Adhyaya 1 – Pada 1 - 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.as 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 .aprApya 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, BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad states:
taM tv aupaniShadaM puruShaM pR^icchAmi
"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.as 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 ki~ncana
miShAt sa IkShata lokAn nu sR^ija
"Before the material world was manifest, the Supreme Self (AtmA) alone existed. Nothing else was manifested at that time. The Supreme Self then thought, .aLet me create the material planets..a"
- 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 j~nAnam advayam
brahmeti pAramAtmeti
bhagavAn iti shabdyate
"Learned transcendentalist who know the Absolute Truth call this non-dual substance Brahman, ParamAtmA or BhagavAn."*
.ashrImad-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 smR^iti-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 mokshopadeshAt
tat - that; niShThasya - of the faithful devotee; moksha - 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 adR^ishye anAtmye anirukte .anilayane abhayaM pratiShThaM vindate .atha so .abhayaM 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 prakR^iteH paraH_
sa sarva-dR^ig 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 vimu~ncAtha
"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.as modes, who all merge into something other than their self).
Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa
The BR^ihad-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 smR^iti-shAstra:
sa devo bahudhA bhUtvA
nirguNah puruShottamaHekI-bhUya punaH shete
nirdoSho harir Adi-kR^it
"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 KR^iShNa in the following words (Bhagavad-gItA 7.7):
mattaH parataraM nAnyat
ki~ncid asti dhana~njaya
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 (adR^ishya), 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 smR^iti-shAstra:
sattvAdayo na shAnTishe
yatra cAprakR^itA 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 .asau
"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.as real nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment