Achintya Bedhabedha Tattva

60. The Principal PrANa

2006-01-14T07:08:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 4 AdhikaraNa 4

The Principal PrANa (the Life-Force) Has an Origin

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

In the MuNDaka UpaniShad (2.1.3) it is said:

etasmAj jAyate prANaH

"From Him the prANa (life-force) is born."

Here the word "prANa" means "the principal
prANa".

SaMshaya (doubt): Is the principal prANa (life-force) created
in the same way the individual spirit soul is "created"
or is this prANa created in the same way ether and the other
elements are created?

PUrvapakSha (the opponent speaks): The shruti-shAstra declares:

naiSha prANa udeti nAstam eti

"This prANa is never born and never dies."

The SmR^iti-shAstra also declares:

yat-prAptir yat-parityAga
utpattir maraNaM tathA
tasyotpattir mR^itish caiva
kathaM prANasya yujyate

"Birth and death come and go. How can birth and
death affect the prANa?"

Therefore it is concluded that the principal prANa is
created" in the same way the individual spirit soul is
created".

SiddhAnta (conclusion): In the following words the author of
the sUtras gives His conclusion.

SUtra 8

shreShThash ca

shreShThash - the principal one; ca - also.

The principal one also.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The principal prANa (life-force) is created in the same way
ether and the other elements are created. This is confirmed in
the words of the MuNDaka UpaniShad (2.1.3):

jAyate prANaH

"The prANa was created."

In its pratij~nA statement the MuNDaka UpaniShad
declares:

sa idaM sarvam asR^ijata

"He created everything."

To avoid contradicting these words it must be accepted that
the principal prANa was also created. For this reason the
scriptural passages stating that the prANa was never created
should be understood allegorically and not literally. One prANa is
called the principal prANa because it maintains the material
body. So its meaning can be carried into the next sUtra, this
sUtra is given separately and not joined to the previous sUtra.

59. The Senses Are Atomic

2006-01-14T07:06:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 4 AdhikaraNa 3

The Senses Are Atomic in Size

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Next the author of the sUtras considers the question of the
nature and size of the senses.

SaMshaya (doubt): Are the senses all-pervading or are they
atomic?

PUrvapakSha (the opponent speaks): The senses must be all-
pervading, for things can be seen or heard from far away.

SiddhAnta (conclusion): In the following words the author of
the sUtras gives his conclusion.

SUtra 7

aNavash ca

aNavaH - atoms; ca - and.

They are also atoms.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The word "ca" (also) is used here to indicate
certainty. The eleven senses are atomic in size. This is so
because the shruti-shAstra declares that the senses leave
the material body. Things can be heard from far away and in other
ways be perceived from far away because the quality, or power, of
the senses extend beyond the senses themselves. As the individual
spirit soul is all-pervading within the material body, from the
head to the feet, so the senses can also act at a distance. In
this way the theory of sa~Nkhya philosophers, that the senses are
all-pervading, is refuted.

58. The Senses Are Eleven

2006-01-14T07:03:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 4 AdhikaraNa 2

The Senses Are Eleven

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

After refuting this false idea about the senses, an idea
that contradicts the descriptions in shruti-shAstra, the author of
the sUtras refutes a false idea about how many senses there are.
In the MuNDaka UpaniShad (2.1.8) it is said:

sapta prANAH prabhavanti tasmAt
saptArciShaH samadhiH sapta-homAH
sapteme lokA yeShu sa~ncaranti
prANA guhAshayA nihitA sapta sapta

"From Him come the seven prANas, the seven arcis,
the seven homas, and the seven lokas. These seven are placed in
every heart."

However, in the BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (3.9.4) it is said:

dasheme puruShe prANA Atmaikadasha

"In the living entity there are ten prANas. The soul
is the eleventh."

SaMshaya (doubt): Are the prANas seven or eleven?

PUrvapakSha (the opponent speaks): The pUrvapakSha speaks the
following sUtra.

SUtra 5

sapta-gater visheShitvAc ca

sapta - of seven; gateH - because of going;
visheShitvAt - because of the specific description; ca - also.

Because of the departure of seven and also because of a
specific description.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The prANas are seven. Why is that? Because that is the
opinion of scripture. In the shruti-shAstra it is said:

saptAnAm eva jIvena saha sa~ncAra-rupAyA gateH

"Accompanied by the seven prANas, the soul leaves
the body."
In the KaTha UpaniShad (6.10) it is said:

yadA pa~ncAvatiShThante
j~nAnAni manasA saha
buddhish ca na viceShTeta
tAm AhuH paramAM gatim

"The sages say that the supreme goal is attained
when the five knowers are at peace and the mind and intelligence
are no longer active."

This passage describes the condition of the senses in the
state of yogic trance. This passage describes five senses, which
begin with the ears. To them are added the mind and intelligence.
In this way the living entity has seven senses. The shruti-shAstra
also describes five working instruments, beginning with the voice
and hands, but these cannot be called senses in the primary
meaning of the word because these instruments do not accompany
the soul when he leaves the material body and also because these
instruments are less useful to the soul than the seven primary
senses.

SiddhAnta (conclusion): If this is said, the author of the
sUtras replies with the following conclusion.

SUtra 6

hastAdayas tu sthite .ato naivam

hasta - the hands; AdayaH - beginning with; tu - but;
sthite - situated; ataH - therefore; na - not; evam - like that.

But when he is situated in that way, the hands and other
instruments are also present. Therefore it is not like that.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The word "tu" (but) is used here to begin the
refutation of the PUrvapakSha.as objection. Although they are not
included among the seven, the instruments beginning with the
hands are to be considered among the prANas. Why is that? Because
as long as the soul is situated in the material body these
instruments help in experiencing various things and in performing
various tasks. In the BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad it is said:

hastau vai grahaH sarva-karmaNAbhigraheNa gR^ihItAH
hastAbhyAM karma karoti.

"The hands are a sense, for with the hands one
grasps things and performs actions."

In this way there are more than seven senses. There are five
knowledge-acquiring senses, five working senses, and the mind. In
this way there are eleven senses. In the BR^ihad-AraNyaka
UpaniShad (3.9.4) it is said:

AtmaikAdasha

"The AtmA is the eleventh sense."

The word "AtmA" here means "the mind". In
this way it should be understood.
There are five objects of perception: sound, touch, form,
taste, and smell. To perceive these objects there are five
knowledge-acquiring senses: ears, skin, eyes, tongue, and nose.
There are five kinds of action: speech, grasping, moving,
excretion, and reproduction. To perform these actions there are
five working senses: voice, hands, feet, anus, and genital.
To co-ordinate the actions of all these and to take
consideration of the three phases of time (past, present, and
future), there is the mind. Sometimes the mind is considered to
have four aspects. In this way the actions of the mind are:
desiring, coming to conclusions, understanding one.as identity,
and thinking. To perform these actions the mind is divided into
the heart (manaH), intelligence (buddhi), false-ego (aha~NkAra),
and thinking (citta). In this way there are eleven senses.

57. PrANas Are Manifested

2006-01-14T06:57:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 4 AdhikaraNa 1

The PrANas Are Manifested From the Supreme Personality of
Godhead

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

In the Third Pada contradictory scriptural passages describing
the elements were harmonized. In the Fourth Pada contradictory
passages describing the prANas (life-force and senses) will be harmonized.
The prANas are of two kinds: primary and secondary. The secondary
prANas are the eleven senses, beginning with the eyes. The
primary prANas are the five life-airs, beginning with apAna.
First the secondary prANas will be examined. In the MuNDaka
UpaniShad (2.1.3) it is said:

etasmAj jAyate prANo manaH sarvendriyANi ca

"From this are born prANa, mind, and all the
senses."

SaMshaya (doubt): Is this description of the creation of the
senses metaphorical, like the description of the creation of the individual
souls, or literal, like the description of the creation of ether
and the other elements?

PUrvapakSha (the opponent speaks): This is explained in the
following words of the shruti-shAstra:

asad vA idam agra AsIt tad AhuH kiM tad AsId iti R^iShayo
vAva te asad AsIt tad AhuH ke te R^iShaya iti prANA vAva
R^iShayaH.

"He said: In the beginning was non-being. They said:
What was that non-being? He said: The non-being was many sages.
They said: Who were those sages? He said: Those sages were the
prANas."

This passage from the shruti-shAstra clearly shows that the
the senses, which are here called prANas or sages, existed before
the creation of the material world. Therefore the senses are like
the individual spirit souls (and the scriptures.a descriptions of
the creation of the senses are only allegories.)

SiddhAnta (conclusion): In the following words the author of
the sUtras gives His conclusion.

SUtra 1

tathA prANAH

tathA - so; prANAH - the prANAs.

The praNas are like that.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

As ether and the other elements were manifested from the
Supreme Personality of Godhead, so the prANas and the senses were
also manifested from Him. That is the meaning here. In the
beginning of creation the ingredients of the material world were
merged together into one. Then the different ingredients were
manifested. This is described in MuNDaka UpaniShad (2.1.3):

etasmAj jAyate prANo manaH sarvendriyANi ca

"From this are born prANa, mind, and all the
senses."

The creation of the material senses is not like the creation
of the conscious individual spirit souls, because the souls are
free from the six transformations that are always present in
matter. When they describe the creation of the individual spirit
souls, the words of the scriptures are all allegories, but when
they describe the creation of the senses, the words of the
scriptures are literal descriptions. This is so because the
senses are by nature material. This being so, the words prANa and
R^iShi (sages) in this passage refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
This is so because both these words are names of the all-knowing
Supreme Person.

Here someone may object: Is it not so that because the words
"prANAH" and "R^iShayaH" (sages) are both in the
plural it is not possible that they can here be names of the
Supreme Personality of Godhead?

In the following words the author of the sUtras answers this
objection.

SUtra 2

gauNy asambhavAt

gauNI - secondary meaning; asambhavAt - because of
impossibility.

This must be a secondary use of the word, because the
primary use is impossible.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The use of the plural in this passage from the shruti-shAstra
must be a secondary usage of the plural. Why is that? Because
there are not many Gods, there is only one God, the plural cannot
be used to describe Him. Still, the plural may be applied to Him
to refer to His many different manifestations. Although the
Supreme Lord is one, He appears in His many incarnations like an
actor assuming different roles or a vaidUrya jewel displaying differentcolors. In this secondary sense the plural is
appropriate in relation to Him. This is confirmed by the
following words of the shruti-shAstra:

ekaM santaM bahudhA dR^ishyamAnam

"Although He is one, the Supreme Personality of
Godhead is seen to be many."

The SmR^iti-shAstra also explains:

ekAneka-svarUpAya

"Although He is one, the Supreme Personality of
Godhead appears in many forms."

SUtra 3

tat prAk shrutesh ca

tat - that; prAk - before; shruteH - from the shrutishAstra; ca - and.

Because the shruti-shAstra declares that He existed before the
creation.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Because in the beginning of creation the varieties of
material nature were not yet manifested, and thus the material
world was all one, it is also not proper to accept the use of the
plural here in a literal sense. This is so because the shruti-
shAstras declare that in the beginning of material creation only
the Supreme Personality of Godhead existed. Therefore the plural
here must be used in a secondary sense.

In the following words the author of the sUtras gives
another reason why the word "prANa" should be interpreted
as a name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

SUtra 4

tat-pUrvakatvAd vAcaH

tat - that; pUrvakatvAt - because of being before;
vAcaH - speech.

Because speech existed before the material creation.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The word "vAcaH" (speech) here means "the
names of things other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead,
the master of many spiritual potencies". This speech existed
before the pradhAna, the mahat-tattva, and the other features of
the material world were created. Because the names and forms of the variousmaterial features were not yet created, and because
the material senses also were not yet created at that time in the
beginning of creation, the word "prANa" here must be used
as a name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The BR^ihad-
AraNyaka UpaniShad (1.4.7) explains:

tad dhedaM tarhi

"In the beginning they were not manifested. Only
later were the material forms and names manifested."

This explains that in the beginning of the material
creation the material names and forms were not yet manifested.
Thus at that time the material senses as well as the elements
beginning with ether, were not yet manifested.

56. The path that is right

2006-01-14T06:56:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 4

Invocation

tvaj-jAtAH kalitotpAtAH
mat-prANAH santy amitra-bhit
etAn shAdhi tathA deva
yathA sat-patha-gAminaH

O Supreme Personality of Godhead, O destroyer of enemies, my
life-breaths, which are born from You, have left the path of
virtue. O Lord, please bring them under control and push them on
the path that is right.

55. The Lord’s Incarnations

2006-01-14T06:54:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 18

The Lord’s Incarnations Are Not Part and Parcel of the Lord, For
They Are the Lord Himself

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Digressing, for the moment, from the main topic, the author of
the sUtras next considers the nature of the Lord’s incarnations.
In the GopAla-tApanI UpaniShad it is said:

eko vashI sarva-gaH kR^iShNa iDya
eko .api san bahudhA yo .avabhAti

"Lord KR^iShNa is the worshipable, all-pervading
supreme controller, and although He is one, He manifests in many
forms."

In the ViShNu PurANa (1.2.3) it is said:

ekAneka-svarUpAya

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is one, although
He has many forms."

Here it is said that the Lord is one because He remains one
person, even though He appears in many forms, and He is also called many
because of the great variety of these forms. That is the
meaning.

SaMshaya (doubt): Are the incarnations of the Lord, such as
the incarnation Matsya, part and parcel of the Lord in the same
way the individual spirit souls are, or are They different from
the individual spirit souls?

PUrvapakSha (the opponent speaks): There is no difference
between the individual spirit souls and the incarnations of the
Supreme Personality of Godhead.

SiddhAnta (conclusion): In the following words the author of
the sUtras gives His conclusion.

SUtra 44

prakAshAdi-van naivaM paraH

prakAsha - light; Adi - beginning with; vat - like;na - not;
evam - thus; paraH - the Supreme.

The Supreme is not like light or other things.
Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Although the Lord.as incarnations, such as Lord Matsya, are
called "parts" of the Supreme, They are not like the
individual spirit souls. Here the author of the sUtras gives and
example: "The Supreme is not like light or other things."
As the sun and a firefly may both be called "light", but
are in truth very different, and as nectar and wine may both be
called "liquid", but in truth are very different, so the
individual spirit souls and the incarnations of the Lord do not
have a similar nature, but are very different.

SUtra 45

smaranti ca

smaranti - the SmR^iti-shAstras say; ca - and.

The SmR^iti-shAstras also say it.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

In the VarAha PurANa it is said:

svAMshash cAtha vibhinnAMsha
iti dvedhAMsha iShyate
aMshino yat tu sAmarthyaM
yat-svarUpaM yathA sthitiH

"It is said that there are two kinds of parts and
parcels of the Supreme: direct parts and separated parts. Direct
parts have exactly the same nature as the Lord.

tad eva nANumAtro .api
bhedaH svAMshAMshino kvacit
vibhinnAMsho .alpa-shaktiH syAt
ki~ncit sAmarthya-mAtra-yuk

"Separated parts are different from the Lord. They
are atomic in size and have very slight powers.

sarve sarva-guNaiH pUrNAH
sarva-doSha-vivarjitAH

"All direct parts of the Lord are filled with all
virtues and glories and free of all vices and defects."

In shrImad-BhAgavatam (1.3.28) it is said:

ete cAMsha-kalAH puMsaH
kR^iShNas tu bhagavAn svayam

"All the above mentioned incarnations are either
plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but LordshrI KR^iShNa is the original Personality of Godhead."*

Thus Lord KR^iShNa is the original Supreme Personality of
Godhead and the various incarnations, such as Lord Matsya, are
parts of Him, but they are not different from Lord KR^iShNa, as the
individual spirit souls are. Lord KR^iShNa is like a vaidUrya stone,
which manifests different colors from moment to moment. In this
way Lord KR^iShNa appears in different forms.
In His various incarnations Lord KR^iShNa may display all or
only some of His powers. That is the description of the
scriptures. Lord KR^iShNa, the source of all incarnations, displays
all of His six transcendental opulences in full. When the Lord
does not display all His opulences in full, He appears as an aMsha
incarnation, and when He displays even fewer of His opulences, He
appears as a kalA incarnation. In this circumstance He is like a
great teacher, learned in the six sciences, who in certain
circumstances teaches only a small portion of what he actually
knows.
In the PuruSha-bodhinI UpaniShad it is said that Lord KR^iShNa
appears with all His transcendental potencies, headed by Goddess
RAdhA. In the Tenth Canto of shrImad-BhAgavatam it is said that
various transcendental qualities, such as being supreme over all,
being filled with great love, being accompanied by loving
associates, filling with wonder BrahmA, shiva, and all the
demigods, sages, and wise devotees, manifesting many pastimes,
such as sweetly playing the flute, that fill everyone with
wonder, displaying a great sweetness of transcendental
handsomeness, and being very kind and merciful, are eternally
manifested in YashodA.as infant KR^iShNa. Lord Matsya and the other
incarnations manifest some but not all of these qualities. Still,
the incarnations of the Lord are not like the individual spirit
souls, for the incarnations actually are the Lord Himself.
Now the author of the sUtras presents another argument.

