Sri Vedanta-sutra

Volume One

Päda 4

 

 

Adhikaraëa 1

 

The Word "Avyakta" in Kaöha Upaniñad 1.3.11 Refers to the

Subtle Body and Not to Pradhäna

 

 

Introduction by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

Invocation

 

 

tamaù saìkhya-ghanodérëa-

     vidérëaà yasya go-gaëaiù

taà samvid-bhüñaëaà kåñëa-

     püñaëaà samupäsmahe

 

 

     Let us offer our respectful obeisances to the Kåñëa-sun,

which is decorated with transcendental knowledge, and which with

its effulgence dispels the deep darkness of Saìkhya.

 

     (Viñaya): Previously the sütras

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 jévas 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 pradhäna

(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 Kaöha Upaniñad:

 

 

indriyebhyaù parä hy arthä

     arthebhyaç ca paraà manaù

manasas tu parä buddhir

     buddher ätmä mahän paraù

 

mahataù param avyaktam

     avyaktät puruñaù paraù

puruñän na paraà kiïcit

     sä käñöhä sä parä gatiù

 

 

     "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 puruña (the person) is

higher than the unmanifested. Nothing is higher than the person.

The person is the highest."

 

     Saàçaya: The doubt here is whether the word

avyakta (the unmanifested) refers to the 

pradhäna (the primordial stage of material nature) or

the çaréra (the body).

     Pürvapakña: The opponent may answer this

doubt by saying that because both çruti and 

småti give the sequence as first mahat,

then avyakta, and then puruña,

therefore the word avyakta here must refer to the

pradhäna.

     Siddhänta: Whether the word 

avyakta refers to pradhäna or 

çaréra is explained in the following sütra

.

 

 

Sütra 1

 

 

anumänikam apy ekeñäm iti cen na çaréra-rüpaka-vinyasta-gåhétair

darçayati ca.

 

     anumänikam  - the inference; apy  - even; ekeñäm  - of some; iti  - thus; cen

 - if; na  - not; çaréra - the body; rüpaka - the metaphor; vinyasta - placed; gåhétair  - because of being accepted;

darçayati  - reveals; ca - and.

 

 

     If some assume (that the word "avyakta" in this

passage of the Kaöha Upaniñad refers to the pradhäna), 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 çaréra).

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa  

 

 

     The Kaöhakas (ekeñäm) consider

(anumänikam) that the word avyakta

here refers to the pradhäna. 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 

pradhäna (unmanifested material nature).

     What is the answer to this objection? The answer is

given in this sütra in the phrase beginning with

the word çaréra. Because it is employed in a

passage where the body is compared to a chariot, the word 

avyakta here refers to the çaréra (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.

 

 

ätmänaà rathinaà viddhi

     çaréraà ratham eva ca

buddhià tu särathià viddhi

     manaù pragraham eva ca

 

indriyäëi hayän ähur

     viñayäàs teñu gocarän

ätmendriya-mano-yuktaà

     bhoktety ähur manéñiëaù

 

yas tv avijëänavän bhavaty

     ayuktena manasä sadä

tasyendriyäny avaçyäni

     duñöäçvä iv säratheù

 

yas tu vijïänavän bhavati

     yuktena manasä sadä

tasyendriyäni vaçyäni

     sad-açvä iva säratheù

 

yas tu vijïänavän bhavaty

     amanaskaù sadä-çuciù

na sa tat-padam äpnoti

     saàsäraà cädhigacchati

 

yas tu vijïänavän bhavati

     sa-manaskaù sadä çuciù

sa tu tat-padam äpnoti

     yasmäd bhüyo na jäyate

 

vijïäna-särathir yas tu

     manaù pragrahavän naraù

so 'dhvanaù päram äpnoti

     tad viñëoù paramaà padam

 

indriyebhyaù parä hy arthä

     arthebhyaç ca paraà manaù

manasas tu parä buddhir

     buddher ätmä mahän paraù

 

mahataù param avyaktam

     avyaktät puruñaù paraù

puruñän na paraà kiïcit

     sä käñöhä sä parä gatiù

 

 

     "The individual is the passenger in the car of the

material body, and the intelligence is the driver. Mind is the

driving instrument, and the senses are the horses. The self is

thus the enjoyer or sufferer in the association of the mind and

senses. So it is understood by great thinkers.

     "For a fool who does not control his mind, the senses are

wild horses drawing the charioteer. For the wise man who controls

his mind the senses are good horses obedient to the charioteer.

     "An impious fool who does not control his mind does

not attain the spiritual world. He attains the world of repeated

birth and death. A pious wise man who controls his mind attains

the spiritual world. He never again takes birth.

     "A person who has transcendental knowledge as a

charioteer, and who tightly holds the reins of the mind, attains

the path's final destination: the supreme abode of Lord Viñëu.

     "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 

puruña (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

Viñëu 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 Viñëu. After this is

explained, the verses beginning indriyebhyaù parä hy

arthäù 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 indriyebhyaù verses continue this

discussion. Of the things mentioned in the previous verses only

the body itself is not listed in the indriyebhyaù

verses, and therefore the single ambiguous item (

avyakta) must refer to the çaréra (body)

by default. The pradhäna interpretation of this

word is also disproved because the content of the 

indriyebhyaù verses disagrees with the tenants of 

saìkhya 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:

 

 

Sütra 2

 

 

sükñmaà tu tad-arhatvät

 

     sükñmaà  - subtle; tu  - certainly;

tad-arhatvät - because of appropriateness.

 

 

     The word "çaréra" (body) here certainly means

the sutble body (sükñma-çaréra) because that is

appropriate in this context.

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     The word tu (certainly) is used here to dispel

doubt. The word çaréra here means sükñma-

çaréra (the subtle body). Why? Because that meaning is

appropriate. Because it is appropriate to describe the 

sükñma-çaréra as avyakta (unmanifest). The

quote from Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad (1.4.7) 

"tad dhedaà tarhy avyäkåtam äsét (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

pradhäna (unmanifested material nature) of the 

saìkhya theory.

     To answer this doubt he says:

 

 

Sütra 3

 

 

tad-adhénatväd arthavat

 

     tad - on Him; adhénatväd  - because of

dependence; arthavat - possessing the meaning.

 

 

 

     This meaning should be accepted because the pradhäna

(unmanifested material nature) is ultimately dependent on Him

(the Supreme Brahman).

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     The meaning here is that because pradhäna is

ultimately dependent on the Supreme Brahman, which is the

original cause of all causes, the creative actions of 

pradhäna are not the original cause, but are themselves

caused by the Supreme Brahman. Because pradhäna is

naturally inactive, it only acts when inspired by the glance of

Brahman. This is described in the following statements of Vedic

literature.

 

 

mäyäà tu prakåtià vidyän

     mäyinaà tu maheçvaram

 

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is a magician, and

the material world is His magical show."

 

                - Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad (4.10)

 

 

asmän mäyé såjate viçvam etat

 

 

     "The master of Mäyä creates this world."

 

                - Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad (4.9).

 

 

ya eka varëo bahudhä çakti-yogäd

     varëän anekän nihitärtho dadhäti

 

 

     "He who has no rival creates the varieties of this world,

using His own potencies according to His own wish."

 

                - Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad (4.1).

