10. "Jyotis" Refers to Brahman

Adhyaya 1 – Pada 1 - 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 pR^iShTheShu sarvataH pR^iShTheShv 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.a 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 .asya sarva-bhUtAni tri-pad asyAmR^itaM 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-.abhidhAnAn neti cen na tathA ceto .arpaNa-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.a furthermore; darshanam - logical.


If someone were to claim: {.sy 168}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 ki~ncit


"GAyatrI is everything that exists."

tam eva bhUta-vAk-pR^ithivI-sharIra-hR^idaya-prabhedaiH


"GAyatrI is everything. GAyatrI is speech, earth, body, and mind."

caiSha catuSh-padA ShaD-vidhA gAyatrI tad etad R^icAbhyuktam


"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-pR^ithivI-sharIra-hR^idaya-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.as 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-padasyAmR^itaM 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.