SUtra 46

anuj~nA-parihArau deha-sambandhAt jyotir-Adi-vat

anuj~nA - permission to act; parihArau - cessation from
action; deha - of the body; sambandhAt - from the contact;
jyotiH - eye; Adi - beginning with; vat - like.

Bondage and liberation come from contact with the material
body, like the eye and other things.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Even though they are parts and parcels of the Supreme, the
individual spirit souls, because beginningless ignorance, and
also because of contact with material bodies, are subject to
material bondage and liberation. The incarnations of the Lord,
such as Lord Matsya, however, are not subject to such things.
This is the description of the shruti-shAstra. In the shruti-shAstra
it is also said that the incarnations of the Lord do not have
material bodies, but are directly the Lord Himself. That is the greatdifference between the individual spirit souls and the
incarnations of the Lord.
The word "anuj~nA" here means "permission".
It is by the Lord.as permission that the individual spirit souls
can perform pious and impious deeds, as the KaushItaki UpaniShad
(3.8) explains:

eSha eva sAdhu karma kArayati

"The Lord engages the living entity in pious
activities so he may be elevated."*

The word "parihAra" means "liberation". This
is described in the shruti-shAstra:

tam eva viditvAti mR^ityum eti

By understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead one is
able to cross beyond this world of death."

Next, speaking the words "jyotir-Adi-vat" (like the
eye), the author of the sUtras gives an example to explain this.
The eyes of the living entities are like small portions of the
sun. However, the eyes depend on the sun for the power of sight,
and if the sun does not give permission, in the form of the
sunlight, the eyes cannot see. In this way the eyes are dependent
on the sun. The sunlight on the sun-planet, however, is identical
with the sun itself, and thus it makes no sense to say they are
dependent on the sun. The difference between the individual
spirit souls and the incarnations of the Lord is like that, the
incarnations being like the sunlight and the souls being like the
eyes.

SUtra 47

asantatesh cAvyatikaraH

asantateH - because of imperfection; ca - not;
avyatikaraH - without bewilderment.

Because it is imperfect there can be no mistake.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Because he is imperfect, the individual spirit soul cannot
be mistaken for an incarnation of the Lord. The individual spirit
souls are therefore not the same as or equal to the incarnations
of the Lord, beginning with Lord Matsya, who are all perfect. In
the shvetAshvatara UpaniShad (5.9), the individual spirit soul is
described in the following words:

bAlAgra-shata-bAgasya

"If we divide the tip of a hair into one hundred
parts and then take one part and divide this into another one hundred parts,that ten-thousandth part is the dimension of the
living entity."*

Instead of being atomic and limited, as the individual
spirit souls are, the Lord.as incarnations, beginning with Lord
Matsya, are perfect and complete in every way, as the Isha
UpaniShad explains:

pUrnam adaH pUrNam idam

"The Personality of Godhead is perfect and
complete."*

In the following words the author of the sUtras shows the
great fault in thinking the individual soul identical with the
Supreme.

SUtra 48

AbhAsa eva ca

AbhAsaH - fallacy; eva - indeed; ca - also.

It is also a fallacy.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

In this sUtra is refuted the idea that because they are both
called "aMshas", or parts of the Lord, therefore the
individual spirit souls and the incarnations of the Lord are
identical. This idea is based on the logical fallacy of sat-
pratipakSha (undistributed middle). Because of its imperfect
reasoning, this idea is wrong.
The word "ca" (also) here hints that some examples
may be given to show this. One example is that of earth and sky.
Earth and sky are both substances, but that does not mean that
they are identical. Existence and non-existence are both
categories, but that does not mean they are equal. In the same
way the individual spirit souls and the incarnations of the
Supreme Personality of Godhead may both be parts of the Supreme,
but that does not mean that they are equal.

54. Spirit Soul Is Part and Parcel

2006-01-14T06:52:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 17

The Individual Spirit Soul Is Part and Parcel of the Supreme
Personality of Godhead

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Next, to corroborate the previous explanation the author of
the sUtras explains that the individual spirit soul is part and
parcel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the muNDaka
UpaniShad (3.1.1) it is said:

dvA suparNA

"The soul and the Supersoul within the body are
compared to two friendly birds sitting together."*

The first bird here is the Supreme Personality of Godhead
and the second is the individual spirit soul.

SaMshaya (doubt): Is the individual spirit soul in truth the
Supreme Personality of Godhead, only seeming to be different
because of the illusion of mAyA, or is the the individual spirit
soul part and parcel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead,
different from the Lord, but related to Him as a ray of sunlight
is related to the sun?

PUrvapakSha (the opponent speaks): What is the truth? The
truth is the individual spirit soul covered by the illusion of
mAyA is in truth the same as the Supreme Personality of Godhead?
The Brahma-bindu UpaniShad (13) explains:

ghaTa-samvR^itam AkAshaM
nIyamAne ghaTe yathA
gato lIyeta nAkAshaM
tadvaj jIvo nabhopamaH

"The space within a jar is not moved when the jar is
moved, nor is it destroyed when the jar is broken. The spirit
soul is like that unbreakable space."

The ChAndogya UpaniShad also (6.8.7) affirms:

tat tvam asi

"You are that."

SiddhAnta (conclusion): In the following words the author of
the sUtras gives his conclusion.

SUtra 41

aMsho nAnA vyapadeshAd anyathA cApi dAsa-kitavAditvam adhIyate eke

aMshaH - part; nAnA - many; vyapadeshAt - because of the
teaching; anyathA - otherwise; ca - and; api - also;dAsa - servant;
kitava - gambler; Adi - beginning with; tvam - the state of being;
adhIyate - is read; eke - some.

He is a part because of the description of being many, and
also because some scriptures describe him as a servant, as
a gambler, or as something else.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The individual spirit soul is a part and parcel of the
Supreme Personality of Godhead as a ray of sunlight is part and
parcel of the sun. The individual spirit soul is different from
the Lord, dependent on the Lord, and related to the Lord. That is
the meaning. Why is that? The sUtra explains: "Because of
the description of being many." The Subala UpaniShad explains:

udbhavaH sambhavo divyo deva eko nArAyaNo mAtA pitA
bhrAtA nivAsaH sharaNaM suhR^id gatir nArAyaNaH

"NArAyaNa is the transcendental Supreme Personality
of Godhead. NArAyaNa is the creator, destroyer, mother, father,
brother, home, shelter, friend, and goal."

In Bhagavad-gItA (9.18) Lord KR^iShNa declares:

gatir bhartA prabhuH sAkShI
nivAsaH sharaNaM suhR^it

"I am the goal, the sustainer, the master, the
witness, the abode, the refuge, and the most dear friend. I am
the creation and the annihilation, the basis of everything, the
resting place, and the eternal seed."*

The words "nAnA vyapadeshAd" in this sUtra describe
the many relationships that exist between the Supreme Personality
of Godhead and the individual spirit soul, relationships like
that between the creator and created, controller and controlled,
shelter and person who takes shelter, master and servant, friend
and friend, and goal and seeker. Some passages in the Atharva
Veda declare that because the Supreme is all-pervading, the
individual spirit souls and the Supreme are identical. The
Atharva Veda declares:

brahma dAsA brahma dAshA brahma kitavAH

"These servants are the Supreme. These fishermen are
the Supreme. These gamblers are the Supreme."

It is not possible that this passage intends to say that the
individual spirit soul is actually not different from the
Supreme. It is not possible that the Supreme is simultaneously both thecreator and created, the pervader and pervaded, nor is
it possible that supremely intelligent Lord becomes a servant or
other lowly being. If it were true that the
individual spirit souls are identical with the Supreme, then the
scriptures.a advice to renounce the world would become
meaningless. Nor is it possible that the Supreme has become
covered by the influence of illusion, for illusion has no power
to bewilder the Lord. Nor is it possible that the individual
spirit souls are parts of the Supreme like fragments cut with a
chisel from a great stone, for that would contradict the
scriptures.a statements that the Supreme can neither be broken nor
changed. Therefore the individual spirit soul is different from
the Supreme, but related to Him as created to creator, and in
other ways also. The individual spirit soul is thus a part and
parcel of the Supreme. The truth is that the individual spirit
soul is a potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is
described in ViShNu PurANa (6.7.61):

viShNu-shaktiH parA proktA
kShetraj~nAkhyA tathA parA

"Originally, KR^iShNa’s energy is spiritual, and the
energy known as the living entity is also spiritual."*

When it is said that the individual spirit soul is a part of
the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the word "part" is
used in the same way as in the sentence, "The circle of
Venus is a one-hundredth part of the moon.as circle," or the
same way as in the definition, "A part, although situated
in a smaller area than the whole, is identical with the whole in
substance." The use of the word "part" here is not
different from that definition. Thus the Supreme Personality of
Godhead is the master of all potencies, and the individual spirit
soul is a part of the Lord.as spiritual potency. This, by being a
localized manifestation of one of the Lord.as potencies, the
individual spirit soul is a part of the Supreme Personality of
Godhead. That is their relationship.
The example of the pot means that when the mistaken
identification of the soul for the body is broken, the
individual soul meets the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The
ChAndogya UpaniShad.as statement "tat tvam asi" (You are
that) therefore means "You are dependent on the Supreme."
The context of that passage supports this view. It does not
support any other interpretation. Therefore the individual spirit
soul and the Supreme Personality of Godhead are separate and
different. One is the controller, the other the controlled. One is
all-pervading, the other atomic in size. This is directly seen in
the scriptures. It is not possible to prove otherwise. In the
next sUtra the author continues his explanation.

SUtra 42

mantra-varNAt

mantra - of the mantras; varNAt - from the description.

Because of the description in the Vedic mantras.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

In the Rg Veda (10.90.3) it is said:

pAdo .asya sarvA bhUtAni

"All living entities are part and parcel of the
Supreme."

In this way the Vedic mantras declare that the individual
spirit souls are part and parcel of the Supreme. The word
pAda" here means "part". No other meaning makes sense
in this context. The word "sarvA bhUtAni" (all living
entities) here is in the plural, whereas the word "aMshaH"
(part) in sUtra 41 is in the singular. The singular here is used
in a generic sense to denote all spirit souls. This kind of usage
is also seen in many other places.

SUtra 43

api smaryate

api - also; smaryate - in the SmR^iti-shAstra.

Also in the SmR^iti-shAstra.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

In the Bhagavad-gItA (15.7) Lord KR^iShNa explains:

mamaivAMsho jIva-loke
jIva-bhUtaH sanAtanaH

"The living entities in this conditioned world are
My eternal fragmental parts."*

By using the word "sanAtana" (eternal), the Lord
refutes the idea that the living entities referred to here are
the temporary external bodies in which the eternal souls reside.
In this way it is seen that the individual spirit souls are part
and parcel of the Supreme and have an relationship with Him. the
Supreme is the creator and dominant in other ways also, and the
individual spirit souls are dependent on Him. The nature of the
individual spirit souls is described in the following passage of
Padma PurANa:

j~nAnAshrayo j~nAna-guNash
cetanaH prakR^iteH paraH
na jAto nirvikArash ca
eka-rUpaH svarUpa-bhAk

"The individual spirit soul is the shelter of knowledge, has knowledge asone if his qualities, is
consciousness, is beyond the world of matter, is never born,
never changes, and has one form, a spiritual form.

aNur nityo vyApti-shIlash
cid-AnandAtmakas tathA
aham artho .avyayaH sAkShI
bhinna-rUpaH sanAtanaH

"The soul is atomic, eternal, is present by
consciousness everywhere in the material body, is by nature full
of spiritual bliss and knowledge, has a sense of individual
identity, is unchanging, is a witness within the body, is
eternal, and is different from the Supreme.

adAhyo .acchedyo .akledyo
.ashoShyo .akShara eva ca
evam-Adi-guNair yuktaH
sheSha-bhUtaH parasya vai

"The soul can never be burned, cut, moistened,
withered, or killed. It has these and many more qualities. It is
part and parcel of the Supreme.

ma-kareNocyate jIvaH
kShetra-j~naH paravAn sadA
dAsa-bhUto harer eva
nAnyasyaiva kadAcana

"Thus the word .ama.a refers to the individual spirit
soul. The soul is the knower of the field of activities. The soul
is spiritual. The soul is an eternal servant of the Supreme
Personality of Godhead. The soul is never the servant of anyone
else.

The phrase "evam-Adi-guNaiH" (with these and many
more qualities) refers to the soul.as other qualities, such as his
ability to perform actions, to experience sensations, to
attain enlightenment, and to enlighten others. The word
enlightenment" here has two features. In the first feature
the soul itself attains enlightenment. In the second feature the
soul brings enlightenment to others. That is the nature of the
soul. A lamp sheds light on itself and on other objects also. A
jar or similar object has no power to bring light. Although a
lamp may shine, because it is inanimate matter it cannot benefit
from its own light. The individual soul, however, can benefit
from the light it brings. Because the soul can thus become
illuminated, it is said that the soul is spiritual and full of
knowledge.

53. Spirit Soul is Dependent

2006-01-14T06:47:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 16

The Individual Spirit Soul is Dependent on the Supreme
Personality of Godhead

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Now another doubt is considered.

SaMshaya (doubt): Is the individual spirit soul independent
in his actions, or does he depend on another?

PUrvapakSha (the opponent speaks): The scriptures say:

svarga-kAmo yajeta

"One who desires Svargaloka should perform yaj
24as."

and

tasmAd brAhmaNaH surAM na pibet pApmanotsaMsR^ija

"A brAhmaNa should not drink liquor and should not
commit sins."

That the scriptures give orders and prohibitions for the
soul to follow is proof that the soul is independent, for
independence means to have the power to do one thing and to
refrain from doing another.

SiddhAnta (conclusion): In the following words the author of
the sUtras gives his conclusion.

SUtra 39

parAt tu tac-chruteH

parAt - from the Supreme; tu - but; tat - of that;shruteH - from
the scriptures.

But from the Supreme, because of the scriptures.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The word "tu" (but) is used to remove doubt. The
Supreme Personality of Godhead inspires the individual spirit
soul to act. How is that known? The sUtra explains: "tac-
chruteH" (It is known from the scriptures). The scriptures give
the following explanations:

antaH praviShTaH shAstA janAnAm

"Entering their hearts, the Supreme Personality of
Godhead controls all living entities."

ya Atmani tiShThann AtmAnam antaro yamayati

"Entering their hearts, the Supreme Personality of
Godhead controls all living entities."

eSha eva sAdhu karma kArayati

"The Lord engages the living entity in pious
activities so he may be elevated."*

Here someone may object: So be it. However, if the Supreme
Personality of Godhead is the actual performer of actions, then
the orders and prohibitions of the scriptures are all
meaningless. The scriptures can give orders and prohibitions only
if the individual spirit soul is independent and thus has the
power to make choices.

If this is said, then the author of the sUtras gives the
following reply.

SUtra 40

kR^ita-prayatnApekShas tu vihita-pratiShiddhAvaiyarthyAdibhyaH

kR^ita - done; prayatna - effort; ApekShaH - relation;tu - but;
vihita - ordered; pratiShiddha - forbidden; a - not;
vaiyarthya - meaninglessness; AdibhyaH - beginning.

But it is by effort because then orders and prohibitions are
not without meaning.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The word "tu" (but) is used here to dispel doubt.
The individual spirit soul performs pious and impious deeds.
Taking into consideration the individual soul.as efforts, the
Supreme Personality of Godhead gives him facility to act in a
certain way. Therefore the previously stated objection is not valid.
The pious and impious deeds of the individual spirit soul
are like different seeds that sprout into different kinds of
plants. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is like the rain that
falls on these seeds and makes them grow. Therefore in this
situation is the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the instrument
by which these seeds of karma bear fruit. The seeds of various
trees, vines, and other plants are the specific cause of these
plants, and the rain that makes them grow is the general cause.
If no raincloud brings water there will not be any variety of
sweet flowers or other plants. If there is no seed there will not
any flowers or plants either. In this way the Supreme Personality
of Godhead gives the results of the pious and impious deeds
performed by the individual spirit soul. Even though dispatched by another, aperson is still the performer of the
actions he does. Therefore it cannot be said that the individual
spirit soul does not perform actions.
Why is that? The sUtra explains: "Because then
orders and prohibitions are not without meaning." The word
Adi" (beginning with) in this sUtra means that the Supreme
Personality of Godhead gives mercy and punishment according to
the pious and impious actions of the individual spirit souls. If
that interpretation is accepted, then the orders and prohibitions
of the scriptures are not without meaning. If the Supreme
Personality of Godhead actually forces the individual spirit soul
to act piously or impiously, and the soul is like a rock or a log
and has no independence, then the orders of the scripture to
perform pious deeds and avoid impious deeds are all worthless and
should be rejected.
The scriptures say that when He is merciful the Supreme
Personality of Godhead engages the individual spirit soul in
pious activities so he may be elevated, and when He withdraws His
mercy the Supreme Personality of Godhead engages the individual
spirit soul in impious activities so he may go to hell. If this
means that the individual living entity has no choice, and pious
and impious deeds are forced on him by the Supreme Personality of
Godhead, then the Supreme Personality of Godhead is cruel and
unjust, a monster. Therefore it must be concluded that the
individual spirit soul does have free will, and is responsible
for his actions, although he does not have the power to transfer
his desire and will into concrete action unless the Supreme
Personality of Godhead permits. In this way everything is
explained.

52. Activity

2006-01-14T06:44:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 15

Activity Is the Soul's Nature

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

In the following words the author of the sUtras gives an
example to show that the individual spirit soul performs actions,
using other its own potency, or some other instrument to perform
them.

SUtra 38

yathA ca takShobhayathA

yathA - as; ca - and; takSha - carpenter; ubhayathA - inboth
ways.

In both ways like a carpenter.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

As a carpenter performs actions, employing both his own
power and a host of tools, so does the individual spirit soul,
employing both his own power and the various life-airs. Thus the
soul employs the material body and other instruments also, to
perform actions. It is the pure spirit soul who thus uses the
modes of material nature to perform actions. That is why the
scriptures sometimes say that the modes of material nature are
the performer of actions.

That the individual spirit soul is indeed the performer of
actions is confirmed in Bhagavad-gItA (13.22), where it is said:

kAraNaM guna-sa~Ngo .asya
sad-asad-yoNi-janmasu

"The living entity in material nature thus follows
the ways of life, enjoying the three modes of nature. Thus he
meets with good and evil among the various species."*

These words explain the scripture passages that declare the
modes of nature to be the performers of action. It is foolish for
a person to think himself the sole performer of action and ignore
the five factors of action. Of course it is not that the
individual spirit soul never performs any action. The idea that
the soul never does anything is clearly refuted by the many
scriptural statements urging the soul to act such a way that he
may attain liberation. When in the Bhagavad-gItA (2.19) the Lord says:

nAyaM hanti na hanyate

"The self slays not nor is slain."

that does not mean that the individual spirit soul never performs
any action, but rather that the eternal spirit soul can never be
cut or slain. The meaning of the statement that the soul never
acts has thus already been explained.
In both this life and the next the devotees perform various
actions of devotional service to the Lord. Because these actions
are free from the touch of the modes of nature, because they are
under the jurisdiction of the Lord.as spiritual potency and
because they lead to liberation, these actions are said not to be
action, for they are not material actions. This is explained by
the Supreme Lord Himself in these words:

sAttvikaH kArako .asa~NgI
rAgAndho rAjasaH smR^itaH
tAmasaH smR^iti-vibhraShTo
nirguNo mad-apAshrayaH

"One who acts without attachment is in the mode of
goodness. One who is blinded with desire is in the mode of
passion. One whose intelligence is broken is in the mode of
ignorance. One who takes shelter of Me is free from the grip of
the modes of nature."

That the pure spirit soul experiences the results of his
actions is described in Bhagavad-gItA (13.21):

puruShaH sukha-duHkhAnAM
bhoktR^itve hetur ucyate

"The living entity is the cause of the various
sufferings and enjoyments in this world."*

Because it is by nature conscious it is the soul that
experiences the results of actions, the modes of nature do not
experience them. This refutes the idea that the modes are active
and the soul is not. In this way it is proved that it is the conscious
soul who experiences happiness and other sensations. In this way
the individual spirit soul brings knowledge to itself and others.
Both kinds of action exist for the soul. In the Prashna UpaniShad
(4.9) it is said:

eSha hi draShTA spraShTA shrotA

"It is the soul who sees, touches, and hears."

Thus, by this example of the carpenter, the idea that the
individual spirit soul is the only factor in action, and there
are no others, is clearly refuted.

51. Spirit Soul Performs Actions

2006-01-14T06:41:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 14

The Individual Spirit Soul Performs Actions

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Now the author of the sUtras will consider another point. In
the TaittirIya UpaniShad (2.5.1) it is said:

vij~nAnaM yaj~naM tanute. karmANi tanute .api ca.

"Consciousness performs yaj~nas.
Consciousness performs actions."

SaMshaya (doubt): Does the individual soul, indicated in this
passage by the word "consciousness", perform actions or
not?

PUrvapakSha (the opponent speaks): In the KaTha UpaniShad
(2.18) it is said:

hantA cen manyate hantuM
hatash cen manyate hatam
ubhau tau na vijAnItau
nAyaM hanti na hanyate

"Neither he who thinks the living entity the slayer
nor he who thinks it slain is in knowledge, for the self slays
not nor is slain."*

These words clearly declare that the individual spirit soul
never performs actions. In the Bhagavad-gItA (3.27) it is said:

prakR^iteH kriyamANAni
guNaiH karmANi sarvashaH
aha~NkAra-vimUDhAtmA
kartAham iti manyate

"The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of
false-ego thinks himself the doer of activities that are in
actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature."*

In the Bhagavad-gItA (13.21) it is also said:

kArya-kAraNa-kartR^itve
hatuH prakR^itir ucyate
puruShaH sukha-duHkhAnAM
bhoktR^itve hetur ucyate

"Nature is said to be the cause of all material
causes and effects, whereas the living entity is the cause of the
various sufferings and enjoyments in this world."*
Therefore the individual spirit soul does not perform
actions. When a person understands the truth he understands that
all actions are actually performed by the material energy and the
individual spirit soul is merely the person who experiences the
fruits of action.

SiddhAnta (conclusion): In the following words the author of
the sUtras gives the proper conclusion.

SUtra 31

kartA shAstrArthavat-tvAt

kartA - the doer; shAstra - of the scriptures;Artha - meaning;
vat - possessing; tvAt - because of having the nature.

He performs actions. This is so because the scriptures are
meaningful.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

It is the individual spirit soul who performs actions, not
the modes of material nature. Why is that? The sUtra explains:
"Because the scriptures are meaningful." In the
scriptures it is said:

svarga-kAmo yajeta

"A person who desires Svargaloka should perform
yaj~nas."

and

AtmAnam eva lokam upAsIta

"One should worship the Supreme Personality of
Godhead."

These statements have meaning only if the individual spirit
soul does actually perform actions. If all actions are performed
by the modes of nature and the individual spirit soul never does
anything, these statements of the scriptures are meaningless.
These statements of scripture are intended to motivate the
individual spirit soul to act in a certain way so he can enjoy
the results of his actions. It is not even possible in this way
to try to motivate the inert material modes to act in any way at
all.
That the individual spirit soul does actually perform
actions is also confirmed in the next sUtra.

SUtra 32

vihAropadeshAt
vihAra - of pastimes; upadeshAt - because of the teaching.

Because of the teaching about pastimes.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The ChAndogya UpaniShad (8.12.3) describes the activities of
the liberated souls:

sa tatra paryeti jakShan krIDan ramamANaH

"In the spiritual world the individual spirit soul
eats, plays, and enjoys."

Therefore action by itself does not brings pain and
unhappiness to the soul, rather it is the bondage of the three
modes of nature that brings unhappiness. This is so because the
three modes of nature obscure the reality of the soul.as spiritual
nature.

SUtra 33

upAdAnAt

upAdAnAt - because of taking.

Because of taking.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

In the BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (2.1.18) it is said:

sa yathA mahA-rAjaH . . . evam evaiSha etAn prANAn
gR^ihItvA sve sharIre yathA-kAmaM parivartate

"In the dreaming state the individual spirit soul
acts like a king. The soul grasps the life-airs and does as it
wishes."

In the Bhagavad-gItA (15.8) it is also said:

gR^ihItvaitAni samyAti
vAyur gandhAn ivAshayAt

"The living entity in the material world carries his
different conceptions of life from one body to another as the air
carries aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it
to take another."*

In these passages it is seen that the individual spirit soul
does perform actions, for the soul moves the life-airs as a
magnet moves iron. The life-airs may move many things, but it is
the individual spirit soul who moves the life-airs. Nothing else
moves them.
In the following words the author of the sUtras now gives
another reason.

SUtra 34

vyapadeshAc ca kriyAyAM na cen nirdesha-viparyayaH

vyapadeshAt - because of designation; ca - and; kriyAyAm - in
action; na - mpt; cet - if; nirdesha - grammaticalconstruction;
viparyayaH - different.

Also because of the name in the action. If this were not so
the grammatical structure would be different.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

In the TaittirIya UpaniShad (2.5.1) it is said:

vij~nAnaM yaj~naM tanute. karmANi tanute .api ca.

"Consciousness performs yaj~nas.
Consciousness performs actions."

These words clearly show that the individual spirit soul is
the primary performer of Vedic and ordinary actions. If the word
"vij~nAnam" is interpreted to mean not the individual
spirit soul, but the intelligence, then the grammatical structure
of the sentence would be different. Then the word
vij~nAna" would be in the instrumental case, for the
intelligence would be the instrument by which the action is
performed. However, the word is not in the instrumental case. If
the intelligence were the performer of the action here, then
another word must be given in the instrumental case to show with
what instrument the intelligence performs the action, for there
must be an instrument in every action. However, if the individual
spirit soul is the performer of the action there is not need for
another word in the instrumental case to show the instrument
used, for in that situation the individual spirit soul is both
the performer of the action and the instrument employed.
Here someone may object: Is it not so that the individual
spirit soul, being independent and able to act as he likes, will
naturally act for his own welfare and will not perform actions
that bring him harm?
To this I reply: No. It is not like that. The individual
spirit soul desires to benefit himself, but because his past
karma acts against him, he sometimes creates his own misfortune.
For these reasons it is clear that the individual spirit soul
certainly performs actions. When the scriptures sometimes say
that the individual spirit soul does not perform actions, the
meaning is that the soul is not independent and free to do
exactly everything he wishes.
Here someone may object: It is not possible that the
individual spirit soul is the performer of actions, for it is
clearly seen that these actions often bring him suffering.
To this I reply: No. It is not so. If the individual spirit soul is notthe performer of actions, then the scriptural
descriptions of the darsha, paurNamas_sa, and other yaj~nas
would not make any sense.

In the following words the author of the sUtras refutes the
idea that material nature is the real performer of actions.

SUtra 35

uplabdhi-vad aniyamaH

uplabdhi - consciousness; vat - like; aniyamaH - uncertainty.

As in the situation of consciousness, it would be
indefinite.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

In previous sUtras it was shown that if the individual
spirit soul were all-pervading, then consciousness would be vague
and indefinite. In the same way if all-pervading material nature
were the sole performer of all actions, then all actions would
bring the same result to all spirit souls simultaneously. Clearly
this is not so. Also, it could not be said that the individual
spirit soul would need to be near the place where a certain
action was performed in order to experience the result of that
action. The sa~Nkhya philosophers cannot say this, for in their
theory each individual spirit soul is all-pervading and is thus
already near the places where all actions are performed.

SUtra 36

shakti-viparyayAt

shakti - of power; viparyayAt - because of difference.

Because the power is changed.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

If the material nature is the performer of actions, then
material nature must also experience the good and bad results of
those actions. However, the shvetAshvatara UpaniShad (1.8) affirms:

bhoktR^i-bhAvAt

"The individual spirit soul enjoys the good and bad
results of actions."

In this way the idea that the material nature is the
performer of actions is refuted. Because the individual spirit
soul enjoys the good and bad results of actions, the individual
spirit soul must also be the performer of those actions.

SUtra 37

samAdhy-abhAvAc ca

samAdhi - of liberation; abhAvAt - because of the non-
existence; ca - also.

Also because there is no liberation.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Actions are meant to bring one to liberation from the
material world. Because it is not possible for the material
nature to act in such a way and attain such a goal, the idea that
the material nature is the performer of actions cannot be
entertained. Liberation means understanding the truth "I
am different from matter". Because it is unconscious, and also
because it really is matter, it is not possible for the material
nature to come to this understanding. In this way it is proved
that the individual spirit soul is the performer of actions.

50. Spirit Souls Are Atomic

2006-01-14T06:35:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 13

The Individual Spirit Souls Are Atomic

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Now the author of the sUtras considers the size of the
individual spirit souls. In the MuNDaka UpaniShad (3.1.9) it is
said:

eSho .aNur AtmA cetasA veditavyo yasmin prANaH pa~ncadhA
samviveSha

"When the life-breath withdraws the five activities,
the mind can understand the atomic soul."

SaMshaya (doubt): Is the individual spirit soul atomic or
all-pervading?

PUrvapakSha (the opponent speaks): The individual spirit soul
is all-pervading. BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (4.4.14) declares that
the soul is "mahAn" (great). The statement that the soul
is atomic is merely a poetic metaphor.

SiddhAnta (conclusion): The author of the sUtras gives the
conclusion in the following words.

SUtra 18

utkrAnti-gaty-AgatInAm

utkrAnti - departure; gati - travel; AgatInAm - and of return

Because of departure, travel, and return.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

In this sUtra the word "aNuH" (the atomic soul)
should be understood from the previous sUtra. In this sUtra the
genitive case is used in the sense of the ablative. The
individual spirit soul is atomic and not all-pervading. Why is
that? The sUtra explains: "Because of departure, travel,
and return."
In the BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (4.4.2) it is said:

tasya haitasya hR^idayasyAgraM pradyotate. tena pradyotenaiSha
AtmA niShkrAmati cakShuSho vA mUrdhno vAnyebhyo vA
sharIra-deshebhyaH

"The soul shines in the heart. At the moment of
death the effulgent soul leaves through the opening of the eyes,
the opening at the top of the the head, or another opening in the body."

In the BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (4.4.11) it is said:

anandA nAma te lokA
andhena tamasAvR^itAH
tAMs te pretyAbhigacchanti
avidvAMso .abudhA janAH

"Sinful fools enter into planets known as the worlds
of torment, full of darkness and ignorance."

In the BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (4.4.6) it is said:

prApyAntaM karmaNas tasya
yat ki~ncedam karoty ayam
tasmAt lokAt punar etya
yasmai lokAya karmaNe

"At the time of death the soul reaps the results of
his works. He goes to the world where he deserves to go. When
the results of his past deeds are exhausted, again he returns to
the middle planets, the world of karma."

In this way the BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad describes the soul.as
travel from one place to another. If he were all-pervading,
the soul would not be able to travel from one place to another,
for he would already be everywhere.

In shrImad-BhAgavatam (10.87.30) it is said:

aparimitA dhruvAs tanu-bhR^ito yadi sarva-gatAs
tarhi na shAsyateti niyamo dhruva netarathA

"O Lord, although the living entities who have
accepted material bodies are spiritual and unlimited in number,
if they were all-pervading there would be no question of their
being under Your control."*

However, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, although all-
pervading, can travel from place to place. This is possible
because He possesses inconceivable powers.
Here someone may object: The individual spirit soul can be
all-pervading and unmoving, and still, because he mistakenly
identifies with the external material body, imagine that he goes
and comes. He is like the ruler of a village who never really
leaves his realm.
To this the reply is given: Because it is said that he both
departs and returns it is not possible that the soul is actually
stationary and unmoving. The author of the sUtras confirms this
in the following words.

SUtra 19

svAtmanash cottarayoH
sva - own; AtmanaH - of the soul; ca - and; uttarayoH - ofthe
latter two.