 

 

sa eva bhüyo nija-vérya-codità_

     sva-jéva-mäyäà prakåtià sisåkñatém

anäma-rüpätmani rüpa-nämané

     vidhitsamäno 'nusasära çästra-kåt

 

 

     "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."

 

                 - Çrémad-Bhägavatam 1.10.22

              

 

 

pradhänaà puruñaà cäpi

     praviçyätmecchayä hariù

kñobhayäm äsa sampräpte

     sarga-käle vyayävyayau

 

 

     "At the time of creation Lord Hari enters the changing

pradhäna and the unchanging living souls, and

agitates them according to His wish."

 

                 - Viñëu Puräëa

 

 

mayädhyäkñeëa prakåtiù

     süyate sa-caräcaram

hetunänena kaunteya

     jagad viparivartate

 

 

     "The material nature, which is one of my energies, is

working under my direction, O son of Kunté, producing all moving

and non-moving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is

created and annihilated again and again."

                 - Bhagavad-gétä 9.10

 

     We do not accept the saìkhya theory because it

considers pradhäna the original, independent cause

of all causes.

 

 

Sütra 4

 

 

jïeyatvävacanatväc ca

 

     jïeyatva - the state of being the object of

knowledge; avacanatvät - 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 pradhäna.   

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     Claiming that liberation is obtained by understanding the

difference between the the spiritual living entity, or soul and

the modes of material nature, the saìkhya theorists

affirm that one should know the real nature of 

pradhäna in order to obtain certain powers. Because this

passage from the Kaöha Upaniñad in no way describes

any of this, the word avyakta here cannot refer to

the pradhäna of the Saìkhyites.

 

 

Sütra 5

 

 

vadatéti cen na präjïo hi prakaraëät

 

     vadati - says; iti  - thus; cet

 - if; na  - no; präjïo  - the

omniscient Paramätmä; hi  - indeed;

prakaraëät - because of reference.

 

 

     If someone says "This passage does describe

pradhäna in this way" then I say "No. That

statement refers to the omniscient Personality of Godhead."

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     Someone may object: "Your contention that the word

avyakta in this passage of Kaöha

Upaniñad cannot refer to pradhäna because

the avyakta here is not described as the object of

knowledge has in no way been proved. Pradhäna is

described in this way in the very next verse (Kaöha

Upaniñad 1.3.15):

 

 

açabdam asparçam arüpam avyayaà

     tathä-rasaà nityam agandhavac ca yat

anädy anantaà mahataù paraà dhruvaà

     nicäyya taà måtyu-mukhät 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 

pradhäna 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:

 

 

puruñän na paraà kiïcit

     sä käñöhä sä parä gatiù

 

 

     "Nothing is higher than the Supreme Person. The Supreme

Person is the highest."

                - Kaöha Upaniñad 1.3.11

 

 

eña sarveñu bhüteñu

     güòhätmä na prakäçate     

 

 

     "Hiding in the hearts of all beings, the Supreme

Personality of Godhead is not openly manifest."

               Kaöha Upaniñad 1.3.12

 

     To further explain that the word in question does not refer

to pradhäna he says:

 

 

Sütra 6

 

 

trayäëäm eva caivam upanyäsah praçnaç ca

 

     trayäëäm  - of the three;eva  - indeed;

ca - certainly; evam  - in this way; upanyäsah

 - mention; praçnaç  - question; ca - and.

 

 

     In this context three questions certainly are

mentioned.   

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     The word ca (certainly) here is meant to

remove doubt. In this passage of Kaöha Upaniñad

only three questions are asked. They are: 1. Naciketa's request

that his father be kind to him, 2. his request for celestial

fire, and 3. his desire to know the true nature of the self.

Nothing else is asked. There is no mention of pradhäna

.

 

 

Sütra 7

 

 

mahadvac ca

 

     mahat - the mahat; vat  - like; ca - also.

 

 

 

     This usage is like the usage of the word "mahat".

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     Because the word mahän in the phrase 

buddher ätmä mahän paraù (The Great Self is higher than

the intelligence.) is never taken to mean the mahat-

tattva (material nature) of the saìkhya

theory, in the same way the avyakta (unmanifested)

mentioned here to be higher than this mahat should

not be taken to mean the pradhäna of 

saìkhya.

 

 

Adhikaraëa 2

 

The "Ajä" of Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad 4.5

Does Not Mean Pradhäna

 

 

Introduction by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     Now another smärta theory is refuted. The

following is quoted from the Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad

(4.5):

 

 

ajäm ekäà lohita-çukla-kåñëäà

     bahvéù prajäù såjamänäà sarüpäù

ajo hy eko juñamäno 'nuçete

     jahaty enaà bhukta-bhogam ajo 'nyaù

 

 

     "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."

 

     Saàçaya: Does the word ajä here

mean the pradhäna of saìkhya, or does

it mean the potency of Brahman described in this 

Upaniñad?

     Pürva-pakña: Without any external help the

unborn material nature creates the innumerable living entities.

     Siddhänta: In regard to this, the 

saìkhyas' belief concerning the creation, he says: 

 

 

Sütra 8

 

 

camasavad aviçeñät

 

     camasa - a cup; vat  - like;

aviçeñät - because of not being specific.

 

 

     (The word "ajä" in Çvetäçvatara

Upaniñad 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 Båhad-

äraëyaka Upaniñad 2.2.3.

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     The word na (not) should be read into this

sütra from sütra 1.4.5. It cannot be

said that the female described here is the material nature

as described in the saìkhya-småti. 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 ajä, which is derived from

the phrase na jäyate (it is not born). It is like

the example of the cup. In the Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad

 (2.2.3) it is said:

 

 

     arväg-bilaç camasa ürdhva-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 yajïa. 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

saìkhya-småti. It is also not possible because the

saìkhya-småti considers that material nature

creates the living entities independently.

     The ajä 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:

 

 

Sütra 9

 

 

jyotir upakramä tu tathä hy adhéyate eke

 

     jyotiù - light; upakramä - beginning with;

tu - indeed; tathä - in that way; hi - indeed;

adhéyate - iread; eke - some.

 

 

     Light is its origin. Also, other passages confirm it.

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     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 çruti-çästra (

Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad 10.4.16):

 

 

tad devä jyotiñäà jyotiù

 

 

     "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 Båhad-

äraëyaka Upaniñad 2.2.3.

     In that passage it is said:

 

 

     arväg-bilaç camasa ürdhva-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 ajä (unborn) here is not actually unborn,

but is the potency born from Brahman, as is described in the first

and fourth chapters of Çvetäsvatara Upaniñad.

     The first quote is (Çvetäsvatara Upaniñad

1.3):

 

 

te dhyäna-yogänugata apaçyan

     devätma-çaktià sva-guëair nigüòhäm

 

 

     "The dhyäna-yogés saw the Supreme

Lord's potency, which was hidden by its own qualities."

                    

     The second quote is (Çvetäsvatara Upaniñad

4.1):

 

 

ya eka-varëo bahudhä çakti-yogät

 

 

     "He (the Lord) who is one has become many by the

touch of His potency."

 

     Then the author gives another reason in the 

sütra's words

tathä hi. Hi in this context means

"reason". The reason is the

evidence given in other passages (adhéyate eke).

That the material nature is born from the Supreme Personality of

Godhead is also explained in the following passage (Muëòaka

Upaniñad 1.1.9):

 

 

tasmäd etad brahma näma rüpam annaà ca jäyate

 

 

     "From Him (the Lord), pradhäna

, names, forms, and food, are all born."

 

     The word brahma here means pradhäna

, 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:

 

 

Sütra 10

 

 

kalpanopadeçäc ca madhv-ädi-vad avirodhaù

 

     kalpana - creation; upadeçät - from the

instruction; ca - certainly;

madhv - honey; ädi - beginning with; vad

 - like; avirodhaù - not a contradiction.

 

 

     Because it is said to be created by the Supreme it is not a

contradiction to say that pradhäna is both created

and uncreated. In this way its is like honey and some other

things that are both created and uncreated.

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     This doubt is dispelled by the word ca

(certainly). It is possible for pradhäna 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 Rì Veda's statement,

yathä-pürvam akalpayat (In the beginning the

Supreme Personality of Godhead created thew world). The meaning

of this is that the pradhäna 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 äsét tamasä güòham agre praketaà yadä

tamas tan na divä na rätriù

 

     "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

Upaniñad:

 

gaur anädavaté

 

     "Matter has no power to speak."

 

     At the time of cosmic annihilation pradhäna

attains oneness with Brahman, but does not merge into Brahman. In

the passage from çruti-çästra beginning with the

words påthivy apsu praléyate 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 eké-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 çruti-çastra explains:

 

mahän avyakte léyate avyaktam akñare akñaraà tamasi

 

     "The mahat merges into the 

avyakta, the avyakta merges into the 

akñara, and the akñara merges into 

tamas."

 

     The 

Mahäbhärata explains,

 

tasmäd avyaktam utpannaà tri-guëaà dvija-sattama

 

     "O best of the brähmaëas, the

unmanifested three modes of material nature was born from the

Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

     These passages from scripture clearly describe the creation

of pradhäna and the other elements. In this way the

the scriptures teach that pradhäna is created and

that it is both cause and effect simultaneously. The Viñëu

Puräëa explains this in the following words:

 

pradhäna-puàsor ajayoù

     käraëaà kärya-bhütayoù

 

     "Lord Viñëu is the cause of the unborn 

Pradhäna and Puruña."

 

     At the time of creation the three modes of material nature

arise in pradhäna and pradhäna

manifests many different names, such as pradhäna-

avyakta, and many different forms in red and other colors.

At this time it is said that the pradhäna is

manifested from the Supreme Light (jyotir-utpannä).

     Next he (the author of the sutras) gives an

example: "It is like honey and other similar things (

madhv-ädi-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.

 

 

Adhikaraëa 3

 

The Phrase "Païca-païca-janäù" in

Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad 4.4.17 Does Not Refer to

the 25 Elements of Saìkhya   

 

     Viñaya: The Båhad-äraëyaka

Upaniñad 4.4.17 explains:

 

yasmin païca-païca-janä

     äkäçäç ca pratiñöhitäù tam eva manya ätmänaà     vidvän

brahmämåto 'måtam

 

     "I, who am immortal spirit, meditate on the Supreme

Brahman, in whom the ether element and the païca-

païca-jana rest."

 

     Saàçaya: Do the words païca-

païca-jana refer to the 25 elements described in

the Kapila-tantra, or to some five other things?

     Pürvapakña: Because païca-pa

24ca is a bahuvréhi-samäsa and 

païca-païca-janäù is a 

karmadhäraya-samäsa, the word païca-

païca-janäù refers to the 25 elements described by

Kapila. Somehow the two elements ätmä and 

äkäça are here added to the list of elements. The word

jana here means tattva (elements).

     Siddhänta: He says:

 

 

Sütra 11

 

 

na saìkhyopasaìgrahäd api nänä-bhäväd atirekäc ca

 

     na  - not; saìkhya - of numbers;

upasaìgrahät  - because of enumeration; api  - even;nänä - various; bhävät - states;

atirekät - because of going beyond; ca - and.

 

 

     Even though they give the same numbers as the saìkhya

theory, these words do not refer to the saìkhya theory because

the the numbers here actually exceed saìkhya's

numbers and because the elements of saìkhya are

variegated (and not grouped into five groups of five).

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     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 

saìkhya elements does not prove that pa

24ca-païca-jana refers to the saìkhya

 elements. Why? The answer is given in the words beginning 

nänä-bhävät. Because the variegated saìkhya

 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 

saìkhya elements. Also, the addition of atmä

 and äkäça brings the number up to 27. Simply by

hearing the word païca five) twice one

should not be bewildered into thinking these two fives refer to

the 25 elements of the saìkhya theory. 

What is your interpretation of païca-pa

24ca-jana?" someone may ask. The word pa

24ca-jana is the name of a group just as the word 

saptarñi (the seven sages) is the name of a group. This

is explained by Päëini (Añöädhyäyé 2.1.50) in the

words dik-saìkhye saàjïäyäm (Words

indicating direction or number may be compounded with another

word in the same case). As each of the saptarñis

may be called saptarñi, in the same way there may

be five païca-janas, each of whom may be

called a païca-jana, and all the 

païca-janas together may be called the five 

païca-janas. In this way the meaning of the word

païca-jana is very clear.

     Who are these païca-janas? To answer

this question he says:

 

 

Sütra 12

 

 

pränädayo väkya-çeñät

 

     präna - breath; ädayaù  - beginning with; väkya - of thestatement; çeñät - from the remainder.

 

 

     The païca-janas here are five things

beginning with präëa (breath), as is clear from the

words immediately following the mention of païca-

jana.

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     The five things beginning with präëa are

described in the following words (Båhad-äraëyaka

Upaniñad 4.4.18):

 

pränasya präëam uta cakñuñaç

cakñur uta çrotrasya çrotram annasyännaà manaso ye mano viduù

 

 

     "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 Upaniñad

but not in the Kaëva recension. In the 

Kaëva recension, then, there are only four items and not

five.

     To answer this doubt he says:

 

 

Sütra 13

 

 

jyotiñaikeñäm asaty anne

 

     jyotiñä - by light; ekeñäm  - of some;

asaty  - in the absence; anne - of food.

    

 

     In some versions (the Kaëva recension) the

word "jyotiù" (light) replaces the word "anna" (food).

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     In the version of some (the Kaëvas), even though the word 

anna is missing, the addition of the word 

jyotiù brings the number up to five. This word 

jyotiù is found in Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad

4.4.6 in the words tad devä jyotiñäà jyotiù (The

demigods worship Him, the light of lights). The word 

jyotiù appears here in both recensions and it should be

counted among the five or not as is appropriate.

 

 

Adhikaraëa 4

 

Brahman Is The Only Original Cause

 

 

     The saìkhya theorist raises another doubt:

"It cannot be said that the Vedänta

describes Brahman as the sole cause of the universe, for the 

Vedänta philosophy does not describe a single original

cause of creation. In Taittiréya Upaniñad 2.1.1

ätma (self) is revealed as the source of creation

in the following words:

 

tasmäd vä etasmäd ätmana äkäçaù

sambhütaù

 

     "From ätmä the sky was born."

 

     Another passage (Tatittiréya Upaniñad 2.7.1)

describes asat (non-existence) as the original

cause in the following words:

 

asad vä idam agra äsét tato vä sad ajäyata tad ätmänaà

svayam akuruta

 

     "In the beginning was non-existence. From non-

existence existence was born. Existence created the self."

