When Indra granted Pratardana a benediction, and Pratardana requested Indra choose the benediction he was to give, Indra instructed Pratardana in the following words: prano 'smi prajnatma tam mam ayur-amritam upasasva "I am prana. An intelligent person will worship me as the great immortal person." 2. Samshaya (doubt): Who is this person named prana? Is he an individual spirit soul, or is He the Supreme Personality of Godhead who resides in everyone's heart as the Supersoul? 3. Purvapaksha (the opposing argument): The words "indra" and prana here refer to a specific individual spirit soul. When pratardana inquired, Indra replied by saying the worship of Indra was the most beneficial activity for the living entities. 4. Siddhanta (conclusion): Shrila Vyasadeva responds to this argument in the following sutra. Sutra 28 pranas tathanugamat pranah—the word prana; tatha—in the same way; anugamat—because of the context. The word "prana" (should be understood to refer to Brahman) because of the context of it's use. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The prana here must refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is present in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. Prana here cannot refer to the individual spirit soul. Why? Shrila Vyasadeva explains: tathanugamat (because of the context). The prana described here is intelligence, the self, and transcendental bliss. He is free from old-age and death. These attributes clearly indicate that the word prana here refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not true that to interpret the word prana here is mean Brahman is very inappropriate? Maharaja Indra is speaking, and he says prano 'smi (I am prana). The speaker is Maharaja Indra, and he clearly refers to himself. He then proceeds to further identify himself, saying: tri-shirshanam tvashtram ahanam arunmukhan rishin shalavrikebhyah prayacchan (I killed Vritrasura, the three-headed son of Tvashta, and I gave the Arunmukha sages to the shalavrikas). All this shows that the Indra described here is an individual spirit soul who advises the living entities to worship him. Even though at the end of this passage prana is described as ananda (transcendental bliss), this also is not inconsistent, because the transcendental glories of the individual spirit souls are also described in the Vedic literatures. In fact, when Indra says he is prana and everyone should worship him, he refers to himself, the individual spirit soul Indra. Indra's statement may be compared to the advice of the Vedic literature: vacam dhenum upasita (One should worship the goddess of speech just as one worships the cow). Because Maharaja Indra is the strongest of living entities, and because strength is identified with the living-force (prana), he identifies himself with that prana. This is perfectly in accord with the statement of Vedic literature: prano vai balam (the living-force is strength). In this way it should be understood that the words prana and indra here refer to a specific individual spirit soul. Shrila Vyasadeva refutes this argument in the next sutra. Sutra 29 na vaktur atmopadeshad iti ced adhyatma-sambandha-bhuma hy asmin na—not; vaktuh—of the speaker; atma—of the self; upadeshat—because of the instruction; iti—thus; cet—if; adhyatma—to the Supreme Personality of Godhead; sambandha' references; bhuma—abundance; hi—indeed; asmin—in this Upanishad. If it is said that the speaker here refers to himself, I say that is not true. In this passage there are many references to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In this sutra the word adhyatma-sambandha means "with reference to the Supreme Personality of Godhead", and the word bhuma means "abundance". In this chapter of Kaushitaki Upanishad the word prana repeatedly appears in various contexts where it must unavoidably be interpreted to mean "the Supreme Personality of Godhead." For example: 1. When Pratardana asked for the most beneficial gift, or in other words liberation, Indra replied replied by saying "Worship me as prana." In this context prana must mean "the Supreme Personality of Godhead", for only He can grant liberation. 2. The Upanishad explains: esha eva sadhu karma karayati "Prana bestows upon the living entity the power to act wonderfully." This must refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the supreme controller, and not to the tiny demigod Indra. 3. The Upanishad also explains: tad yatha rathasyareshu nemir arpita nabhavara arpita evam evaita bhuta-matrah. prajna-matrasv arpitah. prajna-matrah prane 'rpitah. "Just as in a chariot wheel the rim rests on the spokes, and the spokes on the hub, in the same way the material elements rest on prajna (intelligence), and prajna rests on prana." This quote states that everything sentient and insentient is maintained by prana. 4. The Upanishad also explains: sa esha prana eva prajnatmanando 'jaro 'mritah. esha lokadhipatir esha sarveshvarah "Prana is the Supersoul present in all living entites. Prana is the transcendental bliss. Prana remains eternally untouched by old-age and death. Prana is the master of all living entities and all planets. Prana is the Supreme Controller." Because prana is transcendental bliss and has the various qualitites described here, the word prana in this context can refer only to the Supreme Brahman, the Personality of Godhead, who is present in the hearts of all living entities as the Supersoul. The word prana here cannot possibly refer to anyone else. At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that Indra directly describes himself as prana. Why does he do this if your interpretation that prana means "Supreme Brahman" is correct? Shrila Vyasadeva answers this objection in the following sutra. Sutra 30 shastra-drishtya tupadesho vamadevavat shastra—of scripture; drishtya—from the viewpoint; tu—but; upadeshah—instruction; vamadeva—Vamadeva; vat—like. Indra speaks in this way (identifying himself with Brahman) in accordance with the teaching of Vedic literature. He does this just as the sage Vamadeva also did. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word tu (but) is used here to remove doubt. Even though Indra was perfectly aware that he was an individual spirit soul and not the Supreme Brahman, he still said, "Worship me, knowing me to be Brahman", and this statement is actually perfectly correct according to the philosophy of Vedic literature. It is not untrue. For example, the Chandogya Upanishad states: na vai vaco na cakshumsi na shrotrani na manamsity acakshate prana ity evacakshate prano hy evaitani sarvani bhavanti "The senses are not properly called `voices', `eyes', `ears', and `minds'. The proper name for them all is prana. Everything that is exists is prana." Because prana maintains their activities, the senses are identified as prana. The learned, self-realized speaker, Indra, wishing to teach his humble, well-behaved student, instructed him: "I am that prana." This means that Indra is dependent on prana, or Brahman, not that he is identical with Brahman in all respects. The example of Vamadeva is found in the following passage of Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.4.10): tad vaitat pashyan nrishir vamadevah pratipade aham manur abhavam suryash ca "Seeing this, the sage Vamadeva repeated at every moment:`I was Manu. I was the sun-god.'" Here Vamadeva identifies himself with Manu and the sun-god because the Supreme Brahman is the controller who grants powers to Vamadeva, Manu, and the sun-god. Because they all obtain their powers from the Supreme Brahman, in one sense, they are all one. The Supreme Brahman is all-pervading. He is, in one sense, one with everything that is pervaded by Him. This confirmed by the following statements of smriti-shastra: yo 'yam tavagato deva-samipam devata-ganah sa tvam eva jagat-srashta yatah sarva-gato bhavan "Whoever comes before You, be he a demigod, is created by You, O Supreme Personality of Godhead."* —Vishnu Purana 1.9.69 sarvam samapnoshi tato 'si sarvam "You are all-pervading, and thus you are everything."* —Bhagavad-gita 11.40 In ordinary usage also, when there is a great assembly in a certain place, people call that oneness, because there is unity of place, and also when there is agreement of opinion, that is also called oneness. For example, it is said: "In the evening the scattered cows assemble in one place and thus attain oneness," and "The disputing monarchs finally agreed and became one in their opinion." At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that although there are many passages indicating that the word prana in this passage refers to Brahman, still there are many other passages that demonstrate that it is not possible for the word prana to refer Brahman. Some examples are: na vacam vijijnasita vaktaram vidyat "Do not try to understand the meaning of a statement without first understanding who has spoken it." —Kaushitaki Upanishad (3.8) tri-shirshanam tvashtram ahanam "I am the Indra who killed Vritrasura, the three-headed son of Tvashta." These two quotations clearly identify that the speaker of the passage in question was the demigod Indra, who is an individual spirit soul. That the word prana refers to the life-force, or breath within the body, is confirmed by the following scriptural statements: yavad asmin sharire prano vasati tavad ayur atha khalu prana eva prajnatma idam shariram parigrihyotthapayati "As long as prana remains within it, the body is alive. Prana is the conscious spirit soul. Prana grasps this material body, and makes it rise up and move about." —Kaushitaki Upanishad (2.2-3) yo vai pranah sa prajna ya prajna sa pranah. sa ha hy etav asmin sharire vasatah. sahotkramate. "Prana is the same as prajna (consciousness). Prajna is the same as prana. Together they reside in the material body. At the last moment they both leave the body together." —Kaushitaki Upanishad These quotations clearly show that it is not impossible to interpret the word prana in this context to mean "the individual spirit soul" or "living force". The scriptures teach us that both are actually identical, the living force being the active expression of the inactive spirit-soul. In this way it is valid to interpret the word prana in three ways: 1. the individual spirit soul; 2. the living-force; and 3. the Supreme Brahman. The word prana here refers to all three. All three are worshipable for the living entities. Shrila Vyasadeva refutes this argument in the following sutra. Sutra 31 jiva-mukhya-prana-lingan neti cen nopasya-traividhyad ashritatvad iha tad-yogat jiva—of the individual spirit soul; mukhya—the primary; prana—living force; lingat—the signs; na—not; iti—thus; cet' if; na—not; upasya—worshipable; taividhyat—because of being there; ashritatvat—because of taking shelter; iha—here; tat-yogat—because of appropriateness. If someone says the word "prana" also refers to the individual spirit soul and the primary living-force in addition to referring to Brahman, then I reply that such an interpretation is not correct. If the word "prana" referred to all three, then all three would be worshipable. This view is not correct, because neither logic nor the authority of scripture support it. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Someone may say that the natural features of the individual spirit soul and the living-force are such that they are proper objects of worship. To this I reply: This is not true. Why? For then there would be three objects of worship. When Indra says, "Worship me as prana," he uses only one sentence. The rules of rhetoric demand that a sentence have only one correct interpretation, and therefore if we say that the word prana here refers to three different objects, we shall break that rule. This is the true meaning: There are three possible ways to interpret the meaning of prana in this context: 1. Take all these passages, including what directly mentions Brahman, as referring to the individual spirit soul and living-force; 2. Take these passages as referring some to the individual soul and living-force, and some to Brahman. and 3. Take these passages as all referring to Brahman. The first possibility has already been clearly refuted, The second possiblity is not very acceptable, for it recommends that there are three distinct objects of worship. Shrila Vyasadeva says the third possibility is actually logical because ashritatvat (this view is supported by the statements of Vedic literature). We may see that many passages in Vedic literature that seem to refer to the individual spirit soul or the living force, in fact refer to Brahman. If at this point someone were to object: Is it not true that in this passage the natural sense of the words supports the interpretations of the individual spirit soul and the living force?" I would reply by saying: In this passage the worship of prana is described as the most beneficial activity for the living entities. For this reason the interpretation of the Supreme Brahman is logical. For this reason Shrila Vyasadeva states in the sutra, tad-yogat (because this is logical). Someone may then object: Is it not true that the scriptures explain that the prana and prajna both reside within the body of the individual spirit soul, and also leave that body together at the time of death? How is this possible if you say that prana means "Brahman"? To this objection I reply: Brahman is present in the body of the individual spirit soul in two ways: as kriya-shakti (the potency of action), which is also known as prana, and as jnana-sakti (the potency of knowledge), which is also known as prajna. Both are manifested from Brahman. These two potencies remain within the body of the individual spirit soul, and also leave it together at the time of death. Another objection may be raised in the following words: Is it not true that prana and the other words you claim are names of the Supreme Brahman are all actually adjectives, and therefore cannot function as names? To this objection I reply: This not true. These words are simultaneously adjectives and nouns. When Indra says prano 'smi prajnatma (I am prana, prajna, and atma), he uses these words as nouns. For these reasons prana, prajna, and other words used by Indra should be understood to refer to Brahman. At this point a further objection may be raised: Is it not true that in the beginning you adequately demonstrated that the word prana refers to Brahman? Most of your arguments are redundant. To this objection I reply: This is not true. In the beginning I dispelled the doubts that may have arisen in regard to the single word prana taken by itself. After that I discussed the word prana in relation to a specific quotation, where it was related with other words, such as ananda, and in this discussion I demonstrated that the word prana was used there in such a way that it could only be understood to mean Brahman, and not the individual spirit soul, or anything else. For this reason I have discussed this specific passage of Kaushitaki Upanishad separately. Pada 2 Adhikarana 1 The Word "Manomaya" Refers to Brahman Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana manomayadibhih shabdaih svarupam yasya kirtyate hridaye sphuratu shriman mamasau shyamasundarah In the First Pada of this chapter it was said that one should inquire about the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the creator of all universes. Certain words used in Vedic literature were also clearly shown to refer to that Supreme Brahman. In the Second and Third Padas it will be demonstrated that certain other words, although less clearly related to Brahman, also describe Him. In the Chandogya Upanishad, Shandilya-vidya (3.14.1) the following explanation is given: sarvam khalv idam brahma taj jalan iti shanta upasita. atha khalu kratumayah purushah. yatha kratur asmin loke purusho bhavati tathetah pretya bhavati. sa kratum kurvita. manomayah prana-shariro bha-rupah satya-sankalpa akashatma sarva-karma sarva-kamah sarva-gandhah sarva-rasah sarvam idam abhyato avakyan adarah. "Everything is Brahman. From Him everything has come. The peaceful sage should worship Brahman with this idea. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the activities of devotional service. When devotional service is performed in this world the Supreme Personality of Godhead is present. As one performs devotional service in this life he will attain an appropriate body after death. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is known by those whose minds are pure. He is the controller of all life. He is effulgent and glorious. His every desire is automatically fulfilled. He is all-pervading. He is the original creator of everything. He fulfills all desires. He possesses all pleasant fragrances. He is all sweetness. He is present everywhere. He cannot be described in words. He cannot be known." Samshaya: Do the adjectives (beginning with manomaya) in this passage describe the jiva or the Paramatma? Purvapaksha: The words manah and prana here appropriately describe the jiva. The Mundaka Upanishad (2.1.2) explains: aprano hy amanah shubhrah (The splendid Supreme Person has neither breath nor mind). Because this passage from the Chandogya Upanishad contradicts the description of the Supreme Lord in this way, it should be understood to refer to the jiva. The opening words sarvam khalv idam brahma (Everything is Brahman) do not necessarily mean that the entire passage following them are about Brahman, but are merely spoken so that the worshiper may become peaceful. The teaching there is that because Brahman is everything one should become peaceful. The rest of the passage should then be understood to refer to the jiva and the word brahma at the end of the passage should also be understood to refer to the jiva. Siddhanta: The proper conclusion is: Sutra 1 sarvatra prasiddhopadeshat sarvatra—everywhere; prasiddha—celebrated; upadeshat—because of the teaching. (The word "manomaya" here refers to the Paramatma) because (in this passage) the famous (attributes of the Paramatma as are taught) everywhere (in Vedanta literature are) described. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana This passage describes the Paramatma and not the jiva. Why? Because the qualities that belong only to the Paramatma, beginning with His being the creator of the material universes, and which are described everywhere (saravatra) in Vedanta literature, are mentioned in this passage in the phrase taj-jalan and other phrases and words also. Although the opening words of this passage (sarvam khalv idam brahma) are not intended to teach about Brahman but to invoke peacefulness, the word manomaya definitely describes the Supreme Brahman. The word kratu means "devotional service" and manomaya means "He who can by understood by a pure mind." The Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.19) explains manasaivanudrashtavyam (He may be seen by a pure mind). The passage yato vaca nivartante aprapyo manasa saha (The Supreme cannot be described in words or understood by the mind) means the foolish cannot understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead and even the wisest sages cannot understand Him completely. The word prana-sharira (life-body) means {.sy 168}He who is the controller of life." Some also interpret this word to mean "He whose transcendental form is most dear." The words aprano hy amanah (He has neither breath nor mind) may mean either that He is supremely independent and does not need breath or mind, or it may mean that he does not possess material breath or material mind. The shruti-shastra explains manovan (The Supreme has a spiritual mind) and anida-vatam (The Supreme has spiritual breath). Other scriptural passages also state that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is described by the word manomaya. Some of these passages follow. manomayah prana-sharira-neta "He is understood by the pure mind (manomaya). He is the guide of the body and senses." —Mundaka Upanishad 2.2.7 sa esho 'ntar-hridaya akashas tasminn ayam purusho manomayo 'mritamayo hiranmayah "The golden Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is full of nectar, and who is known by the pure mind (manomaya), resides in the sky of the heart." —Taittiriya Upanishad 1.6.1 hrida manisha manasabhiklpto ya etad vidur amritas te bhavanti "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is known by they who have a pure heart and a pure mind. They who know Him in this way become free from death." —Katha Upanishad 7.9 pranasya pranah "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the life of all life." —Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 4.4.18 Sutra 2 vivakshita-gunopapattesh ca vivakshita—wished to be said; guna—qualities; upapatteh—because of being appropriate; ca—and. The word "manomaya" here must refer to Brahman) because the qualities (given here) most appropriately describe Brahman. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Manomaya (knowable by the pure mind), prana-sharira (the controller of life), bha-rupa (effulgent and glorious) and the other qualities mentioned here are appropriate for the Supreme Personality of Godhead but not at all for the jiva. Sutra 3 anupapattes tu na sharirah anupapatteh—because of inappropriateness; tu—indeed; na—not; sharirah—the jiva. (The word "manomaya" here) cannot refer to the jiva because the qualities (described in this passage) cannot be attributed to him. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The manomaya her cannot refer to the jiva because it is not possible that the qualities described here refer to the tiny, glowworm-like jiva. Sutra 4 karma-kartri-vyapadeshac ca karma—object; kartri—agent; vyapadeshat—because of the statement; ca—also. And because the distinction is drawn here between the agent and the object. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana With the words (Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 3.14.4) etam itah pretyabhisambhavitasmi (After death I will attain Him) at the end the manomaya is clearly designated as the object of the sentence and the jiva, with the words abhisambhavitasmi (I will attain) is clearly identified as the agent. Therefore the manomaya, being the object, must be different from the jiva, which is the agent. The manomaya must therefore be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The word abhisambhavitasmi here describes meeting. The jiva meets the Supreme Lord as a great river meets the ocean. Sutra 5 shabda-visheshat shabda—words; visheshat—because of the difference. (The word "manomaya" here cannot refer to the jiva because the words are in different cases. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The text says (Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.3) esha ma atmantar-hridaye (He is within my heart). In these words the devotee jiva is placed in the genitive case and the object of his worship is placed in the nominative case. Because the jiva and the object of his worship are in different cases they must be two distinct persons. Therefore the manomaya here must be the worshipable Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is different from the devotee jiva. Sutra 6 smritesh ca smriteh—because of the smriti-shastra; ca—also. And because of the statement of smriti-shastra also. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana That the Supreme Personality of Godhead is different from the jiva is also confirmed by the following statement of Bhagavad-gita (18.61): ishvarah sarva-bhutanam hrid-desh/e 'rjuna tishthati bhramayan sarva-bhutani yantrarudhani mayaya "The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy."* Someone may object: The Chandogya Upanishad (3.14.3) describes the manomaya in the following words: esha ma atmantar-hridaye 'niyan vrir heva yavad va (In my heart is the Self, smaller than a grain of rice or barley). This text shows that because it is very tiny the manomaya must be the jiva and cannot be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sutra 7 arbhakaukastvat tad-vyapadeshac ca neti cen na nicayyatvad evam vyomavac ca arbhaka—small; okastvat—because of the residence; tat—of that; vyapadeshat—because of the teaching; ca—and; na—not; iti—thus; cet—if; na—not; nicayyatvat—because of meditation; evam—in this way; vyomavat—like the sky; ca—also. If it be said that the word "manomaya" here cannot refer to Brahman because here it is said that the residence of "manomaya" is very tiny, then I say no because Brahman should be meditated on in this way and because in the same passage the "manomaya" is said to be as great as the sky. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana For these two reasons it cannot be said that the manomaya is not the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this passage from Chandogya Upanishad the manomaya is said to be greater that the entire Earth planet. The text says jyayan antarikshat (He is greater than the sky). Because the Supreme Brahman is all-pervading the word vyomavat (like the sky) is used in this sutra. How may these two statements (that Brahman is very small and very great) be reconciled? To answer this question he says nicayyatvad evam (Because Brahman should be meditated on in this way). This means that it is said that Brahman is very small so He may become the object of meditation. This means that when in the Vedic literatures it is said that the infinite, all-pervading Supreme Personality of Godhead is as small as the distance bewteen the thumb and forefinger or some other very small distance, in some instances it is meant to be taken figuratively and in other places literally. In the first instance (figuratively) the devotee meditates on the Lord in his heart and in the second (literally) by His inconceivable potencies, the Lord personally appears in the heart out of kindness to His devotee. Although the Supreme Lord has only one original form, He still manifests in many different forms to His devotees. This is described in the smriti-shastra in the words eko 'pi san bahudha yo 'vabhati (Although He is one He manifests in many forms). Because of His inconceivable potency the Supreme Lord, although He is all-pervading, may become as small as an atom. This will be described (later in this book) in the section (Sutra 25) describing Vaishvanara. In this way when the Supreme Personality of Godhead is manifested in a very small form, as the size of an atom or the distance between the thumb and forefinger, that very small size is present everywhere, so in this way also the Supreme Lord is all-pervading. Someone may object: If the Paramatma is then also present within the material body just as the jiva is, then, because of His contact with the body the Paramatma must also feel all the pleasures and sufferings of the body just as the jiva does. To answer this he says: Sutra 8 sambhoga-praptir iti cen na vaisheshyat sambhoga—of enjoyment; praptir—attainment; iti—thus; cet—if; na—not; vaisheshyat—because of the difference. If it is said that (the Paramatma in the heart also) experiences (the pains and) pleasures (of the material body), then I say no because there is a great difference (between Him and the jiva. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In the word sambhoga the prefix sam means "with" as it also does in the word samvada (with+words=conversation). Therefore this sutra states that the Supreme Personality of Godhead does not enjoy with (the jiva). Why? Because there is a difference between them. This is the meaning: mere contact with a certain body does not by itself bring suffering and enjoyment. Being under the dominion of karma is the real cause of material suffering and enjoyment. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is not under the power of the law of karma. This is described in the Mundaka Upanishad (3.1.1): anashnann anyo 'bhicakashiti (Two birds sit in the metaphorical tree of the material body. One bird eats. The other bird does not eat, but only looks) and in the Bhagavad-gita (4.14), where Lord Krishna says: na mam karmani limpanti na me karma-phale spriha (There is no work that affects me; nor do I aspire for the fruits of action). Adhikarana 2 The Eater is Brahman Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Vishaya: The Katha Upanishad (1.2.25) says: yasya brahma ca kshatram ca ubhe bhavatah odanah mrityur yasyopasecanam ka ittha veda yatra sah "There is a person for whom the brahmanas and kshatriyas are food and death is the sauce. Who knows where this person is?" Samshaya: Here the words odana (food) and upasecana (sauce) indicate an eater. Who is the eater? Is it fire, the jiva, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead? Purvapaksha: Because there is nothing specific to show that of these three fire is not the eater, and because the questions and answers in this passage seem to indicate fire, and because the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.4.6) declares agnir annadah (Fire is the eater), therefore fire is the eater in this passage. Or perhaps the jiva is the eater here because eating is an action and the jiva performs actions although the Supreme does not perform any actions. This is also confirmed by the shruti-shastra (Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.1 and Katha Upanishad 3.1) which describes an eater accompanied by a non-eater who simply looks: tayor anyah pappalam (Two friendly birds sit on a tree. One eats the pippala fruit and the other does not eat but only looks). From all this it may be understood that the eater here is the jiva. Siddhanta: The proper understanding follows. Sutra 9 atta caracara-grahanat atta—the eater; cara—the moving; acara—and the non-moving; grahanat—because of taking. The eater (is Brahman) because He takes the moving and non-moving (as His food). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The eater is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Why? Because of the words caracara-grahanat (Because He takes the moving and non-moving as His food). In this passage (Katha Upanishad 1.2.25) the words brahma kshatram indicate the entire universe, which is then sprinkled with the sauce of death and eaten. This passage must refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead for no one other than He can eat the entire universe. A sauce is something which, while being eaten itself is the cause of other things being eaten also. The eating of the entire universe sprinkled with the sauce of death must refer to the periodic destruction of the material universes. In this way it is proved that the eater of the universes here is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is not refuted by the statement of Upanishads (na caashnan) that He does not eat. The Supreme Personality of Godhead does not eat the results of karma, but He has His own transcendental eating. Sutra 10 prakaranat—because of the context; ca—also. This is also confirmed by the context. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana That this passage refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead is also confirmed by the following statement of Katha Upanishad (1.2.20): anor aniyan mahato mahiyan "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is smaller than the smallest and greater than the greatest."* This is also confirmed by the following words of smriti-shastra: atasi lokasya caracarasya "You are the eater of this complete cosmic manifestation, of the moving and the non-moving." Adhikarana 3 The Associate in the Cave is Brahman Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Vishaya: The Katha Upanishad (1.3.1) states: ritam pibantau sukritasya loke guham pravishtau parame parardhe chaya-tapau brahma-vido vadanti pancagnayo ye ca trinaciketah "Two persons drink the results of karma in cave of the heart. They who know Brahman, they who keep the five sacred fires, and they who perform the three naciketa sacrifices say these two persons are shade and light." Samshaya: In this passage a companion to the jiva, who experiences the results of karma, is described. This companion may be interpreted to be either intelligence, life-breath, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Purvapaksha: The companion here must be either intelligence or life-breath for they assist the jiva as he experiences the results of karma. The companion cannot be the Supreme Personality of Godhead for the Supreme Lord never experiences the results of karma. Therefore the companion must be either intelligence or life-breath. Siddhanta: The conclusion follows. Sutra 11 guham pravishtav atmanau hi tad darshanat guham—in the cave; pravishtau—entered; atmanau—two selves; hi—indeed; tat—that; darshanat—because of being seen in other passages of Vedic literature. The two persons that have entered the cave of the heart are the two selves (the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the jiva because this explanation is seen in Vedic literature. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The two persons that have entered the cave of the heart are the jiva and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, not the jiva and intelligence, and not the jiva and the life-breath. Why? The sutra says tad darshanat (because this explanation is seen in Vedic literature). Š The Katha Upanishad (2.1.7) says that the jiva has entered the cave of the heart: ya pranena sambhavaty aditir devatamayi guham pravishya tishthantim ya bhutebhir vyajayata "Accompanied by the life-breath and a host of powers, the jiva, who is the king of the senses, enters the cave of the heart." Another verse (Katha Upanishad 1.2.12) says that the Supreme Personality of Godhead has entered the cave of the heart: tam durdarsham gudham anupravishtam guhahitam gahvareshtam puranam adhyatma-yogadhigamena devam matva dhiro harsha-shokau jahati "The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the oldest person, and who is worshiped in the jungle of this world, remains hidden in the cave of the heart. A wise man, meditating on Him in a trance of spiritual yoga, gives up all material joy and grief." The word hi (indeed) in this sutra means "This is indeed corroborated by all the Puranas." The word pibantau (they both drink) in the passage of the Upanishad is used in the same sense as the phrase "the two parasol-bearers." Although only one of the pair carries the parasol, they are still known as "the two parasol-bearers." In the same way only one of the two "drinkers" here actually drinks. The word chaya-tapau (shade and light) here means either that the knowledge of the two persons is different, or it means that one of the persons is bound to the cycle of repeated birth and death and the other is free from the cycle of repeated birth and death. Sutra 12 visheshanac ca visheshanat—because of distinctive qualities; ca—also. Also because of the differences between them. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In this section of Katha Upanishad the jiva and the Supreme Personality of Godhead are carefully distinguished, the jiva described as the meditater and the Supreme Personality of Godhead as the object of meditation. Thus is Katha Upanishad 1.2.12 quoted above they are carefully distinguished: one as the meditater and the other as the object of meditation. In Katha Upanishad 1.3.1 in the words chaya-tapau (shade and light) they are again distinguished: one being all-knowing and the other having only a small sphere of knowledge. Katha Upanishad 1.3.9 explains: vijnana-sarathir yas tu manah-pragrahavan narah so 'dhvanah param apnoti tad vishnoh paramam padam "A person who has transcendental knowledge as his charioteer and who carefully holds the reins of the mind reaches the end of the path: the transcendental realm of Lord Vishnu." In these words they are again distinguished: one being the goal to be attained and the other the person who attains the goal. Adhikarana 4 The Person in the Eye is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Vishaya: Chandogya Upanishad 4.15.1-2 says: ya esho 'ntar-akshini purusho drishyate sa esha atmeti hovaca. etad amritam ayam etad brahma tad yad yad asmin sarpir vodakam va sincati vartmani eva gacchati. etam sampad-dhama ity acakshate etam hi sarvani kamany abhisamyanti "He said: He who is seen in the eye is the atma. He is immortal, He is nectar. He is the greatest. Because He is present neither water nor liquid butter will stay on the eye, but both will slide from it. He is the abode of all opulences. For one who sees Him all desires are at once fulfilled." Samshaya: Is this person a reflection, a demigod, the jiva, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead? Purvapaksha: It may be the first, for the observer sees himself reflected in another's eye. It may be the second because Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (5.5.2) says: rashmibhir esho 'smin pratishthitah (With the rays of sunlight the sun-god enters the eye). It may be the third because a person sees with his eyes, so he may also be the person in the eye. In this way the person in the eye is one of these three. Siddhanta: The conclusion follows. Sutra 13 antara upapatteh antarah—the person within; upapatteh—because of reason. The person in (the eye is the Supreme Personality of Godhead) because (that conclusion is dictated) by reason. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The person in the eye is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Why? The sutra says upapatteh (because that conclusion is dictated by reason). This is so because of the proof given (in the quote from the Chandogya Upanishad) in the description of the qualities beginning with being the Supreme Self(atma), immortality (amrita), being the greatest (brahma), being untouched by material things, and being the abode of all opulences (sampad-dhama). (These qualities can properly be attributed only to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.) Sutra 14 sthanadi-vyapadeshac ca sthana—the place; adi—beginning with; vyapadeshat—because of the statement. ca—also. And also because of the teaching (in the scriptures that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is present) in this place and in other places as well. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana That the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the controller who resides with the eye is described in Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (3.7.18): yash cakshushi tishthamsh cakshusho 'ntaro yam cakshur na veda yasya cakshur shariram yash cakshur antaro yam ayaty esha ta atmantaryamy amritah "He who stays in the eye, who is within, whom the eye does not know, who is the ultimate proprietor of the eye and the body, and who, residing within, controls the eye, is the immortal Supersoul, the Supreme Personality of Godhead who resides in the heart." Sutra 15 sukha-vishishtabhidhanad eva sukha—by happiness; vishishta—distinguished; abhidhanat—because of the description; eva—indeed. Also because He is described as (full of) bliss. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana This sutra refers to Chandogya Upanishad (4.10.5), which says: prano brahma kam brahma kham brahma (the Supreme Personality of Godhead is life. the Supreme Personality of Godhead is bliss. the Supreme Personality of Godhead is sky). The discussion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead that begins with these words continues through some paragraphs up to the paragraph under discussion (Chandogya Upanishad 4.15.1), which describes the person in the eye. For this reason the person in the eye must be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The interpolation of agni-vidya between 4.10.5 and 4.15.1 does not break the context because agni-vidya is a part of the discussion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The word vishishta (distinguished) in this sutra means that the Supreme Personality of Godhead has all-knowledge and all other transcendental qualities. Sutra 16 shrutopanishatka-gaty-abhidhanac ca shruta—heard; upanishatka—Upanishad; gati—destination; abhidhanat—because of the description; ca—also. And because of the description of the destination of they who hear the Upanishads. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana One who hears the Upanishads and understands the secret knowledge of the Vedas travels to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Of the person who knows the person in the eye Upakoshala Muni says arcisham abhisambhavati (He attains the realm of light). Because these two persons (he who knows the secrets of the Vedas and he who knows the person in the eye) attain the same destination it must be understood that the person in the eye is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sutra 17 anavasthiter asambhavac ca netarah anavasthiteh—because the abode is not eternal; asambhavat—because of being impossible; ca—and; na—not; itarah—anyone else. (The person in the eye) is not anyone else (but the Supreme Personality of Godhead) because (the others) do not stay always in the eye and because it casnnot be them (according to the context). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana These other persons cannot be the person in the eye because none of them stay permanently in the eye and because non of them possess immortality or any of the other qualities attributed to the person in the eye. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is therefore the person in the eye referred to in this text. Adhikarana 5 The Internal Ruler is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Vishaya: Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 3.7.18 says: yah prithivyam tishthan prithivya antaro yam pritivi na veda yasya prithivi shariram yah prithivim antaro yam ayaty esha ta atmantaryamy amritah "He who stays in the earth, who is within, whom the earth does not know, who is the ultimate proprietor of the earth and the body, and who, residing within, rules the earth, is the immortal Supersoul, the Supreme Personality of Godhead who resides in the heart." Samshaya: In this verse is the ruler who lives within the earth and other places pradhana, the jiva, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead? Purvapaksha: The ruler within may be pradhana because pradhana resides within. The cause is always woven into the effect. The cause is the controller if the effect. (Because pradhana is the cause of the earth, pradhana must therefore be the controller within the earth also.) Because it gives happiness the pradhana may be figuratively called atma (the great self), or because it is all-pervading it may also be figuratively called atma (the great self). Because it is eternal it may also be called amrita (eternal). Or the ruler within may be a certaim jiva who is a great yogi. With the yogic powers of entering everywhere and becoming invisible at will a great yogi may become the ruler (within) and with this ruling power, the ability to become invisible, and other yogic powers, he may be called atma (the great self), and amrita (eternal) in the direct senses of the words without resorting to figurative language. In this way the ruler within must be either the pradhana or a jiva. Siddhanta: The conclusion follows. Sutra 18 antaryamy adhidaivadishu tad-dharma-vyapadeshat antaryami—the ruler within; adhidaiva—the elements; adishu—beginning with; tat—of Him; dharma—the nature; vyapadeshat—because of the description. The ruler who resides within the elements (is the Supreme Personality of Godhead) because His qualities are described (in this passage). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The ruler within described in these words of Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Why? The sutra says tad-dharma-vyapadeshat (because His qualities are described in this passage). The Supreme Person is described here because the qualities of the person described here, which include being situated within the earth and all other material elements, being unknowable, being the supreme controller, and being all-pervading, all-knowing, all-blissful, and eternal, are all qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sutra 19 na ca smartam atad-dharmabhilapat na—not; ca—and; smartam—what is taught in the smriti; atad—not of it; dharma—the qualities; abhilapat—because of description. The ruler within is not (the pradhana, which is) described in the smriti, because the qualities (mentioned in this passage) cannot be attributed (to pradhana). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana For these reasons it may not be said that the pradhana, which is described in the smriti, is the ruler within. Why? The sutra says atad-dharmabhilapat (because the qualities mentioned in this passage cannot be attributed to it. The Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (3.7.23) says: adrishto drashta ashruto shrota amato manta avij{.sy 241}ato vijnata nanyato 'sti drashta nanayto 'sti shrota nanyato 'sti manta nanyato 'sti vijnataisha ta atmantaryamy amrita ito 'nyat smartam "Unobserved, He is the observer. Unheard, He is the hearer. Inconceivable, He is the thinker. Unknown, he is the knower. There is no other observer. There is no other hearer. there is no other thinker. There is no other knower. he is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the eternal ruler within. (The pradhana) described in the smriti is different from Him." The list of qualities here, beginning with being the observer, may be attributed to the Supreme Personality of Godhead only. Sutra 20 sharirash cobhaye 'pi hi bhedenainam adhiyate sharirah—the jiva; ca—also; ubhaye—in bothe recensions; api—also; hi—indeed; bhedena—by the difference; enam—this; adhiyate—is read. The ruler within is not a jiva because in both (recensions of the Upanishad) the jiva is described as different from Him. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word na (not) from the preceding sutra should be understood in this sutra also. For the reasons already given it cannot be said that a jiva who is a great yogi is the ruler within. Why? The sutra answers hi, which means "because," ubhaye (in both), which means "in both the Kanva and Madhyandina recensions of the Upanishad," enam (He), which means "the ruler within," bhedena adhiyate (is described as different). (The Kanva recension gives) yo vij{.sy 241}anam antaro yamayati (The transcendental knowledge that rules within) and (the Madhyandina recension, gives) ya atmanam antaro yamayati (The Supreme Personality of Godhead who rules within). In both readings is a clear distinction between the ruler and the ruled. Therefore the ruler within is Lord Hari, the Personality of Godhead. In the Subala Upanishad the Kathas say: prithivy-adinam avyaktaksharamritaantanam shri-narayano 'ntaryami (Lord Narayana is the ruler within the earth and other elements, within the unmanifested pradhana, and within the unchanging, eternal jiva). The Brahmanas say: antah-sharire nihito guhayam (The Supreme Personality of Godhead stays in the heart of the jiva), aja eko nityah (The Supreme Personality of Godhead is unborn, eternal, and one without a second), and yasya prithivi shariram yah prithivim antare sancaran yam prithivi na veda (The earth is His body. He stays within the earth. The earth does not understand Him, the Supreme Personality of Godhead). Adhikarana 6 "Akshara" is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Vishaya: The Mundaka Upanishad (1.1.5-6) says: atha para yaya tad aksharam adhigamyate. yat tad adreshyam agrahyam agotram avarnam acakshuh-shrotram tad apani-padam nityam vibhum sarva-gatam su-sukshmam tad avyayam yad bhuta-yonim paripashyanti dhirah "Here is the transcendental knowledge by which the Supreme Personality of Godhead is known. The great sages directly see the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who cannot be seen, who cannot be grasped, who has no name, who has no color, who has no eyes or ears, who has no hands or feet, who is eternal, all-powerful, all-pervading, subtle, and changeless, and who is the creater of all that is." Later the Mundaka Upanishad (2.1.2) also says: divyo hy amurtah purushah sa-bahyabhyantaro hy ajah aprano hy amanah shubhro 'ksharat paratah parah "The Supreme Person is transcendental, formless, without inside or out, unborn, unbreathing, without mind, splendid, and higher than the highest of the eternals." Samshaya: Do these two passages describe first the pradhana and then the purusha (jiva), or do they describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead? Purvapaksha: Because in these passages there is no mention of being the observer or any other qualities of a conscious being, and because there is mention of the word yoni (source of everything), which refers to the ingredient of which the creation is made, these passages describe the eternal pradhana, and above that eternal pradhana, the purusha (jiva). Above the eternal, ever-changing pradhana is the jiva, who is the knower of the field of activities. Therefore in these passages the pradhana and jiva should be known to be the topics of discussion. Siddhanta: The conclusion follows. Sutra 21 adrishyatvadi-gunako dharmokteh adrishyatva—being invisible; adi—beginning with; gunako—qualities; dharma—qualities; ukteh—because of the statement. (These passages describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead,) who possesses many transcendental qualities, including invisibility, because His qualities are described here. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In both passages the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who possesses many transcendental qualities, including invisibility, should be understood (to be the topic of discussion). Why? the sutra says dharmokteh (because His qualities are described here). The Mundaka Upanishad (1.1.9) says: yah sarvajnah sarvavid yasya jnanamayam tapah. tasmad etad brahma nama-rupam annam ca jayate "The Supreme Personality of Godhead knows everything. He knows everything. He is full of knowledge. From Him is born that Brahman that is the material form of this world." Because in the pasage of Mundaka Upanishad (1.1.6) that begins divyo hy amurtah purushah (The Supreme Person is transcendental and formlesss) the akshara is described as possessing a host of transcendental qualities, which include omniscience, and because that akshara is described as the ultimate goal of all knowledge, the akshara must be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sutra 22 visheshana-bheda-vyapadeshabhyam ca netarau visheshana—modifiers; bheda—difference; vyapadeshabhyam—because of the description; ca—and; na—not; itarau—the other two. Because of the description of the qualities (of the akshara) in these two (passages, the akshara) cannot be the other two (pradhana and jiva). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The other two, that is pradhana and jiva, should not be thought (to be the topic of discussion here). Why? the sutra says visheshana (because of the description of the qualities). Because the description in Mundaka Upanishad (1.1.9), beginning with the words yah sarvajna (The Supreme Personality of Godhead knows everything), specifically identifies the akshara as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and because the description in Mundaka Upanishad (1.1.6), beginning with the word divya (The Supreme Person is transcendental), identifies the akshara as a being different from the jiva, therefore the akshara mentioned in both passages must be understood to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the original cause of all causes. Sutra 23 Š rupopanyasac ca rupa—of a form; upanyasat—because of the mention; ca—also. And also because there is mention of a form. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The Mundaka Upanishad (3.1.3) says: yada pashyah pashyate rukma-varnam kartaram isham purusham brahma-yonim tada vidvan punya-pape vidhuya niranjanah paramam samyam upaiti "One who sees the golden-colored Personality of Godhead, the Supreme Lord, the supreme actor, who is the source of the Supreme Brahman, becomes free from the reactions to past pious and sinful deeds, and becomes liberated, attaining the same transcendental platform as the Lord."* Because the form of the akshara is described in this way as the original cause of all causes, the form of the akshara here must be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It cannot be either pradhana or jiva. Sutra 24 prakaranat prakaranat—because of the context. (The akshara here must be the Supreme Personality of Godhead) because of the context. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The meaning of this sutra is clear. The smriti-shastra also confirms that this text refers to Lord Vishnu. The Vishnu Purana (6.5.65-70) says: dve vidye veditavye iti catharvani shrutih paraya tv akshara-praptih rn-vedadi-mayi apara yat tad avyaktam ajaram acintyam ajam avyayam anirdeshyam arupam ca panipadady-asamyutam vibhum sarva-gatam nityam bhuta-yonim akaranam vyapya-vyapyam yatah sarvam tad vai pashyanti surayah tad brahma paramam dhama tad dhyeyam moksha-kankshinam shruti-vakypditam sukshmam tad vishnoh paramam padam tad eva bhagavad-vacyam svarupam paramatmanah vacako bhagavac-chabdas tasyadyasyaksharatmanah evam nigaditarthasya sa-tattvam tasya tattvatah jnayate yena taj-jnanam param anyat trayimayam "The Atharva Veda says there are two kinds of knowledge: superior and inferior. Superior knowledge is that which brings one to the eternal and inferior knowledge is the teaching of the Rig Veda and the other Vedas. The eternal is unmanifested, without decay, inconceivable, unborn, unchanging, without material form, without material hands or feet, all-powerful, all-pervading, eternal, the source of all living entities, causeless, present within everything, untouched by anything, and the source from which everything has come. Saintly persons see Him. He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is the supreme abode. He is the object of meditation for they who yearn for liberation. He is described in the words of the Vedas. He is supremely subtle. He is Lord Vishnu. He is known as Bhagavan (the Supreme Personality of Godhead). He is the Supreme Lord who has a transcendental form. He is Bhagavan. He is eternal. One who knows these truths knows the truth. He knows the real truth. The inferior truth of the three Vedas is something else." Adhikarana 7 "Vaishvanara" is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Vishaya: The Chandogya Upanishad says (5.11.1): ko nu atma kim brahmeti (Who is the atma? Who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead?), and (5.11.6) atmanam evam vaishvanaram sampraty adhyeshi tam eva no bruhi (You know about Vaishvanara. Please describe Him.) and (5.18.1) yas tv enam evam pradesha-matram abhivimanam atmanam vaishvanaram upaste sa sarveshu lokeshu sarveshu bhuteshu sarveshu atmasu annam atti (One who meditates on Vaishvanara, who is the size of the distance between the thumb and forefinger, and who is present in all worlds, in all elements, and in all hearts, eats food and is nourished.) and (5.18.2) etasya ha va etasyatmano vaishvanarasya murdhaiva su-tejash cakshur vishvarupah pranah prithag-vartma sandeho bahulo vastir eva vayih prithivy eva padav ura eva vedir lomanir bahir hridayam garhapatyo mano 'nvaharyapacana asyam ahvaniyah (Heaven is the head of Vaishvanara, the sun is His eye, the wind is His breath, the sky is His body, the oceans are His bladder, the earth is His feet, the sacrificial arena is His chest, the sacrificial grass is His head, the garhapatya fire is His heart, the anvaharyapacana fire is His mind, and the ahavaniya fire is His mouth). Samshaya: Is the Vaishvanara the fire of digestion, the demigod Agni, the fire element, or Lord Vishnu? Purvapaksha: The word vaishvanara is commonly used in all these four meanings, so its meaning in this passage is unclear. Siddhanta: The conclusion follows. Sutra 25 vaishvanarah sadharana-shabda-visheshat vaishvanarah—Vaishvanara; sadharana—common; shabda—word; visheshat—because of the distinction. The ambiguous word "vaishvanara" (in this passage of Chandogya Upanishad refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead) because the qualities described here (are appropriate for the Lord). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word vaishvanara here refers to Lord Vishnu. Why? The sutra says sadharana-shabda-visheshat (because the qualities described here are appropriate for the Lord). This is the meaning: Even though the word vaishvanara has many meanings, here it means "Lord Vishnu." The description beginning with the phrase "Heaven is His head" clearly show that vaishvanara here means Lord Vishnu. Also, the words atma and brahma generally refer to Lord Vishnu. The result one obtains by knowing vaishvanara is the same as the result of knowing Lord Vishnu. The scriptures say yatheshika tulam (As reeds are burned by fire, so are sins burned into nothing by Vaishvanara). This clearly shows that Vaishvanara here is Lord Vishnu (for only Lord Vishnu has the power to negate sins). The word vaishvanara is composed of the two words vishva (all) and nara (human beings), and thus means "He who is the resting place of all human beings." For these reasons the word vaishvanara here must mean "Lord Vishnu." Furthermore, he says: Sutra 26 smaryamanam anumanam syad iti smaryamanam—described in the smriti-shastra; anumanam—inference; syad—is; iti—thus. This may also be inferred from the statements of the smriti-shastra. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word iti here means "this is the reason." In Bhagavad-gita (15.14), Lord Krishna says: aham vaishvanaro bhutva praninam deham ashritah "I am the vaishvanara in the bodies of all living entities."* In these words the smriti-shastra affirms that the Vaishvanara is Lord Vishnu. From this statement it may also be understood that the vaishvanara in the Chandogya Upanishad is also Lord Vishnu. Now he refutes the idea that vaishvanara refers to the fire of digestion. Sutra 27 shabdadibhyo 'ntah pratishthanac ca neti cen na tatha drishty-upadeshad asambhavat purusha-vidham api cainam adhiyate shabda—the words; adibhyah—beginning with; antah—within; pratishthanat—because of abiding; ca—and; na—not; iti—thus; cet—if; na—not; tatha—thus; drishti—sight; upadeshat—from the teaching; asambhavat—because of being impossible; purusha—a person; vidham—the nature; api—also; ca—and; enam—Him; adhiyate—is read. If (it is said the "vaishvanara" here) cannot (be Lord Vishnu) because many words here refute this idea and because (the "vaishvanara" is said here) to reside in the heart, (then I say) no because the teaching (of the scriptures is that one should) meditate (on Lord Vishnu in the heart) in this way, because it is not possible (to interpret the word here to mean anything else), and because (the text here describes the {.sy 168}vaishvanara") as a person with a humanlike form. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The objection may be raised: The vaishvanara here cannot be Lord Vishnu. The text says ayam agnir vaishvanarah (This is the vaishvanara fire). Because these words prove that vaishvanara here means fire, the passage hridayam garhapatyo mano 'nvaharyapacana asyam ahvaniyah (the garhapatya fire is His heart, the anvaharyapacana fire is His mind, and the ahavaniya fire is His mouth) presents the vaishvanara as a group of three fires. The vaishvanara is fire, and not Lord Vishnu, because vaishvanara is said to be the resting place of prana (breath) and again because the Vedas say vaishvanara stays within the heart of the living entity. Here the sutra answers this objection by saying cen na, which means "if it is said that the vaishvanara is fire, then I say no." Why? The sutra says tatha drishty-upadeshad asambhavat purusha-vidham api cainam adhiyate (because the teaching of the scriptures is that one should meditate on Lord Vishnu in the heart in this way, because it is not possible to interpret the word here to mean anything else, and because the text here describes the vaizvanara) as a person with a humanlike form). Tatha here means {.sy 168}by considering to be the fire of digestion," drishti, means "meditation on Lord Vishnu," and asambhavat means "it is not possible to interpret the word vaishvanara to mean anything but Lord Vishnu because the text of the Upanishad says that heaven is the head of the vaishvanara and the other parts of the world are other parts of the body of vaishvanara." Furthermore, the Shatapatha Brahmana (10.6.1.11) says sa yo hy etam evagnim vaishvanaram purusha-vidham purushe 'ntah pratishtitam veda (He knows the agni vaishvanara, who has a humanlike form and who stays in the hearts of the living entities). If the word vaishvanara is interpreted to mean {.sy 168}fire," then the explanations here that the vaishvanara resides in the hearts of the living entities may be accepted but not the statement that vaishvanara has a humanlike form. If vaishvanara is interpreted to mean Lord Vishnu, then both statements may be easily accepted. Next he refutes the idea that vaishvanara means either the demigod Agni or the element fire. Sutra 28 ata eva na devata bhutam ca atah eva—therefore; na—not; devata—demigod; bhutam—element; ca—and; For the same reasons "vaishvanara" is neither the demigod Agni nor the element fire. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The objector may say: Because the demigod Agni is very powerful and great it may indeed be said that heaven is his head and (the other parts of the world are parts of his body), and the same may also be said of the fire element. This is so because of the following description of /Rg Veda (10.88.3): yo bhanuna prithivi dyam utemam atatana rodasi antariksham (Agni, in his form of the sun, is spread through the earth, heaven, and everything between). Even if this be said, still I say no. Why? The sutra says ata eva (therefore), which means "for the reasons already given vaishvanara is neither the demigod Agni nor the element fire." The words of this mantra of the /Rg Veda are flattery only. Avataranika:In the opinion of Jaimini the word agni may also directly mean "The Supreme Personality of Godhead," just as the word vaishvanara does. Sutra 29 sakshad apy avirodham jaiminih sakshat—directly; api—also; avirodham—without contradiction; jaiminih—Jaimini. Jaimini is of the opinion that the word "agni" may be interpreted to directly mean "The Supreme Personality of Godhead," and there is no inconsistency in this. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Just as the word vaishvanara, interpreted to mean either "the leader (nara) of the world (vishva) or "the proprietor of all human beings (nara) in the universe (vishva)," is name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the original cause of all causes, in the same way the word agni, interpreted to mean "the leader of all," is also a name of Lord Vishnu. Jaimini Muni considers that there is no contradiction in these interpretations because they are based on the specific meanings of each word's component parts. The objector may say: How can the limitless Supreme Personality of Godhead become the size of the distance between the thumb and forefinger, (as vaishvanara is said to be in this passage of the Upanishad)? To answer this question he says: Sutra 30 abhivyakter ity ashmarathyah abhivyakteh—because of manifestation; iti—thus; ashmarathyah—Ashmarathya. Ashmarathya is of the opinion that the Supreme Personality of Godhead appears in this way (a size the distance between the thumb and forefinger) because He manifests Himself (in the heart of His devotee). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Lord Vishnu appears in this way in the hearts of His devotees, who have the eyes to see Him. This is the opinion of Ashmarathya. Sutra 31 anusmriter iti badarih anusmriteh—because of meditation; iti—thus; badarih—Badari Muni. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is thought to be this small size because that conception is very convenient for meditation. This is the opinion of Badari. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Because the Supreme Lord is meditated as residing in the heart, and because the heart itself is the size of the distance between thumb and forefinger, the Lord is thought to be the size of the distance between thumb and forefinger also. Sutra 32 sampatter iti jaiminis tatha hi darshayati sampatteh—because of transcendental opulences; iti—thus; jaiminih—Jaimini; tatha—in this way; hi—because; darshayati—the shruti-shastra declares. (The Supreme Personality of Godhead can assume this very small size) because of His transcendental powers and opulences. This is the opinion of Jaimini. (It is known that the Supreme Personality of Godhead assumes this very small size) because shruti-shastra reveals (this information). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The Supreme Personality of Godhead can become the size of the distance between the thumb and forefinger because of His sampatti, His transcendental opulence in the form of inconceivable potencies. This action does not limit or restrict the Lord in any way. Jaimini thinks in this way. Why? He says tatha hi darshayati (It is known that the Supreme Personality of Godhead assumes this very small size because shruti-shastra reveals this information). The word hi here means "because." The shruti-shastra says tam ekam govindam sac-cid-ananda-vigraham (The Supreme Personality of Godhead is Govinda, who transcendental form is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss) and eko 'pi san bahudha yo 'vabhati (Although He is one, the Supreme Personality of Godhead manifests as many). In this way the shruti-shastra teaches that by His inconceivable potencies many contradictory qualities are simultaneously present in the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Some of these contradictory qualities are that even though His Himself all transcendental knowledge, he still has a body, and even though He is one, He is also many. Later in this book this will be explained in detail. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is simultaneously all-pervading and of a small size. There is no fault in saying this. Sutra 33 amananti cainam asmin amananti—they declare; ca—also; enam—this; asmin—in Him. (The atharvanikas) say this of Him. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The atharvanikas declare that this inconceivable potency is present in the Supreme Lord. In the Kaivalya Upanishad (21) the Lord says apani-pado 'ham acintya-shaktih (Although I have no hands or feet, I still have inconceivable potencies). Shrimad-Bhagavatam (3.33.3) says atmeshvaro 'tarkya-sahasra-shaktih (My dear Lord, You are self-determined and are the Supreme Personality of Godhead for all living entities. For them You created this material manifestation, and although You are one, Your diverse energies can act multifariously. This is inconceivable to us*). These different opinions do not contradict each other. The Skanda Purana explains: vyasa-citta-sthitakashad avicchinnani kanicit anye vyavaharanty etad uri-kritya grihadivat "Other sages take up small portions broken from the vast sky of Vyasadeva's opinions just as houses and other enclosures take up a small portion of the vastness of space." Pada 3 Adhikarana 1 The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the Abode of Heaven Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana vishvam bibharti nihsvam yah karunyad eva deva-rat mamasau paramanando govindas tanutam ratim I pray that Lord Govinda, the supremely blissful king of the demigods, who mercifully maintains this pathetic material world, may give me pure love for Him. In this Third Pada will be considered some scriptural texts that may seem to describe the jiva or some other topic but in truth describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Vishaya: Mundaka Upanishad 2.2.5 says: yasmin dyauh prithivi cantariksham otam manah saha pranaish ca sarvaih tam evaikam janatha atmanam anya vaco vimuncathamritasyaisha setuh "Know that He in whom heaven, earth, sky, mind, breath, and everything else, are woven, is the atma. Give up talking of anything else. He is the shore of the eternal." Samshaya: Is the abode of heaven described here the pradhana, jiva, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead? Purvapaksha: The abode of heaven here is the pradhana because pradhana is the cause of all material transformations and also because the words amrita-setu (the shore of the eternal) appropriately describe pradhana, which leads the living entities to liberation just as milk brings nourishment to a calf. The word atma in this passage may refer to pradhana either because pradhana brings happiness to the living entities or because it is all-pervading. Then again the words in this passage may refer to the jiva because the jiva is the enjoyer of the the things in this world and because the j.iva possesses the mind and the breath mentioned in this passage. Siddhanat: Now he speaks the conclusion. Sutra 1 dyu-bhv-ady-ayatanam sva-shabdat dyu-of heaven; bhv-and earth; adi-beginning with; ayatanam-the abode; sva-own; shabdat-because of the word. The description "the abode of heaven, earth, and other things," refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead because the words in this passage specifically describe Him. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word "the abode of heaven" here refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Why? The sutra says sva-shabdat (because the words in this passage specifically describe Him). The Supreme Personality of Godhead is referred to here because the word amritasya setuh (the shore of the eternal) can refer to Him alone and no one else. Because it comes from the verb sinoti, which means "to bind," the phrase amritasya setuh means "He who enables one to attain the eternal." Or the word setuh here may mean "like a bridge." As a bridge enables on to cross to the other side of rivers and other bodies of water, in the same way this bridge enables one to attain the liberation that lies on the other shore of the cycle of repeated birth and death. That is the meaning of this word. In this matter the Shvetashvatara Upanishad (3.8 and 6.15) says tam eva viditvati mrityum eti (One can overcome the path of birth and death only by understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead). Next he says: Sutra 2 muktopashripya vyapadeshat mukta-liberated; upashripya-attaining; vyapadeshat-because of the statement. Because it is said that this abode of heaven is attained by the liberated souls. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana That the Supreme Personality of Giodhead is attained by the liberated souls is described in the following statement of Mundaka Upanishad (3.1.3): yada pashyah pashyate rukma-varnam kartaram isham purusham brahma-yonim tada vidvan punya-pape vidhuya niranjanah paramam samyam upaiti "One who sees that golden-colored Personality of Godhead, the Supreme Lord, the supreme actor, who is the source of the Supreme Brahman, becomes free from the reactions to past pious and sinful deeds, and becomes liberated, attaining the same transcendental platform as the Lord."* Sutra 3 nanumanam atac-chabdat na-not; anumanam-that which is inferred; atat-not that; shabdat-because of a word. The "pradhana" is not the "abode of heaven and earth" here because there is no word appropriate to it in this passage. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The pradhana described in the smriti-shastras is not referred to in this passage. Why? The sutra says atac-chabdat, which means that none of the words in this passage are appropriate for the insentient pradhana. Sutra 4 prana-bhric ca prana-bhrit-the jiva ca-and. For the same reason the "jiva" is not the "abode of heaven and earth." Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word na (not) and the phrase giving the reason (tac-chabdat) should be understood here from the previous sutra. The word atma here also cannot be understood to be the jiva because the word atma, because it is derived from the verb atati (to go), must primarily refer to the all-pervading Supreme Personality of Godhead. The word sarva-vit (all-knowing) also cannot refer to the jiva. For these reasons, because the words in this passage of the Upanishad are not appropriate for such an interpretation, he says that the jiva cannot be the "abode of heaven and earth" mentioned here. Sutra 5 bheda-vyapadeshac ca bheda-difference; vyapadeshat-because of the description; ca-and. And also because the difference between them is specifically described. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The jiva is not the "abode of heaven and earth" because the scriptures affirm that the jiva and the Supreme Personality of Godhead are different, as explained in the Mundaka Upanishad (2.2.5) in the words tam evaikam janathatmanam (Know Him to be the only Supreme Lord). Sutra 6 prakaranat prakaranat-because of the context. And also because of the context. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The "abode of heaven and earth" here must be the Supreme Personality of Godhead because of the context. The opening statement of this passage under discussion (Mundaka Upanishad (1.1.3)), asks kasmin nu vijnate sarvam idam vijnatam bhavati (What is the one thing, knowing which everything becomes known?). Therefore the passage that follows must describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sutra 7 sthity-adanabhyam ca sthiti-staying; adanabhyam-eating; ca-and. And also because one is eating and the other standing. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana After describing the "abode of heaven and earth," the Mundaka Upanishad (3.1.1) says: dva suparna sayuja sakhaya samanam vriksham parishasvajate tayor anyah pippalam svady atti anashnann anyo 'bhicakashiti "Two friendly birds stay on the same tree. One eats the sweet pippala fruits and the other, not eating, shines with great splendor." If the "abode of heaven and earth" had not been previously mentioned then (there would be) no (reason to assume) that the splendid bird here is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Otherwise (if the "abode of heaven and earth" had not been mentioned), the sudden, unannounced mention of the Supreme Personality of Godhead (in this little allegory of the birds) would not be acceptable. The jiva, who is already well known in the world, did not need to have been previously mentioned in the same way here. For these reasosn the "abode of heaven and earth" here refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Adhikarana 2 The Fullness is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Vishaya: When, after describing the Lord's holy names and qualities, he was asked a question by Shri Narada Muni, Shri Sanat-kumara said (Chandogya Upanishad 7.23.1-7.24.1): bhuma tv eva vijijnasitavya iti bhumanam bhagavo vijijnasa iti. yatra nanyat pashyati nanyac chrinoti nanyad vijanati sa bhuma. atha yatranyat pashyaty anyac chrinoty anyad vijanati tad-alpam "'One should ask about Bhuma.' 'My lord, I wish to know about Bhuma.' 'When one attains Him one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, and knows nothing else. That is Bhuma. When one sees something else, hears something else, and knows something else, he knows that which is very small.'" Here the word bhuma does not mean “many." Here it means "all-pervading." The text says yatranyat pashyati. . .tad-alpam (When one sees something else, he sees that which is very small). The Bhuma is contrasted against alpa (the small. The opposite of small is "all-pervading," not "many." Therefore Bhuma here means "all-pervading." Samshaya: Does Bhuma here mean prana (life-breath) or Lord Vishnu? Purvapaksha: In the passage previous to this the Chandogya Upanishad (7.15.1) says prano va ashaya bhuyan (prana is better than hope). Because prana is the topic immediately preceding Bhuma, and because no question and answer intervenes between them, therefore prana and Bhuma are the same. here the word prana (life-breath) means the jiva soul who has breath for his companion. It does not mean merely air. Because this passage begins by describing the jiva soul (7.1.3) tarati shokam atma-vit (He who knows the soul crosses beyond grief) and ends by again describing the jiva soul (7.26.1) atmana evedam sarvam (The soul is everything), therefore the description of Bhuma situated between these two statements must be a description of the jiva soul. When the Upanishad says (7.25.1) yatra nanyat pashyati (When one attains Him one sees nothing else), it means, in this interpretation, that when the jiva is rapt in deep sleep and his senses are all in the grip of prana, he cannot see anything beyond himself. When the Upanishad says (7.23.1) yo vai bhuma tat sukham (the Bhuma is bliss) it does not contradict the idea that the Bhuma is the jiva here because the shruti-shastra says tasyam sukham aham asvapsam (I slept very happily). In this way it is proved that this passage of the Upanishad describes the jiva soul. All the other portions of this passage are also very favorable to this interpretation of the jiva. Siddhanta: He says: Sutra 8 bhuma samprasadad adhyupadeshat bhuma-the Bhuma; samprasadat-than the jiva, who is the object of the Lord's mercy; adhi-greater; upadeshat-because of the teaching. (The Bhuma here is the Supreme Personality of Godhead) because of the scriptural teaching that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is superior to the jiva soul. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The Bhuma here is Lord Vishnu and not the jiva, who has prana (life-breath) as his companion. Why? The sutra says samprasadad adhy upadeshat (because of the scriptural teaching that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is superior to the jiva soul). The Bhuma is the Supreme Personality of Godhead because the passage here in the words (Chandogya Upanishad 7.23.1) yo vai bhuma tat sukham (the Bhuma is bliss) says that the Bhuma is full of great bliss, and because the sutra here says that the Bhuma is superior to all. Or the Bhuma is the Supreme Personality of Godhead because the Chandogya Upanishad (8.3.4) in the words esha samprasado 'smac charirat samutthaya (The jiva who has attained the mercy of the Lord rises above the gross material body and attains the effulgent spiritual world) says that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is superior to the jiva, who is dependent on the Lord's mercy, and who has prana (life-breath) as his companion. The meaning is this: After describing names and a host of other things, the Chandogya Upanishad (7.15.2) says sa va esha evam pashyan evam manvana evam vijanann ati-vadi bhavati (He who sees prana, meditates on prana, and understands prana becomes a true knower of things), and then after saying that the knower of prana becomes a true knower of things, the Upanishad then says (7.16.1) esha tu va ativadati yah satyenativadati (He who knows the Supreme Personality of Godhead is in reality the true knower of things). The word tu (but) here ends the discussion of prana. Then the greatest ativadi (wise man) is described as he who knows the satya, which here means "Lord Vishnu." In this way the Upanisad explains that the Bhuma is both different from and superior to prana. Because in this way the Bhuma is declared to be superior to prana, prana cannot be identical with the Bhuma. The Bhuma is here taught to be superior to the series beginning with name and culminating in prana and therefore it is clearly seen to be different from speech and the other items in this series. In this way the Bhuma is taught to be superior to prana. The word satya is famous as a name for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Vishnu. The scriptures use the word satya in this way. For example, the Taittiriya Upanishad (2.1.2) says satyam jnanam anantam (the unlimited Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of transcendental knowledge) and the Shrimad-Bhagavatam (1.1.1) says satyam param dhimahi (I meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead). The word satyena is in the instrumental case to show in the sense of "because." The meaning here is that one becomes an ativadi (wise man) because of the satya, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The person who meditates on prana is called an ativadi (wise man) because he is wise in comparison to they who meditate on the series of objects mentioned previously, beginning with prana and culminating in hope. But he who meditates on Lord Vishnu is superior to the person who meditates on prana. Therefore he who meditates on Lord Vishnu is the real, the best ativadi (wise man). For this reason the student asks (Chandogya Upanishad (7.16.1) so 'ham bhagavah satyenativadani (my lord, I will become a man wise with knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead). The guru then answers satyam tv eva vijijnasitavyam (one must yearn to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead). The objection that because after the description of the ativadi wise with knowledge of prana there are no further questions and answers, therefore the subject of prana continues into the next sentence, is not a valid objection. Moreover, (it may be said,) because there are no questions after the description of prana, (therefore prana is the highest). In describing the series of inanimate elements, beginning with name and culminating in hope, the guru did not say that the knower of any of these was an ativadi (wise man). However, when he described prana, which here means the jiva, he did say that the knower of prana is an ativadi. The student then assumes that prana is the highest. That is why he asks no further question. The guru, however, not accepting prana as the highest, proceeds to explain that Lord Vishnu is higher than prana. The student, however, now taught that Lord Vishnu is the highest, becomes eager to know how to meditate on Him, and asks so 'ham bhagavah satyenativadani (my lord, I will become a man wise with knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead). The opponent may say, "What is referred to here is the jiva, who is the companion of prana (life-breath), and who is referred to in the beginning of this passage as atma." The reply is: No. Here the word atma primarily means the Supreme Personality of Godhead because to interpret the word otherwise would contradict the statement at the beginning of the passage (7.26.1) atmanah pranah (from the atma prana is manifested). This view of the opponent contradicts the statement (7.24.1) yatra nanyat pashyati nanyac chrinoti nanyad vijanati sa bhuma. (When one attains Him one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, and knows nothing else. That is Bhuma). This description of the perception of Bhuma clearly refutes any idea that the word Bhuma could mean anything other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The scriptures say saushuptikam sukham alpam (the happiness of deep sleep is very slight), and therefore to say that the word Bhuma here means "the jiva who is soundly sleeping" is simply laughable. For all these reasons, therefore, the Bhuma described here is Lord Vishnu. Sutra 9 dharmopapattesh ca dharma-qualities; upapatteh-because of the appropriateness; ca-and. And also because the qualities described here can be ascribed to the Supreme Personality of Godhead only. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The qualities ascribed here to the Bhuma are suitable only for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Vishnu, and not for anyone else. The Upanishad says (7.24.1) yo vai bhuma tad amritam (The Bhuma is the eternal). This describes the eternalness that is a natural feature of the Supreme. The Upanishad also says sa bhagavah kasmin pratishthita iti sve mahimni (Where does the Supreme Personality of Godhead stay? He stays in His own glory). This explains that the Supreme Personality of Godhead does not depend on anyone. The scriptures also say sa evadhastat (The Supreme Person is above, below, in front, behind, to the left and to the right). This shows that the Lord is the ultimate shelter of everyone and everything. The scriptures say (Chandogya Upanishad 7.26.1) atmanah pranah (From the Supreme Personality of Godhead the life-force is manifested). This shows that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original cause of all causes. These are some of the qualities of the Supreme described in the Vedic literatures. Adhikarana 3 "Akshara" Refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Vishaya: The Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (3.8.7-8) says: kasmin khalu akasha otash ca protash ceti. sa hovaca. etad vai tad aksharam gargi brahmana abhivadanti asthulam ananv ahrasvam adirgham alohitam asneham acchayam "'In what is the sky woven, warp and woof?' He said: 'O Gargi, the brahmanas say it is woven in the eternal. The eternal is not large, not small, not short, not tall, not red, not liquid, without shade). Samshaya: Is the akshara (eternal) here pradhana, jiva, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead? Purvapaksha: The word Shvetashvatara Upanishadakshara here may denote any of the three. The meaning is ambiguous. Siddhanta: The conclusion follows. Sutra 10 aksharam ambaranta-dhriteh aksharam-the eternal; ambara-with sky; anta-at the end; dhriteh-because of being the support. The word "akshara" here refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, because the "akshara" is described as the resting place of all the elements, beginning with the grossest and culminating in sky. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The akshara here is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Why? The sutra says amabaranta-dhriteh (because the akshara is described as the resting place of all the elements, beginning with the grossest and culminating in sky). The Upanishad says etasmin khalu akshare gargy akasha otash ca protash ca (O Gargi, the sky is woven, warp and woof, in the eternal). the word akshara must refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead because it is here described as the resting place of all the elements, which culminate in sky. The objection may be raised: "Akshara here may refer to pradhana because pradhana is the origin of all the changes of this world. Akshara may also refer to the jiva because the jiva is the resting place of all inanimate objects that come within its perception." If these objections are raised, he then says: Sutra 11 sa ca prashasanat sa-that; ca-and; prashasanat-because of the command. "Akshara" here must refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead because the text says that everything is supported by His command. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In the previous sutra the Supreme Personality of Godhead is described as the resting place of all the elements, beginning with the grossest and culminating in sky. Why is this? The sutra says prashasanat (because the text says that everything is supported by His command). The Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (3.8.9) says etasya va aksharasya prashasane gargi dyava-prithivi vidhrite tishthatah. etasya va aksharasya prashasane gargi surya-candramasau vidhritau tishthatah (By the command of the eternal, O Gargi, heaven and earth are manifest. By the command of the eternal, O Gargi, the sun and moon are manifest). Because these words describe the order of the eternal, the eternal should be understood to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Neither the inanimate, unconscious pradhana, nor the conditioned or liberated jiva can create everything simply by their command. Sutra 12 anya-bhava-vyavrittesh ca anya-another; bhava-nature; vyavritteh-because of the exclusion; ca-also. And also because the text describes certain qualities that specifically exclude any other being. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (3.8.11) says tad va etad aksharam gargy adrishtam drashtri ashrutam shrotri (O Gargi, this eternal sees, but is unseen. He hears, but is unheard). Because these words describe the akshara in terms that cannot be applied to anyone but the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the word akshara must refer to the Supreme Person. The pradhana is inanimate and unconscious and therefore it cannot see. Because the text here says that the akshara sees everything but cannot be seen by anyone, it cannot mean the jiva. Adhikarana 4 The "Purusha" Seen in Brahmaloka is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In the Prashna Upanishad (5.2.2-5) the following passage is read: etad vai satyakama param caparam ca brahma yad omkaras tasmad vidvan etenaivayatanenaikataram anveti. . . yah punar etam tri-matrenom ity anenaivaksharena paramm purusham abhidhyayita sa tejasi surye sampanno yatha padodaras tvacavinirmucyate evam haiva sa papmabhir vinirmuktah sa samabhir unniyate brahmalokam sa etasmat jiva-ghanat parat param purishayam purusham vikshatet1) "O Satyakama, the syllable om is both the superior Brahman and the inferior Brahman. A wise man attains one of these two Brahmans. . .One who, reciting the eternal om of three lengths, meditates on the Supreme Person, will attain the sun-planet. As a snake sheds its skin so does he become free from all sins. By the hymns of the Vedas he is carried to Brahmaloka. There he directly sees the Supreme Soul, the Supreme Person residing in the heart." Samshaya: Is the person seen and meditated on the four-faced demigod Brahma or the Supreme Personality of Godhead? Purvapaksha: The text here says that the devotee who meditates on om of one length attains the world of men, the devotee who meditates on om of two lengths attains the world of heaven, and the devotee who meditates on om of one length attains the world of Brahma. The planet here is the planet of the four-faced demigod Brahma and the person seen by one who goes there is the four-faced demigod Brahma. Siddhanta: The conclusion follows. Sutra 13 ikshati-karma-vyapadeshat sah ikshati-of seeing; karma-object; vyapadeshat-because of the description; sah-He. The person here is the Supreme Personality of Godhead because the description of the object of vision here fits the Supreme Person. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Here the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ikshati-karma, or object of vision. Why? the sutra says vyapadeshat (because the description of the object of vision here fits the Supreme Person). This is so because the Upanishad (5.2.7) describes the qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the following words: tam omkarenaivayatanenanveti vidvan yat tac chantam ajaram amritam abhayam param parayanam ca (By reciting om the wise man attains the supremely peaceful, ageless, eternal, fearless Supreme, the ultimate goal of life). The conclusion is that, according to the argument of nishada-sthapaty-adhikarana-nyaya, the word brahmaloka here means Vishnuloka (the planet of Lord Vishnu). Adhikarana 5 The "Dahara" is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Vishaya: In the Chandogya Upanishad (8.1.1) is heard the following: atha yad idam asmin brahma-pure daharam pundarikam veshma daharo shminn antar akashas tasmin yad antas tad anveshtavyam tad vijijnasitavyam "In a great city is a small lotus palace. In that palace is a small sky. That sky should be sought. That sky should be asked about." Samshaya: What is the small sky here in the lotus of the heart? Is it the element sky, the jiva, or Lord Vishnu? Purvapaksha: Because the word akasha generally means the element sky it must also have that same meaning here. Or, because the jiva is very small and also the master of the city of the body, it may mean the jiva. Siddhanta: The conclusion follows. Sutra 14 dahara uttarebhyah daharah-the small; uttarebhyah-because of the descriptions that follow. The small sky here is the Supreme Personality of Godhead because of the description given in the remainder of the text. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The small sky here is Lord Vishnu. Why? The sutra says uttarebhyah, which means "because of the description given in the remainder of the text." The descriptions used here to describe the small sky, such as "as great as the sky," "maintaining everything," and "free from all sin," cannot be used to describe either the element sky or the jiva soul. The "great city" described in this Upanishad is the body of the devotee. The "lotus" is the heart in the body. The "palace" is the abode of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The word "small sky" is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who should be meditated upon and sought after, and who possesses a host of transcendental qualities, including being always free of all sin. The passage should be interpreted in this way. Therefore the small sky here is Lord Vishnu. Then he says- Sutra 15 gati-shabdabhyam tatha hi drishtam lingam ca gati-because of going; shabdabhyam-and because of a certain word; tatha hi-furthermore; drishtam-seen; lingam-hinted; ca-and. This is so because of the description of going, because of the use of a certain word, and because it is both directly seen and also hinted at. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The Chandogya Upanishad (8.3.2) says: yatha hiranya-nidhim nihitam akshetrajna upari sancaranto 'pi na vidus tathemah sarvah praja ahar ahar gacchantya enam brahmalokam na vidanty anritena hi pratyudhah "As people, unaware of what the ground actually holds, walk again and again over buried golden treasure, so do the people of this world day after day go to the spiritual world of Brahman without knowing it." "Enam" (this), which points to the "small sky," is the "certain word" mentioned in the sutra, and the description here of the living entities' "going to the spiritual world of Brahman" is the "going" mentioned in the sutra. Both enam and the going mentioned here show that Lord Vishnu is the "small sky." Furthermore, in another place the scriptures again describe the living entities' going to the Supreme in these words: sata saumya tada sampanno bhavati (O gentle one, the living entities are again and again in contact with the Supreme). This is the "directly seen" mentioned in the sutra. The use of the word brahmaloka hints that Lord Vishnu is the topic of discussion here. This is the "hint" mentioned in the sutra. The word brahmaloka here cannot refer to the Satyaloka planet because it is not possible for the living entities to go day after day to the Satyaloka planet. Sutra 16 dhritesh ca mahimno 'syasminn upalabdheh dhriteh-because of maintaining; ca-and; mahimnah-of the glory; asya-of Him; asmin-in this; upalabdheh-because of being stated. This is so because of the description of His glory in maintaining all the worlds. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In the passage beginning with the words daharo 'sminn antar akashah (in that palace is a small sky), the descriptions "as great as the sky," "maintaining everything," and "free from all sin," and the use of the word atma clearly, and without need to turn to any other passage, show that the "small sky" mentioned here is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.22) also says: atha ya atma sa setur vidhritir esham lokanam asambhedaya (He is the Supreme Person, the bridge, the controller who prevents the worlds from becoming broken and destroyed). Because the "small sky" is thus shown to possess the glory of maintaining all the worlds, the "small sky" here must be Lord Vishnu. The Chandogya Upanishad also says: esha setur vidharana esham lokanam asambhedaya (He is the bridge, the controller who prevents the worlds from becoming broken and destroyed). In these passages and in others also, this glory of the Supreme Personality of Godhead may be seen. Sutra 17 prasiddhesh ca prasiddheh-because of being famous in this way; ca-and. And also because this is a traditional usage of the word. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana This is so because the word "sky" is commonly used to mean "the Supreme Personality of Godhead," as may be seen in the following statement of Taittiriya Upanishad (2.7.1): ko hy evanyat kah pranyat. yad esha akasha anando na syat. (Who could breathe if the sky were not bliss?) Someone may raise the following objection: The Chandogya Upanishad (8.3.4) says: sa esha samprasado 'smac charirat samutthaya param jyotir upasampadya svena rupenabhinishpadyate. esha atmeti hovaca. etad amritam etad abhayam etad brahma ("The liberated jiva rises from the material body. He attains the spiritual effulgence and manifests his original form. This is the self," he said. "He is immortal. He is fearless. He is Brahman"). Because this description of the jiva appears immediately afterward, the description of the “small sky" should be understood to refer to the jiva. If this objection is raised, he replies: Sutra 18 itara-paramarshat sa iti cen nasambhavat itara-the other; paramarshat-because of reference; sah-he; iti-thus; cet-if; na-not; asambhavat-because of impossibility. If it is said that because there is mention of something else (the jiva) in the same passage (and therefore the "small sky" here is the jiva, then I say) No, because it is impossible. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Although in the middle of this passage there is a description of the jiva, nevertheless it is not possible to say that the beginning of this passage describes the jiva. Why? The sutra says asambhavat (because it is impossible). This is so because in the beginning of this passage there is a description of eight qualities, beginning with "being free from sin," that cannot be ascribed to the jiva. Now our opponent may say: So be it. Still, after the description of the "small sky," the Chandogya Upanishad (8.7.1) says ya atmapahata-papma vijaro vimrityur vishoko vijighatso 'pipasah satya-kamah satya-sankalpah so 'nveshtavyah sa vijijnasitavyah (The soul is free from sin, old-age, death, suffering, hunger, and thirst. It desires only the good. Whatever it desires is attained at once). Because these words of the Prajapati describe the jiva the qualities described in 7.7.1 and the "small sky" described before that may also refer to the jiva. Considering that this doubt might arise, he says: Sutra 19 uttarac ced avirbhava-svarupas tu uttarat-because of a later passage; cet-if; avirbhava-manifestation; svarupas-form; tu-indeed. If it is said that a later passage (proves that the “small sky" is the jiva then I say no.) The description of the true nature of the jiva is confined to that passage alone. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word tu (but) is used here to dispel doubt. The word na (no) should be understood from the previous sutra. In this passage spoken by the Prajapati the teaching is that the jiva manifests these qualities by engaging in spiritual activities, but otherwise these qualities are not manifested. In the passage describing the "small sky" these eight attributes are said to be eternally manifested. The statement of the Prajapati is, however, that these qualities are present in the jiva only if he engages in spiritual activities. The Chandogya Upanishad (8.3.4) clearly explains the difference between the Supreme Personality of Godhead (who possesses these eight qualities in all circumstances) and the jiva (who possesses these qualities only when he becomes liberated) in the following words: sa esha samprasado 'smac charirat samutthaya param jyotir upasampadya svena rupenabhinishpadyate. esha atmeti hovaca. etad amritam etad abhayam etad brahma ("The liberated jiva rises from the material body. He attains the spiritual effulgence and manifests his original form. This is the self," he said. "He is immortal. He is fearless. He is Brahman"). Although the jiva may manifest some of these eight qualities by engaging in spiritual activities, he still cannot manifest all of them. The qualities of being the "bridge that spans the worlds," and being the "maintainer of the worlds" are some of the qualities the jiva can never attain. This proves that the "small sky" is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Now our opponent says: If this is so, then why is the jiva mentioned at all in this passage? To answer this question he says: Sutra 20 anyarthash ca paramarshah anya-another; arthash-meaning; ca-and; paramarshah-reference. The description of the jiva here has a different object. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The jiva is described here in order to teach about the Supreme Personality of Godhead. When the jiva becomes liberated and attains his original spiritual form, he also manifests these eight qualities. In this way it may be understood that the "small sky" is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Now our opponent says: Because the "small sky" within is described as very small it must refer to the jiva, which was previously described as also being very small. If this objection is given, then he says: Sutra 21 alpa-shruter iti cet tad-uktam alpa-small; shruteh-from the shruti; iti-thus; cet-if; tat-that; uktam-said. If it is said that when the shruti describes the "small" it must refer to the jiva, then I say no because of what has already been said. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The Supreme Personality of Godhead manifests a very small form to facilitate meditation on Him. This has already been described in sutra 1.2.7, which says nicayyatvad evam vyomavac ca. This sutra explains that although the Supreme Personality of Godhead is all-pervading, in order to facilitate meditation on Him, He manifests a small form the size of the distance between the thumb and forefinger. He appears in this small form so He may be easily meditated upon. Of course, His glories have no limit and His size also has no limit. Then he gives another explanation. Sutra 22 anukrites tasya ca anukriteh-because of imitation; tasya-of Him; ca-also. And also because (the jiva) merely resembles in some respects (the Supreme Personality of Godhead). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Because, according to the statement of the Prajapati, the jiva, who only manifests the eight qualities when engaged in spiritual activities, merely resembles in some respects the "small sky," who manifests the eight qualities eternally, the "small sky" must be different from the jiva. Previously the original form of the jiva is covered by illusion, and then afterwards, by worshiping the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the illusion becomes broken and the jiva, manifesting these eight qualities, becomes equal, in some respects, to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this way, as explained by the Prajapati, the jiva resembles, in some respects, the "small sky." The sentence pavanam anuharate hanuman (Hanuman resembles the wind) shows the difference between the resembled object and the thing that resembles it. That the liberated jiva resembles the Supreme Personality of Godhead may also be seen in the following words from Mundaka Upanishad (3.1.3): niranjanah paramam samyam upaiti (the liberated jiva resembles the Supreme Personality of Godhead). Sutra 23 api smaryate api-and; smaryate-described in the smriti-shastra. This is also described in the smriti-shastra. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In the Bhagavad-gita (14.2) the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Krishna, also explains: idam jnanam upashritya mama sadharmyam agatah sarge 'pi nopajayante pralaye na vyathanti ca "By becoming fixed in this knowledge, one can attain to the transcendental nature like My own. Once established, one is not born at the time of creation or disturbed at the time of dissolution."* In this way the smriti-shastra explains that the liberated jivas attain a nature like that of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. For these reasons the "small sky" is Lord Hari and not the jiva. Adhikarana 6 The Person the Size of a Thumb is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Vishaya: In the Katha Upanishad (2.1.12) the following words are read: angushtha-matrah purusho madhya atmani tishthati ishano bhuta-bhavyaysya tato na vijugupsate "A person the size of a thumb stands in the heart. He is the master of the past and future. He does not fear." Samshaya: Is this person the size of a thumb the jiva or Lord Vishnu? Purvapaksha: The person here is the jiva because the Shvetazvatara Upanishad (5.7-8) says pranadhipah sancarati sva-karmabhir ?angushta-matro ravi-tulya-rupah (The ruler of breath moves about, impelled by his karma. He is the size of a thumb. He is splendid as the sun). Siddhanta: The conclusion follows. Sutra 24 shabdad eva pramitah shabdat-because of the word; eva-even; pramitah-limited. Even though (He is) very small (this person is the Supreme Lord) because of the words (in the text). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The person here the size of a thumb is Lord Vishnu. Why? The sutra says shabdat (because of the words in the text). The Upanishad text referred to here is ishano bhuta-bhavyaysa (He is the master of the past and future). It is not possible for the jiva, who is controlled by his karma, to possess this power. Now it may be asked: How is it possible for the all-pervading Supreme Personality of Godhead to become limited to this very small form? To answer this question he says: Sutra 25 hridy upekshaya tu manushyadhikaratvat hridi-in the heart; upekshaya-with relation; tu-indeed; manushya-of human beings; adhikaratvat-because of the qualification. This is so because the Supreme Personality of Godhead indeed appears in the hearts of men. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word tu (indeed) is used here for emphasis. The all-pervading Supreme Personality of Godhead becomes the size of a thumb because He is meditated on as being the size of thumb within the heart. Another interpretation is that because He appears, by His inconceivable potency, in such a small form in the heart He is meditated on in that way, as has been already described. "Because the different species have bodies of different sizes and hearts of different sizes it is not possible that the Lord can appear in all of them in this size." If this objection is raised, to answer it he says manushyadhikaratvat (the Supreme Personality of Godhead appears in the hearts of men). Although the scriptures do not specify, he (Vyasa) singles out human beings. He does this because it is human beings who are able to meditate and therefore the measurement is given here according to the human body. For this reason there is no contradiction here. In the same way in the hearts of elephants, horses, and all other creatures the Supreme Personality of Godhead appears in a form the size of the thumb of each creature. In this way there is no contradiction. It is not possible for the jiva, however, to be present within the heart in a form the size of a thumb because the original form of the jiva is atomic in size, as explained in the Shvetashvatara Upanishad (5.9) in the words balagra-shata-bhagasya (When the upper point of a hair is divided into one hundred parts and again each of such parts is further divided into one hundred parts, each such part is the measurement of the dimension of the jiva soul). For all these reasons, therefore, the person the size of a thumb is Lord Vishnu. Adhikarana 7 The Devas Can Meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Vishaya: In order to prove that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the person the size of a thumb, the Vedic scriptures were quoted to establish that it is human beings who have the right to meditate on the Supreme Person. That evidence may lead to the belief that human beings alone have the right to meditate on the Supreme Person. Now, by refuting that false belief, the right of others to meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead will be proved. The Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.4.10) says: tad yo yo devanam pratyabudhyata sa eva tad abhavat tatharshinam tatha manushyanam "Whoever among the devas meditated on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, attained Supreme Personality of Godhead. Whoever among the sages meditated on Him attained Him. Whoever among the human beings meditated on Him attained Him." The Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.16) also says: tad deva jyotisham jyotir ayur hopasate 'mritam "The devas meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the splendor of all splendors, and who is eternity and life." Samshaya: Is it possible for the devas to meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as human beings do, or is it not possible? Purvapaksha: Because the devas have no senses they are not able to meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Indra and the other devas are beings created by mantras. They have no bodily senses. Because they have no senses they have neither material desires nor spiritual renunciation. Siddhanta: The conclusion follows. Sutra 26 tad upary api badarayanah sambhavat tad-that; upari-above; api-also; badarayanah-Vyasadeva; sambhavat-because of being possible. Beings superior to humankind are able to meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is the opinion of Vyasa. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The devas and other beings superior to humankind are able to meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is the opinion of Lord Vyasadeva. Why? Because according to the Upanishads, Vedic mantras, Itihasas, Puranas, and ancient tradition, they do indeed have bodies and senses. Because they have heavenly bodies and senses they are able to meditate and they are also able to become detached from their heavenly opulence and voluntarily renounce it. Because they are aware of the baseness and impermanence of their celestial opulence they are able to be detached from it and renounce it. The Vishnu Purana (6.5.50) explains: na kevalam dvija-shreshtha narake duhkha-paddhatih svarge 'pi yata-bhitasya kshayishnor nasti nirvritih "O best of the brahmanas, torment does not exist only in hell. The residents of the heavenly planets, afraid that they may one day fall from heaven, have no happiness." For this reason the devas desire spiritual happiness. This is so because they have heard from the shruti-shastra that spiritual bliss is limitless, eternal, and pure. The shruti explains that to attain spiritual knowledge the devas and other celestial beings observe vows of celibacy. This is described in the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (5.2.1) in these words: tatra yah prajapatyah prajapatau pitari brahmacaryam ushur deva manushya asurah (The devas, humans, and asuras, who were all sons of Lord Brahma, lived with their father as celibate students of spiritual knowledge). In the Chandogya Upanishad (8.11.3) King Indra is described in the following words: eka-shatam ha vai varshani maghava prajapatau brahmacaryam uvasa (For a hundred years King Indra lived as a celibate student of spiritual knowledge in the home of Lord Brahma). For these reasons, therefore, the devas and other higher beings are able to meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The following objection may be raised: "This idea (that the devas are not beings created by mantras but are conditioned living entities residing in material bodies) is not consistent with the activities of the devas and other higher beings because it is not possible that a single embodied demigod could come to many different places at once when called to appear at many agnihotra-yajnas in many different places simultaneously." If this is said, he (Vyasa) speaks the following words: Sutra 27 virodhah karmaniti cen naneka-pratipatter darshanat virodhah-contradiction; karmani-in activities; iti-thus; cet-if; na-not; aneka-many; pratipatteh-because of the acceptance; darshanat-because of seeing. If it is objected that this idea is refuted by the very activities of the devas, then I say no, because it is seen that the devas have the power to manifest many forms simultaneously. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana There is no contradiction here if it accepted that the devas are embodied souls with material bodies. Why? The sutra says aneka-pratipatter darshanat (because it is seen that the devas have the power to manifest many forms simultaneously). This is so because many powerful beings, such as Saubhari Muni and others, are able to manifest many forms simultaneously. The objector may say: It may be that in the description of the devas' activities there is no contradiction for they who say that the devas have bodies. There remains, however, a contradiction in the description of the words of the Vedas. Before the birth and after the death of each demigod a period would exist when the name of that demigod would not have any meaning. At that time the words of the Vedas would become meaningles, like the statement "the son of a barren woman." In this way this idea is refuted. The Mimamsa-sutra says: autpattikas tu shabdenarthasya sambandhah (In the Vedas the relation between name and the object named is eternal). This idea (that the devas are embodied souls) would then contradict the eternality of the names in the Vedas. If this objection is raised, then he (Vyasa) replies: Sutra 28 shabda iti cen natah prabhavat pratyakshanumanabhyam shabdah-the words of the Vedas; iti-thus; cet-if; na-no; atah-from this; prabhavat-because of creation; pratyaksha-because of shruti; anumanabhyam-and smriti. If someone objects that this idea is inconsistent with the eternal nature of the words in the Vedas, then I say no because of the description of the creation of the world and also because of the evidence given in shruti and smriti. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The idea stated here (that the devas have bodies) is not inconsistent with the nature of the words in the Vedas. Why? The sutra says prabhavat pratyakshanumanabhyam (because of the description of the creation of the world and also because of the evidence given in shruti and smriti. The creation of the material bodies (of the devas and other beings in the universe) is done (by Lord Brahma) remembering their eternal, archetypal forms recorded in the statements of the Vedas. These archetypal forms are eternal, and existed before any of the bodies of the living entities were manifested. These archetypal forms are described by Vishvakarma in his own scripture for drawing forms in the words yamam danda-panim likhanti varunam tu pasha-hastam (They draw the demigod Yama with a mace in his hand, and the demigod Varuna with a noose in his hand). The Vedic words describing the devas and other kinds of living entities are names of certain classes of living entity, just as the word "cow" is the name of a certain kind of living entity. The names of the devas are not names of specific persons, as for example, the name Caitra. Because the words of the Vedas are eternal in this way the Vedas are genuine sources of knowledge. This explanation is not at all inconsistent with the previously quoted explanation from the Mimamsa-sutra. Why is this? The sutra says pratyakshanumanabhyam, which means "because of the evidence given in shruti and smriti." The shruti (Panca-vaimshati Brahmana (6.9,13,22) discussing the creation of the world, which was preceded by the (eternal) words (of the Vedas), gives the following description: eta iti ha vai prajapatir devan ashrijat ashrigram iti manushyan indava iti pitriims tirah-pavitram iti grahan asuva iti stotram vishvaniti mantram abhisaubhagety anyah prajah (Reciting the word ete from the Vedas, Lord Brahma created the devas. Reciting the word ashrigram, he created the human beings. Reciting the word indava, he created the pitas. Reciting the word tirah-pavitram, he created the planets. Reciting the word asuva, he created songs. Reciting the word vishvani, he created mantras. Reciting the word abhisaubhaga, he created the other creatures). The smriti also confirms this in the following words (Vishnu Purana 1.5.64): nama rupam ca bhutanam krityanam ca prapancanam veda-shabdebhya evadau devadinam cakara sah "By reciting the words of the Vedas in the beginning, Lord Brahma created the names and forms of the material elements, the rituals, the devas, and all other living entities." Sutra 29 ata eva ca nityatvam atah eva-therefore; ca-and; nityatvam-eternity. And for this very reason the eternity (of the Veda is proved). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The eternity of the Vedas is proved by the fact that the creator (Brahma) creates (the world) by (reciting the Vedic) words (describing the) eternal forms and by remembering (the previous creation). Kathaka Muni and the (other sages) should be understood to be merely the speakers (and not the authors of the Vedas). The objection may be raised: So be it. The shruti explains that by remembering the words of the Vedas Lord Brahma creates the forms of the devas and other living entities. This may be in the case after the (naimittika) partial cosmic devastation, but how can this method of creation be employed after the (prakrita) complete cosmic devastation, when absolutely everything is destroyed, and how can the Vedas be eternal under the circumstances of such complete destruction? If this is said, then he replies: Sutra 30 samana-nama-rupatvac cavrittav apy avirodho darshanat smritesh ca samana-same; nama-because of the names; rupatvat-and forms; ca-also; avrittau-in the repetition; api-also; avirodhah-not a contradiction; darshanat #because of the shruti$ smritesh-because of the smriti; ca-indeed. Because the names and forms remain the same even at the beginning of a new creation, there is no contradiction. This is proved by shruti and smriti. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word ca (indeed) is used here to dispel doubt. That after a complete cosmic devastation there must be a new creation does not at all disprove the eternalness of the words of the Vedas. Why? The sutra says samana-nama-rupatvac cavrittav apy avirodho darshanat smritesh ca (Because the names and forms remain the same even at the beginning of a new creation, there is no contradiction. This is proved by shruti and smriti). The meaning here is "because the previously spoken names and forms remain the same." At the time of the great cosmic devastation the eternal Vedas and the eternal archetypal forms described by the Vedas enter Lord Hari, the master of transcendental potencies, and rest within Him, becoming one with Him. At the time of the next creation they again become manifested from the Lord. Lord Hari and the four-faced demigod Brahma both precede their acts of creation with recitation of Vedic mantras, which recitation leads to meditation on the archetypal forms. At the time of a new creation the creator remembers what He created in the previous creation and He again creates as He had created before. This is like a potter who, by saying the word "pot" remembers the forms of pots he previously fashioned, and goes on to make another pot. Just as the process of creation is performed in this way after the partial cosmic devastation, in the same way the process of creation is also performed after the complete cosmic devastation. How is all this known? The sutra says darshanat smritesh ca (because this is proved by shruti and smriti. The shruti says: atma va idam eka evagra asit sa aikshata lokan utshrijah "In the beginning was only the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He thought: I shall create many worlds). Aitareya Upanishad 1.1 yo brahmanam vidadhati purvam yo vai vedamsh ca prahinoti tasmi tam "The Supreme Personality of Godhead created the Vedas and taught them to the demigod Brahma). Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6.18 surya-candramasau dhata yatha-purvam akalpat "Brahma created the sun and moon as he had done before." Rg Veda The smriti says nyagrodhah su-mahan alpe yatha bije vyavasthitah samyame vishvam akhilam bija-bhute yatha tvayi "O Lord, just as a great banyan tree rests within a tiny seed, in the same way at the time of cosmic devastation the entire universe rests within You, the seed from which it originally sprouted." Vishnu Purana narayanah paro devas tasmaj jatash caturmukhah "Narayana is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. From him the demigod Brahma was born." Varaha Purana tene brahma hrida ya adi-kavaye "The Supreme Personality of Godhead first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmaji, the original living being."* Shrimad-Bhagavatam 1.1.1 A summary of this gist of this explanation follows: The Supreme Personality of Godhead, at the end of the period of cosmic devastation, meditating on the material universe at it had been before, desiring in His heart "I shall become many," differentiating again the jivas and material elements that had become merged within Him, creating again, as it had been before, the material universe extending from the mahat-tattva to the demigod Brahma, manifesting the Vedas exactly as they had been before, teaching the Vedas to the demigod Brahma within the heart, engaging the demigod Brahma in the creation of the forms of the devas and other living entities as they had been before, and personally entered the universe and controlling it from within. Omniscient by the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the demigod Brahma, meditating on the archetypal forms described in the Vedas, creates the devas and other creatures as they had been before. In this way the relationship between the names of the devas headed by Indra and their archetypal forms described in the Vedas is explained. In this way the opponent's argument of the Vedic words does not at all refute (this explanation of the nature of the devas). In this way it is proved that the devas and other superior beings have the ability to meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Supreme Personality of Godhead's form the size of a thumb is not at all contradicted by this description of the ability of the devas to meditate on Him. This is so because the form of the Lord is the size of a deva's thumb in this case. Now will be considered the question of whether the devas are eligible or not to engage in those meditations where they themselves are the object of meditation. In the Chandogya Upanishad (3.1.1) is the statement asau va adityo deva-madhu tasya dyaur eva tirashcina-vamshah (The sun is honey for the devas. The heavenly planets are the crossbeam, the sky is the beehive, and the rays of sunlight are the children). The sun is here the honey of the devas and the rays of sunlight are the openings (for drinking the honey). Five classes of devas, the vasus, rudras, adityas, maruts, and sadhyas, all headed by their leaders, gaze at the honey of the sun and become happy. That is said here. The sun is here called honey because it is the abode of a certain sweetness one becomes eligible for by performing certain religious works described in the Rig Veda and one attains by entering through the doorway of the sun's rays. In other places in the scriptures it is said that the devas can perform these meditations. In this matter he now explains the opinions of others. Sutra 31 madhv-adishv asambhavad anadhikaram jaiminih madhu-adishu-in madhu-vidya and other Vedic meditations; asambhavat-because of impossibility; anadhikaram-qualification; jaiminih-Jaimini. Jaimini says the devas do not engage in madhu-vidya and other forms of Vedic meditation because it is not possible for them to do so. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Jaimini Muni thinks that the devas are not qualified to engage in madhu-vidya and other forms of Vedic meditation. Why? The sutra says asambhavat (because it is not possible for them to do so). The object of worship cannot also be the worshiper. It is not possible for one person to be both. Furthermore, because the devas do not aspire to attain the result of madhu-vidya meditation, namely to become vasus or exalted devas, because they already are vasus and devas. Sutra 32 jyotishi bhavac ca jyotishi-in the splendor; bhavat-because of existence; ca-and. And because the devas do meditate on the effulgent Supreme Personality of Godhead. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.16) says tad deva jyotisham jyotih (the devas meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the light of all lights). Because the devas do meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is described in this passage from the shruti as the supreme effulgence, they naturally do not engage in the madhu-vidya and other inferior meditations. The explanation that the devas, as well as the human beings, naturally engage in meditation on the Supreme Personality of Godhead shows that the devas are averse to any other kind of meditation. Now that this view has been expressed, he (Vyasa) gives his opinion. Sutra 33 bhavam tu badarayano 'sti hi bhavam-existence; tu-but; badarayanah-Vyasadeva; asti-is; hi-because. Vyasadeva says the devas do engage in these meditations. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word tu (but) is used here to dispel doubt. Lord Vyasa thinks the devas are able to engage in madhu-vidya and other kinds of Vedic meditation. The word hi (because) here implies "desiring to again become devas and adityas, they worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead as the archetypal deva and aditya. Because of this worship they develop a desire to gain the company of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this way it is possible for them to engage in the madhu-vidya and other Vedic meditations." This is so because it is understood that the worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is both the goal and the means of attaining the goal. They who are now vasus, adityas, and other kinds of devas meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead as the archetypal vasu and aditya. At the end of the kalpa they become vasus and adityas and engage in the meditation and worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the Supersoul in their hearts, and who is the cause of their becoming vasus and adityas again. As a result of this worship they will eventually become liberated. The words aditya, vasu, and the names of the other devas, are all also names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is confirmed by the words ya etam evam brahmopanishadam veda (He who understands this Upanishad describing the Supreme Personality of Godhead) at the end of the Upanishad. It is not that because the devas have already attained their exalted positions therefore they have no desire to become devas and therefore have no interest in attaining the results of Vedic meditation. This is so because it is seen in this world that many people, even though they already have sons in this lifetime, yearn to again have sons in the next life. Furthermore, because they are actually meditations on the Supreme Personality of Godhead the madhu-vidya meditations of the devas are described in the words of the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.16) tad deva jyotisham jyotir (The devas meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead). The scriptures say prajapatir akamayata prajayeyeti sa etad agnihotram mithunam apashyat. tad udite surye 'juhot. (The demigod Brahma desired: "Let me create children." He then saw two agnihotra sacrifices. When the sun rose he performed agnihotra sacrifices). The scriptures also say deva vai satram asata (the devas then performed a Vedic sacrifice). These and other passages from the scriptures show that the shruti does not disagree with the idea that the devas are able to perform Vedic sacrifices. They perform these sacrifices by the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in order to protect the material world. Now someone may object: They who perform the madhu-vidya and other Vedic meditations must wait many kalpas before they attain liberation. How is it possible for one who yearns for liberation to tolerate such a delay? They who yearn for liberation do not desire to enjoy any material happiness, even the happiness of Brahmaloka. The answer is given: This is true. Still, the scriptures explain that because of certain unknown past actions some persons voluntarily postpone their personal liberation to take up the duties of administering the affairs of the material world. This adhikarana shows that because even the devas perform the ordinary Vedic duties, how much more so should human beings perform these duties. Adhikarana 8 Shudras Not Qualified For Vedic Meditation Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In was said that human beings, devas, and other higher beings are qualified to meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is not possible to meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead without having studied the Vedanta, for the scriptures say aupanishadah purushah (The Supreme Personality of Godhead is revealed in the Upanishads). From this the next topic follows. Vishaya: In the Chandogya Upanishad (4.1.1-5) is a story beginning with the words janashrutir ha pautrayanah (There was a man named Janashruti Pautrayana). In that story, after hearing the words of some swans, Janashruti approached Rainka Muni and offered him many cows, necklaces, and chariots. Rainka, however, said ahaha hare tva shudra tavaiva saha gobhir astu (O shudra, keep your cows, necklaces, and chariots!). After being addressed as a shudra in this way, Janashruti again came, this time offering cows, necklaces, chariots, and his daughter in marriage. Rainka this time replied tam ajaharemah shudranenaiva mukhenalapayishyathah (O shudra, take this away! With this face alone you will make me speak). Then the Upanishad describes how Rainka taught him the science of samvarga-vidya. Samshaya: Is a shudra qualified to study the Vedic knowledge or not? Purvapaksha: A shudra is qualified to study the Vedas for the following reasons: 1. because it is said that all human beings are qualified, 2. because shudra have the ability to study, 3. because the shruti sometimes uses the word shudra, thus hinting that shudras are qualified to read the Vedas, and 4. because in the Puranas and other Vedic literatures Vidura and other shudras are described as knowers of the Vedas. Siddhanta: The conclusion follows. Sutra 34 shug asya tad-anadara-shravanat tadadravanat sucyate hi shug-sorrow; asya-of him; tad-that; anadara-disrespect; shravanat-because of hearing; tada-then; adravanat-because of approaching; sucyate-is indicated; hi-because. Because he approached impelled by unhappiness from hearing an insult, the word shudra here means "unhappy." Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word na (not), taken from sutra 28, is understood in this sutra also. Here it means "a shudra is not qualified to study the Vedas." Why? The sutra says hi, which here means "because." Because Janashruti Pautrayana, who was not enlightened with spiritual knowledge, by hearing the swans' disrespectful words kam u vara enam etat santam sayugvanam iva rainkam attha (What is he compared to the great saint Rainka?) became unhappy (shuk) and thus ran (dru to meet Rainka. The word shudra here means "he who was unhappy" and "he who ran." The sage uses the word shudra here to display his omniscience in knowing the previous events. The word is not used here to indicate the fourth class of men: the shudras. If Janashruti is not a shudra, then to what class does he belong? To answer this question the next sutra says he is a kshatriya. Sutra 35 kshatriyatvavagatesh cottaratra caitrarathena lingat kshatriyatva-status of being a kshatriya; avagatesh-from the understanding; ca-also; uttaratra-in a later passage; caitrarathena-with Caitraratha; lingat-because of the sign. That he is a kshatriya is understood from the clue related to the caitraratha. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Janashruti is understood to be a kshatriya. He possesses religious faith and a host of other virtues. He is very charitable. He gives charity generously. He is the ruler of the people. For these reasons it is said that he is a kshatriya. Because he sent (a messenger to search for Rainka) and because he gave cows, necklaces, chariots, his daughter, and many other things in charity, it is said that he is a kshatriya. It is not possible for anyone but a kshatriya to possess these qualities. Because he thus displays the qualities of a king, Janashruti should be understood to be a kshatriya. At the end of the story it is also understood that he is a kshatriya. At the end of the story, where the description of samvarga-vidya is concluded, there is mention of the kshatriya status of a person named Abhipratari Caitraratha. In the concluding passage a brahmacari begged alms from Shaunaka Kapeya and Abhipratari Kakshaseni when these two were serving food to others. If someone objects: "In this passage the status of Abhipratari as either a kshatriya or caitraratha is not proved in any way," then the sutra answers: lingat (because of a clue). The clue that Shaunaka Kapeya and Abhipratari Kakshaseni were friends proves it. The Tandya Brahmana (20.12.5) says: caitena caitraratham kapeyo ayajayan (The members of the Kapeya family made Caitraratha perform a sacrifice). In this way the shruti maintains that because of his relationship with the Kapeyas, Abhipratari must have been a Caitraratha. That the Caitraratha family were kshatriyas is confirmed by the words tasmac caitrarathir nama kshatra-patir ajayata (From him was born another kshatriya of the Caitraratha family). In this way his kshatriya status is clearly proved. Therefore Shaunaka Kapeya and Abhipratari Caitraratha, who were both learned in samvarga-vidya, were a brahmana and a kshatriya respectively, and in the subject of samvarga-vidya they were also guru and disciple respectively. Rainka and Janashruti had the same relationship, and therefore Janashruti must have been a kshatriya. In this way it is proved that a shudra is not qualified to study the Vedas. Referring to the shruti, he again establishes this point. Sutra 36 samskara-paramarshat tad-abhavabhilapac ca samskara-of the purificatory rituals; paramarshat-because of the reference; tad-of them; abhava-of the non-existence; abhilapat-because of the explanation; ca-also. This is also so because the scriptures state both the necessity of undergoing the samskaras (rituals of purification) and the exclusion of the shudras from these rituals. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In the shruti-shastra is the passage ashta-varsham brahmanam upaniyata tam adhyapayed ekadeshe kshatriyam dvadashe vaishyam (One should perform the samskara and teach a brahmana boy when he is eight years old a kshatriya boy when he is eleven years old, and a vaishya boy when he is twelve years old). This shows that brahmanas are eligible to study the Vedas because they are also eligible for the samskaras. The scriptures also say nagnir na yajno na kriya na samskaro na vratani shudrasya (A shudra is not allowed to light the sacred fire, perform a fire-sacrifice, perform religious rituals, undergo the samskaras, or follow vows of penance). In this way it is established that because a shudra is not allowed to undergo the samskaras he is also not allowed to study the Vedas. Now he confirms the view that the shudras are not eligible for the samskaras. Sutra 37 tad-abhava-nirdharane ca pravritteh tat-of that; abhava-of the non-existence; nirdharane-in ascertaining; ca-also; pravritteh-because of endeavor. (This is so) also because care is taken to determine that (a student) is not (a shudra). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In the Chandogya Upanishad (4.4.4-5) (when asked about his caste, Jabali said) naham etad vede bho yad gotro 'ham asmi (I do not know into what caste I was born). These truthful words convinced the sage Gautama that Jabala was not a shudra. Gautama then said naitad abrahmano vivaktum arhati samidham saumyahara tvopaneshye na satyad agah (One who is not a brahmana cannot speak in this way. O gentle one, please bring the sacred fuel and I shall initiate you as a brahmana. You did not deviate from the truth). This endeavor by the guru Gautama demonstrates that only the brahmanas, kshatriyas, and vaishyas are eligible to receive the samskaras. The shudras are not eligible. Sutra 38 shravanadhyayanartham pratishedhat smritesh ca shravana-hearing; adhyayana-study; artham-for the purpose; pratishedhat-because of the prohibition; smriteh-from the smriti-shastra ca-also. This is so because the smriti-shastra also prohibits the shudras from hearing and studying (the Vedas. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The smriti-shastra says pady u ha va etat shmashanam yac chudras tasmac chudra-samipe nadhyetavyam (A shudra is a beast. He is a crematorium. For this reason he should not be taught the Vedas). The smriti also says tasmac chudro bahu-pashur ayajniyah (A shudra is a big beast. He cannot perform the Vedic sacrifices). Because of these prohibitions a shudra is not eligible to hear the Vedas. Because he is not allowed to hear the Vedas, it is therefore also not possible for him to study the Vedas, understand their meaning, or follow the rituals and penances described in them. All these are forbidden for him. The smriti-shastra says nagnir na yajnah shudrasya tathaivadhyayanam kutah kevalaiva tu shushrusha tri-varnanam vidhiyate (A shudra is not allowed to light the sacred fire or perform Vedic sacrifices. Neither is he allowed to study the Vedas. What is he allowed to do? His sole duty is to faithfully serve the three higher castes). The smriti also says vedakshara-vicarane shudro patati tat-kshanat (A shudra who studies the Vedas at once falls into degraded life). Some souls, such as Vidura and others, although born as shudras, become elevated by their attainment of perfect transcendental knowledge. By hearing and understanding the Puranas and other transcendental literatures, shudras and others can become liberated. The only real classes of higher and lower among men are determined by the final result of their lives. Adhikarana 9 The Thunderbolt in Katha Upanishad 2.3.2 Is The Supreme Personality of Godhead Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Now that this digression is concluded, he again reflects on the original topic. Vishaya: In the Katha Upanishad is read the following pasage: yad idam kincit jagat sarvam prana ejati nihshritam mahad bhayam vajram udyatam ya etad vidur amritas te bhavanti "When it breathes all the manifested world trembles in fear. They who know this thunderbolt become immortal." Samshaya: Does the word vajra here mean "thunderbolt" or the Supreme Personality of Godhead? Purvapaksha: Because the vajra here causes trembling, and because the description of liberation attained by understanding this vajra is merely a collection of meaningless poetic words, the word vajra here should be understood to mean "thunderbolt." For these reasons, and because the word prana here does not mean "breath" but "protector," in this passage it is not possible to say that the word vajra means "the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Because the phrase udyatam vajram (raised thunderbolt) contradicts this second interpretation, the word vajra must mean "thunderbolt." Siddhanta: The conclusion follows. Sutra 39 kampanat kampanat-because of trembling. Because (the entire world) trembles (the vajra must be the Supreme Personality of Godhead). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Because it makes the entire universe tremble, this vajra must be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is so also because of the following statement of Brahma-vaivarta Purana: cakram cankramanad esha vajanad vajram ucyate khandanat khadga evaisha heti-nama harih svayam "Because He goes (cankramana) everywhere He is called "Cakra" (moving in a circle). Because He moves about (vajana He is called "Vajra" (thunderbold). Because He cuts apart (khandana) the demons He is called "Khadga" (sword). These are names of Lord Hari." Also, because the word prana (breath) and the word bhaya (fear) are used, the passage must refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In these ways it is established that the word vajra here refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sutra 40 jyotir-darshanat jyotih-effulgence; darshanat-because of seeing. It is so because the vajra is described as jyotih (splendor). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Before the passage discussed is the following statement (Katha Upanishad 2.2.15): na tatra suryo bhati na candra-tarake (When He does not shine, then neither sun, moon, nor stars show their splendor). After the passage discussed is the statement (Katha Upanishad 2.3.3) bhayad asyagnis tapati (Out of fear of Him fire glows). In both these passages the Supreme Personality of Godhead is described as transcendental splendor, and therefore the passage describing the vajra (thunderbolt) between these two passages, must refer to the efulgent Supreme Personality of Godhead. Adhikarana 10 The "Akasha" in Chandogya Upanishad 8.14.1 is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In the Chandogya Upanishad (8.14.1) is the following statement: akasho ha vai nama-rupayor nirvahita te yad antara tad brahma tad amritam sa atma (Sky is the creator of names and forms. That sky within is expanded without limit. That sky is eternal. That sky is the Self). Samshaya: Does the word "sky" here refer to the jiva liberated from bondage of repeated birth and death, or does "sky" here refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead? Purvapaksha: The scriptures say ashva iva romani vidhuya papam (As a horse shakes its mane, so do I shake off all sins and become liberated). This shows that the "sky" here refers to the liberated jiva. The words yad antara (which is within) clearly points to the liberated jiva who is free from all names and forms. This is also so because the phrase "the creator of names and forms" may refer to the jiva before he was liberated. The word akasha here means "effulgence." Everything therefore indicates that the "sky" here is the liberated jiva. The words tad brahma tad amritam (it is expanded without limit. It is eternal) describe the qualities the jiva attains when he becomes liberated. Siddhanta: The conclusion follows. Sutra 41 akasho 'rthantaratvadi-vyapadeshat akashah-sky; artha-meaning; antaratva-difference; adi-beginning with; vyapadeshat-because of the description. The "sky" here is the Supreme Personality of Godhead because the "sky" described here is different from the liberated jiva, and for other reasons also. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The "sky" here is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and not the liberated jiva. Why? The sutra says arthantaratvadi-vyapadeshat (because the "sky" described here is different from the liberated jiva, and for other reasons also). The meaning is this: Because the liberated jiva cannot be the creator of names and forms, the "sky" here must be something other than him. When the jiva is not liberated but bound to the material world, he attains various names and forms by the force of his previous karma. By himself he has no power to create these names and forms. When the jiva is liberated he takes no part in the affairs of the material world, as will be described in a later sutra (4.4.17). The Supreme Personality of Godhead, however, is described in the shruti as the creator of the material world. The Chandogya Upanishad therefore says anena ?jivenatmananupravishya nama-rupe vyakaravani (With the jivas I will now enter the material world. Now I will create a variety of names and forms). For all these reasons the "sky" here should be understood to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The word adi (and for other reasons also) in the sutra refers to the phrase brahma (expanded without limit) in the passage of the Upanishad. This phrase cannot describe the liberated jiva, although it may very naturally describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this way the word "sky" refers to a sky that is all-pervading. Because this description can properly refer only to the Supreme, the "sky" here is proved to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Adhikarana 11 At Both the Time of Dreamless Sleep and the Time of the Jiva's Departure From the Material World the Jiva and the Supreme Personality of Godhead Are Different Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Purvapaksha: So be it. Still, it cannot be held that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is different from the liberated jiva. This is said because of the overwhelming evidence of scripture. For example, in the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad it is said: katama atmeti yo 'yam vijnanamayah purushah praneshu hridy-antar-jyotih sa samanah sann ubhau lokav anusancarati "Who is the Self? He is a person full of knowledge who stays in the life-breath. He is the splendor in the heart. Remaining always the same, he wanders in the two worlds." Describing the conditioned jiva in this way, the text continues: sa va ayam atma brahma vijnanamayah "This Self is the omniscient Brahman." In this way it says that the jiva is Brahman. It further says: athakamayamanah "He becomes free from all desires." This described the liberated jiva's condition. Then it says: brahmaiva san brahmapyeti "Being Brahman, he attains Brahman." In this way it is conclusively stated that he is identical with Brahman. Then, at the end it says: abhayam vai brahma bhavati ya eva veda "He who knows this becomes the fearless Brahman." The result of hearing the passage is given here. The statement, in some passages, that the jiva and Brahman are different are like the sky within a pot and the great sky beyond it. When he is liberated, the jiva becomes the Supreme just as when the pot is broken the sky in the pot becomes the same as the great sky beyond. Because the jiva is thus the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he is the creator of the universes and everything else that the Supreme is. In this way there is no difference bewteen the libreated jiva and the Supreme Brahman. Siddhanta: To refute this, he says: Sutra 42 sushupty-utkrantyor bhedena sushupti-in dreamless sleep; utkrantyor-and in death; bhedena-because of the difference. Because the difference is present in both death and dreamless sleep. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word vyapadeshat (because of the description), which was used in the previous sutra, should be understood in this sutra also. In the previously quoted passages it is not possible to dreaw the understanding that the liberated jiva is actually Brahman. Why? Because it is clearly explained that in the states of dreamless sleep and death the jiva and Brahman are different. The difference in dreamless sleep is described in these words (Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 4.3.12): prajnenatmana samparishvakto na bahyam kincana veda nantaram "Embraced by the omniscient Self, he knows nothing else, either without or within." The difference in death is described in these words from the same passage: prajnenatmana anvarudha utsarjan yati "Mounted by the omniscient Self, and groaning, he leaves." The word utsarjan here means groaning. It is not possible that the jiva, who knows hardly anything, can be the omniscient Self by whom he is mounted. Because the jiva is not omniscient it is also not possible that the omniscient Slef here is another jiva. If it is said "Because in these conditions the jiva is still influenced by material designations, your point is not proved," then the author replies: Sutra 43 paty-adi-shabdebhyah pati-Lord; adi-beginning with; shabdebhyah-because of the words. Because of the use of Pati (Lord) and other words. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In the same Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad, a little afterwards, the word "pati" and other similar words are used in these words (Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22): sa va ayam atma sarvasya vashi sarvasyeshanah sarvasyadhipatih sarvam idam prashasti yad idam kinca sa na sadhuna karmana bhuyan natra vasadhuna kaniyan esha bhutadhipatir esha lokeshvara esha loka-palah sa setur vidharana esham lokanam asambhedaya "He is the Self, the dominator over all, the controller of all, the king of all. He rules over all. He is not made greater by pious work, nor lesser by impious work. He is the king of all that is. He is the master of the worlds. He is the protector of the worlds. He is the boundary so the worlds will not break apart." From this is may be understood that Brahman, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is different from the liberated jiva. Because it cannot be said that the liberated jiva has dominion over all or control over all, and because sutra 4.4.17 will say jagad-vyapara-varjyam (The liberated jiva has not the power to create the universes), the idea the Brahman and the liberated jiva are identical is refuted. This idea is also refuted by the Taittiriya Upanishad, where it is said of Brahman: antah pravishtah shasta jananam "He is the controller in the living entities hearts." Neither can it be said that the difference between them is only because of the jiva's identification with a material body, because the shruti-shastra explains that the difference between them is present even after the jiva is liberated. In the amshadhikarana of this book (2.3.41) I will refute the identification of jiva and Brahman in more detail. The statement ayam atma brahma (the self is Brahman) simply means that the jiva has a small portion of Brahman's qualities. The phrase brahmaiva san brahmapyeti (Becoming Brahman, he attains Brahman) should be understood to mean that the jiva, by attaining a portion of eight of Brahman's qualities, becomes like Brahman. Because the shruti-shastra says paramam samyam upaiti (He becomes like Brahman), and because of the previous explanation of brahmaiva san brahmapyeti, therefore the nature of Brahman is different from that of the liberated jiva. In this proof that Brahman is different form the jiva in either conditioned or liberated states of existence, that the "sky" from which all names and forms have come is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and not the liberated jiva, is also proved. Any doubt that may have remained in spite of the statements of the sutras netaro 'nupapatteh (1.1.16) and bheda-vyapadeshac ca (1.1.17) is dispelled by this proof that even at the time of liberation the jiva remains different from Brahman. Therefore there is no fault in the explanations given for these two (1.1.16 and 1.1.17) sutras. Pada 4 Adhikarana 1 The Word "Avyakta" in Katha Upanishad 1.3.11 Refers to the Subtle Body and Not to Pradhana Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Invocation tamah sankhya-ghanodirna- vidirnam yasya go-ganaih tam samvid-bhushanam krishna- pushanam samupasmahe Let us offer our respectful obeisances to the Krishna-sun, which is decorated with transcendental knowledge, and which with its effulgence dispels the deep darkness of Sankhya. (Vishaya): Previously the sutras affirmed that the Supreme Brahman is He the knowledge of whom brings liberation, He who is the seed of the birth, maintenance, and destruction of the material universes, who is different from both the jivas and dead matter, who possesses innumerable inconceivable potencies, who is all-knowing, who possesses all auspicious qualities, who is free from all inauspiciousness, who possesses unlimited opulences, and who is supremely pure. Now we will consider the theory that the pradhana (primordial material nature) and the pum (individual living entities) together comprise all that exists (and there is no God separate from them), which is propounded in the Kapila-tantra and perhaps also seen in some branches of the Vedas. They quote the following passage from Katha Upanishad: indriyebhyah para hy artha arthebhyash ca param manah manasas tu para buddhir buddher atma mahan parah mahatah param avyaktam avyaktat purushah parah purushan na param kincit sa kashtha sa para gatih "The sense-objects are higher than the senses. The mind is higher than the sense-objects. Intelligence is higher than the mind. The mahat is higher than the intelligence. The avyakta (the unmanifested) is higher than the mahat. The purusha (the person) is higher than the unmanifested. Nothing is higher than the person. The person is the highest." Samshaya: The doubt here is whether the word avyakta (the unmanifested) refers to the pradhana (the primordial stage of material nature) or the sharira (the body). Purvapaksha: The opponent may answer this doubt by saying that because both shruti and smriti give the sequence as first mahat, then avyakta, and then purusha, therefore the word avyakta here must refer to the pradhana. Siddhanta: Whether the word avyakta refers to pradhana or sharira is explained in the following sutra. Sutra 1 anumanikam apy ekesham iti cen na sharira-rupaka-vinyasta-grihitair darshayati ca. anumanikam -the inference; apy -even; ekesham -of some; iti -thus; cen -if; na -not; sharira-the body; rupaka-the metaphor; vinyasta-placed; grihitair -because of being accepted; darshayati -reveals; ca-and. If some assume (that the word "avyakta" in this passage of the Katha Upanishad refers to the pradhana), then I say "No." The fact that this passage is part of a metaphor referring to the body clearly shows (that the word “avyakta" here means sharira). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The Kathakas (ekesham) consider (anumanikam) that the word avyakta here refers to the pradhana. The opponent may object: The etymology of the word avyakta is "That which is not (a) manifested" (vyakta). If this is so, then the word avyakta cannot mean anything except the pradhana (unmanifested material nature). What is the answer to this objection? The answer is given in this sutra in the phrase beginning with the word sharira. Because it is employed in a passage where the body is compared to a chariot, the word avyakta here refers to the sharira (body). The passage preceding this mention of avyakta, which is a metaphor where the material body is considered to be a chariot, clearly shows this. The preceding passage is given here. atmanam rathinam viddhi shariram ratham eva ca buddhim tu sarathim viddhi manah pragraham eva ca indriyani hayan ahur vishayams teshu gocaran atmendriya-mano-yuktam bhoktety ahur manishinah yas tv avijnanavan bhavaty ayuktena manasa sada tasyendriyany avashyani dushtashva iv saratheh yas tu vijnanavan bhavati yuktena manasa sada tasyendriyani vashyani sad-ashva iva saratheh yas tu vijnanavan bhavaty amanaskah sada-shucih na sa tat-padam apnoti samsaram cadhigacchati yas tu vijnanavan bhavati sa-manaskah sada shucih sa tu tat-padam apnoti yasmad bhuyo na jayate vijnana-sarathir yas tu manah pragrahavan narah so 'dhvanah param apnoti tad vishnoh paramam padam indriyebhyah para hy artha arthebhyash ca param manah manasas tu para buddhir buddher atma mahan parah mahatah param avyaktam avyaktat purushah parah purushan na param kincit sa kashtha sa para gatih "The individual is the passenger in the car of the material body, and the intelligence is the driver. Mind is the driving instrument, and the senses are the horses. The self is thus the enjoyer or sufferer in the association of the mind and senses. So it is understood by great thinkers. "For a fool who does not control his mind, the senses are wild horses drawing the charioteer. For the wise man who controls his mind the senses are good horses obedient to the charioteer. "An impious fool who does not control his mind does not attain the spiritual world. He attains the world of repeated birth and death. A pious wise man who controls his mind attains the spiritual world. He never again takes birth. "A person who has transcendental knowledge as a charioteer, and who tightly holds the reins of the mind, attains the path's final destination: the supreme abode of Lord Vishnu. "The sense-objects are higher than the senses. The mind is higher than the sense-objects. Intelligence is higher than the mind. The mahat (material nature) is higher than the intelligence. The avyakta (the unmanifested) is higher than the mahat. The purusha (person) is higher than the unmanifested. Nothing is higher than the person. The person is the highest." Here the devotee who desires to attain the abode of Lord Vishnu is described as the passenger in a chariot. His body and other possessions are described as a chariot with its various parts. The traveller who keeps the chariot and its parts under control attains the supreme abode of Lord Vishnu. After this is explained, the verses beginning indriyebhyah para hy arthah explain how in the control of the body and its various adjuncts, which are metaphorically considered a chariot and its adjuncts, the various members is more or less difficult to control. In this metaphor of the chariot the senses and other adjuncts of the body are described as horses or other adjuncts of the chariot. The indriyebhyah verses continue this discussion. Of the things mentioned in the previous verses only the body itself is not listed in the indriyebhyah verses, and therefore the single ambiguous item (avyakta) must refer to the sharira (body) by default. The pradhana interpretation of this word is also disproved because the content of the indriyebhyah verses disagrees with the tenants of sankhya philosophy. Now the following objection may be raised. The body is clearly manifest. How is it that it is here described as unmanifest? To answer this doubt the author says: Sutra 2 sukshmam tu tad-arhatvat sukshmam -subtle; tu -certainly; tad-arhatvat-because of appropriateness. The word "sharira" (body) here certainly means the sutble body (sukshma-sharira) because that is appropriate in this context. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word tu (certainly) is used here to dispel doubt. The word sharira here means sukshma-sharira (the subtle body). Why? Because that meaning is appropriate. Because it is appropriate to describe the sukshma-sharira as avyakta (unmanifest). The quote from Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.4.7) "tad dhedam tarhy avyakritam asit (Then there was the unmanifested)" shows that before the gross material universe was manifested the living force was present. This shows that the word "unmanifested" is appropriate to describe the subtle body. The objection may be raised: If the original cause is subtle, then why should that subtle cause not be described as the pradhana (unmanifested material nature) of the sankhya theory. To answer this doubt he says: Sutra 3 tad-adhinatvad arthavat tad-on Him; adhinatvad -because of dependence; arthavat-possessing the meaning. This meaning should be accepted because the pradhana (unmanifested material nature) is ultimately dependent on Him (the Supreme Brahman). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The meaning here is that because pradhana is ultimately dependent on the Supreme Brahman, which is the original cause of all causes, the creative actions of pradhana are not the original cause, but are themselves caused by the Supreme Brahman. Because pradhana is naturally inactive, it only acts when inspired by the glance of Brahman. This is described in the following statements of Vedic literature. mayam tu prakritim vidyan mayinam tu maheshvaram "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is a magician, and the material world is His magical show." Shvetashvatara Upanishad (4.10) asman mayi shrijate vishvam etat "The master of Maya creates this world." Shvetashvatara Upanishad (4.9). ya eka varno bahudha shakti-yogad varnan anekan nihitartho dadhati "He who has no rival creates the varieties of this world, using His own potencies according to His own wish." Shvetashvatara Upanishad (4.1). sa eva bhuyo nija-virya-coditm sva-jiva-mayam prakritim sishrikshatim anama-rupatmani rupa-namani vidhitsamano 'nusasara shastra-krit "The Personality of Godhead, again desiring to give names and forms to His parts and parcels, the living entities, placed them under the guidance of material nature. By His own potency, material nature is empowered to re-create." Shrimad-Bhagavatam 1.10.22 pradhanam purusham capi pravishyatmecchaya harih kshobhayam asa samprapte sarga-kale vyayavyayau "At the time of creation Lord Hari enters the changing pradhana and the unchanging living souls, and agitates them according to His wish." Vishnu Purana mayadhyakshena prakritih suyate sa-caracaram hetunanena kaunteya jagad viparivartate "The material nature, which is one of my energies, is working under my direction, O son of Kunti, producing all moving and non-moving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again." Bhagavad-gita 9.10 We do not accept the sankhya theory because it considers pradhana the original, independent cause of all causes. Sutra 4 jneyatvavacanatvac ca jneyatva-the state of being the object of knowledge; avacanatvat-because of non-description; ca-and. The "avyakta" of this passage is not described as the object of knowledge. This another reason for not interpreting this "avyakta" to be pradhana. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Claiming that liberation is obtained by understanding the difference between the the spiritual living entity, or soul and the modes of material nature, the sankhya theorists affirm that one should know the real nature of pradhana in order to obtain certain powers. Because this passage from the Katha Upanishad in no way describes any of this, the word avyakta here cannot refer to the pradhana of the Sankhyites. Sutra 5 vadatiti cen na prajno hi prakaranat vadati-says; iti -thus; cet -if; na -no; prajno -the omniscient Paramatma; hi -indeed; prakaranat-because of reference. If someone says "This passage does describe pradhana in this way" then I say "No. That statement refers to the omniscient Personality of Godhead." Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Someone may object: "Your contention that the word avyakta in this passage of Katha Upanishad cannot refer to pradhana because the avyakta here is not described as the object of knowledge has in no way been proved. Pradhana is described in this way in the very next verse (Katha Upanishad 1.3.15): ashabdam asparsham arupam avyayam tatha-rasam nityam agandhavac ca yat anady anantam mahatah param dhruvam nicayya tam mrityu-mukhat pramucyate "By meditating on the soundless, touchless, formless, unchanging, tasteless, eternal, fragranceless, beginningless, endless, Supreme Great, one becomes free from the mouth of death." Someone may object: If these words do not describe pradhana as the ultimate object of knowledge, then what do they describe? To this objection I reply: These words describe the omniscient Personality of Godhead. These words are an appropriate description of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, about whom the following words are said: purushan na param kincit sa kashtha sa para gatih "Nothing is higher than the Supreme Person. The Supreme Person is the highest." Katha Upanishad 1.3.11 esha sarveshu bhuteshu gudhatma na prakashate "Hiding in the hearts of all beings, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not openly manifest." Katha Upanishad 1.3.12 To further explain that the word in question does not refer to pradhana he says: Sutra 6 trayanam eva caivam upanyasah prashnash ca trayanam -of the three;eva -indeed; ca-certainly; evam -in this way; upanyasah -mention; prashnash -question; ca-and. In this context three questions certainly are mentioned. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word ca (certainly) here is meant to remove doubt. In this passage of Katha Upanishad only three questions are asked. They are: 1. Naciketa's request that his father be kind to him, 2. his request for celestial fire, and 3. his desire to know the true nature of the self. Nothing else is asked. There is no mention of pradhana. Sutra 7 mahadvac ca mahat-the mahat; vat -like; ca-also. This usage is like the usage of the word "mahat". Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Because the word mahan in the phrase buddher atma mahan parah (The Great Self is higher than the intelligence.) is never taken to mean the mahat-tattva (material nature) of the sankhya theory, in the same way the avyakta (unmanifested) mentioned here to be higher than this mahat should not be taken to mean the pradhana of sankhya. Adhikarana 2 The "Aja" of Shvetashvatara Upanishad 4.5 Does Not Mean Pradhana Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Now another smarta theory is refuted. The following is quoted from the Shvetashvatara Upanishad (4.5): ajam ekam lohita-shukla-krishnam bahvih prajah shrijamanam sarupah ajo hy eko jushamano 'nushete jahaty enam bhukta-bhogam ajo 'nyah "A certain unborn male serves the red, white, and black unborn female that creates the many living entities and their forms, while another another unborn male abandons her as she enjoys pleasures." Samshaya: Does the word aja here mean the pradhana of sankhya, or does it mean the potency of Brahman described in this Upanishad? Purva-paksha: Without any external help the unborn material nature creates the innumerable living entities. Siddhanta: In regard to this, the sankhyas' belief concerning the creation, he says: Sutra 8 camasavad avisheshat camasa-a cup; vat -like; avisheshat-because of not being specific. (The word "aja" in Shvetashvatara Upanishad 4.5 does not mean the sa6nkhya conception of material nature) because of the lack of a specific description. It is like the word "camasa" (cup) in Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 2.2.3. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word na (not) should be read into this sutra from sutra 1.4.5. It cannot be said that the female described here is the material nature as described in the sankhya-smriti. Why? Because the material nature is not specifically described in this passage. Because there is no specific description, but only the mention of being unborn in the word aja, which is derived from the phrase na jayate (it is not born). It is like the example of the cup. In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (2.2.3) it is said: arvag-bilash camasa urdhva-budhna "There is a cup with its mouth down and its bottom up." It is not possible to take the word camasa, which is derived from the verb cam (to drink), in this mantra as literally a cup, or vessal to consume what was offered in a yajna. It is also not possible to consider the meaning of a word without reference to etymology. For this reason it is not possible to interpret the ?word in this mantra as the material nature described in the sankhya-smriti. It is also not possible because the sankhya-smriti considers that material nature creates the living entities independently. The aja here is the potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, which is described in the Vedas. Giving a specific reason to accept this, he says: Sutra 9 jyotir upakrama tu tatha hy adhiyate eke jyotih-light; upakrama-beginning with; tu-indeed; tatha-in that way; hi-indeed; adhiyate-iread; eke-some. Light is its origin. Also, other passages confirm it. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word tu (but) is used in the sense of certainty. The word light is used to mean the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this way He is celebrated in the shruti-shastra (Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 10.4.16): tad deva jyotisham jyotih "The demigods meditate on Him, the light of lights." The word upakrama should be understood here in the sense of "cause". Because this aja (unborn) has Brahman as its cause, its being unborn is metaphorical only, just as the "cup" in Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 2.2.3. In that passage it is said: arvag-bilash camasa urdhva-budhna "There is a cup with its mouth down and its bottom up." As the "cup" here is actually the skull, in the same way the aja (unborn) here is not actually unborn, but is the potency born from Brahman, as is described in the first and fourth chapters of Shvetasvatara Upanishad. The first quote is (Shvetasvatara Upanishad 1.3): te dhyana-yoganugata apashyan devatma-shaktim sva-gunair nigudham "The dhyana-yogis saw the Supreme Lord's potency, which was hidden by its own qualities." The second quote is (Shvetasvatara Upanishad 4.1): ya eka-varno bahudha shakti-yogat "He (the Lord) who is one has become many by the touch of His potency." Then the author gives another reason in the sutra's words tatha hi. Hi in this context means "reason". The reason is the evidence given in other passages (adhiyate eke). That the material nature is born from the Supreme Personality of Godhead is also explained in the following passage (Mundaka Upanishad 1.1.9): tasmad etad brahma nama rupam annam ca jayate "From Him (the Lord), pradhana, names, forms, and food, are all born." The word brahma here means pradhana, which is situated in the three modes of nature, and which is also called brahma in Bhagavad-gita (14.3): mama yonir mahad brahma "The total material substance, called Brahman, is the source of birth."* Now our opponent may ask: How, then, is the material nature unborn? Then, if it is unborn, how can it be born from light? Fearing that these questions may be raised, he says: Sutra 10 kalpanopadeshac ca madhv-adi-vad avirodhah kalpana-creation; upadeshat-from the instruction; ca-certainly; madhv-honey; adi-beginning with; vad -like; avirodhah-not a contradiction. Because it is said to be created by the Supreme it is not a contradiction to say that pradhana is both created and uncreated. In this way its is like honey and some other things that are both created and uncreated. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana This doubt is dispelled by the word ca (certainly). It is possible for pradhana to be both created and uncreated. How is that? That is explained by the word kalpana. Kalpana here means “creation". It should be understood in that way because it was used with that sense in the Rn Veda's statement, yatha-purvam akalpayat (In the beginning the Supreme Personality of Godhead created thew world). The meaning of this is that the pradhana is manifested from the Supreme Brahman, who is the master of the potencies of darkness. That is the truth in this matter. The Lord has an eternal and very subtle potency named tamas (darkness), which is described in the following statement (Rig Veda 10.1.29.3): tama asit tamasa gudham agre praketam yada tamas tan na diva na ratrih "In the beginning was darkness. Darkness covered everything. When the darkness was manifested there was neither day nor night." Tamas is also described in the Culika Upanishad: gaur anadavati "Matter has no power to speak." At the time of cosmic annihilation pradhana attains oneness with Brahman, but does not merge into Brahman. In the passage from shruti-shastra beginning with the words prithivy apsu praliyate it is said that the material elements, beginning from earth and culminating in ether, all merge into tamas (darkness), but there is no mention of tamas merging into another substance because tamas is already one with the Supreme. Because tamas is very subtle there is no possibility of it being separate from the Supreme, and therefore it is one with Him. It is not otherwise. This does not mean that tamas is identical with the Supreme. If it meant identity with the Supreme the use of the pratyaya cvi in eki-bhavati, would not be appropriate. When the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of the tamas potency, desires to create, from Him arises the unmanifested (avyakta) three modes of material nature. The shruti-shastra explains: mahan avyakte liyate avyaktam akshare aksharam tamasi "The mahat merges into the avyakta, the avyakta merges into the akshara, and the akshara merges into tamas." The Mahabharata explains, tasmad avyaktam utpannam tri-gunam dvija-sattama "O best of the brahmanas, the unmanifested three modes of material nature was born from the Supreme Personality of Godhead." These passages from scripture clearly describe the creation of pradhana and the other elements. In this way the the scriptures teach that pradhana is created and that it is both cause and effect simultaneously. The Vishnu Purana explains this in the following words: pradhana-pumsor ajayoh karanam karya-bhutayoh "Lord Vishnu is the cause of the unborn Pradhana and Purusha." At the time of creation the three modes of material nature arise in pradhana and pradhana manifests many different names, such as pradhana-avyakta, and many different forms in red and other colors. At this time it is said that the pradhana is manifested from the Supreme Light (jyotir-utpanna). Next he (the author of the sutras) gives an example: "It is like honey and other similar things (madhv-adi-vat)." The sun, when it is a cause, remains one, and when it is an effect it becomes other things, such as the honey enjoyed by the Vasus. In this way the sun is both cause and effect simultaneously. There is no contradiction in this. Adhikarana 3 The Phrase "Panca-panca-janah" in Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 4.4.17 Does Not Refer to the 25 Elements of Sankhya Vishaya: The Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 4.4.17 explains: yasmin panca-panca-jana akashash ca pratishthitah tam eva manya atmanam vidvan brahmamrito 'mritam "I, who am immortal spirit, meditate on the Supreme Brahman, in whom the ether element and the panca-panca-jana rest." Samshaya: Do the words panca-panca-jana refer to the 25 elements described in the Kapila-tantra, or to some five other things? Purvapaksha: Because panca-panca is a bahuvrihi-samasa and panca-panca-janah is a karmadharaya-samasa, the word panca-panca-janah refers to the 25 elements described by Kapila. Somehow the two elements atma and akasha are here added to the list of elements. The word jana here means tattva (elements). Siddhanta: He says: Sutra 11 na sankhyopasangrahad api nana-bhavad atirekac ca na -not; sankhya-of numbers; upasangrahat -because of enumeration; api -even; nana-various; bhavat-states; atirekat-because of going beyond; ca-and. Even though they give the same numbers as the sankhya theory, these words do not refer to the sankhya theory because the the numbers here actually exceed sankhya's numbers and because the elements of sankhya are variegated (and not grouped into five groups of five). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word api (even) here is used in the sense of "even if we consider for a moment this view." By noting that the number here is the same number as the sankhya elements does not prove that panca-panca-jana refers to the sankhya elements. Why? The answer is given in the words beginning nana-bhavat. Because the variegated sankhya elements are not divided into five groups of five, it is not possible to accept the 5 X 5 here as referring to the 25 sankhya elements. Also, the addition of atma and akasha brings the number up to 27. Simply by hearing the word panca five) twice one should not be bewildered into thinking these two fives refer to the 25 elements of the sankhya theory. “What is your interpretation of panca-panca-jana?" someone may ask. The word panca-jana is the name of a group just as the word saptarshi (the seven sages) is the name of a group. This is explained by Panini (Ashtadhyayi 2.1.50) in the words dik-sankhye samjnayam (Words indicating direction or number may be compounded with another word in the same case). As each of the saptarshis may be called saptarshi, in the same way there may be five panca-janas, each of whom may be called a panca-jana, and all the panca-janas together may be called the five panca-janas. In this way the meaning of the word panca-jana is very clear. Who are these panca-janas? To answer this question he says: Sutra 12 pranadayo vakya-sheshat prana-breath; adayah -beginning with; vakya-of the statement; sheshat-from the remainder. The panca-janas here are five things beginning with prana (breath), as is clear from the words immediately following the mention of panca-jana. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The five things beginning with prana are described in the following words (Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 4.4.18): pranasya pranam uta cakshushash cakshur uta shrotrasya shrotram annasyannam manaso ye mano viduh "They know the breath of breath, the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, the food of food, the mind of the mind." The objection may be raised: The word annam (food) here is included in the Madhyandina recension of the Upanishad but not in the Kanva recension. In the Kanva recension, then, there are only four items and not five. To answer this doubt he says: Sutra 13 jyotishaikesham asaty anne jyotisha-by light; ekesham -of some; asaty -in the absence; anne-of food. In some versions (the Kanva recension) the word "jyotih" (light) replaces the word "anna" (food). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In the version of some (the Kanvas), even though the word anna is missing, the addition of the word jyotih brings the number up to five. This word jyotih is found in Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 4.4.6 in the words tad deva jyotisham jyotih (The demigods worship Him, the light of lights). The word jyotih appears here in both recensions and it should be counted among the five or not as is appropriate. Adhikarana 4 Brahman Is The Only Original Cause The sankhya theorist raises another doubt: "It cannot be said that the Vedanta describes Brahman as the sole cause of the universe, for the Vedanta philosophy does not describe a single original cause of creation. In Taittiriya Upanishad 2.1.1 atma (self) is revealed as the source of creation in the following words: tasmad va etasmad atmana akashah sambhutah "From atma the sky was born." Another passage (Tatittiriya Upanishad 2.7.1) describes asat (non-existence) as the original cause in the following words: asad va idam agra asit tato va sad ajayata tad atmanam svayam akuruta "In the beginning was non-existence. From non-existence existence was born. Existence created the self." Another passage (Chandogya Upanishad 1.9.1) affirms that akasha (sky) is the original cause: asya lokasya ka gatir ity akasha iti hovaca "What is the origin of this world? Sky is the origin, he said." Another passage (Chandogya Upanishad 1.11.5) affirms that breath is the original cause in the following words: sarvani ha va imani bhutani pranam evabhisamvishanti "Everything was born from breath and ultimately enters into breath again." Another passage again proclaims asat (non-existence) as the original cause in the following words: asad evedam agra asit tat samabhavat "In the beginning was non-existence. From non-existence this world was manifested." Another passage (Chandogya Upanisad 6.2.1) proclaims Brahman the original cause in the following words: sad eva saumyedam agra asit "O saintly one, in the beginning was Brahman." Another passage (Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 1.4.7) proclaims avyakrita (the unmanifested) as the original cause in the following words: tad vaidam tarhy avyakritam asit tan-nama-rupabhyam vyakriyata " In the beginning was the unmanifested. From it all the names and forms have come." Many other passages could also be quoted to show the different theories of creation. Because in these passages of the Vedas many different things have been described as the sole original cause of creation, it cannot be said that Brahman is the sole cause of the creation of the world. However, it is possible to say that pradhana is the sole cause of creation, as we find in the passage (beginning with the word tarhi already quoted from the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad. If this view is accepted, then the contradiction of seeing one thing sometimes as the original cause and sometimes as a product of the original cause becomes at once resolved. Because it is all-pervading the pradhana can appropriately be called atma, akasha, and brahma, because it is the resting-place of all transformations and because it is eternal it may appropriately be called asat, and because it is the origin of all breathing it may metaphorically be called breath. When the scriptures state that the original cause performed activities, such as thinking (Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 1.2.5 explains sa aikshata: The original cause thought.) these may also be considered metaphors. All this evidence clearly demonstrates that pradhana is the original cause of creation of the world as described in the Vedanta literature. In the context of this argument: Sutra 14 karanatvena cakashadishu yatha vyapadishtokteh karanatvena -as the cause; ca-certainly; akasha-sky; adishu -beginning with; yatha -as; vyapadishta-described; ukteh-from the statement. The Upanishads state that Brahman is the cause of sky and the other elements. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word ca (certainly) is used here to dispel doubt. It may be said that Brahman is the only cause of the world. Why? Because "the Upanishads state that Brahman is the cause of sky and the other elements." The words yatha vyapadishtam (as described) mean “Brahman who in the lakshana-sutra ofVedanta (1.1.2) and in other places in Vedic literature is described as all-knowing, all-powerful, and full of all other powers and virtues." This is true because in all Vedanta literatures Brahman is described as the original cause of sky and all the elements. That Brahman is all-knowing and full of a host of transcendental qualities: is described in the following words (Taittiriya Upanishad 1.2.2): satyam jnanam anantam "Brahman is eternal, limitless, and full of knowledge." That Brahman is the original cause of all causes is described in these words (Taittiriya Upanishad 1.2.3): tasmad va etasmat "From Brahman sky is manifested." The qualities of Brahman are described in the following words (Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1): sad eva saumyedam "O gentle one, in the beginning was the eternal Brahman." Also, in these words (Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.3): tad aikshata bah syam "He thought: I shall become many." The truth of Brahman is also described in the following words (Taittiriya Upanishad 6.2.3): tat tejo 'shrijata " Then He created light." The relationship between cause and effect in regard to Brahman we will describe later on. The words atma, akasha, prana, sat, and Brahman mean “all-pervading", "all-effulgent," "all-powerful," "the supreme existence," and "the greatest," respectively. These words are very appropriate as names for Brahman. In the same way the statement sa aikshata (He thought.) is very appropriate for Brahman. Now, describing the meaning of the words asat (non-existence) and avyakrita (unmanifested), he says: Sutra 15 samakarshat samakarshat-from appropriateness. The words "asat" (non-existence) and “avyakrita" (unmanifested) also refer to Brahman, for that interpretation is appropriate in this context. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Because it is preceded by the words so 'kamayata (He desired.) the word asat in the Taittiriya Upanishad 2.7.1 passage asad va idam agra asit (In the beginning was asat) must refer to the Supreme Brahman, and because it is preceded by the words adityo brahma (splendid Brahman) the word asat in the passage asad evedam (In the beginning was asat) must also refer to the Supreme Brahman. Because before the creation of the material world the Supreme Brahman's names and forms had not existed in the material world, the Supreme Brahman is sometimes known as asat (non-existence). The idea that asat and not the Supreme Brahman is the original cause of creation is refuted in the following statement of Chandogya Upanishad (6.2.1-2): sad eva saumyedam agra asid ekam evadvitiyam tad dhaika ahur asad evedam agra asid ekam evadvitiyam tasmad asatah saj jayate. kutas tu khalu saumyaivam syad iti hovaca katham asatah saj jayeteti sat tv eva saumyedam agra asid ekam evadvitiyam. "O gentle one, in the beginning was sat, who is one without a second. Some say that in the beginning was asat, who is one without a second, and from that asat the sat was born. O gentle one," he said, "how is it possible that the sat was born from the asat? O gentle one, it is the sat, which is one without a second, that existed in the beginning." The idea that asat was the original cause of creation is also refuted by the argument of time. Note: The argument of time is that is not possible to use the verb "to be" with the nound asat (non-existence). Because it is thus not possible to say "In the beginning non-existence was," it is also not possible to say that asat (non-existence) was the original cause of creation. In this way the wise declare that it is not possible for non-existence to be the cause of creation and for this reason when asat is described as the cause of creation it must refer to the Supreme Brahman, who is asat because His transcendental potencies are supremely subtle and fine. That is the proper understanding of the word asat in this context. The Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.4.7) explains: tad vaidam tarhy avyakritam asit tan-nama-rupabhyam vyakriyata "In the beginning was the avyakrita. From it all the names and forms have come." The word avyakrita should be understood to mean Brahman. In the words sa esha iha pravishtah (Then He entered within) that immediately follow it becomes clear that the avyakrita that becomes manifested by name and form is the powerful Supreme Brahman who appears by His own wish. Any conclusion other than this would oppose the clear teachings of Vedanta-sutra and the general conclusions of all the shruti-shastras. For these reasons it is therefore confirmed that the Supreme Brahman is the actual cause of the material universes. Adhikarana 5 The "Purusha" of the Kaushitaki Upanishad Is Brahman Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In the next passage the author of the sutras) again refutes the sankhya theory. In the Kaushitaki Upanishad 4.18 Balaki Vipra promises “I shall tell you about Brahman," and proceeds to describe 16 purushas, beginning with the sun-god, as Brahman. King Ajatashatru then rejects these instructions and says: “O Balaki, the person who is the creator of these 16 purushas, the person engaged in this karma is the actual Brahman." Samshaya: At this point the doubt may be raised: "Is the superintendent of matter, the enjoyer described in the sankhya texts, or is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Vishnu, to be understood as the Brahman mentioned here? Purvapaksha: Someone may object: Because the use of the word karma here identifies this Brahman with the experiencing the results of good and bad work, because it the next passage this Brahman is described as sometimes sleeping (tau ha suptam purusham ajagmatuh, and because in the passage after that this Brahman is described as an enjoyer (tad yatha shreshthi svair bhunkte), it should be understood that the Brahman here is the jiva (individual spirit soul) described in the tantras. The use of the word prana (life-breath) here also confirms that the Brahman described here is the living individual soul. This Brahman (the jiva), which is different from matter, should thus be understood as the original cause of the many enjoyerpurushas and the original cause of their sinless activities as well. In this way it has been proven that the Brahman described in this passage is the individual spirit soul (jiva). The theory that there is a Supreme Personality of Godhead is separate from the individual spirit soul (jiva) is thus completely untenable. The text (sa aikshata) that explains that the creator thinks is thus very appropriate if it is understood that the original cause, the controller of the material energy that creates this world, is in fact the individual soul (jiva). Siddhanta: In response to this: Sutra 16 jagad-vacitvat jagat-the world; vacitvat-because of the word. (The word Brahman here means the Supreme Personality of Godhead, because the word "karma" here should be understood) to mean "jagat" (creation). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word Brahman here does not mean the kshetrajna (individual spiritual soul) described in the tantras, but rather it means the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is known by study of Vedanta. Why? Because of the use of the word jagat. Because it is accompanied by the word jagat, the word karma in this passage means "the material world composed of a mixture of matter and spirit." Because He is the original creator, this karma (material world) may be understood to be His property (yasya karma). The truth is this: the word karma, which is derived from the verb kri (to do, create) here means “creation". When this interpretation is accepted the actual meaning of the word here is understood. This interpretation refutes the mistaken idea that the individual spirit soul (jiva) is the original creator. Even the Kapila-tantra does not accept the individual living entity as the original creator. One also cannot say that by adhyasa (association) the individual living entity may be considered the creator of the material world, for all the scriptures maintain that the spirit soul is always aloof from matter. For these reasons it is the Supreme Personality of Godhead who is the original creator of the material world. It cannot be that King Ajatashatru speaks lies in this passage. Rejecting Balaki's teaching that the sixteen purushas (persons) are Brahman, Ajatashatru promises, "I will tell you about Brahman." If Ajatashatru then teaches that the jivas (individual spirit souls) are Brahman then his teaching is no different than Balaki's, and he is dishonest to reject Balaki's instruction as untrue, and then teach the same instruction as the truth. In this way the meaning of this passage is understood. "You have described these purushas (persons) as Brahman, but I will tell you of someone who is the creator of all of them," is the gist of Ajatashatru's statement. In this way it should be understood that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original cause and the entire material world is His creation. Purvapaksha: If someone objects "Because it mentions mukhya-prana (the chief breath of life) the Brahman here must be the jiva and not anyone else," then he replies: Sutra 17 jiva-mukhya-prana-lingan neti cet tad-vyakhyatam jiva-the individual spiritual entity; mukhya-the chief; prana-breath of life; lingan -because of the characteristics; na-not; iti -thus; cet -if; tad-that; vyakhyatam-has been explained. If the objection is raised that the jiva or chief breath of life is described as Brahman in this passage, then I say, "No. This has already been explained (in 1.1.31)." Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In sutra 1.1.31, which dealt with the conversation of Indra and Pratardana, this question was conclusively decided. There it was explained that in a passage where in both the beginning and the end Brahman was explicitly named, what in the beginning may seem perhaps by its characteristics to refer to the jivas or something else (without them being explicitly named) must be taken as referring to Brahman also. This passage from the Kaushitaki Upanishad begins with the words brahma te bravani (Now I will tell you about Brahman), and ends with the words sarvan papmano 'pahatya sarvesham bhutaanam shreshtham adhipatyam paryeti ya eva veda (A person who understands this becomes free from all sins. He becomes the king of all men). Because of these words understood according to the explanation given in the conversation of Indra and Pratardana (1.1.31) and because of the other arguments given here the words yasya caitat karma in this passage of Kaushitaki Upanishad should not be understood to refer to anything other than Brahman, the Personality of Godhead. Samshaya: Certainly you may connect the words karma and prana with the word etat and then interpret them to refer to Brahman, but still there are direct references to the jiva in this passage (of Kaushitaki Upanishad). The evidence of the questions and answers in this passage make it impossible to consider Brahman different from the jiva. In the question about the sleeper the jiva is asked about, and in the questions about the place of sleep, the nadis, and the senses, the jiva, who is here called prana, is also asked about. It is the jiva who awakens (at the end). In this way the entire passage is about the jiva. In this way it may be understood thgat the jiva is the Supreme. To answer this doubt he says: Sutra 18 anyartham tu jaiminih prashna-vyakhyanabhyam api caivam eke anya-another; artham -meaning; tu -but; jaiminih -Jaimini; prashna-with the questions; vyakhyanabhyam -and answers; api -also; ca-and; evam -in this way. eke-some. Jaimini thinks these questions and answers convey a different meaning and some versions of the text also give a different meaning. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word tu (but) is used here to dispel doubt. The description of the jiva here has a different meaning. Jaimini considers that this passage explains that Brahman and the jiva are different. Why? Because of the questions and answers in this passage. The questions ask about the living soul, sleeping and awake, who is different from the life-breath. The text reads: kvaisha etad balake purusha shayishta kva va etad abhut kuta etad agat (O Balaki, where does this person rest while he sleeps? From where does he come when he wakes?) In this question the difference between Brahman and the jiva may be clearly seen. The answer is given yada suptah svapnam na kancana pashyati tathasmin prana evaikadha bhavati (When he sleeps without seeing a dream he becomes one with the life-breath). The passage etasmad atmanah prana yathayatanam vipratishtante pranebhyo deva devebhyo lokah (From that Supreme Self the breath of life comes. From the breath of life the demigods come. From the demigods the planets come.) shows the difference between Brahman and the jiva. The word prana here means Lord Paramatma because Paramatma is famous as the resting-place of dreamless sleep. Into Him the jivas merge and from Him they become manifested again. The meaning of the following passage is that the nadis are merely the gateways leading to the realm of sleep. The Paramatma should be understood to be the realm where the sleepy jiva sleeps and from which the jiva emerges to enjoy (in wakefulness). In the Vajasaneyi recension of this conversation between Balaki and Ajatashatru the jiva is described as vijnanamaya full of knowledge and Brahman is clearly distinguished from him. In that reading the question is: ya esha vijnanamayah purushah kvaisha tadabhut kuta etad agat (O Balaki, where does this person full of knowledge rest while he sleeps? From where does he come when he wakes?) and the answer is given: ya esho 'ntar hridaya akashas tasmin shete (He rests in the sky within the heart). In this way the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the object of knowledge taught in this passage. Adhikarana 6 The "Atma" of Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 4.5 is Brahman and Not Jiva Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 4.5.6 Yajnavalkya teaches his wife, Maitreyi: na va are patyuh kamaya patih priyo bhavati "A husband is not dear because the wife loves the husband. A husband is dear because she loves the Self." He also says: na va are sarvasya kamaya sarvam priyam bhavati atmanas tu kamaya sarvam priyam bhavati "Everything is not dear because one loves everything. Everything is dear because one loves the Self." Again, he says: atma va are drashtavyah shrotavyo mantavyo nididhyasitavyo maitreyy atmano va are darshanena shravanena matya vijnanena idam sarvam viditam "The Self should be seen, heard, worshiped, and always meditated on. O Maitreyi, by seeing, hearing, worshiping, and understanding the Self, everything becomes known." Samshaya: In this passage which self is to be understood: the jiva (individual spirit soul) described in the Kapila-tantra, or the Paramatma (the Supreme Personality of Godhead)? Purvapaksha: Because in this passage he describes the love of husband and wife and because in the middle of the passage he says: etebhyo bhutebhyah samutthaya tany evanuvinashyati na pretya-samjnasti (He leaves the material elements, his body is destroyed, he dies and is no longer conscious), words that clearly describe a resident of the material world who is subject to birth and death, and because at the end he says: vijnataram are kena vijaniyat (How should we understand the person who is the knower?) this passage should be interpreted to describe the jiva, who is the knower described in the Kapila-tantra. One may object: "But it says that by knowing the Self everything becomes known. Certainly this refers to the Paramatma and not the jiva." but this objection is not valid. The jiva takes birth in this world with an aim to enjoy and one may figuratively say that by knowing the jiva one knows everything for one then knows the world around him meant for his enjoyment. One may again object, “This passage canot refer to the jiva because the text says amritatvasya tu nashasti vittena (By knowing Him one becomes immortal). Because it is only by knowing the Paramatma that one becomes immortal, how can this passage refer to the jiva?" This objection is also not valid because by understanding that the jiva is by nature different from matter one may also attain immortality. In the same way all descriptions in this passage that seem to refer to Brahman should be understood to refer to the jiva. In this way this entire passage describes the jiva. In this way it should be understood that the material nature, which is under the control of the jiva, is the original cause of the world. Siddhanta: In this matter: Sutra 19 vakyanvayat vakya-statement; anvayat-because of the connection. The context of this passage proves that Brahman is the object of discussion. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In this passage the Paramatma, and not the jiva of the Kapila-tantra, is described. Why? Because in the context of the whole passage, including what precedes and follows this quote, that is the appropriate interpretation. Three sages also confirm this interpretation: Sutra 20 pratijna-siddher lingam ashmarathyah pratijna-of the promise; siddher -of the fulfillment; lingam -the mark; ashmarathyah-Ashmarathya. Ashmarthya (maintains that the Self here is Paramatma because only in that way) is the promise (that by knowledge of the Self everything is known) fulfilled. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Ashmarathya maintains that the promise atmano vijnanena sarvam viditam (By knowledge of the Self everything is known) indicates that the Self referred to here is the Paramatma. It is not taught here that by knowledge of the jiva everything becomes known. On the other hand by knowledge of the cause of all causes everything becomes known. It is not possible to interpret these words in a figurative way because after promising that by knowing the Self everything becomes known, in the passage beginning brahma tam paradat (One who thinks the brahmanas rest in a place other than the Self is spurned by the brahmanas. One who thinks the kshatriyas rest in a place other than the Self is spurned by the kshatriyas. One who thinks the worlds rest in a place other than the self is spurned by the worlds) he affirms that the Paramatma is the form of everything and the resting place of the brahmanas, kshatriyas, and world. For these reasons it is not possible that the Self here can be any other than the Paramatma. It is also not possible for the individual living entity who remains under the control of karma to be the original cause of all causes decshribed in the passage beginning tasya va etasya mahato bhutasya nihshvasitam (transcendental he Vedas were manifested from the breathing of this Supreme Being). It is also not possible for (the sage Yajnavalkya) to have taught his wife, who had renounced all wealth and material benefits to attain liberation, only about the jiva and not about the Supreme Brahman. It is also not possible that the Self referred to here is the jiva because on cannot attain liberation simply by knowing the jiva. That liberation is attained only by understanding the Supreme Brahman is confirmed in the following statement of Shvetashvatara Upanishad 3.8 and 6.15: tam eva viditvati mrityum eti (By understanding the Supreme Brahman one is able to transcend death). For all these reasons it should be understood that the Self described in this passage is the Paramatma. Purvapaksha: The objection may be raised: Because the Self in this passage is described as the object of love for the husband and other persons, this self must be the jiva bound to the cycle of repeated birth and death and not the Paramatma. It cannot be said that the Self described here must be the Paramatma because that interpretation answers the promise (of Yajnavalkya to speak certain words), nor can it be said that the Self here must be the Paramatma because this Self is the shelter of the devotees, the creator of everything, all-powerful, and the origin of transcendental bliss. The jiva may also be these things, as the Padma Purana explains: yenarcito haris tena tarpitani jaganty api rajyanti jantavas tatra sthavara jangama api (One who worships Lord Hari pleases all the worlds. All moving and non-moving creatures love the devotee). In this way the Self described here is not the Paramatma. Siddhanta: Fearing that the opponent may speak these words, he says: Sutra 21 utkramishyata evam bhavad ity audulomih utkramishyatah -of a person about to depart; evam-in this way; bhavat-from this condition; iti-thus; audulomih-Audulomi. Audulomi maintains that one about to become liberated attains the transcendental qualities of the Lord. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word utkramishyatah here means a person who by following spiritual practices attains the Paramatma. Evam bhavat means "because of being dear to everyone." Atma means "Paramatma." This is the opinion of Audulomi. The passage patyuh kamaya patih priyo bhavati (A husband is not dear because the wife loves the husband. A husband is dear because she loves the Self) means that if a wife thinks "By my own power I shall become dear to my husband" her husband will not love her. However, if the wife loves the Paramatma, then Lord Paramatma will make everyone love this devotee-wife. The word kama here means "desire" and kamaya means "to fulfill the desire." The use of the dative case here is described in Panini's sutras (Ashtadhyayi 2.3.1 or Siddhanta-kaumudi 581) in the following words: kriyarthopapadasya ca karmani sthaninah (The dative case is used for the object of a verb understood but not expressed. In the dative two verbs are used together and the action is in the future). In other words this passage (patyuh kamaya) of the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad means "When He is worshiped with devotion, the Supreme Personality of Godhead makes everything a source of happiness for His devotees." This is corroborated by the following statement of Shrimad-Bhagavatam (11.14.13): akincanasya dantasya shantasya sama-cetasah maya santushta-manasah sarvah sukhamaya dishah "For a person who is renounced, self-controlled, peaceful, equal to all, and who finds his happiness in Me, every place in this world is full of joy." The passage patyuh kamaya may also be interpreted to mean "Trying to please the husband does not please him. Only when the wife tries to please the Paramatma does the husband become pleased." This interpretation is corroborated by the following statement of Shrimad-Bhagavatam (10.23.27): prana-buddhi-manah-svatma- darapatya-dhanadayah yat-samparkat priya asams tatah ko 'nyah parah priyah "Our life, property, home, wife, children, house, country, society, and all paraphernalia which are very dear to us are expansions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Who is more dear to us than the Supreme Person?" In this interpretation the word kama means "happiness" and the dative case is used in the same sense as the previous interpretation. This interpretation means that by the will of the Paramatma, by the nearness of the Paramatma, or by the touch of the Paramatma, even what is ordinarily unpleasant becomes blissful. Therefore when the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad says atma va are drashtavyah (The Self should be seen), the word atma means the dear Lord Hari. It is not possible to interpret the word atma here to mean the jiva because here the primary meaning of atma is the supremely powerful Personality of Godhead. To interpret atma in any other way would contradict the way the word had been used in the previous passage (vakya-bheda). We do not see how it is possible to interpret atma in a way different from the way it was clearly used in the immediately previous passage. In this way the word atma in atma va are drashtavyah must be the Paramatma. In both passages (atmanas tu kamaya and atma va are drashtavyah) the word atma cannot mean the jiva, for in these contexts the word atma can only refer to Brahman. Although Audulomi is a nirguna-atmavadi (impersonalist) as will be explained later on in the words (Vedanta-sutra 4.4.6) citi tan-matrena tad-atmakatvad ity audulomih (When he is liberated the jiva enters the Supreme Intelligence, for the jiva is actually intelligence only. This the the opinion of Audulomi.), still Audulomi maintains that in order to dispel ignorance and reveal the true nature of the self Lord Hari should be worshiped, as will be explained in the following words (Vedanta-sutra 3.4.45): artvijyam ity audulomis tasmai hi parikriyate (Just as a Vedic priest is purchased to perform a yajna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is purchased by His devotees' love). In this way it is proved that pure devotion to Lord Hari fulfills all desires. Our opponent may say: So be it. However, in the same Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (2.4.12) we find the following words: sa yatha saindhava-khilya udake praptam udakam evanuliyate na hasyodgrahanayaiva syad yato yatas tv adita lavanam evaivam va. are idam mahad bhutam anantam aparam vijnana-ghana evaitebhyo bhutebhyah samutthaya tany evanuvinashyati "As a little salt merges into water and cannot be again extracted from it, although the water itself becomes salty, so does this great being, limitless, endless, and full of knowledge, rise from these elements and then vanish into them." How do you reconcile this statement with your interpretation of the word atma in this Upanishad? Clearly this passage refers to the jiva described in the Kapila-tantra because that is the appropriate interpretation. To answer this doubt he says: Sutra 22 avasthiter iti kashakritsnah avasthiter -because of residence; iti -thus; kashakritsnah-Kashakritsna. This passage refers to Paramatma, for Paramatma resides within the jiva. This is the opinion of Kashakritsna. Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In this statement the word avasthiteh (residing) which refers to the Paramatma, the Great Being who is different from the jiva, and who is described as vijnana-ghana (full of knowledge), teaches that the Paramatma is different from the jiva and resides within him. Kashakritsna considers that because the Paramatma and the jiva are different the words mahad-bhutam (Great being), anantam (limitless) and vijnana-ghana cannot refer to the jiva. A summary of the passage from Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad under discussion follows. Yenaham namritah syam kim aham tena kuryam "Tell me what I must do to become free of death)." Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 4.5.4) Asked this question about the means to attain liberation, the sage answered: atma va are drashtavyah shrotavyo mantavyo nididhyasitavyo maitreyy atmano va are darshanena shravanena matya vijnanena idam sarvam viditam "The Self should be seen, heard, worshiped, and always meditated on. O Maitreyi, by seeing, hearing, worshiping, and understanding the Self, everything becomes known." In this way he explains that the worship of Paramatma is the way to attain liberation. Then he says: sa yatha dundubher hanyamanasya bahyan chabdan chakruyad grahanaya dundubhes tu grahanena dundubhy-aghatasya va shabdo grihitah "As the sounds of a drum when beaten cannot be seized externally, although when the drum or the player of the drum are seized then the sounds are also seized). Thus, in a very general way he explains the proper method of worshiping the Paramatma: sense-control. He continues in the following words: sa yathardhraidho 'gner abhyahitasya prithag dhuma vinishcaranty evam va are 'sya mahato bhutasya nishvasitam etad yad rig vedo yajur vedah sama-vedo 'tharvangirasa itihasah puranam vidya upanishadah shlokah sutrany anuvyakhyanani vyakhyananishtam hutam ashitam payitam ayam ca lokah parash ca lokah sarvani ca bhutany asyaikaitani sarvani nishvasitani. sa yatha sarvasam apam samudra ekayanam evam sarvesham sparshanam tvacaikayanam evam sarvesham rasanam jihvaikayanam evam sarvesham gandhanam nasikaikayanam evam sarvesham rupanam cak.sur ekayanam evam sarvesham shabdanam shrotram ekayanam evam sarvesham sankalpanam mana ekayanam evam sarvasam vidyanam hridayam ekayanam evam sarvesham karmanam hastav ekayanam evam sarvesham anandanam upastha ekayanam evam sarvesham visarganam payur ekayanam evam sarvesham adhvanam padav ekayanam evam sarvesham vedanam vag ekayanam "As smoke comes from a fire made with wet fuel, the Rig Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda, Atharva Veda, Puranas, Itihasas, Vidyas, Upanishads, shlokas, sutras, vyakhyas, and anuvyakhyas, come from the breath of the Supreme Person. As the ocean is the sole resting place of all waters, so the skin is the sole resting-place of all tactile sensations, the nose is the sole resting-place of all fragrances, the tongue is the sole resting-place of all tastes, the eyes are the sole resting-place of all forms, the ears are the sole resting-place of all sounds, the mind is the sole resting-place of all thoughts and desires, the heart is the sole resting place of all knowledge, the hands are the sole resting-place of all work, the genitals are the sole resting-place of all material bliss, the anus is the sole resting-place of all expulsions, the feet are the sole resting-place of all pathways, and words are the sole resting-place of all the Vedas)." To encourage the desire for liberation he says: sa yatha saindhava-khilya udake praptam udakam evanuliyate na hasyodgrahanayaiva syad yato yatas tv adita lavanam evaivam va. are idam mahad bhutam anantam aparam vijnana-ghana evaitebhyo bhutebhyah samutthaya tany evanuvinashyati "As a little salt merges into water and cannot be again extracted from it, although the water itself becomes salty, so does this great being, limitless, endless, and full of knowledge, rise from these elements and then vanish into them." In this way he explains that the supreme object of worship is immanent: always near to the jiva. In the words etebhyo bhutebhyah samutthaya tany evanuvinashyati (So does this great being, limitless, endless, and full of knowledge, rise from these elements and then vanish into them) he describes the non-devotees who do not worship the Lord, who mistake the external material body for the self, who at the time of death remain in the cycle of repeated birth and death, and for whom the Supreme Lord remains invisible, hidden within the material elements. The words na pretya samjnasti (After death he becomes free of the world of names) describe the devotee when he leaves the material body and attains liberation. At that time the liberated devotee becomes aware of his real spiritual identity. He then considers all material designations to be the same and he no longer thinks of himself as a human being, demigod, or any other kind of material being. The words yatra hi dvaitam iva bhavati tad itara itaram pashyati tad itara itaram jighrati tad itara itaram rasayate tad itara itaram abhivadati tad itara itaram shrinoti tad itara itaram manute tad itara itaram sprishati tad itara itaram vijanati yatra tv asya sarvam atmaivabhut tat tena kam pashyet tat tena kam jighret tat kena kam rasayet tat kena kam abhivadet tat kena kam shrinuyat tat kena kam manvita tata tena kam sprishet tat tena kam vijaniyat (Where there is duality one sees another, smells another, tastes another, offers respect to another, hears another, thinks of another, touches another, and is aware of another. But for one for whom the Supreme Self is everything how can he see another? How can he smell another? Hopw can he taste another? How can he offer respect to another? How can he hear another? How can he think of another? How can he touch another? How can he be aware of another?) explain how the liberated jiva takes shelter of the the Paramatma. The words yenedam sarvam vijanati tam kena vijaniyat (How can a person, even if he understands the entire world, understand Him?) teach that it is very difficult to understand the Supreme Lord. The words vijntaram are kena vijaniyat (How can one understand the Supreme Knower?) mean "How can one understand the all-knowing Supreme Personality of Godhead without first worshiping Him and attaining His mercy? There is no other way than this." In this way the worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is described as the actual means of liberation. The speaker of the Upanishad concludes by declaring that actual liberation is the same as attaining the Paramatma. From all this it may be understood that this passage of the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad describes the Paramatma and not the purusha as described in the Kapila-tantra, or the material nature controlled by the purusha. Adhikarana 7 Brahman is Both Primary and Secondary Cause Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Vishaya: Now that he has refuted the atheistic pradhana theory, he will refute some theistic theories and prove that all scriptural descriptions of the cause of the universe refer to the Supreme Brahman. Let us consider the following scriptural passages. tasmad va etasmad atmana akashah sambhutah "From atma the sky was manifested." Taittiriya Upanishad 2.1.1 yato va imani bhutani jayante "From the Supreme these creatures were born." Taittiriya Upanishad 2.1.1 sad eva saumyedam agra asid ekam evadvitiyam tad aikshata bahu syam prajayeya "O gentle one, in the beginning was the Supreme, who was one without a second. He thought: Let me become many. Let me become the father of many." Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1 sa aikshata lokan nu shrija "He thought: Now I shall create the worlds." Aitareya Upanishad 1.1.2 Samshaya: Should Brahman be considering the Primary Cause or the ingredient of the creation? Because the Upasnishads say sa aikshata (He thought: "Now I shall create the worlds") the first proposal, that Brahman is the Primary cause and not the ingredient of creation, should be considered true. Although the Upanishad says tasmad va etasmad atmana akashah sambhutah (From atma the sky was manifested) still this should be interpreted to mean only that the Supreme is the Primary Creator (and not the ingredient of creation) of the worlds. The quotes tad aikshata bahu syam prajayeya (He thought: "Let me become many. Let me become the father of many.") and sa aikshata lokan nu shrija (He thought: "Now I shall create the worlds."), because of their clear explanation that the Lord's thinking precedes the creation, show that the Lord is the Primary Creator in the same way a potter is the creator of pots. Because the creation itself and the ingredients of which it is made must have the same nature, the ingredient of the material creation must be the material energy (prakriti). It is not possible to say that the Primary Cause of creation is identical with the ingredients of the creation. In the material world made of dull matter the ingredients are earth and the other elements and the creator is consciousness, just as pots are made of the elements and the creator of the pots is the conscious potter. Here the pots and the potter are clearly different. Furthermore many diverse causes may create a single effect. Therefore it cannot be said that a single thing is both the primary cause and the ingredient of creation. The changing material energy (prakriti), which is controlled by the unchanging Brahman is the ingredient of the changing material universe and Brahman is only its Primary Cause. This statement is not based only on logic, for it is also supported by the following passage of the Culika Upanishad: vikara-jananim ajnam ashta-rupam ajam dhruvam dhyayate 'dhyasita tena tanyate prerita punah suyate purushartham ca tenaivadhishthita jagat gaur anady-antavati sa janitri bhuta-bhavini sitasita ca rakta ca sarvakam adhuna vibhoh pibanty enam avishamam avijnatah kumarakah ekas tu pibate devah svacchando 'tra vashanugam dhyana-kriyabhyam bhagavan bhunkte 'sau prasabham vibhuh sarva-sadharanim dogdhrim piyamanam tu yajvabhih catur-vimshati-sankhyakam avyaktam vyaktam ucyate "The Supreme Personality of Godhead meditates on the unborn, eternal, unintelligent material nature (prakriti), who has eight forms, and by His order the material nature creates the material worlds and the various goals of life adopted by the living entities. Material nature is a beginningless, endless cow, the mother of the worlds. Without knowing, her children, the creatures in goodness, passion, and ignorance all drink her nourishing milk. The one independent, all-powerful Supreme Personality of Godhead strongly enjoys her with thought and deed, she who is the milk-giving mother of all, who is drunk by the performers of sacrifice, and who is said to be both the unmanifested and the manifested divided into 24 elements." Furthermore, the Vishnu Purana says: yatha sannidhi-matrena gandhah kshobhaya jayate manaso nopakartritvat tathasau parameshvarah sannidhanad yathakasha- kaladyah karanam taroh tathaivaparigamena vishvasya bhagavan harih nimitta-matram evasau shrishtanam sarga-karmani pradhana-karini bhuta yato vai shrijya-shaktayah "When there is a fragrant flower before someone, the fragrance is touched by the smelling power of the person, yet the smelling and the flower are detached from one another. There is a similar connection between the material world and the Supreme Personality of Godhead: actually He has nothing to do with this material world, but He creates by His glance and ordains. In summary, material nature, without the superintendence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, cannot do anything. Yet the Supreme Personality is detached from all material activities." For these reasons whatever scriptural passages state that Brahman is the ingredient of the creation should be interpreted to have a different meaning. SiddhantaTo this argument: Sutra 23 prakritish ca pratijna drishtantanuparodhat prakritih -material nature; ca -and; pratijna -the proposition to be proved; drishtanta-example; anuparodhat-because of not contradicting. Brahman is also the material nature (prakriti) because this view is not contradicted by the statements and examples (given in the scriptures). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Brahman is the material nature (prakriti), the ingredient of the world. How is that? It is so because pratijna-drishtantanuparodhat, which means “Because this view is not contradicted by the statements and examples of the scriptures." An example may be given from the Chandogya Upanishad 6.1.3: shvetaketo yan nu saumyedam maha-mana anucana-mani stabdho 'sy uta tam adesham aprakshir yenashrutam shrutam bhavaty amatam matam avijnatam vijnatam ity eka-vijnanena sarva-vijnana-vishaya pratijna "Gentle Shvetaketu, you are now very proud and arrogant, thinking yourself a great Vedic scholar. Did you ask for the teaching that makes the unheard heard, the unthinkable thinkable, and the unknown known?" Here the statement is the existence of a single teaching, the knowledge of which makes everything known. This teaching must be about the ingredient of the world for only that knowledge would not contradict the description in this passage. That ingredient of the world is not different from the original creator of the world. They are one, unlike the pot and the potter, which are different from each other. The following example is given (Chandogya Upanishad 6.1.10): yatha saumyaikena mrit-pindena sarvam mrin-mayam vijnatam syat "O gentle one, as by knowing the nature of clay, everything made of clay becomes known, in the same way by understanding this one teaching everything becomes known." These words of the shruti must refer to the ingredient of the world. they cannot refer to only the original creator of the world, for by understanding only the potter one does not understand the pot. Therefore, to avoid contradicting these words of the scripture, it must be concluded that Brahman is not only the original creator of the world, but the ingredient of which the world is made as well. Sutra 24 abhidhyopadeshac ca abhidhya-will; upadeshac -because of the teaching; ca-and. Because (the scriptures) teach (that in this age the world was created by His) will and (in previous creations the world was also created by His will, it must be concluded that Brahman is both the original cause of creation and the ingredient of the creation as well). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In this sutra the word ca (and) means "and many other things that are not explicitly mentioned here." The Taittiriya Upanishad (2.6.1) explains: so 'kamayata bahu syam prajayeya sa tapo 'tapyata tapas taptva idam sarvam ashrijat. yad idam kincana tat shrishtva tad evanupravishat. tad anupravishya sac ca tyac cabhavat. "He desired: I will become many. I will father many children. He performed austerities and created everything. Then He entered within the world He had created. After He entered He became all that is manifest and all that is unmanifest." Because it is here taught that by His own desire He resides as Paramatma within all conscious living entities and unconscious matter, and because it is also taught here that he is the creator of everything, it must be concluded that He is both the ingredient of the which the creation is made and the original creator and as well. Sutra 25 sakshac cobhayamnanat sakshat -directly; ca-certainly; ubhaya-both; amnanat-because of direct statement. (Brahman is both creator and the ingredient of creation) because both (truths) are directly stated (in the scriptures). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The word ca here means "certainly." The Taittiriya Brahmana (2.8.9.6) explains: kimsvid vanam ka u sa vriksha asit yato dyava-prithivi nishtatakshuh manishino manasa pricchataitat yad adhyatishthad bhuvanani dharayan brahma vanam brahma sa vriksha asit yato dyava-prithivi nishtatakshuh manishino manasa prabravimi vo brahmadhyatishthad buvanani dharayan "What was the forest? What was the tree? From what tree in what forest did He fashion heaven and earth? Ask these questions, O wise ones. Where did He stand when He created the worlds? Brahman was the forest. Brahman was the tree. From Brahman He created heaven and earth. O wise ones, I tell you, He stood on Brahman when He created the worlds." These questions and answers clearly show that Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient from which the creation is made. From the tree-ingredient the creation, designated by the word "heaven and earth" comes. The word nishtatakshuh means "the Supreme Personality of Godhead created." Although nishtatakshuh is plural, the opposite, the singular, is intended here. This is a use of Vedic poetic license. The questions "What is the tree? What is the forest where the tree rests? Where does He stand when He created the worlds?" are asked in terms of the things of this world and the answers describe something beyond this world. In this way it may be understood that Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of which the world is made. Sutra 26 atma-kriteh parinamat atma-self; kriteh -because of making; parinamat-because of transformation. (Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of the creation) because He transformed Himself (into the world). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The Taittiriya Upanishad (2.6.2) says: so 'kamayata "He desired: I shall become many." It also says (2.7.1): tad atmanam svayam akuruta "He created the world from His own Self." In this way the scriptures explain that Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient from which the creation is made. Someone may object: How can the eternally-perfect creator be also the creation? To answer this objection he says parinmat (because He has transformed Himself). This does not contradict the changelessness of Brahman for a certain kind of transformation is not incompatible with changelessness. Here is the truth of this. In the following passages the shruti explains that Brahman has three potencies: parasya shaktir vividhaiva shruyate "The Supreme has many potencies." Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6.8 pradhana-kshetrajna-patir guneshah "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of pradhana (material nature), kshetrajna (the individual spirit souls), and guna (the three material modes)." Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6.16 The smriti (Vishnu Purana) also explains: vishnu-shaktih para prokta kshetrajnakhya tatha para avidya-karma-samjnanya tritiya shaktir ucyate "The potency of Lord Vishnu is summarized in three categories: namely the spiritual potency, the living entities, and ignorance. The spiritual potency is full of knowledge; the living entitles, although belonging to the spiritual potency, are subject to bewilderment; and the third energy, which is full of ignorance, is always visible in fruitive activities." In this way the scriptures explain that Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of which the creation is made. He is the first (the creator) by the agency of His spiritual potency and He is the second (the ingredient of which the creation is made) by the agency of the other two potencies. This interpretation is confirmed by the aphorism sa-visheshena vidhi-nishedhau visheshanam upasankramate (an adjective describes both what a noun is and what it is not). The scriptures also explain (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 4.1): ya eko 'varno bahudha shakti-yogad varnan anekan nihitartho dadhati vi caiti cante vishvam adau sa devah sa no buddhya shubhaya samyunaktau "May the one, unrivalled Supreme Personality of Godhead, who for His own purpose created the many varieties of living entities by the agency of His potencies, who created everything in the beginning and into whom everything enters at the end, grant pure intelligence to us." As the supreme unchangeable the Supreme Brahman is the original cause of creation, and as the parinami (the transformable) Brahman is also the ingredient of which the creation is made. In His subtle nature Brahman is the creator and in His nature as gross matter He is the creation itself. In this way it is established that the Supreme Brahman is both creator and creation. The creation is thus like a lump of clay that may be shaped in different ways. The word parinamat (because of transformation) in this sutra clearly refutes the theory that declares the material world a vivarta (illusion) that has no reality. The statement that the material world is an illusion superimposed on Brahman just as the existence of silver is an illusion superimposed on an oyster shell with a silvery sheen cannot be accepted because the oyster shell is an object that can be placed before the viewer, but Brahman, because it is all-pervading cannot be placed before the viewer and therefore an illusion cannot be superimposed on it. One may object that although the sky is all-pervading illusions may be superimposed on it. However, Brahman is not like the sky in the sense that the sky may be approached by the material observer but Brahman remains beyond the reach of the material senses and therefore an illusion cannot be superimposed on it. Furthermore, the existence of an illusion implies the existence of something different from the thing on which the illusion is superimposed. Without the existence of something separate there is no possibility of an illusion. In the end, therefore, the vivarta theory postulates the existence of something different from Brahman. This is the fault in their theory. When the scriptures state that the material world is an illusion it should be understood these words are are a device intended to create renunciation. This is the opinion of they who know the truth. The material world, however, displays a complicated structure of different elements grouped in categories of higher and lower, and in this way it is very much unlike an illusion, where nothing is very stable and one things is continually changing into another. In this way it may be understood that the vivarta theory (that the material world isd an illusion) is untrue and the parinama theory (that the material world is a transformation of Brahman) is the truth taught in the Vedic ?scriptures. Sutra 27 yonish ca hi giyate yonih-the place of birth; ca -also; hi -indeed; giyate-is declared. (The scriptures) declare that (Brahman is the) womb (from which the material world was born). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana The shruti-shastra explains: yad bhuta-yonim paripashyanti dhirah "The wise see that Brahman is the womb from which everything was born." Mundaka Upanishad 1.1.6 kartaram isham purusham brahma-yonim "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original creator, the womb from which everything was born." Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6 In these verses the word yonim (womb) describes Brahman as the ingredient of creation and the words kartaram purusham (the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the original creator) describe Brahman as the creator. In this way Brahman is described as both the creator and the ingredient of which the creation is made. The word yoni (womb) means "the ingredient of which the creation is made." This is confirmed in the words: prithivi yonir oshadhi-vanaspatinam "The earth is the womb from which the trees and plants are born." In both common sense and Vedic revelation the creator and the ingredients from which the creation is made are considered are always considered different and it is not possible to say that the creator and the ingredient of which his creation is made are identical. However, the previously quoted passages from the shruti clearly explain that in this case Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of which His creation is made. Adhikarana 8 All Names Are Names of Lord Vishnu Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana Someone may object: Many passages in the scriptures do not support your conclusion at all. This adhikarana is written to dispel this doubt. The Shvetashvatara Upanishad explains: ksharam pradhanam amritaksharah harah "Material nature is in constant flux and the Supreme, Lord Hara is eternal and unchanging." (1.10) eko rudro na dvitiyaya tasthuh "Lord Rudra is the Supreme. He has no rival." (3.2) yo devanam prabhavash codbhavash ca vishvadhiko rudrah shivo maharshih "Lord Shiva, who is known as Rudra, is the omniscient ruler of the universe. He is the father of all the demigods. He gives the demigods all their powers and opulences." (3.4) yada tamas tan na diva na ratrir na san na casac chiva eva kevalah "When the final darkness comes and there is no longer day or night, when there is no longer being and non-being, then only Lord Shiva exists." (4.18) The scriptures also explain: pradhanad idam utpannam pradhanam adhigacchati pradhane layam abhyeti na hy anyat karanam matam "From pradhana this material world was born. This world knows only pradhana. This world merges into pradhana at the time of annihilation. Nothing else is the cause of this world." jivad bhavanti bhutani jive tishthanty acancalah jive ca layam icchanti na jivat karanam param "From the jiva all the elements of this world have come. In the jiva they rest without moving, and they finally merge into the jiva. Nothing else is the cause of this world." Samshaya: Should Hara and the other names given ?in these quotes be understood in their ordinary senses, as names of Lord Shiva, pradhana, and jiva, or should they all be understood to be names of the Supreme Brahman? Purvapaksha: The names should all be understood in their ordinary senses, as names of Lord Shiva, pradhana, and jiva. Siddhanta: The conclusion follows. Sutra 28 etena sarve vyakhyata vyakhyatah etena -in this way; sarve -all; vyakhyatah -explained; vyakhyatah-explained. All (words in the scriptures) should be interpreted to agree with the explanation (that the Supreme Brahman is the original cause). Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana In this sutra the word etena means "according to the explanations already given," sarve means "Hara and the other names," and vyakhyatah means "should be understood to be names of the Supreme Brahman because all names are originally names of the Supreme Brahman." The Bhalvaveya-shruti explains: namani vishvani na santi loke yad avirasit purushasya sarvam namani sarvani yam avishanti tam vai vishnum paramam udaharanti "The names of this world are not different from Him. All names in this world are names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All names refer to Him, Lord Vishnu, whom the wise declare is the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Vaishampayana Muni explains that all these names are names of Lord Krishna. The Skanda Purana also explains: shri-narayanadini namani vinanyani rudradibhyo harir dattavan "Except for Narayana and some other names, Lord Hari gave away His names to Lord Shiva and the other demigods." This is the rule that should be followed: When the ordinary sense of these names does not contradict the essential teaching of the Vedas, the ordinary meaning should be accepted. When the ordinary sense of these names does contradict the teaching of the Vedas, these names should be understood to be names of Lord Vishnu. The repetition of the last word (vyakyatah) here indicates the end of the chapter. sarve vedah paryavasyanti yasmin satyanantacintya-shaktau pareshe vishvotpatti-sthema-bhangadi-lile nityam tasmin nas tu krishne matir nah On Lord Krishna, who is the final goal taught by all the Vedas, who is the master of unlimited and inconcievable transcendental potencies, who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and who in His own pastimes creates, maintains and destroys the material universes, may we always fix our hearts.