Also because the last two refer to the soul.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The word "ca" (also) is used here for emphasis. Here
the word "uttarayoH" (the last two) means "of the
coming and going". The coming and going here definitely occurs to
the individual spirit soul. This is so because the coming and
going in the pervious sUtra clearly refer to an agent, to the
performer of the action. The coming and going here are understood
to be coming and going from a material body. This is clearly seen
in the first BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (4.4.2) passage quoted in
the previous purport. It is also seen in the following words of
Bhagavad-gItA (15.4):

sharIraM yad avApnoti
yac cApy utkrAmatIshvaraH
gR^ihItvaitani samyAti
vAyur gandhAn ivAshayAt

"The living entity in the material world carries his
different conceptions of life from one body to another as the air
carries aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it
to take another."*

If someone says that the soul actually never goes anywhere,
although it seems to go places because of the misidentification of
the external material body as the self, then I say this is a
foolish idea. In the following words the KaushitakI UpaniShad
refutes this idea:

sa yadAsmAt sharIrAt samutkrAmati sahaivaitaiH sarvair
utkrAmati

"At the time of death the soul, accompanied by all
his powers, leaves the material body."

The word "saha" (accompanied by) is used when the
more important is accompanied by another of lesser importance. An
example is the sentence: "Accompanied by (saha) his son,
the father took his meal." Another example is in Bhagavad-gItA
(15.4), which declares that the soul carries his different
conceptions of life from one body to another as the air carries
aromas. In this way the foolish example pushed forward by the
impersonalists, the example of the air in the jar and in the sky,
is clearly refuted.

SUtra 20

nANur atac chruter iti cen netarAdhikArAt
na - not; aNuH - atom; atat - not that; shruteH - fromthe
scriptures; iti - thus; cet - is; na - not;itara - other;
adhikArAt - because of being appropriate.

If it is claimed that the shruti-shAstra denies the idea that
the soul is atomic, then I reply that it is not so, because those
descriptions apply to someone else.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Here someone may object: Is it not so that that the
individual spirit soul is not atomic? After all, the BR^ihad-
AraNyaka UpaniShad (4.4.22) affirms:

sa vA eSha mahA-jana AtmA

"The soul is very great."

After all, to be great in size is the very opposite of being atomic.

If someone claims this, then the sUtra replies: "No.
It is not so." Why not? The sUtra explains: "itara"
(because these descriptions apply to someone else). These
words are descriptions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the
all-pervading Supersoul. In the BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (4.3.7)
it is said:

yo .ayam vij~nAnamayaH prANeShu

"He is full of knowledge. He stays among the life-
airs."

Although this passage begins by describing the individual
spirit soul, it proceeds with a description of the Supreme
Personality of Godhead, as is seen in a following passage (BR^ihad-
AraNyaka UpaniShad 4.3.13):

yasyAnuvittaH pratibuddha AtmA

"He is the self who knows everything."

These words clearly describe the Supreme Personality of
Godhead and not the individual spirit soul.

SUtra 21

sva-shabdonmAnAbhyAM ca

sva - own; shabda - word; unmAnAbhyAm - with measure;ca - and.

Because of its word and measurement.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The word "sva-shabda" (the word describing it) here means that the wordatomic is used to describe the individual
spirit soul. An example of this is in MuNDaka UpaniShad (2.1.9):

eSho .aNur AtmA

"The soul is atomic in size."

The word "unmAna" here means "Its measurement is
atomic in size". The precise measurement of the individual
spirit soul is given in the shvetAshvatara UpaniShad (4.9):

bAlAgra-shata-bhAgasya
shatadhA kalpitasya ca
bhAgo jIvaH sa vij~neyaH
sa cAntantyAya kalpate

"When the upper point of a hair is divided into one
hundred parts and again each of these parts is further divided
into one hundred parts, each such part is the measurement of the
dimension of the spirit soul."*

In these two ways the atomic size of the soul is proved. the
word Anantya" here means "liberation". "Anta"
means "death", and "an" means "without".
Therefore the word "Anantya" means "the condition
of being free from death".

Here someone may object: Is it not so that if it is atomic
in size and situated in a specific place in the material body,
the soul could not perceive sensations in all other parts of the
body, where the soul is not actually present?
If this is said, then the author of the sUtras replies in
the following words.

SUtra 22

avirodhash candana-vat

avirodhaH - not contradicting; candana - sandal; vat - like

It does not contradict. It is like sandal paste.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

As a drop of sandal paste placed on one part of the body
brings a pleasant sensation to the body as a whole, so the soul,
although situated in one place, perceives what happens in the
entire body. Therefore, there is no contradiction. In the
BrahmANDa PurANa it is said:

aNu-mAtro .apy ayaM jIvaH
sva-dehaM vyApya tiShThati
yathA vyApya sharIrANi
haricandana-vipruShaH

"As the sensation created by a drop of sandal paste
pervades the entire body, so the individual spirit soul,
although atomic in size, is conscious of what happens in the
entire body."

SUtra 23

avasthiti-vaisheShyAd iti cen nAbhyupagamAd dhR^idi hi

avasthiti - abode; vaisheShyAt - because of being specific;
iti - thus; cet - if; na - not; abhyupagamAt - because ofacceptance;
hR^idi - in the heart; hi - certainly.

If it is denied because it has no specific abode, then I say
no, because it resides in the heart.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Here someone may object: Is it not so that the drop of
sandal paste has a single, clearly visible, place where it resides
on the body but the soul has no such single residence in the
body? There is no reason to make guesses about the location of
the soul in the body. The soul is clearly present everywhere in
the body, just as the element ether is present everywhere.
Therefore the sandal-paste example is clumsy and wrong.
If this objection is raised, then the author of the sUtras
replies: "No. It is not so." Why not? The sUtra explains:
"Because it resides in the heart." This means that the
soul really does reside in a single place in the material body.
The soul resides in the heart. This is confirmed in the following
words of Prashna UpaniShad (3.6):

hR^idi hy eSha AtmA

"The soul resides in the heart."

In the final conclusion the spirit soul, although atomic in
size is, in one sense, all-pervading throughout the entire
material body. This is explained in the following sUtra.

SUtra 24

guNAd vAlokavat

guNAt - by quality; vA - or; Aloka - light; vat - like.

By quality or like light.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Although the soul is atomic in size, it pervades the body by
the quality of consciousness. Like light it pervades the entire
body. As the sun, although situated in one place, fills the
universe with light, so the soul fills the body with
consciousness. The Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself declares this inBhagavad-gItA (13.34):

yathA prakAshayaty ekaH
kR^itsnaM lokam imaM raviH
kShetraM kShetrI tathA kR^itsnaM
prakAshayati bhArata

"O son of Bharata, as the sun alone illuminates all
this universe, so does the living entity, one within the body,
illuminate the entire body by consciousness."*

When the sun emanates sunlight it does not lose any atoms
from its mass, nor does it become diminished in any way. Rubies
and other jewels also emanate light without losing atoms from
their mass or becoming diminished in any way. It is not possible
to say that when light is emanated from them these things become
diminished in size. The light they emanate is their quality, not
their mass.
The quality can function in a plane apart from the substance
that possesses it. The author of the sUtras explains this in the
following example.

SUtra 25

vyatireko gandhavat tathA hi darshayati

vyatirekaH - difference; gandha - fragrance; vat - like;tathA - so;
hi - indeed; darshayati - shows.

As a fragrance is in a different place, so it is also in a
different place. This the scripture shows.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

As the fragrance of flowers or other objects may travel to a
place far from its source, so the consciousness that emanates
from the soul may travel from the heart and enter the head, feet,
or other parts of the body. The Kaushitaki UpaniShad (3.6) explains:

praj~nayA sharIraM samAruhya

"By consciousness the soul is all-pervading in the
material body."

Even though the fragrance may travel very far it is never
actually separated from its source, just as the light of a jewel
is also not separated from its source. In the SmR^iti-shAstra it is
said:

upalabhyApsu ced gandhaM
kecid brUyur anaipuNAH
pR^ithivyAm eva tam vidyAd
apo vAyuM ca saMshritam

"They who do not understand may sometimes say that fragrance is presentin water. Earth is the natural home of
fragrance, although it may sometimes take shelter of water or
air."

In the Prashna UpaniShad (4.9) it is said:

eSha hi dR^iShTA

"The soul is the person who sees."

SaMshaya (doubt): Is the consciousness that the soul possesses
eternal or not?

PUrvapakSha (the opponent speaks): The soul is by nature
unconscious. It is like a stone. Consciousness only arises when
the soul comes in contact with the mind. This is seen in the
scriptures.a statement: "I slept happily. I was not
conscious of anything." This statement shows that consciousness
is not an inherent quality of the soul but rather is attained by
contact with something else. It is like iron and fire. When
placed in fire, an iron rod gradually assumes the qualities of
fire. If it were an inherent quality of the soul, then
consciousness would not be lost in deep sleep.

SiddhAnta (conclusion): In the following words the author of
the sUtras gives the conclusion.

SUtra 26

pR^ithag-upadeshAt

pR^ithak - separate; upadeshAt - because of the teaching.

Because there is a specific teaching.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The soul is conscious eternally. How is that known? The
sUtra explains: "Because there is a specific teaching."
Some examples of that teaching follow.

In the Prashna UpaniShad (4.9) it is said:

eSha hi dR^iShTA

"The soul sees eternally."

In the BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (4.5.14) it is said:

avinAshI vA are ayam AtmAnucitti-dharmA

"The soul.as consciousness is never destroyed."

The soul does not become conscious merely by contact with
the mind, for soul and mind are both indivisible and cannot interact. Turningaway from the Supreme Personality of Godhead,
the soul obscures its natural spiritual knowledge. Turning
towards the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the soul revives its
natural spiritual consciousness. This is described in the SmR^iti-
shAstra:

yathA na kriyate jyotsnA
mala-prakShAlanAn maNeH
doSha-prahANAn na j~nAnam
Atmanah kriyate tathA

"As by washing away the dirt that covered a jewel,
the jewel.as splendor is not created but merely uncovered, so by
removing the dirt of materialism that covered the soul, the
soul.as splendor is not created, but merely uncovered.

yathodapAna-khananAt
kriyate na jalAntaram
sad eva niyate vyaktim
asataH sambhavaH kutaH

"As by digging a well, water is brought forth but
not created, so by spiritual activities the nature of the soul is
brought forth but not created. How would it be possible to create
the the soul.as qualities from nothing?

tathA heya-guNa-dhvaMsAd
avarodhAdayo guNAH
prakAshyante na jAnyante
nitya evAtmano hi te

"When material faults are destroyed, the soul.as
qualities become revealed. The soul.as qualities are eternal. they
are never created."

Here someone may object: These quotes from scripture merely
show that the soul is synonymous with consciousness. They do not prove
that the soul itself is conscious.

To this objection the author of the sUtras replies in the
following words.

SUtra 27

tad-guNa-sAratvAt tad vyapadeshaH prAj~na-vat

tat - of that; guNa - quality; sAratvAt - because of being the
essence; tat - that; vyapadeshaH - designation;prAj~na - intelligent;
vat - like.

It is called that because that is its essential nature, just
as He who is intelligent.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Because the soul is consciousness itself, therefore it
is conscious. Why is that? The sUtra explains: "It is
called that because that is its essential nature."
In this sUtra the word "guNa" (quality) refers to
the soul.as quality of consciousness. The word "sAra"
means "the essential nature of the thing, the absence of
which makes the thing non-existent." The word "prAj~na-
vat" means "Like Lord ViShNu, who is known as
prAj~na" (all-knowing) because He is all knowledge.
Because He is all-knowledge personified, Lord ViShNu is said to
know everything. In the same way, because the soul is
consciousness personified, therefore the soul is conscious. That
the statements "the soul is consciousness personified"
and "the soul is conscious" mean the same thing is also
confirmed in the next sUtra.

SUtra 28

yAvad Atma-bhAvitvAc ca na doShas tad-darshanAt

yAvat - as long as; Atma - of the soul; bhAvitvAt - because of
existence; ca - and; na - not; doShaH - fault; tat - ofthat;
darshanAt - because of the sight.

It exists as long as the soul exists. There is no fault in
this, because it is clearly seen.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

There is no fault in saying that the two sentences
the soul is consciousness" and "the soul is
conscious" mean the same thing. That is the meaning here. Why is
that? The sUtra explains: "It exists as long as the soul
exists. There is no fault in this, because it is clearly seen."
The soul.as consciousness exists for as long as the soul exists.
As long as the soul exists, the soul.as consciousness will not be
destroyed. The soul exists eternally, without a beginning or end
in time, and the soul.as consciousness also exists eternally. The
sun may be given here as an example. The sun is both light and
the bringer of light. As long as the sun exists it will have
these two features, which are actually not different. In the same
way the soul is both consciousness and conscious.

Here someone may object: Is it not true that consciousness is
born from the modes of material nature? Is it not true that,
because it does not exist in the state of dreamless sleep,
consciousness is not eternal? Is it not true that even when the
living entity is fully awake his consciousness is in fact created
by a barrage of various sense-objects?

If these objections are raised, the author of the sUtras
replies in the following words.

SUtra 29

puMstvAdi-vat tv asya sato .abhivyakti-yogAt

puMstva - virility; Adi - beginning with; vat - like;tu - but;
asya - of him; sataH - of the existing; abhivyakti-yogAt - because of
manifestation.

But like virility and other things it exists and then is
manifest.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The word "tu" (but) is used here to dispel doubt.
The word "na" (It is not like that) is understood in this
sUtra. It is not true than consciousness is non-existent in
dreamless sleep and only exists in the waking state. Why is that?
the sUtra explains: "But like virility and other things
it exists and then is manifest." In the state of dreamless sleep
the soul.as consciousness exists in a dormant state, and in the
state of wakefulness that dormant consciousness becomes fully
manifested. Here the sUtra gives the example of virility. In
childhood virility and other qualities associated with it exist
in a dormant state. Then, at the beginning of adulthood, they
become manifested. In the same way consciousness is dormant in
dreamless sleep and fully manifested in the waking state. This is
described in the following words of BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad
(4.3.30):

yad vai tan na vijAnAti vijAnan vaitad vij~neyam na vijAnAti na hi
vijnAtur vij~nAnAt viparilopo vidyate avinAshitvAn na tu tad
dvitIyam asti tato .anyad vibhaktaM yad vijAnIyAt

"In the state of dreamless sleep the soul is both
conscious and unconscious. The soul is always conscious, and
consciousness can never be separated from it, because the soul
and its consciousness can never be destroyed. Still, in the state
of dreamless sleep no object is presented before the soul for it
to be conscious of."

When there is no object for consciousness to perceive, then
consciousness is dormant. Therefore in dreamless sleep
consciousness is dormant. When the senses contact the sense-
objects, then consciousness becomes manifested. Had it
not existed in a dormant state during dreamless sleep,
consciousness could not have manifested itself in the waking
state, just as a person born a eunuch cannot manifest virility at
the beginning of adulthood. In this way it is proved that the
individual spirit soul is atomic, is consciousness, and is
conscious eternally.

Now the author of the sUtras refutes the theory of the
sa~Nkhya philosophers.

SaMshaya (doubt): Is the individual spirit soul consciousness
and nothing else? Is the individual spirit soul all-pervading?
PUrvapakSha (the opponent speaks): The individual spirit soul
is all-pervading. This is so because the results of its actions
are seen everywhere. Had it been atomic, the soul would be unable
to perceive the pains and pleasures present in different parts of
the body. Had it been of a medium size, the soul would not be
eternal. Therefore the individual spirit soul must be all-
pervading.

SiddhAnta (conclusion): In the following words the author of
the sUtras gives the proper conclusion.

SUtra 30

nityopalabdhy-anupalabdhi-prasa~Ngo .anyatara-niyamo vAnyathA

nitya - eternal; upalabdhi - perceptionl; anupalabdhi - non-
perception; prasa~NgaH - result; anyatara - otherwise;
niyamaH - restriction; vA - or; anyathA - otherwise.

Otherwise there would be eternal consciousness, eternal
unconsciousness, or the limited existence of one or the other.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

If the soul were only consciousness and nothing else, and if
it were all-pervading, then the soul would be either always
conscious or always unconscious. Either that or there would be a
limited existence of one or the other. This is the meaning: It is
clear to the entire world that consciousness and unconsciousness
both exist. If the cause of this were a soul that is
consciousness only and also all-pervading, then consciousness and
unconsciousness would both be perceived simultaneously at every
moment by the entire world. If this all-pervading soul were the
cause of consciousness only and not unconsciousness, then no one
would ever be unconscious, and if this all-pervading soul were
the cause of unconsciousness only and not consciousness, then no
one would ever be conscious.
It cannot be said that consciousness is created by contact
with the senses and unconsciousness is created when there is no
contact with the senses, because if the soul is all-pervading
then it would be always in contact with the senses. Furthermore,
if the individual spirit soul were all-pervading then everyone
would simultaneously experience the pains and pleasures of
everyone else. If this were so there would be no meaning to
individual experience, individual desire, or individual destiny.
This effectively refutes the theory that the individual spirit
soul is all-pervading.
However, our theory, which affirms that the spirit soul is
atomic in size and different in each material body, is not
refuted by these considerations. Although atomic in size, the
individual spirit soul can act in any place, although it cannot
act in every place simultaneously. By its quality of
consciousness the individual spirit soul can pervade its material
body and perceive the happiness and other sensations present in
the various parts of the material body.