 

     Another passage (Chändogya Upaniñad 1.9.1)

affirms that äkäça (sky) is the original cause:

 

asya lokasya kä gatir ity äkäça iti hoväca

 

     "What is the origin of this world? Sky is

the origin, he said."

 

     Another passage (Chändogya

Upaniñad 1.11.5) affirms that breath is the original cause

in the following words:

 

sarväëi hä vä imäni bhütäni präëam

eväbhisamviçanti

 

     "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 äsét tat

samabhavat

 

     "In the beginning was non-existence. From non-

existence this world was manifested."

 

     Another passage (

Chändogya Upanisäd 6.2.1) proclaims Brahman the original

cause in the following words:

 

sad eva saumyedam agra

äsét

 

     "O saintly one, in the beginning was Brahman."

 

      Another passage (Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad 1.4.7)

proclaims avyäkåta (the unmanifested) as the

original cause in the following words:

 

tad vaidaà tarhy

avyäkåtam äsét tan-näma-rüpäbhyäà vyäkriyata

 

     " 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 pradhäna is the sole

cause of creation, as we find in the passage (beginning with the

word tarhi already quoted from the Båhad-

äraëyaka Upaniñad. 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 pradhäna

can appropriately be called ätmä, äkäça, 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 (Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad 1.2.5

explains sa aikñata: The original cause thought.)

these may also be considered metaphors. All this evidence clearly

demonstrates that pradhäna is the original cause of

creation of the world as described in the Vedänta

literature. In the context of this argument:

 

 

Sütra 14

 

 

käraëatvena cäkäçädiñu yathä vyapadiñöokteù

 

     käraëatvena  - as the cause; ca - certainly; äkäça - sky; ädiñu  - beginning with; yathä  - as; vyapadiñöa - described; ukteù - from the statement.

     

 

     The Upaniñads state that Brahman is the cause

of sky and the other elements.

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     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 Upaniñads state

that Brahman is the cause of sky and the other elements." The

words yathä vyapadiñöam (as described) mean 

Brahman who in the lakñaëa-sütra of

Vedänta (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 

Vedänta 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 (Taittiréya Upaniñad

 1.2.2):

 

satyaà jïänam anantam

 

     "Brahman

is eternal, limitless, and full of knowledge."

 

     That Brahman is

the original cause of all causes is described in these words

(Taittiréya Upaniñad 1.2.3):

 

tasmäd vä

etasmät

 

     "From Brahman sky is manifested."

 

     The qualities of

Brahman are described in the following words (Chändogya

Upaniñad 6.2.1):

 

sad eva saumyedam

 

     "O gentle

one, in the beginning was the eternal Brahman."

 

     Also, in these words

(Chändogya Upaniñad 6.2.3):

 

tad aikñata bah

syäm

 

     "He thought: I shall become many."

 

     The

truth of Brahman is also described in the following words (

Taittiréya Upaniñad 6.2.3):

 

tat tejo 'såjata

 

 

     " Then He created light."

 

     The relationship between cause and

effect in regard to Brahman we will describe later on. The words

atmä, äkäça, präëa, 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

aikñata (He thought.) is very appropriate for Brahman.

     Now, describing the meaning of the

words asat (non-existence) and avyäkåta

 (unmanifested), he says:  

 

 

Sütra 15

 

samäkarñät

 

     samäkarñät - from appropriateness.

 

 

     The words "asat" (non-existence) and 

avyäkåta" (unmanifested) also refer to Brahman, for that

interpretation is appropriate in this context.

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     Because it is preceded by the words so 'kämayata

 (He desired.) the word asat in the 

Taittiréya Upaniñad 2.7.1 passage asad vä idam

agra äsét (In the beginning was asat) must

refer to the Supreme Brahman, and because it is preceded by the

words ädityo brahma (splendid Brahman) the word

asat in the passage asad evedam (In

the beginning was asat) must also refer to the

Supreme Brahman. Because before the creation of the material

world the Supreme Brahman's names and forms had not existed in

the material world, the Supreme Brahman is sometimes known as

asat (non-existence).

     The idea that asat and not the Supreme Brahman

is the original cause of creation is refuted in the following

statement of Chändogya Upaniñad (6.2.1-2):

 

 

sad eva saumyedam agra äséd ekam evädvitéyaà tad dhaika ähur

asad evedam agra äséd ekam evädvitéyaà tasmäd asataù saj jäyate.

kutas tu khalu saumyaivaà syäd iti hoväca katham asataù saj

jäyeteti sat tv eva saumyedam agra äséd ekam evädvitéyam.

 

     "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 Båhad-

äraëyaka Upaniñad (1.4.7) explains:

 

tad vaidaà tarhy avyäkåtam

äsét tan-näma-rüpäbhyäà vyäkriyata

 

     "In the beginning was

the avyäkåta. From it all the names and forms have

come."

 

     The word avyäkåta should be understood to

mean Brahman. In the words sa eña iha praviñöaù

(Then He entered within) that immediately follow it becomes clear

that the avyäkåta 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 Vedänta-sütra and the general

conclusions of all the çruti-çästras. For these

reasons it is therefore confirmed that the Supreme Brahman is the

actual cause of the material universes.

 

 

Adhikaraëa 5

 

The "Puruña" of the Kauñétaki Upaniñad Is Brahman

 

 

Introduction by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     In the next passage the author of the sütras)

again refutes the saìkhya theory. In the 

Kauñétaké Upaniñad  4.18 Bäläké Vipra promises 

I shall tell you about Brahman," and proceeds to describe 16

puruñas, beginning with the sun-god, as Brahman.

King Ajätaçatru then rejects these instructions and says: 

O Bäläké, the person who is the creator of these 16 

puruñas, the person engaged in this karma

is the actual Brahman."

     Saàçaya: At this point the doubt may be raised:

"Is the superintendent of matter, the enjoyer described

in the saìkhya texts, or is the Supreme Personality

of Godhead, Lord Viñëu, to be understood as the Brahman mentioned

here?

     Pürvapakña: 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 suptaà puruñam äjagmatuù, and because in

the passage after that this Brahman is described as an enjoyer

(tad yathä çreñöhé svair bhuìkte), it should be

understood that the Brahman here is the jéva

(individual spirit soul) described in the tantras.

The use of the word präëa (life-breath) here also

confirms that the Brahman described here is the living individual

soul. This Brahman (the jéva), which is different

from matter, should thus be understood as the original cause  of

the many enjoyer-puruñas 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 (jéva). The theory that there is a

Supreme Personality of Godhead is separate from the individual

spirit soul (jéva) is thus completely untenable.

The text (sa aikñata) 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 (

jéva).

     Siddhänta: In response to this:

 

 

Sütra 16

 

 

jagad-väcitvät

 

     jagat - the world; väcitvät - 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 Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     The word Brahman here does not mean the kñetraj

24a (individual spiritual soul) described in the 

tantras, but rather it means the Supreme Personality of

Godhead, who is known by study of Vedänta. 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 kå (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 (

jéva) 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 adhyäsa

 (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

Ajätaçatru speaks lies in this passage. Rejecting Bäläké's

teaching that the sixteen puruñas (persons) are

Brahman, Ajätaçatru promises, "I will tell you about

Brahman." If Ajätaçatru then teaches that the jévas

(individual spirit souls) are Brahman then his teaching is no

different than Bäläké's, and he is dishonest to reject Bäläké's

instruction as untrue, and then teach the same instruction as the

truth. In this way the meaning of this passage is understood.

