Vedanta Sutra - Volumen One (01--intro)

Sri Vedanta-sutra

Volume One

Introduction by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

satyaà jïänam anantaà

brahma-çivädi-stutaà bhajad-rüpam

govindaà tam acintyaà

hetum adoñaà namasyämaù

Lord Govinda is the Supreme Brahman, the absolute transcendental reality. He is transcendental knowledge. He is the original cause of all causes. He is limitless and faultless. Lord Çiva and all the demigods praise Him. The devotees worship His transcendental form. We offer our respectful obeisances unto Him.

süträàçubhis tamäàsi

vyudasya vastüni yaù parékñayate

sa jayati satyavataye

harir anuvåtto nata-preñöhaù

All glories to Çréla Vyäsadeva, the son of Satyavaté. Vyäsadeva is the incarnation of Lord Hari, and He is very dear to the devotees. With the effulgence of His Vedänta-sütra He has dispelled the darkness of ignorance and revealed the truth.

During the Dväpara-yuga the Vedas were destroyed. The Supreme Personality of Godhead, responding to the prayers of Lord Brahmä and the other bewildered demigods, appeared as Kåñëa Dvaipäyana Vyäsa, restored the Vedas, divided them into parts, and composed the Vedänta-sütra in four chapters to explain them. This is described in the Skanda Puräëa.

At that time many fools propounded various misinterpretations of the Vedas. Some said that the highest goal of life was to act piously in order to reap the benefits of good karma. Some said that Lord Viñëu is Himself bound by the laws of karma. Some maintained that the fruits of good karma, such as residence in svarga (the upper material planets) were eternal. Some said the jévas (individual living entities) and prakåti (material energy) acted independently, without being subject to any higher power, or God. Some said the jévas (individual living entities) are actually the Supreme Brahman (God), and that the jévas are simply bewildered about their identity, or that the jévas are a reflection of God, or separated fragments of God. Some said that the jéva becomes free from the cycle of repeated birth and death when He understands his real identity as the perfectly spiritual Supreme Brahman (God).

The Vedänta-sütra refutes all these misconceptions, and establishes Lord Viñëu as supremely independent, the original creator and cause of all causes, omniscient, the ultimate goal of life for all living entities, the supreme religious principle and the supreme transcendental knowledge.

The Vedänta-sütra describes five tattvas (truths): 1. éçvara (The Supreme Personality of Godhead); 2. jéva (the individual living entity, or spirit-soul); 3. prakåti (matter); 4. käla (time); and 5. karma (action).

The éçvara is omniscient, but the jéva has only limited knowledge. Still, both are eternal beings, are aware of the spiritual reality, and have a variety of spiritual qualitites. Both are alive, have personality, and are aware of their own identity.

At this point someone may object: "In one place you have said that the Supreme Godhead is omniscient, and in another place you have said that He is knowledge itself. This is a contradiction, for the knower and the object of knowledge must be different. They cannot be the same.

To this objection I reply: Just as a lamp is not different from the light it emanates and it's light is both the object of knowledge and the method of attaining it, in the same way the Supreme Personality of Godhead is simultaneously the supreme knower and the supreme object of knowledge. There is no contradiction.

Éçvara is supremely independent. He is the master of all potencies. He enters the universe and controls it. He awards both material enjoyment and and ultimate liberation to to the individual spirit souls (jévas)residing in material bodies. Although He is one, He manifests in many forms. They who understand the transcendental science maintain that He is not different from His own transcendental form and qualities. Although He cannot be perceived by the material senses, He can be perceived by bhakti (devotional service). He is changeless. He reveals His own spiritual, blissful form to His devotees.

The many jévas are situated in different conditions of existence. Some are averse to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and turn their faces from Him. Such jévas are bound by material illusion. Other jévas are friendly to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and turn their faces to Him. These jévas become free from the two-fold bondage of material illusion, which hides the Supreme Lord's form and qualities, and in this way they become able to see the Suprerme Personality of Godhead face-to-face.

Prakåti (material nature) consists of the three modes: goodness, passion, and ignorance. Prakåti is known by many names, such as tamaù and mäyä. When the Supreme Personality of Godhead glances at Prakåti, she becomes able to perform her various duties. Prakåti is the mother of many variegated material universes.

Käla (time) is the origin of past, present, future, simultaneity, slowness, quickness, and many other similar states. Käla is divided into many different units from the extremely brief kñaëa to the extermely long parärdha. Turning like a wheel, time is the cause of repeated creation and annihilation of the universes. Time is unconscious. It is not a person.

These four tattvas (éçvara, jéva, prakåti, and käla) are eternal. This is confirmed by the following scriptural quotations:

nityo nityänäà cetanaç cetanänäm

"Of all the eternals one (the Supreme Personality of Godhead) is the supreme eternal. Of all conscious entities one (the Supreme Personality of Godhead) is the supreme consicous entity."

- - Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad 6.13

gaur anädy anantavaté

"Prakåti is like a cow who was never born and never dies."

- Culika Upaniñad mantra 5

sad eva saumyedam agra äsét

"My dear saintly student, please understand that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is eternal. He is existed before the manifestation of this universe."

- Chändogya Upaniñad 6.2.1

The jévas, prakåti, and käla are subordinate to éçvara, and subject to His control. This is confirmed by the following statement of Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad (6.16):

sa viçva-kåd viçva-vid ätma-yonir

jïaù käla-käro guëi sarva-vid yaù

pradhäna-ksetrajïa-patir guëeçaù

saàsära-mokña-sthiti-bandha-hetuù

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead (éçvara) is the creator of the material universes. He is the creator of everything that exists within the universes. He is the father of all living entities. He is the creator of time. He is full of all transcendental virtues. He is omniscient. He is the master of pradhäna (the unmanifested material nature). He is the master of the guëas (three modes of material nature). He is the master of the individual spirit souls residing material bodies (kñetrajïa). He imprisons the condiditoned souls in the material world, and He also becomes their liberator from bondage."

Karma (the result of fruitive action) is not a conscious, living person. It is an inert material force. Although no one can trace out its beginning, it has a definite end at some point in time. It is known by the name adåñöa (the unseen hand of fate) and many other names also.

These four (jéva, prakåti, käla, and karma) are all potencies of éçvara, the supreme master of all potencies. Because everything that exists is the potency of the Supreme, the Vedic literatures declare: "Only Brahman exists, and nothing is separate from Him." This fact is nicely explained in the four chapters of this book, the Vedänta-sütra.

In the Çrémad-Bhägavatam, which is the perfect commentary on Vedänta-sütra, the Supreme éçvara and His potencies are described in the following words:

bhakti-yogena manasi

samyak praëihite 'male

apaçyat puruñaà pürëaà

mäyäà ca tad-apäçrayam

"Thus he fixed his mind, perfectly engaging it by linking it in devotional service [bhakti-yoga] without any tinge of materialism, and thus he saw the Absolute Personality of Godhead along with His external energy, which was under full control.*

yayä sammohito jéva

ätmänaà tri-guëätmakam

paro 'pi manute 'narthaà

tat-kåtaà cäbhipadyate

"Due to this external energy, the living entitiy, although transcendental to the three modes of material nature, thinks of himself as a material product and thus undergoes the reactions of material miseries.*

anarthopaçamaà säkñäd

bhakti-yogam adhokñaje

lokasyäjänato vidväàç

cakre sätvata-saàhitäà

"The material miseries of the living entity, which are superfluous to him, can be directly mitigated by the linking process of devotional service. But the mass of people do not know this, and therefore the learned Vyäsadeva compiled this Vedic literature, which is in relation to the Supreme Truth."*

- 1.7.4-6

dravyaà karma ca kälaç ca

svabhävo jéva eva ca

yad-anugrahataù santi

na santi yad-upekñayä

"One should definitely know that all material ingredients, activities, time and modes, and the living entities who are meant to enjoy them all, exist by His mercy only, and as soon as He does not care for them, everything becomes nonexistent."*

- 2.10.12

That Çrémad-Bhägavatam is the commentary on Vedänta-sütra is confirmed by the following statement of Garuòa Puräëa -

artho 'yam brahma-sütränäm

"Çrémad-Bhägavatam is the commentary on Vedänta-sütra."*

In this Vedänta-sütra the first chapter explains that Brahman is the real subject matter discussed in all Vedic literatures. The second chapter explains that all Vedic literatures present the same conclusion. They do not actually contradict each other. The third chapter describes how to attain Brahman. The fourth chapter explains the result of attaining Brahman.

A person whose heart is pure, pious, and free from material desires, who is eager is associate with saintly devotees, who has faith in the Lord and the scriptures, and who is peaceful and decorated with saintly qualitities, is qualified to study the scriptures and strive after Brahman.

The relationship between Brahman and the scriptures is that the scriptures describe Brahman and Brahman is the object described in the scriptures. The Vedänta-sütra and other Vedic scriptures describe Brahman as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose form is eternal, full of knowledge and bliss, who is the master of unlimited inconceivable potencies, and who possesses unlimited pure, transcendental attributes. The result of properly understanding the Vedänta-sütra and other Vedic scriptures is that the spiritual aspirant becomes free from all material imperfections, and able to see the Supreme Brahman, Personality of Godhead, face to face.

The Vedänta-sütra is written in adhikaraëas, Vedic syllogisms, which consist of five parts: 1. viñaya (thesis, or statement); 2. saàçaya (the arisal of doubt in the tenability of the statement); 3. pürvapakña (presentation of a view opposing the original statement) 4. siddhänta (determination of the actual truth, the final conclusion, by quotation from Vedic scriptures), and saìgati (confirmation of the final conclusion by quotation from Vedic scriptures).