49. Knowledge and Knowers

2006-01-14T06:33:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 12

The Individual Spirit Souls Are Both Knowledge and Knowers

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Now the author of the sUtras considers the nature of the
individual spirit soul. In the BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (3.7.22)
it is said:

yo vij~nAne tiShThan

"The individual spirit soul is situated in
knowledge."

In another passage it is said:

sukham aham asvapsaM na ki~ncid avediShi

"I slept happily. I did not know anything."

SaMshaya (doubt): Is the individual spirit soul unalloyed
knowledge only, or is the soul the knower that experiences
knowledge?

PUrvapakSha (the opponent speaks): The individual spirit soul
consists of knowledge only. This is confirmed by the statement of
BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (3.7.22): "The individual spirit
soul is situated in knowledge." The soul is not the knower or the
perceiver of knowledge. The intelligence is the knower.
Therefore statement, "I slept happily. I did not
know anything." is spoken by the intelligence, not by the soul.

SiddhAnta (conclusion): The author of the sUtras gives the
following conclusion.

SUtra 17

j~no .ata eva

j~naH - knower; ataH eva - therefore.

Therefore he is the knower.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The individual spirit soul is both knowledge and knower. In
the Prashna UpaniShad (4.9) it is said:

eSha hi draShTA spraShTA shrotA rasayitA ghrAtA mantA boddhA kartA
vij~nAnAtmA puruShaH

"The individual spirit soul is the seer, the
toucher, the hearer, the taster, the smeller, the thinker, the
determiner, the doer, and the knower."

This truth is accepted because it is declared by scripture,
not because it is understood by logic. Our acceptance of the
truth of scripture is described in sUtra 2.1.27:

shrutes tu shabda-mUlatvAt

"The statements of shruti-shAstra are the root of real
knowledge."

In the SmR^iti-shAstra it is said:

j~nAtA j~nAna-svarUpo .ayam

"The individual spirit soul is both knower and
knowledge."

Therefore the individual spirit soul is not knowledge alone
without being anything else, and this is not at all proved by
the statement, "I slept happily. I did not know
anything," for such an idea would contradict these scripture
statements that affirm the soul to be the knower. Therefore it is
concluded that the individual spirit soul is both knowledge and
knower.

48. Individual Spirit Souls Are Eternal

2006-01-14T06:30:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 11

The Individual Spirit Souls Are Eternal and Without Beginning

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Because He is the origin of everything, the Supreme
Personality of Godhead has no other origin from which He was
created. This has already been described. Now we will determine
the nature of the individual spirit soul. First the idea that the
individual soul has an origin will be refuted.
In the TaittirIya AraNyaka, MahA-NArAyaNa UpaniShad (1.4) it
is said:

yataH prasUtA jagataH prasUtI
toyena jIvAn vyasasarja bhUmyAm

"From the Supreme Personality of Godhead the
universe was born. With water He created the living entities on
the earth."

In the ChAndogya UpaniShad it is said:

san-mUlAH saumyemAH sarvAH prajAH

"O gentle one, all living entities have their roots
in the Supreme."

SaMshaya (doubt): Do the individual spirit souls have an
origin or not?

PUrvapakSha (the opponent speaks): Because He is the creator
of the material universe, which contains both sentient living
entities and insentient matter, the Supreme Personality of
Godhead must be the creator of the individual spirit souls. Any
other idea would be illogical.

SiddhAnta (conclusion): The author of the sUtras gives the
following conclusion.

SUtra 16

nAtmA shruter nityatvAc ca tAbhyaH

na - not; AtmA - the individual spirit soul; shruteH - from the
shruti-shAstra; nityatvAt - because of being eternal; ca - and;
tAbhyaH - from them.

Because the individual spirit soul is eternal, and because
of the statements of shruti-shAstra and other scriptures, this idea
about the individual spirit soul is not true.
Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The individual spirit soul was never created. Why not? The
sUtra explains: "shruteH" (because of the statements of
shruti-shAstra). In KaTha UpaniShad (1.2.18) it is said:

na jAyate mriyate vA vipashcin
nAyaM kutashcin na babhUva kashcit
ajo nityaH shAshvato .ayaM purANo
na hanyate hanyamAne sharIre

"O wise one, for the soul there is neither birth nor
death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come
into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal,
ever-existing, and primeval. He is not slain when the body is
slain."*

That the individual spirit soul was never born is also
declared in the shvetAshvatara UpaniShad (1.9):

j~nAj~nau dvAv ajAv IshAnIshau

"Neither the Supreme Personality of Godhead nor the
individual spirit souls were ever born."

The word "tAbhyaH" in the sUtra means "the
eternality of the individual spirit soul is described in the
shruti and SmR^iti -shAstras". The word "ca" (and) in the
sUtra means that the individual spirit soul is also conscious and
full of knowledge.
In the KaTha UpaniShad (2.5.13) it is said:

nityo nityAnAM cetanash cetanAnAm

"Of all eternal living souls there is one who is the
leader. Of all eternal souls there is one who is the leader."

In the Bhagavad-gItA the Supreme Lord explains:

ajo nityaH shAshvato .ayaM purANaH

"The soul is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, and
primeval."

Therefore, when it is said, "Yaj~nadatta is born and
again he dies," such words refer only to the external material
body. The jAta-karma ceremony and other ceremonies like it also
refer to the external material body. The individual spirit soul
is different from the external material body and resides in it
like a passenger. In the BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (4.3.8) it is
said:

sa vA ayaM puruSho jAyamAnaH sharIram abhisampadyamAnaH sa utkraman
mriyamANaH

"At the moment of birth the spirit soul enters a
material body and at the moment of death the soul leaves the
body."

In the ChAndogya UpaniShad (6.11.3) it is said:

jIvopetam vAva kiledaM mriyate na jIvo mriyate

"The soul resides in the material body. When the
body dies the soul does not die."

Here someone may object: How can this be? If this is so,
then this fact disagrees with the scriptural description of the
individual souls.a creation.
To this objection I reply: The individual spirit souls are
said to be created because they are effects of the Supreme. The
Supreme Personality of Godhead has two potencies, and these are
said to be His effects. Here is what makes these two potencies
different. One potency is the pradhAna and other inert,
unconscious, not alive potencies that are meant to be objects of
enjoyment and various experiences. The other potency is the
individual spirit souls, who are not inert, dull matter, but are
conscious, alive beings, and who are able to enjoy and perceive
various experiences. These two potencies share one common
feature: that they are both the effects of the Supreme
Personality of Godhead. In this way the scriptural description of
the souls.a creation is not contradicted. In this way the
scriptures are correct, and in this way, also, the individual
spirit souls are never born.

47. All Words Are Names

2006-01-14T06:27:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 10

All Words Are Names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Here someone may object: Is it not so that if Lord Hari is
the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of all, and the
all-pervading Supersoul, then the names of all that is
moving and inert would also be names of Him? However, this is not
so, for words are primarily the names of the various moving and
inert things.
Thinking that someone may accept this idea that words are
primarily names of various things and only secondarily names of
the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the author of the sUtras
gives the following explanation.

SUtra 15

carAcara-vyapAshrayas tu syAt tad-vyapadesho .abhAktas tad-
bhAva-bhAvitvAt

cara - moving; acara - and unmoving; vyapAshrayaH - theabode;
tu - indeed; syAt - may be; tat - of that;vyapadeshaH - name;
abhAktaH - not figurative; tat - of Him; bhAva - the nature;
bhAvitvAt - because of being in the future.

Indeed, He resides in all that move and does not move.
Therefore it will be learned that every word is one of His names.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The word "tu" (indeed) is used here to dispel doubt.
The word "carAcara-vyapAshrayaH" means that the
Supreme Personality of Godhead resides in all moving and unmoving
beings. The word "tad-vyapadeshaH" means "the
names of the moving and unmoving beings". The word
abhAktaH" means "these names are primarily names of
the Supreme Personality of Godhead". Why is that? The sUtra
explains: "bhAva-bhAvitvAt" (the real meaning of names
will be learned in the future). This means that by studying the
scriptures one will come to understand that all words are names
of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The shruti-shAstras explain:

so .akAmayata bahu syAm

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead desired: Let Me
become many. Let me create the material world."

sa vAsudevo na yato .anyad asti

"He is the all-pervading Supreme Personality of Godhead. Nothing isdifferent from Him."

In the ViShNu PurANa (3.7.16) it is said:

kaTaka-mukuTa-karNikAdi-bhedaiH
kanakam abhedam apIShyate yathaikam
sura-pashu-manujAdi-kalpanAbhir
harir akhilAbhir udIryate tathaikaH

"As golden bracelets, crowns, earrings, and other
golden ornaments are all one because they are all made of gold,
so all demigods, men, and animals are one with Lord because they
are all made of Lord Hari.as potencies."

The meaning is this: Names of potencies are primarily the
names of the master of these potencies. This is so because the
master is the very self of His potencies.

46. Creator of Mind and Intelligence

2006-01-14T06:23:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 9

The Supreme Personality of Godhead Is the Creator of Mind and
Intelligence

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Now the author of the sUtras removes a specific doubt.

SUtra 14

antarA vij~nAna-manasI-krameNa tal-li~NgAd iti cen
nAvisheShAt

antarAH - in the middle; vij~nAna - knowledge; manasI - and
mind; krameNa - with the sequence; tat - of that;li~NgAt - because
of the sign; iti - thus; cet - if; na - not;avisheShAt - because of not
being different.

If it is said that the sequence of mind and intelligence
appears in this way, then I reply: No. Because they are not
different.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The word "vij~nAna" here means "the
material senses of the conditioned soul".
Here someone may object: It is not proper to assume that
this quotation from MuNDaka UpaniShad (text 2.1.3 quoted in the
previous purport) supports the idea that all the features of the
material world are directly created by the Supreme Personality of
Godhead Himself. The list given in that verse merely gives the
sequence in which those material features were manifested. It
says that first come the material senses and then comes the mind.
This does not mean that everything comes directly from the
Supreme Personality of Godhead.
If this objection is raised, then I reply: No. It is not so.
Why not? The sUtra explains: "na visheShAt" (because
they are not different). This means that the material senses and
the mind are not different from the life-force, the element
earth, or any of the other material features. They have all come
directly from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this passage
the life-force and all the other material features all come from
the Supreme Personality of Godhead (etasmAt=from Him). That is
the meaning. The following scripture quotes also declare that the
elements are all created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead:

so .akAmayata bahu syAM prajAyeya

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead desired: Let Me
become many. Let me create the material world."

etasmAj jAyate prANaH

"The life-force and everything else was manifested
from the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

In the Bhagavad-gItA (10.8) the Supreme Personality of
Godhead Himself declares:

ahaM sarvasya prabhavo
mattaH sarvaM pravartate

"I am the source of all spiritual and material
worlds. Everything emanates from me."*

In the VAmana PurANa it is said:

tatra tatra sthito viShNus
tat tac chaktiM prabodhayet
eka eva mahA-shaktiH
kurute sarvam a~njasA

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord ViShNu,
enters everywhere and awakens the power dormant in everything. He
is the supremely powerful one. He does everything perfectly."

In this way it is shown that pradhAna and all other
material features all come directly from the Supreme Personality
of Godhead. That fact is not at all contradicted by the sequence
of events presented in the Subala UpaniShad and the other
scriptures. This is so because the Supreme Personality of Godhead
is the creator of the original material darkness, the pradhAna
and the other features of the material world. Thus when the
scripture says tat tejo .asR^ijata (The Supreme
Personality of Godhead created fire), it is understood that He
also created darkness, a host of other potencies, pradhAna, air,
and other aspects of matter. When the scriptures say
tasmAd vai (From the Supreme Personality of Godhead
everything has come), it is understood that the Supreme
Personality of Godhead is the master of material darkness and a
host of other potencies, the pradhAna and other features of
matter were born from Him, and the material element ether was
also manifested from Him.

45. Cause of Matter

2006-01-14T06:17:00.000-08:00

45. Cause of Matter

Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 8

The Supreme Personality of Godhead Is the Cause of Matter as
Transformations

SUtra 13

viparyayeNa tu kramo .ata upapadyate ca

viparyayeNa - by the reverse; tu - indeed; kramaH - sequence;
ataH - from this; upapadyate - is manifested; ca - and.

Indeed, this sequence is also reversed.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The word "tu" (indeed) is used here for emphasis. In
the MuNDaka UpaniShad (2.1.3) it is said:

etasmAj jAyate prANo manaH sarvendriyANi ca. khaM vAyur jyotir
ApaH pR^ithivI vishvasya dhAriNI

"From Him are born life, mind, all the senses,
ether, air, fire, water, and earth, the support of the world."

In the Subala UpaniShad, the sequence is reversed, with
pradhAna and mahat-tattva coming first. Everything actually comes
from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is present within
everything, beginning with the life-air and ending with earth,
and when one feature of creation comes from another, the second
feature actually comes from the all-powerful Supreme Personality
of Godhead present within the first feature. If this were not so,
then these two different versions would contradict each other.
The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the origin of all and the
creator of all. By knowing Him everything becomes known. The
pradhAna and other features of matter, being inert and
unconscious, cannot by themselves create changes in the material
world. That is why the word "ca" (also) is used here.
Therefore the Supreme Personality of Godhead is in every case the
real cause of these transformations in the material world.

44. The Elements Are Manifested

2006-01-14T06:11:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 7

The Elements Are Manifested From the Supreme Personality of
Godhead

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The description here, that the material elements are
manifested in a particular sequence, beginning with ether, is
given to remove controversy in regard to the sequence in which
the elements are manifested. The fact that the pradhAna, mahat-
tattva, and all the elements are created by the Supreme
Personality of Godhead has already been proved in sUtra 1.1.2
(janmAdy asya yataH). Now the author of the sUtras begins a more
detailed description of that creation. In the Subala UpaniShad it
is said:

tad AhuH kiM tad AsIt tasmai sa hovAca na san nasan na sad
asad iti tasmAt tamaH sa~njAyate tamaso bhUtAdir bhUtAder
AkAsham AkAshAd vAyur vAyor agnir agner Apo .adbhyaH
pR^ithivI tad aNDam abhavat

"They said: What was in the beginning? He replied:
In the beginning was neither existence nor non-existence. Nothing
existed and nothing did not exist. In the beginning there was
darkness. From the darkness the origin of the material elements
was born. From the origin of the material elements, ether was
born. From ether, air was born. From air, fire was born. From
fire, water was born. From water, earth was born. In this way the
egg of the material universe was created."

Here it should be understood that akShara, avyakta, mahat-tattva,
tan-mAtras, and material senses should also be placed, in this
sequence, between darkness and ether. This should be done to
complement the following statement of Agnimalaya:

sandagdhvA sarvANi bhUtAni pR^ithivy apsu pralIyate. Apas
tejasi pralIyante. tejo vAyau pralIyate. vAyur AkAshe
pralIyate. AkAsham indriyeShv indriyANi tan-mAtreShu tan-
mAtrANi bhUtAdau vilIyante. bhUtAdir mahati vilIyate.
mahAn avyakte vilIyate. avyaktam akShare vilIyate. akSharaM
tamasi vilIyate. tama ekI-bhavati parasmin. parasmAn na san
nasan na sad asat.

"When the all the elements are burned up, earth
merges into water, water merges into fire, fire merges into air,
air merges into ether, ether merges into the senses, the senses
merge into the tan-mAtras, the tan-mAtras merge into the origin
of the material elements, the origin of the material elements
merges into the mahat-tattva, the mahat-tattva merges into the
avyakta, the avyakta merges into the akShara, and the akShara
merges into the great darkness. Then the great darkness becomes one with theSupreme. In the Supreme is neither existence nor
non-existence. Nothing exists and nothing does not exist."