"You have described these puruñas (persons)

as Brahman, but I will tell you of someone who is the creator of

all of them," is the gist of Ajätaçatru's statement. In this way

it should be understood that the Supreme Personality of Godhead

is the original cause and the entire material world is His

creation.

     Pürvapakña: If someone objects "Because it

mentions mukhya-präëa (the chief breath of life)

the Brahman here must be the jéva and not anyone

else," then he replies:

 

 

Sütra 17

 

 

jéva-mukhya-präëa-liìgän neti cet tad-vyäkhyätam

 

     jéva - the individual spiritual entity; mukhya - the

chief; präëa - breath of life; liìgän

 - because of the characteristics; na - not; iti  - thus; cet - if; tad - that; vyäkhyätam - has been explained.

     

 

     If the objection is raised that the jéva 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 Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     In sütra 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 jévas or something

else (without them being explicitly named) must be taken as

referring to Brahman also.

     This passage from the Kauñétaké Upaniñad

begins with the words brahma te braväëi (Now I will

tell you about Brahman), and ends with the words sarvän

päpmäno 'pahatya sarveñäà bhütäänäà çreñöham ädhipatyaà 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 Kauñétaké Upaniñad

should not be understood to refer to anything other than Brahman,

the Personality of Godhead.     

     Saàçaya: Certainly

you may connect the words karma and 

präëa with the word etat and then

interpret them to refer to Brahman, but still there are direct

references to the jéva in this passage (of 

Kauñétaké Upaniñad). The evidence of the questions and

answers in this passage make it impossible to consider Brahman

different from the jéva. In the question about the

sleeper the jéva is asked about, and in the

questions about the place of sleep, the naòés, and

the senses, the jéva, who is here called 

präëa, is also asked about. It is the jéva

who awakens (at the end). In this way the entire passage is about

the jéva. In this way it may be understood thgat

the jéva is the Supreme.

     To answer this doubt he says:

 

 

Sütra 18

 

 

anyärthaà tu jaiminiù praçna-vyäkhyänäbhyäm api caivam eke

 

     anya - another; arthaà  - meaning; tu

 - but; jaiminiù  - Jaimini; praçna - with the

questions; vyäkhyänäbhyäm  - 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 Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     The word tu (but) is used here to dispel

doubt. The description of the jéva here has a

different meaning. Jaimini considers that this passage explains

that Brahman and the jéva 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: kvaiña

etad bäläke puruña çayiñöa kva vä etad abhüt kuta etad agät

 (O Bäläké, 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 jéva may be

clearly seen. The answer is given yadä suptaù svapnaà na

kaïcana paçyati tathäsmin präëa evaikadhä bhavati

(When he sleeps without seeing a dream he becomes one with the

life-breath). The passage etasmäd ätmanaù präëä

yathäyatanaà vipratiñöante präëebhyo devä devebhyo lokäù

(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 jéva.

The word präëa here means Lord Paramätmä because

Paramätmä is famous as the resting-place of dreamless sleep. Into

Him the jévas merge and from Him they become

manifested again. The meaning of the following passage is that

the näòés are merely the gateways leading to the

realm of sleep. The Paramätmä should be understood to be the

realm where the sleepy jéva sleeps and from which

the jéva emerges to enjoy (in wakefulness). In the

Väjasaneyé recension of this conversation between Bäläké and

Ajätaçatru the jéva is described as vij

24änamaya full of knowledge and Brahman is clearly

distinguished from him. In that reading the question is: 

ya eña vijïänamayaù puruñaù kvaiña tadäbhüt kuta etad

ägät (O Bäläké, 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 eño 'ntar hådaya äkäças tasmin

çete (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.

 

 

Adhikaraëa 6

 

The "\Atmä" of Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad

4.5 is Brahman and Not Jéva

 

 

Introduction by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     In the Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad 4.5.6 Yäj

24avalkya teaches his wife, Maitreyé:

 

na vä are patyuù

kämäya patiù 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 vä are sarvasya kämäya sarvaà priyaà

bhavati ätmanas tu kämäya sarvaà priyaà bhavati

 

     "Everything is not dear because one loves everything. Everything

is dear because one loves the Self."

 

     Again, he says:

 

ätmä vä are

drañöavyaù çrotavyo mantavyo nididhyäsitavyo maitreyy ätmano vä

are darçanena çravaëena matyä vijïänena idaà sarvaà

viditam

 

     "The Self should be seen, heard, worshiped, and

always meditated on. O Maitreyé, by seeing, hearing, worshiping,

and understanding the Self, everything becomes known."

 

     Saàçaya: In this passage which self is to be

understood: the jéva (individual spirit soul)

described in the Kapila-tantra, or the Paramätmä

(the Supreme Personality of Godhead)?

     Pürvapakña: Because in this passage he

describes the love of husband and wife and because in the middle

of the passage he says: etebhyo bhütebhyaù samutthäya täny

evänuvinaçyati na pretya-saàjïästi (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: vijïätäram are kena vijänéyät

 (How should we understand the person who is the knower?) this

passage should be interpreted to describe the jéva,

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 Paramätmä

and not the jéva." but this objection is not valid.

The jéva takes birth in this world with an aim to

enjoy and one may figuratively say that by knowing the 

jéva 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 jéva because

the text says amåtatvasya tu näçästi vittena (By

knowing Him one becomes immortal). Because it is only by knowing

the Paramätmä that one becomes immortal, how can this passage

refer to the jéva?" This objection is also not

valid because by understanding that the jéva 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 jéva

. In this way this entire passage describes the jéva

. In this way it should be understood that the material nature,

which is under the control of the jéva, is the

original cause of the world.

     Siddhänta: In this matter:    

     

 

Sütra 19

 

 

väkyänvayät

 

     väkya - statement; anvayät - because of the

connection.

 

 

     The context of this passage proves that Brahman is the

object of discussion.

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     In this passage the Paramätmä, and not the jéva

 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:

 

 

Sütra 20

 

 

pratijïä-siddher liìgam äçmarathyaù

 

     pratijïä - of the promise; siddher  - of the

fulfillment; liìgam  - the mark;

äçmarathyaù - Açmarathya.

 

 

     \Açmarthya (maintains that the Self here is Paramätmä because

only in that way) is the promise (that by knowledge of the Self

everything is known) fulfilled.

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     \Açmarathya maintains that the promise ätmano vij

24änena sarvaà viditam (By knowledge of the Self

everything is known) indicates that the Self referred to here is

the Paramätmä. It is not taught here that by knowledge of the

jéva 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 taà

parädät (One who thinks the brähmaëas rest

in a place other than the Self is spurned by the 

brähmaëas. One who thinks the kñatriyas

rest in a place other than the Self is spurned by the 

kñatriyas. One who thinks the worlds rest in a place

other than the self is spurned by the worlds) he affirms that the

Paramätmä is the form of everything and the resting place of the

brähmaëas, kñatriyas, and world. For these reasons

it is not possible that the Self here can be any other than the

Paramätmä. 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 vä etasya mahato bhütasya niùçvasitam

 (transcendental he Vedas were manifested from

the breathing of this Supreme Being). It is also not possible for

(the sage Yäjïavalkya) to have taught his wife, who had

renounced all wealth and material benefits to attain liberation,

only about the jéva and not about the Supreme

Brahman. It is also not possible that the Self referred to here

is the jéva because on cannot attain liberation

simply by knowing the jéva. That liberation is

attained only by understanding the Supreme Brahman is confirmed

in the following statement of Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad

3.8 and 6.15: tam eva viditväti måtyum 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 Paramätmä.