Adhikaraëa 1

Inquiry Into Brahman

The first adhikaraëa of the Vedänta-sütra discusses brahma-jijïäsä (inquiry into Brahman). The adhikaraëa may be shown in its five parts in the following way:

1. Viñaya (statement): One should inquire about Brahman. This statement is confirmed by the following statements of Vedic scripture:

yo vai bhüma tat sukhaà nänyat sukham asti bhümaiva sukhaà bhümatveva vijijïäsitavyaù

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead (bhüma) is the source of genuine happiness. Nothing else can bring one actual happiness. Only the Supreme Personality of Godhead can bring one happiness. For this reason one should inquire about the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

- Chändogya Upaniñad 7.25.1

ätmä vä are drañöavyaù çrotavyo mantavyo nididhyäsitavyo maitreyi

"O Maitreyé, one should see, hear, remember, and inquire about the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

- Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad 2.4.5

2. Saàçaya (doubt): If one has studied the Vedas and dharma-çästras, need he inquire about Brahman or not? The following statements of Vedic scriptures nourish this doubt:

apäma somam amåtä abhüma

"We have attained immortality by drinking the soma-juice."

- Åg Veda 8.18.3

akñayyaà ha vai cäturmäsyäjinaù sukåtaà bhavati

"They who follow the vow of cäturmäsya attain an eternal reward."

3. Pürvapakña (presentation of the opposing view): There is no need to inquire about Brahman. Simply by discharging ordinary pious duties described in the dharma-çästras one can attain immortality and an eternal reward.

4. Siddhänta (the conclusive truth): In the first sütra Bhagavän Vyäsadeva replies to his philosophical opponent.

Sütra 1

athäto brahma-jijïäsä

atha - now; atah - therefore; brahma - about Brahman; jijïäsa - there should be inquiry.

Now, therefore, one should inquire about Brahman.*

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

In this sütra the word atha means "now", and the word ataù means "therefore". The sütra means "Now one should inquire about Brahman."

Atha (now): When a person has properly studied the Vedic literature, understood its meaning, adhered to the principles of varëäçrama-dharma, observed the vow of truthfulness, purified his mind and heart, and attained the association of a self-realized soul, he is qualified to inquire about Brahman.

Ataù (therefore): Because material piety brings results of material sense-happiness, which is inevitably limited and temporary, and because the transcendental form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, which is realized by the proper attainment of real transcendental knowledge, and which is full of imperishable, limitless bliss, eternity, transcendental knowldege, and all transcendental attributes, brings eternal bliss to the devotee-beholder, therefore one should renounce all material pious duties for attaining material sense-gratification, and inquire about Brahman by studying the four chapters of Vedänta-sütra.

At the point someone may object: Is it not true that simply by studying the Vedas one attains knowledge of Brahman, and as result of this knowledge one abandons the path of material piety and fruitive work and instead takes to the worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead? If this result is obtained simply by studying the Vedas, what need is there to study the four chapters of Vedänta-sütra?

To this objection I reply: Even if one carefully studies the Vedas, misunderstanding and doubt may destroy his intelligence and lead him away from the real meaning of the Vedas. For this reason it is necessary to study the Vedänta-sütra, to stregnthen the students's understanding.

Performing the duties of äçrama-dharma are also helpful in purifying the heart and understanding the transcendental reality. How the äçrama duties of the brähmaëa help in this regard is described in the following statement of Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad (4.4.22):

tam etaà vedänuvacanena brähmaëä vividisanti yajïena dänena tapasänaçanena

"By Vedic study, sacrifice, charity, austerity, and fasting, the brähmaëas strive to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

The usefulness of the brahminical duties such as truthfulness, austerity, and mantra chanting is described in the following scriptural statements:

satyena labhayas tapasä hy eña ätmä samyak jïänena brahmacaryeëa nityam

"By constant truthfulness, austerity, transcendental knowledge, and austerity, one becomes eligible to associate with the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

- Muëòaka Upaniñad 3.1.5

japyenaiva ca saàsiddhyad

brahmaëä nätra saàçayaù

kuryäd anyan na vä kuryän

maitro brähmaëa ucyate

"Whether he performs other rituals and duties or not, one who perfectly chants mantras glorifying the Supreme Personality of Godhead should be considered a perfect brähmaëa, eligible to understand the Supreme Lord."