The word "origin of the material elements" here
means "the false-ego". False-ego is of three kinds. From
false-ego in the mode of goodness, the mind and the demigods are
manifested. From false-ego in the mode of passion, the material
senses are manifested. From false-ego in the mode of ignorance
are manifested the tan-mAtras, from which are manifested the
ether and the other elements. In this way these different
explanations all corroborate each other.
In the GopAla-tApanI UpaniShad it is said:

pUrvam hy ekam evAdvitIyaM brahmAsIt. tasmAd avkyataM
vyaktam evAkSharaM tasmAd akSharAn mahAn mahato vA
aha~NkAras tasmAd aha~NkArAt pa~nca-tan-mAtrANi tebhyo
bhUtAni tair AvR^itam akSharaM bhavati.

"Before the material world was manifest, only the
Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is one without a second,
existed. From Him came the avyakta. From the avyakta came the
akShara. From the akShara came the mahat-tattva. From the mahat-
tattva came false-ego. From false-ego came the five tan-mAtras.
From them came the material elements. The akShara is filled with
all these."

SaMshaya (doubt): Do the pradhAna and other parts of this
sequence arise one from the other or do they all arise directly
from the Supreme Personality of Godhead?

PUrvapakSha: They arise from each other, for that is the
statement of the texts.

SiddhAnta (the conclusion): The author of the sUtras gives
His conclusion in the following words.

SUtra 12

tad abhidhyAnAd eva tu tal li~NgAt saH

tat - that; abhidhyAnAt - because of meditation;eva - indeed;
tu - indeed; tat - that; li~NgAt - because of the body;saH - He.

Because of meditation and because of the body, it is indeed
He.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The word "tu" (indeed) is used to dispel doubt. The
Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of all potencies,
including the potency of great darkness, the potency that begins
the material creation. He is the direct cause, and the pradhAna,
earth, and other features of the material creation are effects
created by Him. Why is that? The sUtra explains: "Because
of meditation and because of the body." The shruti-shAstra explains:

so .akAmayata bahu syAM prajAyeya

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead desired: Let Me
become many. Let me create the material world."

Thus, it is by the desire of the all-powerful Supreme
Personality of Godhead that the pradhAna and other features of
the material world are created. That is how He is the cause of
the material world. Also, the material world is the body of the
Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Supreme Personality of
Godhead enters the great darkness of the material world and
transforms it into pradhAna and the others aspects of matter. In
this sense the material world is His body. This is confirmed by
the AntaryAmi-brAhmaNa of the BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad, and also
by the Subala UpaniShad, which explains:

yasya pR^ithivI sharIram

"The world is the body of the Supreme Personality of
Godhead."

43. Earth Is Manifested

2006-01-14T06:07:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 6

Earth Is Manifested From Water, and the Word "Anna" in
the ChAndogya UpaniShad Means "Earth"

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

In the ChAndogya UpaniShad it is said:

tA Apa aikShanta bahvayaH syAma prajAyemahIti tA annam
asR^ijanta

"Water thought: .aI shall become many. I shall father
many children..a Then water created anna."

What is the meaning of the word "anna" here? Does it
mean "barley and other food", or does it mean
earth"?

In the ChAndogya UpaniShad it is said:

tasmAd yatra kvacana varShati tad eva bhUyiShTham annaM bhavaty
adbhya eva tad adhy annAdyaM jAyate

"Therefore, whenever it rains there is abundant
anna. In this way anna is produced by water."

This passage seems, therefore, to support the idea that the
word "anna" here means barely and other food". To explain
the proper meaning here, the author of the sUtras speaks the
following words.

SUtra 11

pR^ithivy-adhikAra-rUpa-shabdAntarebhyaH

pR^ithivi - earth; adhikAra - context; rUpa - color;shabda - quotes
from the shruti-shAstra; antarebhyaH - because of other.

"Because its color, its context, and other quotes from the
shruti-shAstra, all confirm that earth is the proper meaning.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Here the meaning "earth" should be accepted. Why?
Because of the context and other reasons. It should be accepted
because the context (adhikAra) of the passage is a description of
the creation of the five material elements. It is also so,
because the "anna" here is described as being black in
color (rUpa), in the words:

yat kR^iShNaM tad annasya

"That anna is black in color."

It is also so because in other scriptures (shAstrAntarebhyaH)
it is said (in the TaittirIya UpaniShad):

adbhyaH pR^ithivI

"From water, earth is manifested."

The passage: "Therefore, whenever it rains there is
abundant anna. In this way anna is produced by water," clearly
uses the word "anna" to mean "food". However,
because this passage is in the context of a description of the
five material elements being manifested one from the other, the
"food" here is a metaphor for "earth". Thus the
two meanings "food" and "earth" combine in the
word "anna" in this passage.

42. Water Is Manifested

2006-01-14T06:06:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 5

Water Is Manifested From Fire

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Now the author describes the origin of water. In some places
the scriptures affirm that water is manifested from fire, and in
other places the scriptures do not agree with this idea. In this
way a doubt arises. To remove this doubt, the author of the
sUtras gives the following explanation.

SUtra 10

ApaH

ApaH - water.

Water.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

To this sUtra should be added the previous sUtra.as phrase
"atas tathA hy Aha" (Water comes from it. Indeed it said
that.) This means that water is manifested from fire. This is so
because the shruti-shAstra declares it. ChAndogya UpaniShad (6.2.3)
explains:

tad Apo .asR^ijata

"Fire created water."

TaittirIya UpaniShad (2.1) also explains:

agner ApaH

"From fire water was manifested."

These two quotes are clear and need no elaborate
explanation. Why water comes from fire is explained in the
following words of ChAndogya UpaniShad:

tasmAd yatra kva ca shocati svedate vA puruShas tejasa eva tad
adhy Apo jAyante

"Heat makes a person produce water. This is so when
a person perspires or weeps."

41. Fire Is Manifested

2006-01-14T05:59:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 4

Fire Is Manifested From Air

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

After concluding this discussion, we will consider what
seems to be a contradiction in the shruti-shAstra as description of
fire. ChAndogya UpaniShad (6.2.3) explains:

tat tejo .asR^ijata

"Then the Supreme Personality of Godhead created
fire."

In this way it is explained that the Supreme Personality of
Godhead created fire.

However, the TaittirIya UpaniShad (2.1.3) explains:

vAyor agniH

"From air, fire is manifested."

These words explain that air created fire. Someone may say
that in this second quote the word "vAyoH" is in the
ablative case (meaning "after fire"), and in this way
there is no contradiction because both elements were created by
the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and fire was created after
air was created.
Considering that someone may say this, the author of the
sUtras speaks the following words.

SUtra 9

tejo .atas tathA hy Aha

tejaH - fire; ataH - from that; tathA - so;hy - indeed; Aha - said.

Fire comes from it. Indeed, it said that.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

From air comes fire. This is confirmed in the shruti-shAstra,
which explains:

vAyor agniH

"From air comes fire."

The word "sambhUta" is used here. The use of that word shows that themeaning is that from air fire is created.
Also, the primary meaning of the ablative-case is "from".
If the primary meaning of a word makes sense, then the primary
meaning should be accepted. In that circumstance the secondary
meaning should not be accepted. As will be explained later, this
statement does not contradict the statement that everything is
created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

40. Not Created

2006-01-14T05:53:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 3

The Eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead Is Not Created

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The ChAndogya UpaniShad (6.2.1) affirms:

sad eva saumyedam

"O gentle one, in the beginning the Supreme
Personality of Godhead alone existed."

A doubt may arise about this statement. Was the eternal
Supreme Personality of Godhead created or not? PradhAna, mahat-
tattva, and many other things that are causes or creators of
other things were created, so perhaps the Supreme Personality of
Godhead was also created at some point. This may be so because the
Supreme Personality of Godhead is not really different from these
other causes.
In the following words the author of the sUtras addresses
this doubt.

SUtra 8

asambhavas tu sato .anupapatteH

asambhavaH - the state of not being created; tu - indeed;sataH - of
the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead; anupapatteH - because
of impossibility

Indeed, the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead was never
created, for such a creation is impossible.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The word "tu" (indeed) is used here either to remove
doubt or affirm the truth of this statement. The eternal Supreme
Personality of Godhead was never created. Why not? The sUtra
explains: "anupapatteH" (because that is impossible).
There is no creator of the Supreme Personality of Godhead,
because it is illogical and inappropriate to assume the existence
of such a creator. That is the meaning here.
shvetAshvatara UpaniShad (6.9) explains:

sa kAraNaM kAraNAdhipAdhipo
na cAsya kashcij janitA na cAdhipaH

"the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the cause of
all causes. He is the king of all other causes. No one is His
creator. No one is His king."
It is not possible to say that because all other causes are
created by something else therefore the Supreme Personality of
Godhead must have been created by someone else, for such a
statement contradicts these words of the shruti-shAstra. A root
cause of everything must be accepted, for if it is not then there
is an unending chain of causes. By definition the root cause of
everything does not have another cause, a root from which it has
sprung. This is described in the Sa~Nkhya-sUtra (1.67) in these
words:

mUle mUlAbhAvAt

"This is so because the root cause of everything is
not caused by another root cause."

In this way the doubt that perhaps the Supreme Personality
of Godhead is created by someone else is clearly refuted. Because
the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the first cause of all
causes, by definition He is not caused by someone else. However,
the secondary causes, such as the avyakta and the mahat-tattva
are all created by another cause. The sUtras explaining that
ether and the other material elements were all created were given
as examples of this general truth.

39. Air Is Created

2006-01-14T05:50:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 2

Air Is Created

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

To show that the same arguments may also show the creation
of air, the author of the sUtras gives the following
explanation.

SUtra 7

etena mAtarishvA vyAkhyAtaH

etena - by this; mAtarishvA - air; vyAkhyAtaH - is explained.

This also refers to air.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

This proof that ether was created clearly shows that air,
which exists within ether, must also have been created. That is
the meaning. This is so because the limbs of something must have
the same qualities as the whole of which they are parts.
Our opponent may object: Because it was never described in
the ChAndogya UpaniShad, it is clear that air was never created.
To this I reply: The TaittirIya UpaniShad explains that air
was created from ether.
Then our opponent may say: That description of the creation
of air must have been a figure of speech, because the shruti-
shAstra explains that air is eternal.
To this I reply: The ChAndogya UpaniShad affirms in a
pratij~nA statement (aitad-Atmyam idaM sarvam) that
everything was created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In
this way the creation of air is proved. When it is said that air
is eternal the intention is that it is so only relative to some
other things. Air was discussed in a separate sUtra and not
discussed together with ether. This was done to facilitate the
argument of SUtra

38. Ether Is Created

2006-01-12T21:14:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 1

Ether Is Created

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

vyomAdi-viShayaM gobhir
bibharti vijaghAna yaH
sa tAM mad-viShayAM bhAsvAn
kR^iShNaH praNihaniShyati

May the brilliant sun of Lord KR^iShNa, who with rays of logic destroys
a host of misconceptions about ether and the other
elements, destroy the misconceptions in my heart.

In the Second Pada were revealed the fallacies present in
the theories of they who say pradhAna is the the first cause and
they who claim something other than the Supreme Personality of
Godhead is the first cause. In the Third
Pada will be shown the truth that the various elements of the
material world are manifested from the Supreme Personality of
Godhead, that they merge into Him at the end, that the individual
spirit souls always existed, there not being a point in time when

they were created, that the individual spirit souls have
spiritual bodies full of knowledge, that the individual spirit
souls are atomic in size although by their consciousness they are
all-pervading within the material body, that the individual
spirit souls are part-and-parcel of the Supreme Personality of
Godhead, that Matsya-avatAra and the other avatAras are directly
the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and that the variety of
situations into which the conditioned souls are placed is caused
by the previous karma. These will all be proved by refuting the
ideas of they who claim that these statements are not true.
The various aspects of the material world are created in the
following sequence: 1. pradhAna, 2. mahat-tattva, 3. false-ego,
4. the tan-mAtras, 5. the senses, and 6. the gross elements,
beginning with ether. This sequence is given in the Subala-shruti
and other scriptures. The sequence found in the TaittirIya
UpaniShad and other scriptures will also be discussed in order to
show that sequence does not contradict what has already been
said.
ChAndogya UpaniShad (6.2.1) explains:

sad eva saumyedyam agra AsIt

"O gentle one, in the beginning the Supreme
Personality of Godhead alone existed."

ChAndogya UpaniShad (6.2.3-4) continues:

tad aikShata bahu syAM prajAyeyeti tat tejo .asR^ijata. tat teja
aikShata bahu syAM prajAyeyeti tad Apo .asR^ijata . . . tA Apa
aikShanta bahvayaH syAma prajAyemahIti tA annam asR^ijanta.

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead thought: .aI shall
become many. I shall father children..a Then He created fire. Then
fire thought: .aI shall become many. I shall father children..a
Then fire created water. . . . Then water thought: .aI shall
become many. I shall father children..a Then water created
grains."

In this way it is clearly shown that fire, water, and grains
were created. In this, however, there is a doubt.

SaMshaya (doubt): Was ether ever created or not?

PUrvapakSha (the opponent speaks): Because the shruti-shAstra
does not mention any creation of ether, therefore ether was never
created, but was always existing.

This idea is expressed in the following sUtra.

SUtra 1

na viyad ashruteH

na - not; viyat - ether; ashruteH - because of not being described
in the shruti-shAstra.

Not so for ether, because that is not described in the
shruti-shAstra.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

Ether is eternal and was never created. Why is that? The
sUtra explains: "Because that is not described in the
shruti-shAstra." The relevant passage of ChAndogya UpaniShad
mentions the creation of the other elements, but it does not
mention the creation of ether. In the previously quoted passage
of ChAndogya UpaniShad the creation of fire, water, and grains is
mentioned. However there is no mention of the creation of ether.
For this reason ether must not have been created. That is the
meaning.
This idea is refuted in the following sUtra:

SUtra 2

asti tu

asti - is; tu - indeed.

Indeed it is so.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The word "tu" (indeed) is used here to remove doubt.
The word "asti" (it is so) means, "It is so that
ether was created." Although the creation of ether is not
described in the ChAndogya UpaniShad, it is described in the
TaittirIya UpaniShad in the following words:

tasmAd vA etasmAd Atmana AkAshaH sambhUtaH AkAshAd
vAyur vAyor agnir agner Apo Abhyo mahatI pR^ithivI

"From the Supreme Personality of Godhead, ether was
manifested. From ether, air was manifested. From air, fire was
manifested. From fire, water was manifested. From water, earth was
manifested."

Another doubt is expressed in the next sUtra.

SUtra 3

gauNy asambhavAc chabdAc ca

gauNI - figure of speech; asambhavAt - because of being
impossible; shabdAt - because of scripture; ca - also.

Because of scripture, and because it is impossible, it must
be a mere figure of speech.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

It is not possible that ether was created. This is confirmed
by KaNAda Muni and other great philosophers. The TaittirIya
UpaniShad.as description of the creation of ether is a mere figure
of speech, as when, in ordinary speech one says, "Please
make some space" or "Some space has been made". For what
other reasons is it not possible that ether is created? Because it is
impossible to create ether. It is not possible to create ether
because ether is formless and all-pervading, because it is not
included in the chain of causes, and because scripture proclaims
that ether is not created. BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (2.3.2-3)
proclaims:

vAyus cAntarIkShaM caitad amR^itam

"Air and ether are both eternal."

This proves that ether was never created.

However, if the passage from the TaittirIya UpaniShad used
the word "sambhUta" (created) only once to refer to the
list of elements beginning with fire, how is it possible to claim
that this word is used literally for all the elements and
figuratively for ether alone?
The opponent of VedAnta replies in the next sUtra.

SUtra 4

syAc caikasya brahma-shabda-vat

syAt - may be; ca - and; ekasya - of one;brahma - Brahma;
shabda - the word; vat - like.

It may be for one, as in the word "Brahman".

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

In the TaittirIya UpaniShad (3.2) it is said:

tapasA brahma vijij~nAsasva tapo brahma

"By performing austerities strive to understand
Brahman, for austerities are Brahman."

In this passage the word Brahman is used in two ways. Used
to describe the object of knowledge attained by performing
austerities, Brahman is used in its literal sense. Then, equated
with austerities, it is used figuratively to mean, "the
way to know Brahman". In the same way the word "sambhUta"
in the previously discussed passage can be use literally and
figuratively simultaneously. In this way the fact that the
passage of the ChAndogya UpaniShad makes no mention of it refutes
the description in other UpaniShads that ether was created.
The author of the sUtras refutes this idea in the following
words.

SUtra 5

pratij~nAhAnir avyatirekAc cabdebhyaH

pratij~nA - statement of intent; ahAniH - non-
abandonment; avyatirekAt - because of non-difference;
shabdebhyaH - from the statements of scripture.