     Pürvapakña: 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

jéva bound to the cycle of repeated birth and death

and not the Paramätmä. It cannot be said that the Self described

here must be the Paramätmä because that interpretation answers

the promise (of Yäjïavalkya to speak certain words), nor

can it be said that the Self here must be the Paramätmä because

this Self is the shelter of the devotees, the creator of

everything, all-powerful, and the origin of transcendental bliss.

The jéva may also be these things, as the 

Padma Puräëa explains: yenärcito haris tena

tarpitäni jaganty api rajyanti jantavas tatra sthävarä jaìgamä

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 Paramätmä.

     Siddhänta: Fearing that the opponent may speak

these words, he says:

 

 

Sütra 21

 

 

utkramiñyata evaà bhäväd ity auòulomiù

 

     utkramiñyataù  - of a person about to depart;

evam - in this way; bhävät - from this condition; iti - thus;auòulomiù - Auòulomi.

 

 

 

     Auòulomi maintains that one about to become liberated

attains the transcendental qualities of the Lord.

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     The word utkramiñyataù here means a person who

by following spiritual practices attains the Paramätmä. 

Evaà bhävät means "because of being dear to

everyone." \Atmä means "Paramätmä." This is

the opinion of Auòulomi. The passage patyuù kämäya patiù 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 Paramätmä, then Lord

Paramätmä will make everyone love this devotee-wife. The word

käma here means "desire" and 

kämäya means "to fulfill the desire."  The use

of the dative case here is described in Päëini's 

sütras (Añöädhyäyé 2.3.1 or 

Siddhänta-kaumudé 581) in the following words: 

kriyärthopapadasya ca karmaëi sthäninaù (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 (patyuù kämäya)

of the Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad 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 Çrémad-

Bhägavatam (11.14.13):

 

akiïcanasya däntasya

     çäntasya sama-cetasaù

mayä santuñöa-manasaù

     sarväù sukhamayä diçaù

 

 

     "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 patyuù kämäya may also be

interpreted to mean "Trying to please the husband does

not please him. Only when the wife tries to please the Paramätmä

does the husband become pleased." This interpretation is

corroborated by the following statement of Çrémad-

Bhägavatam (10.23.27):

 

präëa-buddhi-manaù-svätma-

     däräpatya-dhanädayaù

yat-samparkät priyä äsaàs

     tataù ko 'nyaù paraù priyaù

     "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 käma 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 Paramätmä, by the nearness of the Paramätmä, or

by the touch of the Paramätmä, even what is ordinarily unpleasant

becomes blissful. Therefore when the Båhad-äraëyaka

Upaniñad says ätmä vä are drañöavyaù (The

Self should be seen), the word ätmä means the dear

Lord Hari. It is not possible to interpret the word 

ätmä here to mean the jéva because here

the primary meaning of ätmä is the supremely

powerful Personality of Godhead. To interpret t\ätmä

 in any other way would contradict the way the word had been

used in the previous passage (väkya-bheda). We do

not see how it is possible to interpret ätmä in a

way different from the way it was clearly used in the immediately

previous passage. In this way the word ätmä in 

ätmä vä are drañöavyaù must be the Paramätmä. In both

passages (ätmanas tu kämäya and ätmä vä are

drañöavyaù) the word ätmä cannot mean the

jéva, for in these contexts the word 

ätmä can only refer to Brahman.

     Although Auòulomi is a nirguëa-ätmavädé

(impersonalist) as will be explained later on in the words (

Vedanta-sütra 4.4.6) citi tan-mätreëa tad-

ätmakatväd ity auòulomiù (When he is liberated the 

jéva enters the Supreme Intelligence, for the 

jéva is actually intelligence only. This the the opinion

of Auòulomi.), still Auòulomi 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 (

Vedänta-sütra 3.4.45): ärtvijyam ity auòulomis

tasmai hi parikréyate (Just as a Vedic priest is purchased

to perform a yajïa, the Supreme Personality

of Godhead is purchased by His devotees' love). In this way it is

proved that pure devotion to Lord Hari fulfills all desires.

     Our opponent may say: So be it. However, in the same 

Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad (2.4.12) we find the following

words:

 

sa yathä saindhava-khilya udake präptam udakam

evänuléyate na häsyodgrahaëäyaiva syäd yato yatas tv ädéta

lavaëam evaivaà vä. are idaà mahad bhütam anantam apäraà vij

24äna-ghana evaitebhyo bhütebhyaù samutthäya täny

evänuvinaçyati

 

     "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 ätmä in this 

Upaniñad? Clearly this passage refers to the  

jéva described in the Kapila-tantra

because that is the appropriate interpretation.

     To answer this doubt he says:

 

 

Sütra 22

 

 

avasthiter iti käçakåtsnaù

 

     avasthiter  - because of residence; iti  - thus;käçakåtsnaù - Käçakåtsna.

 

 

     This passage refers to Paramätmä, for Paramätmä resides

within the jéva. This is the opinion of Käçakåtsna.

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     In this statement the word avasthiteù

(residing) which refers to the Paramätmä, the Great Being who is

different from the jéva, and who is described as

vijïäna-ghana (full of knowledge), teaches

that the Paramätmä is different from the jéva and

resides within him. Käçakåtsna considers that because the

Paramätmä and the jéva are different the words 

mahad-bhütam (Great being), anantam

(limitless) and vijïäna-ghana cannot refer

to the jéva. A summary of the passage from 

Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad under discussion follows.

 

Yenähaà nämåtaù syäà kim ahaà tena kuryäm

 

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

 

                - Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad 4.5.4)

 

     Asked this question about the

means to attain liberation, the sage answered:

 

ätmä vä are

drañöavyaù çrotavyo mantavyo nididhyäsitavyo maitreyy ätmano vä

are darçanena çravaëena matyä vijïänena idaà sarvaà

viditam

 

     "The Self should be seen, heard, worshiped, and

always meditated on. O Maitreyé, by seeing, hearing, worshiping,

and understanding the Self, everything becomes known."

 

     In this way he explains that the worship of Paramätmä is the

way to attain liberation.

 

     Then he says:

 

     sa yathä dundubher hanyamänasya

bähyäï chabdäï chakruyäd grahaëäya dundubhes tu

grahaëena dundubhy-äghätasya vä çabdo gåhétaù

 

     "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 Paramätmä: sense-control.      