It is affirmed because it is not different and because of
the statements of scripture.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The ChAndogya UpaniShad (6.1.3) affirms:

yenAshrutaM shrutaM bhavati

"Now I will teach how to hear what cannot be heard."

In these words the intention to teach about Brahman is
expressed. If this intention is not broken, then all that follows
must be about Brahman and it must be affirmed that nothing is
different from Brahman. The idea that something is different
from Brahman is to be rejected. If everything is not-different
from Brahman, then Brahman is clearly the ingredient of which
everything is made. Thus, simply by knowing Brahman one knows everything. Ifthis is accepted then it is also accepted that
ether was created.

The ChAndogya UpaniShad (6.2.1) again affirms:

sad eva saumyedam agra AsId ekam evAdvitIyam aitad-Atmyam
idaM sarvam

"O gentle one, in the beginning the Supreme
Personality of Godhead alone existed. He was alone. There was no
one else. Everything has Him as its ingredient."

These words affirm that in the beginning everything was
manifested from Him, and after the creation was manifested
everything had Him as its ingredient. This should be accepted.

Here someone may object: There is no clear statement in that
UpaniShad that ether was created. How can you talk like that?

In the following words the author of the sUtras replies to
this objection.

SUtra 6

yAvad vikAraM tu vibhAgo loka-vat

yAvat - to what extent; vikAram - creation; tu - indeed;
vibhAgaH - creator; loka - the world; vat - like.

Indeed, if there is a creation there must be a creator, as
we see in the world.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The word "tu" (indeed) is used here to remove doubt.
The ChAndogya UpaniShad explains:

aitad-Atmyam idaM sarvam

"Everything has Him as its ingredient."

This statement shows that there is both a creator and a
creation. When the Subala UpaniShad and other scriptures explain
that the pradhAna, mahat-tattva, and other things are created,
they imply that everything that exists was created. That is the
meaning.
The following example from the material world may be given.
A person may say, "All these are the sons of Caitra." In
this way he affirms that they were all born from a man named
Caitra. In the same way, when the UpaniShad affirms that,
Everything has the Supreme Personality of Godhead as its
ingredient," it is clear that pradhAna, mahat-tattva, and
everything else has come from the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Thus when the UpaniShad states that fire, water, and grains come
from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, it means to say that everything comesfrom Him. In this way it is understand that
ether also was created.
The word "vibhAgaH" in this sUtra means
creation". SUtra 3 affirmed that it is not possible for ether
to have been created. However, the shruti-shAstra affirms that the
Supreme Personality of Godhead has inconceivable powers. Even
though it may be inconceivable, He can do anything without
restriction. In some passages it is said that ether is immortal,
which means that it is neither created nor destroyed. These
statements may be taken as figures of speech because we can find
other passages describing the creation and destruction of ether.
Because ether is counted among the elements it must be
created and also destroyed. Because ether has temporary material
qualities, as fire and the other elements do, it must also be
temporary, as the other elements are.
Whatever is not matter is spirit. Ether is not like spirit.
It is different. In this way the idea that ether was not created
is disproved. Modern philosophers that state the contrary are
wrong. It must be accepted that ether was created.

37. Names

2006-01-12T21:13:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 PAda 4 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 amR^itAkSharaH 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 aca~ncalAH
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 thesequotes 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 KR^iShNa. 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-bha~NgAdi-lIle
nityaM tasmin nas tu kR^iShNe matir naH

On Lord KR^iShNa, 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.

36. Primary and Secondary Cause

2006-01-12T21:10:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 PAda 4 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 sR^ijA

"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 (FromAtmA 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 sR^ijA
(He thought: "Now I shall create the worlds."), because
of their clear explanation that the Lord.as 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 (prakR^iti). 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 (
prakR^iti), 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 aj~nAM
aShTa-rUpAm ajAM dhruvam
dhyAyate .adhyAsitA 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
avij~nAtAH kumArakAH

ekas tu pibate devaH
svacchando .atra vashAnugAm
dhyAna-kriyAbhyAM bhagavAn
bhu~Nkte .asau prasabhaM vibhuH

sarva-sAdhAraNIM dogdhrIM
pIyamAnAM tu yajvabhiH
catur-viMshati-sa~NkhyAkaM
avyaktaM vyaktam ucyate

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead meditates on the
unborn, eternal, unintelligent material nature (
prakR^iti), 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 nopakartR^itvAt
tathAsau parameshvaraH

sannidhAnAd yathAkAsha-
kAlAdyAH kAraNaM taroH
tathaivAparigAmena
vishvasya bhagavAn hariH

nimitta-mAtram evAsau
sR^iShTAnAM sarga-karmaNi
pradhAna-kAriNI bhUtA
yato vai sR^ijya-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

prakR^itish ca pratij~nA dR^iShTAntAnuparodhAt

prakR^itiH - material nature; ca - and; pratij~nA - theproposition to be proved;
dR^iShTAnta - example; anuparodhAt - because of not
contradicting.

Brahman is also the material nature (prakR^iti)
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 (prakR^iti), the
ingredient of the world. How is that? It is so because
pratij~nA-dR^iShTAntAnuparodhAt, 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
.asy uta tam Adesham aprAkShIr yenAshrutaM shrutaM bhavaty amataM
matam avij~nAtaM vij~nAtam ity eka-vij
24Anena sarva-vij~nAna-viShayA pratij~nA

"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 mR^it-piNDena sarvaM mR^iN-mayaM
vij~nAtaM 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 .akAmayata bahu syAM prajAyeya sa tapo .atapyata tapas
taptvA idaM sarvam asR^ijat. yad idaM ki~ncana tat sR^iShTvA
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 vR^ikSha AsIt
yato dyAvA-pR^ithivI niShTatakShuH
maNIShiNo manasA pR^icchataitat
yad adhyatiShThad bhuvanAni dhArayan

brahma vanaM brahma sa vR^ikSha AsIt
yato dyAvA-pR^ithivI 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-kR^iteH pariNAmAt

Atma - self; kR^iteH - because of making; pariNAmAt - becauseof 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
.akAmayata

"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-kShetraj~na-patir guNeshaH

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of
pradhAna (material nature), kShetraj~na
(the individual spirit souls), and guNa (the
three material modes)."

- shvetAshvatara UpaniShad 6.16

The smR^iti (ViShNu PurAna) also
explains:

viShNu-shaktiH parA proktA
kShetraj~nAkhyA tathA parA
avidyA-karma-saMj~nAnyA
tR^itIyA 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 upasa~NkrAmate (an adjective
describes both what a noun is and what it is not).

The scriptures also explain (shvetAshvatara
UpaniShad 4.1):

ya eko .avarNo 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:

pR^ithivI 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.

35. AtmA

2006-01-12T21:09:00.000-08:00

35. AtmA

Adhyaya 1 PAda 4 AdhikaraNa 6

The "AtmA" of BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad
4.5 is Brahman and Not JIva

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

In the BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad 4.5.6 YAjavalkya 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 vij~nAnena 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-saMj~nAsti (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: vij~nAtAram 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 amR^itatvasya 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

pratij~nA-siddher li~Ngam AshmarathyaH

pratij~nA - of the promise; siddher - of the
fulfillment; li~Ngam - 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 vij
24Anena 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 decsribed 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 YAj~navalkya) 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 mR^ityum 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 YAj~navalkya 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 ja~NgamA
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 priyobhavati (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.as
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 BR^ihad-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):

aki~ncanasya 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 .anyaH 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 usthan 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 BR^ihad-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 tAtmA
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 yaj~na, the Supreme Personality
of Godhead is purchased by His devotees.a 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
BR^ihad-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 vij
24Ana-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 kAshakR^itsnaH

avasthiter - because of residence; iti - thus;kAshakR^itsnaH - KAshakR^itsna.

This passage refers to ParamAtmA, for ParamAtmA resides
within the jIva. This is the opinion of KAshakR^itsna.

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
vij~nAna-ghana (full of knowledge), teaches
that the ParamAtmA is different from the jIva and
resides within him. KAshakR^itsna considers that because the
ParamAtmA and the jIva are different the words
mahad-bhUtam (Great being), anantam
(limitless) and vij~nAna-ghana cannot refer
to the jIva. A summary of the passage from
BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad under discussion follows.

YenAhaM nAmR^itaH syAM kim ahaM tena kuryAm

"Tell me what I must do to become free of death)."

- BR^ihad-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 vij~nAnena 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
bAhyA~n chabdA~n chakruyAd grahaNAya dundubhes tu
grahaNena dundubhy-AghAtasya vA shabdo gR^ihItaH

"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 .agner
abhyAhitasya pR^ithag dhUmA vinishcaranty evaM vA are .asya mahato
bhUtasya nishvAsitam etad yad R^ig vedo yajur vedaH sAma-vedo
.atharvA~Ngirasa itihAsaH purANaM vidyA upaniShadaH shlokAH sUtrANy
anuvyAkhyAnAni vyAkhyAnAnIShTaM hutam AshitaM pAyitam ayaM calokaH
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 shabdAnAMshrotram
ekAyanam evaM sarveShAM sa~NkalpAnAM mana ekAyanam evaM sarvAsAM
vidyAnAM hR^idayam ekAyanam evaM sarveShAm karmaNAM hastAv ekAyanam
evaM sarveShAm AnandAnAM upastha ekAyanam evaM sarveShAMvisargANAM
pAyur ekAyanam evaM sarveShAm adhvanAM pAdAv ekAyanam evaM
sarveShAM vedAnAM vAg ekAyanam

"As smoke comes from a fire made
with wet fuel, the Rg 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 vij~nAna-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 saMj~nAsti (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 shR^iNoti tad
itara itaraM manute tad itara itaraM spR^ishati 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 shR^iNuyAt tat kena kaM manvIta tata tena kaM spR^ishet 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 vij~nTAram 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 BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad describes
the ParamAtmA and not the puruSha as described in
the Kapila-tantra, or the material nature
controlled by the puruSha.

34. PuruSha

2006-01-12T21:07:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 PAda 4 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 sa~Nkhya 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 sa~Nkhya 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 bhu~Nkte), 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 enjoyer-puruShas 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 kShetraj
24a (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 kR^i (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.as
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.as, and he is dishonest to reject BAlAkI.as
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.as 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-li~NgAn neti cet tad-vyAkhyAtam

jIva - the individual spiritual entity; mukhya - the
chief; prANa - breath of life; li~NgAn
- 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 .apahatya 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
ka~ncana 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 vij
24Anamaya full of knowledge and Brahman is clearly
distinguished from him. In that reading the question is:
ya eSha vij~nAnamayaH 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 .antar hR^idaya 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.

33. The Only Original Cause

2006-01-12T21:06:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 PAda 4 AdhikaraNa 4

Brahman Is The Only Original Cause

The sa~Nkhya 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 (BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad 1.4.7)
proclaims avyAkR^ita (the unmanifested) as the
original cause in the following words:

tad vaidaM tarhy
avyAkR^itam 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 BR^ihad-
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 (BR^ihad-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 of
VedAnta (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 ahost of transcendental qualities: is
described in the following words (TaittirIya UpaniShad
1.2.2):

satyaM j~nAnam 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 .asR^ijata

" 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 avyAkR^ita
(unmanifested), he says:

SUtra 15

samAkarShAt

samAkarShAt - from appropriateness.

The words "asat" (non-existence) and
avyAkR^ita" (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 .akAmayata
(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.as 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 BR^ihad-
AraNyaka UpaniShad (1.4.7) explains:

tad vaidaM tarhy avyAkR^itam
AsIt tan-nAma-rUpAbhyAM vyAkriyata

"In the beginning was
the avyAkR^ita. From it all the names and forms have
come."

The word avyAkR^ita 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 avyAkR^ita 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.

32. Pa~nca-pa~nca-janAH

2006-01-12T21:05:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 PAda 4 AdhikaraNa 3

The Phrase "Pa~nca-pa~nca-janAH" in BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad 4.4.17 Does Not Refer to the 25 Elements of Sa~Nkhya

ViShaya: The BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad 4.4.17 explains:

yasmin pa~nca-pa~nca-janA
AkAshAsh ca pratiShThitAH tam eva manya AtmAnaM vidvAn
brahmAmR^ito .amR^itam

"I, who am immortal spirit, meditate on the Supreme
Brahman, in whom the ether element and the pa~nca-
pa~nca-jana rest."

SaMshaya: Do the words pa~nca-
pa~nca-jana refer to the 25 elements described in
the Kapila-tantra, or to some five other things?

PUrvapakSha: Because pa~nca-pa
24ca is a bahuvrIhi-samAsa and
pa~nca-pa~nca-janAH is a
karmadhAraya-samAsa, the word pa~nca-
pa~nca-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 sa~Nkhyopasa~NgrahAd api nAnA-bhAvAd atirekAc ca

na - not; sa~Nkhya - of numbers;
upasa~NgrahAt - 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 sa~Nkhya
theory, these words do not refer to the sa~Nkhya theory because
the the numbers here actually exceed sa~Nkhya.as
numbers and because the elements of sa~Nkhya 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
sa~Nkhya elements does not prove that pa
24ca-pa~nca-jana refers to the sa~Nkhya
elements. Why? The answer is given in the words beginning
nAnA-bhAvAt. Because the variegated sa~Nkhya
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
sa~Nkhya elements. Also, the addition of atmA
and AkAsha brings the number up to 27. Simply by
hearing the word pa~nca five) twice one
should not be bewildered into thinking these two fives refer to
the 25 elements of the sa~Nkhya theory.
What is your interpretation of pa~nca-pa
24ca-jana?" someone may ask. The word pa
24ca-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-sa~Nkhye saMj~nAyAm (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 pa~nca-janas, each of whom may be
called a pa~nca-jana, and all the
pa~nca-janas together may be called the five
pa~nca-janas. In this way the meaning of the word
pa~nca-jana is very clear.
Who are these pa~nca-janas? To answer
this question he says:

SUtra 12

prAnAdayo vAkya-sheShAt

prAna - breath; AdayaH - beginning with; vAkya - of thestatement; sheShAt - from the remainder.

The pa~nca-janas here are five things
beginning with prANa (breath), as is clear from the
words immediately following the mention of pa~nca-
jana.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The five things beginning with prANa are
described in the following words (BR^ihad-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 isincluded 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 BR^ihad-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.

31. AjA

2006-01-12T21:03:00.000-08:00

31. AjA

Adhyaya 1 PAda 4 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-kR^iShNAM
bahvIH prajAH sR^ijamAnAM sarUpAH
ajo hy eko juShamAno .anushete
jahaty enaM bhukta-bhogam ajo .anyaH

"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 sa~Nkhya, 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
sa~Nkhyas.a 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 sa_nkhya conception of
material nature) because of the lack of a specific description.
It is like the word "camasa" (cup) in BR^ihad-
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 sa~Nkhya-smR^iti. 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 BR^ihad-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 yaj~na. 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 thismantra as the material nature described in the
sa~Nkhya-smR^iti. It is also not possible because the
sa~Nkhya-smR^iti 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 (
BR^ihad-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 BR^ihad-
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.as 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.as 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 R~N Veda.as 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 (Rg 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 pR^ithivy 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.

30. Avyakta

2006-01-12T21:02:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 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 sa~Nkhya-ghanodIrNa-
vidIrNaM yasya go-gaNaiH
taM samvid-bhUShaNaM kR^iShNa-
pUShaNaM samupAsmahe

Let us offer our respectful obeisances to the KR^iShNa-sun, which is decorated with transcendental knowledge, and which with its effulgence dispels the deep darkness of Sa~Nkhya.

(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 ki~ncit
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 smR^iti 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-gR^ihItair
darshayati ca.

anumAnikam - the inference; apy - even; ekeShAm - of some; iti - thus; cen - if; na - not; sharIra - the body; rUpaka - the metaphor; vinyasta - placed; gR^ihItair - 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 vij~nAnavAn bhavati
yuktena manasA sadA
tasyendriyAni vashyAni
sad-ashvA iva sAratheH

yas tu vij~nAnavAn bhavaty
amanaskaH sadA-shuciH
na sa tat-padam Apnoti
saMsAraM cAdhigacchati

yas tu vij~nAnavAn bhavati
sa-manaskaH sadA shuciH
sa tu tat-padam Apnoti
yasmAd bhUyo na jAyate

vij~nAna-sArathir yas tu
manaH pragrahavAn naraH
so .adhvanaH 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 ki~ncit
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.as 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 sa~Nkhya 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 BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (1.4.7) "tad dhedaM tarhy avyAkR^itam 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 sa~Nkhya 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 prakR^itiM 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 sR^ijate 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 prakR^itiM sisR^ikShatIm
anAma-rUpAtmani rUpa-nAmanI
vidhitsamAno .anusasAra shAstra-kR^it

"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 prakR^itiH
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 sa~Nkhya theory because it considers pradhAna the original, independent cause of all causes.