 

     He continues in the following words:

 

     sa yathärdhraidho 'gner

abhyähitasya påthag dhümä viniçcaranty evaà vä are 'sya mahato

bhütasya niçväsitam etad yad åg vedo yajur vedaù säma-vedo

'tharväìgirasa itihäsaù puräëaà vidyä upaniñadaù çlokäù süträëy

anuvyäkhyänäni vyäkhyänänéñöaà hutam äçitaà päyitam ayaà calokaù

paraç ca lokaù sarväëi ca bhütäny asyaikaitäni sarväëi

niçvasitäni. sa yathä sarväsäm apäà samudra ekäyanam evaà

sarveñäà sparçänäm tvacaikäyanam evaà sarveñäà rasänäà

jihvaikäyanam evaà sarveñäà gandhänäà näsikaikäyanam evaà

sarveñäà rüpäëäà cak.sur ekäyanam evaà sarveñäà çabdänäàçrotram

ekäyanam evaà sarveñäà saìkalpänäà mana ekäyanam evaà sarväsäà

vidyänäà hådayam ekäyanam evaà sarveñäm karmaëäà hastäv ekäyanam

evaà sarveñäm änandänäà upastha ekäyanam evaà sarveñäàvisargäëäà

päyur ekäyanam evaà sarveñäm adhvanäà pädäv ekäyanam evaà

sarveñäà vedänäà väg ekäyanam

 

     "As smoke comes from a fire made

with wet fuel, the \Rg Veda, Säma Veda, Yajur Veda, Atharva

Veda, Puräëas, Itihäsas, Vidyäs, Upaniñads, çlokas, sütras,

vyäkhyäs, and anuvyäkhyäs, 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

yathä saindhava-khilya udake präptam udakam evänuléyate na

häsyodgrahaëäyaiva syäd yato yatas tv ädéta lavaëam evaivaà vä.

are idaà mahad bhütam anantam apäraà vijïäna-ghana

evaitebhyo bhütebhyaù samutthäya täny evänuvinaçyati

 

     "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 jéva.

     In the words etebhyo bhütebhyaù samutthäya täny

evänuvinaçyati (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 saàjïästi (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

itaraà paçyati tad itara itaraà jighrati tad itara itaraà

rasayate tad itara itaram abhivadati tad itara itaraà çåëoti tad

itara itaraà manute tad itara itaraà spåçati tad itara itaraà

vijänäti yatra tv asya sarvam ätmaiväbhüt tat tena kaà paçyet tat

tena kaà jighret tat kena kaà rasayet tat kena kam abhivadet tat

kena kaà çåëuyät tat kena kaà manvéta tata tena kaà spåçet tat

tena kaà vijänéyät (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 jéva takes shelter of the the Paramätmä.

     The words yenedaà sarvaà vijänäti taà kena

vijänéyät (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 vijïöäram are kena vijänéyät

(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 Upaniñad concludes

by declaring that actual liberation is the same as attaining the

Paramätmä.    

     From all this it may be understood that this

passage of the Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad describes

the Paramätmä and not the puruña as described in

the Kapila-tantra, or the material nature

controlled by the puruña.

 

 

Adhikaraëa 7

 

Brahman is Both Primary and Secondary Cause

 

 

Introduction by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     Viñaya: Now that he has refuted the atheistic

pradhäna 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.

 

tasmäd vä etasmäd ätmana äkäçaù sambhütaù

 

"From ätmä the sky was manifested."

                          - Taittiréya Upaniñad 2.1.1    

 

yato vä imäni bhütäni jäyante

 

"From the Supreme these creatures were born."

 

                          - Taittiréya Upaniñad 2.1.1

 

sad eva saumyedam agra äséd ekam evädvitéyaà tad aikñata

bahu syäm prajäyeya

 

     "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."

 

                          - Chändogya Upaniñad 6.2.1

 

sa aikñata lokän nu såjä

 

     "He thought: Now I shall create the worlds."

                          - Aitareya Upaniñad 1.1.2

 

     Saàçaya: Should Brahman be considering the

Primary Cause or the ingredient of the creation? Because the 

Upasniñads say sa aikñata (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 Upaniñad

says tasmäd vä etasmäd ätmana äkäçaù sambhütaù (Fromätmä 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 aikñata bahu syäm prajäyeya

(He thought: "Let me become many. Let me become the

father of many.") and sa aikñata lokän nu såjä

(He thought: "Now I shall create the worlds."), because

of their  clear explanation that the Lord's thinking precedes the

creation, show that the Lord is the Primary Creator in the same

way a potter is the creator of pots. Because the creation itself

and the ingredients of which it is made must have the same

nature, the ingredient of the material creation must be the

material energy (prakåti). 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 (

prakåti), 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 Upaniñad:

 

vikära-jananém ajïäà

     añöa-rüpäm ajäà dhruvam

dhyäyate 'dhyäsitä tena

     tanyate preritä punaù

 

süyate puruñärthaà ca

     tenaivädhiñöhitä jagat

gaur anädy-antavaté sä

 

     janitré bhüta-bhäviné

 

sitäsitä ca raktä ca

     sarvakäm adhunä vibhoù

     pibanty enäm aviñamäm

     avijïätäù kumärakäù

 

ekas tu pibate devaù

     svacchando 'tra vaçänugäm

dhyäna-kriyäbhyäà bhagavän

     bhuìkte 'sau prasabhaà vibhuù

 

sarva-sädhäraëéà dogdhréà

     péyamänäà tu yajvabhiù

catur-viàçati-saìkhyäkaà

     avyaktaà vyaktam ucyate                            

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead meditates on the

unborn, eternal, unintelligent material nature (

prakåti), 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 Viñëu Puräëa says:

 

 

yathä sannidhi-mätreëa

     gandhaù kñobhäya jäyate

manaso nopakartåtvät

     tathäsau parameçvaraù

 

sannidhänäd yathäkäça-

     kälädyäù käraëaà taroù

tathaiväparigämena

     viçvasya bhagavän hariù

 

nimitta-mätram eväsau

     såñöänäà sarga-karmaëi

pradhäna-käriëé bhütä

     yato vai såjya-çaktayaù

 

 

     "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.

     SiddhäntaTo this argument:

 

 

Sütra 23

 

 

prakåtiç ca pratijïä dåñöäntänuparodhät

 

     prakåtiù  - material nature; ca  - and; pratijïä  - theproposition to be proved;

dåñöänta - example; anuparodhät - because of not

contradicting.

    

 

     Brahman is also the material nature (prakåti)

because this view is not contradicted by the statements and

examples (given in the scriptures).

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     Brahman is the material nature (prakåti), the

ingredient of the world. How is that? It is so because 

pratijïä-dåñöäntänuparodhät, which means 

Because this view is not contradicted by the statements and

examples of the scriptures." An example may be given from the

Chändogya Upaniñad 6.1.3:

 

çvetaketo yan nu saumyedaà mahä-manä anücäna-mäné stabdho

'sy uta tam ädeçam apräkñér yenäçrutaà çrutaà bhavaty amataà

matam avijïätaà vijïätam ity eka-vij

24änena sarva-vijïäna-viñayä pratijïä

 

     "Gentle Çvetaketu, 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 (Chändogya Upaniñad

 6.1.10):

 

yathä saumyaikena måt-piëòena sarvaà måë-mayaà

vijïätaà syät

 

     "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 çruti 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.

 

 

Sütra 24

 

 

abhidhyopadeçäc ca

 

     abhidhya - will; upadeçäc  - 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 Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     In this sütra the word ca (and)

means "and many other things that are not explicitly

mentioned here."

 

     The Taittiréya Upaniñad (2.6.1) explains:

 

so 'kämayata bahu syäà prajäyeya sa tapo 'tapyata tapas

taptvä idaà sarvam asåjat. yad idaà kiïcana tat såñövä

tad evänupräviçat. tad anupraviçya sac ca tyac cäbhavat.

 

     "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 Paramätmä 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.

 

 

Sütra 25

 

 

säkñäc cobhayämnänät

 

     säkñät  - directly; ca - certainly;

ubhaya - both; ämnänät - because of direct statement.

 

    

 

     (Brahman is both creator and the ingredient of creation)

because both (truths) are directly stated (in the scriptures).

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     The word ca here means "certainly."

The Taittiréya Brähmaëa (2.8.9.6) explains:

 

kiàsvid vanaà ka u sa våkña äsét

     yato dyävä-påthivé niñöatakñuù

maëéñiëo manasä påcchataitat

     yad adhyatiñöhad bhuvanäni dhärayan

 

brahma vanaà brahma sa våkña äsét

     yato dyävä-påthivé niñöatakñuù

manéñiëo manasä prabravémi

     vo brahmädhyatiñöhad buvanäni dhärayan

 

     "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 

niñöatakñuù means "the Supreme Personality of

Godhead created." Although niñtatakñuù 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.

 

Sütra 26

 

 

ätma-kåteù pariëämät

 

     ätma - self; kåteù  - because of making; pariëämät - becauseof transformation.

 

 

     (Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of the

creation) because He transformed Himself (into the world).

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     The Taittiréya Upaniñad (2.6.2) says:

 

so

'kämayata

 

     "He desired: I shall become many."

 

     It also says (2.7.1):

 

tad ätmänaà 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

pariëàät (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 

çruti explains that Brahman has three potencies:

 

paräsya çaktir vividhaiva çruyate

 

     "The Supreme has many potencies."

 

                     - Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad 6.8 

 

pradhäna-kñetrajïa-patir guëeçaù

    

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of 

pradhäna (material nature), kñetrajïa

 (the individual spirit souls), and guëa (the

three material modes)."

 

                     - Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad 6.16

 

     The småti (Viñëu Puräna) also

explains:

 

viñëu-çaktiù parä proktä

     kñetrajïäkhyä tathä parä

avidyä-karma-saàjïänyä

     tåtéyä çaktir ucyate

 

     "The potency of Lord Viñëu 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-viçeñeëa

vidhi-niñedhau viçeñaëam upasaìkrämate (an adjective

describes both what a noun is and what it is not).

 

     The scriptures also explain (Çvetäçvatara

Upaniñad 4.1):

 

ya eko 'varëo bahudhä çakti-yogäd

     varëän anekän nihitärtho dadhäti

vi caiti cänte viçvam ädau sa devaù

     sa no buddhyä çubhayä saàyunaktau

 

     "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 pariëämi

(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 pariëämät

(because of transformation) in this sütra 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 

pariëäma theory (that the material world is a

transformation of Brahman) is the truth taught in the Vedic scriptures.

 

 

Sütra 27

 

 

yoniç ca hi géyate

 

     yoniù - the place of birth; ca  - also; hi  - indeed;géyate - is declared.

     

 

     (The scriptures) declare that (Brahman is the) womb

(from which the material world was born).

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     The çruti-çästra explains:

 

yad bhüta-yonià paripaçyanti dhéräù       

 

     "The wise see that Brahman is the womb from which

everything was born."

                               - Muëòaka Upaniñad

1.1.6

 

kartäram éçaà puruñaà brahma-yonim

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original

creator, the womb from which everything was born."

                               - Muëòaka Upaniñad 3.1.6

 

     In these verses the word yonim (womb) describes

Brahman as the ingredient of creation and the words 

kartäraà puruñam (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:

 

påthivé yonir oñadhi-

vanaspaténäm

 

     "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 çruti clearly explain that in

this case Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of which

His creation is made.

 

 

Adhikaraëa 8

 

All Names Are Names of Lord Viñëu

 

Introduction by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     Someone may object: Many passages in the scriptures do not support your

conclusion at all.

     This adhikaraëa is written to

dispel this doubt. The Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad

explains:

 

kñaraà pradhänam amåtäkñaraù haraù

 

     "Material nature is in constant flux and the Supreme,

Lord Hara is eternal and unchanging." (1.10)

 

eko rudro na dvitéyäya tasthuù

 

     "Lord Rudra is the Supreme. He has no rival." (3.2)

 

yo devänäà prabhavaç codbhavaç ca

     viçvädhiko rudraù çivo maharñiù

 

     "Lord Çiva, 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)

 

yadä tamas tan na divä na rätrir

     na san na cäsac chiva eva kevalaù   

 

     "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 Çiva exists." (4.18)

 

     The scriptures also explain:

 

pradhänäd idam utpannam

     pradhänam adhigacchati

pradhäne layam abhyeti

     na hy anyat käranaà matam

 

     "From pradhäna this material world was

born. This world knows only pradhäna. This world

merges into pradhäna at the time of annihilation.

Nothing else is the cause of this world."

 

jéväd bhavanti bhütäni

     jéve tiñöhanty acaïcaläù

jéve ca layam icchanti

     na jévät käraëaà param

 

     "From the jéva all the elements of this

world have come. In the jéva they rest without

moving, and they finally merge into the jéva.

Nothing else is the cause of this world."

 

     Saàçaya: Should Hara and the other names given in thesequotes be understood in their ordinary senses, as names

of Lord Çiva, pradhäna, and jéva, or

should they all be understood to be names of the Supreme Brahman?

     Pürvapakña: The names should all be understood

in their ordinary senses, as names of Lord Çiva, 

pradhäna, and jéva.

     Siddhänta: The conclusion follows.

 

 

Sütra 28

 

 

etena sarve vyäkhyätä vyäkhyätäù

 

     etena  - in this way; sarve  - all;

vyäkhyätäù  - explained; vyäkhyätäù - explained.

 

 

     All (words in the scriptures) should be interpreted to agree

with the explanation (that the Supreme Brahman is the original

cause).

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

 

     In this sütra the word etena

means "according to the explanations already given," 

sarve means "Hara and the other names," and 

vyäkhyätäù means "should be understood to be

names of the Supreme Brahman because all names are originally

names of the Supreme Brahman."

     The Bhälvaveya-çruti explains:

 

nämäni viçväni na santi loke

     yad äviräsét puruñasya sarvam

nämäni sarväëi yam äviçanti

     taà vai viñëuà paramam udäharanti   

 

     "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 Viñëu, whom the wise

declare is the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

     Vaiçampäyana Muni explains that all these names are names of

Lord Kåñëa. The Skanda Puräëa also explains:

 

çré-näräyaëädéni nämäni vinänyäni rudrädibhyo harir

dattavän

 

     "Except for Näräyaëa and some other names, Lord Hari gave

away His names to Lord Çiva 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 Viñëu.

     The repetition of the last word (vyäkyätäù)

here indicates the end of the chapter.

 

sarve vedäù paryavasyanti yasmin

     satyänantäcintya-çaktau pareçe

viçvotpatti-sthema-bhaìgädi-léle        

     nityaà tasmin nas tu kåñëe matir naù

 

     On Lord Kåñëa, 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.