SUtra 4

j~neyatvAvacanatvAc ca

j~neyatva - 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 sa~Nkhya 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 Sa~Nkhyites.

SUtra 5

vadatIti cen na prAj~no hi prakaraNAt

vadati - says; iti - thus; cet - if; na - no; prAj~no - 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 mR^ityu-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 ki~ncit
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.as 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 sa~Nkhya 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 sa~Nkhya.

29. Both are Different

2006-01-12T21:01:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 - Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 11

At Both the Time of Dreamless Sleep and the Time of the JIva as 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 BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad it is said:

katama Atmeti yo .ayaM vij~nAnamayaH puruShaH prANeShu
hR^idy-antar-jyotiH sa samAnaH sann ubhau lokAv anusa
carati

"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 vij~nAnamayaH

"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.as 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 wasused 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 (BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad 4.3.12):

prAj~nenAtmanA sampariShvakto na bAhyaM ki~ncana
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:

prAj~nenAtmanA 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 BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad, a little afterwards,the word "pati" and other similar words are used in these words (BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad 4.4.22):

sa vA ayam AtmA sarvasya vashI sarvasyeShaNaH sarvasyAdhipatiH
sarvam idam prashAsti yad idaM ki~nca 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.as 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 inmore detail.

The statement ayam AtmA brahma (the self is Brahman) simply means that the jIva has a small portion of Brahman as 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.as 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 thenature 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 .anupapatteH (1.1.16) and bheda-vyapadeshAc ca (1.1.17) isdispelled 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.

28. AkAsha (2)

2006-01-12T21:00:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 - Pada 3 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 amR^itaM 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
amR^itam (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 .arthAntaratvAdi-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 anenajIvenAtmanAnupravishya 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.

27. Thunderbolt

2006-01-12T20:59:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 - Pada 3 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 ki~ncit jagat sarvaM
prANa ejati niHsR^itam
mahad bhayaM vajram udyataM
ya etad vidur amR^itAs 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 ca~NkramaNAd eSha
vajanAd vajram ucyate
khaNDanAt khaDga evaiSha
heti-nAmA hariH svayam

"Because He goes (ca~NkramaNa) 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.

26. shUdras Not Qualified

2006-01-12T20:56:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 - Pada 3 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 Rai~Nka Muni and offered him many cows, necklaces, and chariots. Rai~Nka, 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. Rai~Nka 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 Rai~Nka 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 rai~Nkam Attha (What is he compared to the great saint Rai~Nka?) became unhappy (shuk) and thus ran (dru to meet Rai~Nka. 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 li~NgAt

kShatriyatva - status of being a kShatriya; avagatesh - from the understanding; ca - also; uttaratra - in a later passage; caitrarathena - with Caitraratha; li~NgAt - 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 Rai~Nka) 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: li~NgAt (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. Rai~Nka 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 yaj~no 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 pravR^itteH

tat - of that; abhAva - of the non-existence; nirdhAraNe - in ascertaining; ca - also; pravR^itteH - 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 .aham 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 smR^itesh ca

shravaNa - hearing; Adhyayana - study;arthaM - for the purpose; pratiShedhAt - because of the prohibition; smR^iteH - from the smR^iti-shAstra ca - also.

This is so because the smR^iti-shAstra also prohibits the shUdras from hearing and studying (the Vedas.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The smR^iti-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 smR^iti also says tasmAc chUdro bahu-pashur ayaj 24IyaH (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 smR^iti-shAstra says nAgnir na yaj 24aH 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 smR^iti 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.

25. The Devas Can Meditate

2006-01-12T20:54:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 - Pada 3 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 BR^ihad-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 BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (4.4.16)
also says:

tad devA jyotiShAM jyotir Ayur hopAsate
.amR^itam

"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 .api yAta-bhItasya
kShayiShNor nAsti nirvR^itiH

"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 BR^ihad-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-yaj~nas 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.a 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 smR^iti.

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 smR^iti.

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 smR^iti. 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 smR^iti." The shruti (Pa~nca-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 asR^ijat asR^igram iti manuShyAn indava iti pitR^iIMs 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 asR^igram, 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 smR^iti also
confirms this in the following words (ViShNu PurANa
1.5.64):

nAma rUpaM ca bhUtAnAM
kR^ityAnAM ca prapa~ncanam
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 (prAkR^ita) 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 cAvR^ittAv apy avirodho darshanAt smR^itesh ca

samAna - same; nAma - because of the names; rUpatvAt - and forms; ca - also;
avR^ittAu - in the repetition; api - also; avirodhaH - not a contradiction; darshanAt because of the shruti$ smR^itesh - because of the smR^iti ; 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 smR^iti.

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 cAvR^ittAv apy avirodho darshanAt smR^itesh 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 smR^iti). 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 smR^itesh ca (because this is proved by shruti and smR^iti. The shruti says:

AtmA vA idam eka evAgra AsIt sa aikShata lokAn utsR^ijAH

"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 smR^iti 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 hR^idA 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.as 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.as 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.as 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 Rg Veda and one attains by entering through the doorway of the sun.as 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 BR^ihad-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 .asti 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 BR^ihad-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 .ajuhot. (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.
25.

24. The Person the Size of a Thumb

2006-01-12T20:49:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 - Pada 3 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:

a~NguShTha-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 sa~ncarati sva-karmabhir a~NguShTa-mAtroravi-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

hR^idy upekShayA tu manuShyAdhikAratvAt

hR^idi - 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 arts, 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.

23. The "Dahara"

2006-01-12T20:47:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 - Pada 3 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
vijij~nAsitavyam

"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 dR^iShTaM li~NgaM ca

gati - because of going; shabdAbhyAm - and because of a certain word; tathA hi - furthermore; dR^iShTam - seen; li~Ngam - 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 akShetraj~nA upari
sa~ncaranto .api na vidus tathemAH sarvAH prajA ahar ahar
gacchantya enaM brahmalokaM na vidanty anR^itena 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.a "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.a 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

dhR^itesh ca mahimno .asyAsminn upalabdheH

dhR^iteH - 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 .asminn 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 BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (4.4.22) also says: atha ya AtmA sa setur vidhR^itir 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 .asmAc charIrAt samutthAya paraM jyotir upasampadya svena rUpeNAbhiniShpadyate. eSha Atmeti hovAca. etad amR^itam 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 vimR^ityur vishoko vijighatso .apipAsaH satya-kAmaH satya-sa~NkalpaH so .anveShTavyaH sa vijij~nAsitavyaH (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 .asmAc charIrAt samutthAya paraM jyotir upasampadya svena rUpeNAbhiniShpadyate. eSha Atmeti hovAca. etad amR^itam 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

anukR^ites tasya ca

anukR^iteH - 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): nira 24janaH paramaM sAmyam upaiti (the liberated jIva resembles the Supreme Personality of Godhead).

SUtra 23

api smaryate

api - and; smaryate - described in the smR^iti-shAstra.

This is also described in the smR^iti-shAstra.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

In the Bhagavad-gIta (14.2) the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord KR^iShNa, also explains:

idaM j~nAnam upAshritya
mama sAdharmyam AgataH
sarge .api 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 smR^iti-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.

22. The "PuruSha" Seen in Brahmaloka

2006-01-12T20:40:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 - Pada 3 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 amR^itam 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).

21. AkShara (2)

2006-01-12T20:34:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 - Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 3

"AkShara" Refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

ViShaya: The BR^ihad-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
".aIn what is the sky woven, warp and woof?.a He said: .aO 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-dhR^iteH

akSharam - the eternal; ambara - with sky; anta - at the end; dhR^iteH - 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-dhR^iteH (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 BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (3.8.9) says etasya vA akSharasya prashAsane gArgi dyAvA-pR^ithivI vidhR^ite tiShThataH. etasya vA akSharasya prashAsane gArgi sUryA-candramasau vidhR^itau 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-vyAvR^ittesh ca

anya - another; bhAva - nature; vyAvR^itteH - 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 BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (3.8.11) says tad vA etad akSharaM gArgy adR^iShTaM draShTR^i ashrutaM shrotR^i (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.

20. The Fullness

2006-01-12T20:29:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 - Pada 3 AdhikaraNa 2

The Fullness is the Supreme Personality of Godhead

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

ViShaya: When, after describing the Lord.as 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 vijij~nAsitavya iti bhUmAnaM bhagavo
vijij~nAsa iti. yatra nAnyat pashyati nAnyac chR^iNoti nAnyad
vijAnAti sa bhUmA. atha yatrAnyat pashyaty anyac chR^iNoty anyad
vijAnAti tad-alpam

"One should ask about BhUmA.a .aMy lord, I wish to know about BhUmAa. 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.as 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 .asmAc charIrAt samutthAya (The jIva who has attainedthe 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.as 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 j 24Anam 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 anativAdI (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 .ahaM 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 vijij Asitavyam (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 .aham 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 chR^iNoti 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 amR^itam (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.

19. Abode of Heaven

2006-01-12T20:26:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 - 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 pR^ithivI cAntarikSham
otaM manaH saha prANaish ca sarvaiH
tam evaikaM jAnatha AtmAnam
anyA vAco vimu~ncathAmR^itasyaiSha 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 amR^ita-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 thewords 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 amR^itasya 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 amR^itasya 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 mR^ityum eti (One can overcome the path
of birth and death only by understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead).

Next he says:

SUtra 2

muktopasR^ipya vyapadeshAt

mukta - liberated; upasR^ipya - 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
nira~njanaH 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 smR^iti-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-bhR^ic ca

prANa-bhR^it - 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 vij~nAte sarvam idaM vij~nAtaM 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 vR^ikShaM pariShasvajAte
tayor anyaH pippalaM svAdy atti
anashnann anyo .abhicAkashIti

"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.

18. VaishvAnara

2006-01-12T20:03:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 Pada 2 - 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 pR^ithag-vartmA sandeho bahulo vastir eva vayiH pR^ithivy eva pAdAv ura eva vedir lomAnir bahir hR^idayaM gArhapatyo mano .anvAhAryapacana 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 smR^iti-shAstra; anumAnaM—inference; syAd—is; iti—thus.

This may also be inferred from the statements of the smR^iti-shAstra.

Purport by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

The word iti here means "this is the reason." In Bhagavad-gItA (15.14), Lord KR^iShNa says:

ahaM vaishvAnaro bhUtvA
prANinAM deham AshritaH

"I am the vaishvAnara in the bodies of all living entities."*

In these words the smR^iti-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 .antaH pratiShThAnAc ca neti cen na tathA dR^iShTy-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; dR^iShTi—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 hR^idayaM gArhapatyo mano .anvAhAryapacana 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 dR^iShTy-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," dR^iShTi, 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 .antaH 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 pR^ithivI 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.as 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

anusmR^iter iti bAdariH

anusmR^iteH—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 .api san bahudhA yo .avabhAti (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 .aham acintya-shaktiH (Although I have no hands or feet, I still have inconceivable potencies). shrImad-BhAgavatam (3.33.3) says Atmeshvaro .atarkya-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-kR^itya gR^ihAdivat

"Other sages take up small portions broken from the vast sky of VyAsadeva.as opinions just as houses and other enclosures take up a small portion of the vastness of space."

17. AkShara

2006-01-12T06:14:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 Pada 2 - 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 .akSharAt 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

adR^ishyatvAdi-guNako dharmokteH

adR^ishyatva—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 sarvaj~naH sarvavid yasya j~nAnamayaM 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 sarvaj~na (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

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
nira~njanaH 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 smR^iti-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
r~N-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-kA~NkShiNAm
shruti-vAkypditaM sUkShmaM
tad viShNoH paramaM padam

tad eva bhagavad-vAcyaM
svarUpaM paramAtmanaH
vAcako bhagavac-chabdas
tasyAdyasyAkSharAtmanaH

evaM nigaditArthasya
sa-tattvaM tasya tattvataH
j~nAyate yena taj-j~nAnaM
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 R^ig 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."

16. The Internal Ruler

2006-01-12T06:09:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 Pada 2 - AdhikaraNa 5

The Internal Ruler is the Supreme Personality of Godhead

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

ViShaya: BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad 3.7.18 says:

yaH pR^ithivyAM tiShThan pR^ithivyA antaro yaM pR^itivI na veda yasya pR^ithivI sharIraM yaH pR^ithivIm antaro yam ayaty eSha ta AtmAntaryAmy amR^itaH

"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 amR^ita (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 amR^ita (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 BR^ihad-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 smR^iti; atad—not of it; dharma—the qualities; abhilApAt—because of description.

The ruler within is not (the pradhAna, which is) described in the smR^iti, 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 smR^iti, is the ruler within. Why? The sUtra says atad-dharmAbhilApAt (because the qualities mentioned in this passage cannot be attributed to it.

The BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (3.7.23) says:

adR^iShTo draShTA ashruto shrotA amato mantA avij{.sy 241}Ato vij~nAtA nAnyato .asti draShTA nAnayto .asti shrotA nAnyato .asti mantA nAnyato .asti vij~nAtaiSha ta AtmAntaryAmy amR^ita ito .anyat 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 smR^iti 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 .api 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: pR^ithivy-AdInAm avyaktAkSharAmR^itaAntAnAM shrI-nArAyaNo .antaryAmI (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 pR^ithivI sharIraM yaH pR^ithivIm antare sa~ncaran yaM pR^ithivI na veda (The earth is His body. He stays within the earth. The earth does not understand Him, the Supreme Personality of Godhead).

15. The Person in the Eye

2006-01-12T06:06:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 Pada 2 - 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 .antar-akShiNi puruSho dR^ishyate sa eSha Atmeti hovAca. etad amR^itam ayam etad brahma tad yad yad asmin sarpir vodakaM vA si~ncati 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.as eye. It may be the second because BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (5.5.2) says: rashmibhir eSho .asmin 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 (amR^ita), 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 BR^ihad-AraNyaka UpaniShad (3.7.18):

yash cakShuShi tiShThaMsh cakShuSho .antaro yaM cakShur na veda yasya cakShur sharIraM yash cakShur antaro yam ayaty eSha ta AtmAntaryAmy amR^itaH

"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.

14. The Associate in the Cave

2006-01-12T06:05:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 Pada 2 - AdhikaraNa 3

The Associate in the Cave is Brahman

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

ViShaya: The KaTha UpaniShad (1.3.1) states:

R^itaM pibantau sukR^itasya loke
guhAM praviShTau parame parArdhe
chAyA-tapau brahma-vido vadanti
pa~ncAgnayo 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:

vij~nAna-sArathir yas tu
manaH-pragrahavAn naraH
so .adhvanaH 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.

13. The Eater is Brahman

2006-01-12T06:03:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 Pada 2 - 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
mR^ityur 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 BR^ihad-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 smR^iti-shAstra:

atAsi lokasya carAcarasya

"You are the eater of this complete cosmic manifestation, of the moving and the non-moving."

12. "Manomaya" Refers to Brahman

2006-01-12T06:01:00.000-08:00

Adhyaya 1 Pada 2 - AdhikaraNa 1

The Word "Manomaya" Refers to Brahman

Introduction by shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa

manomayAdibhiH shabdaiH
svarUpaM yasya kIrtyate
hR^idaye 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-sa~Nkalpa 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 BR^ihad-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 .antar-hR^idaya AkAshas tasminn ayaM puruSho manomayo .amR^itamayo 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

hR^idA manIShA manasAbhiklpto ya etad vidur amR^itas 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."
—BR^ihad-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 here 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-kartR^i-vyapadeshAc ca

karma—object; kartR^i—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 (BR^ihad-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-hR^idaye (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

smR^itesh ca

smR^iteH—because of the smR^iti-shAstra; ca—also.

And because of the statement of smR^iti-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
hR^id-desh/e .arjuna tiShThati
bhrAmayan sarva-bhUtAni
yantrArUDhAni mAyayA

"The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone.as 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-hR^idaye .aNIyAn 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 smR^iti-shAstra in the words eko .api san bahudhA yo .avabhAti (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 .abhicAkashIti (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 KR^iShNa says: na mAM karmANi limpanti na me karma-phale spR^ihA (There is no work that affects me; nor do I aspire for the fruits of action).