- Manu-saàhitä 2.87

Association with those who understand the truth also brings one transcendental knowledge. By this association Närada and many other spiritual aspirants attained interest to ask about spiritual life and were finally eligible to see the Supreme Personality of Godhead face-to-face. Sanat-kumära and many other great sages have also helped many devotees by giving their association in this way. The great value of contact with a self-realized soul is described in the following statement of Bhagavad-gétä (4.34):

tad viddhi praëipätena

paripraçnena sevayä

upadekñyanti te jïänaà

jïäninas tattva-darçinaù

"Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth."*

The material benefits obtained by following the pious rituals of the karma-käëòa section of the Vedas are all temporary in nature. This fact is confirmed by the following statement of Chändogya Upaniñad (8.1.3):

tad yatheha karma-cito lokäù kñiyante evam evämutra puëya-cito lokaù kñéyate

"By performing good works (karma) one is elevated to the celestial material world after death. One is not able to stay there forever, however, but one must lose that position after some time and accept another, less favorable residence. In the same way, by amassing pious credits (puëya) one may reside in the upper planets. Still, he cannot stay there, but must eventually relinquish his comfortable position there, and accept a less favorable residence somewhere else."

The following statement of Muëòaka Upaniñad (1.2.12) affirms that only transcendental knowledge will help one approach the Supreme Brahman:

parékñya lokän karma-citän brähmaëo

nirvedam ayan nästy akåtaù kåtena

tad-vijïänärtham sa gurum eväbhigacchet

samit-päëiù çrotriyaà brahma-niñöham

"Seeing that the celestial material planets, which one may obtain by pious work, provide only temporary benefits, a brähmaëa, in order to understand the truth the of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, should humbly approach a bona-fide spiritual master learned in the scriptures and full of faith in the Supreme Lord."

In contrast to the temporary material benefits obtained in the celestial material planets, the Supreme Brahman is the reservoir of eternal, limitless bliss. This is confirmed by the following statments of Taittiréya Upaniñad (2.1.1):

satyaà jïänam anantaà brahma

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is limitless, eternal, and full of knowledge."

änando brahmeti vyajanät

"He then understood that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of transcendental bliss."

The Supreme Brahman is eternal, full of knowledge and endowed with all transcendental qualities. This is confirmed by the following statements of Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad:

na tasya käryaà karaëaà ca vidyate

na tat-samaç cäbhyadhikaç ca dåçyate

paräsya çaktir vividhaiva çrüyate

svä-bhäviké jïäna-bala-kriyä ca

"He does not possess bodily form like that of an ordinary living entity. There is no difference between His body and His soul. He is absolute. All his senses are transcendental. Any one of His senses can perform the action of any other sense. Therefore, no one is greater than Him or equal to Him. His potencies are multifarious, and thus His deeds are automatically performed as a natural sequence."*

- 6.8

sarvendriya-guëäbhäsaà

sarvendriya-vivarjitam

asaktaà sarva-bhåc caiva

nirguëaà guëa-bhoktå ca

"The Supersoul is the original source of all senses, yet He is without senses. He is unattached, although He is the maintainer of all living beings. He transcends the modes of nature, and at the same time He is the master of all modes of material nature."*

- 3.17

bhäva-grahyam anidäkhyaà

bhäväbhäva-karaà çivam

käla-särga-karaà devaà

ye vidus te jahus tanum

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the creator and destroyer of the entire material cosmic manifestation. He is supremely auspicious, and He does not posesses a material body, for His body is spiritual in all respects. He may be reached and understood only by loving devotional service. Those who thus serve Him and understand Him may become free from having to repeatedly accept various material bodies for continued residence in the material world. They become liberated from this world, and obtain eternal spiritual bodies with which to serve Him."

- 5.14

That the Supreme Personality of Godhead grants eternal transcendental bliss to His devotees is confirmed by the following statement of Gopäla-täpané Upaniñad (1.5):

taà péöha-sthaà ye tu yajanti dhéräs

teñäà sukhaà çäçvataà netareñäm

"The saintly devotees who worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the spiritual world attain eternal transcendental bliss. Except for them no others can attain this eternal bliss."

This uselessness of the temporary benefits obtained by following the material piety of the karma-käëòa section of the Vedas will be described in the third chapter of this Vedänta-sütra.

This may be summed up by saying: One who has studied the Vedas, Upavedas, and Upaniñads, understood them, associated with a self-realized soul, and in this way understood the difference between the temporary and the eternal, who has lost all attraction for the temporary and chosen the eternal, becomes a student of the four chapters of Vedänta-sütra.

It cannot be said that simply by completely studying and understanding the karma-käëòa section of the Vedas one will naturally take up the study of Vedänta-sütra. They who have studied karma-käëòa but not associated with saintly devotees do not become eager to understand Brahman. On the other hand, they who have not studied karma-käëòa, but who have become purified by association with saintly devotees, naturally become attracted to understand Brahman.

Neither can it be said that simply by understanding the difference between the temporary and the eternal, and simply by attaining the four qualities of saintly persons, one will become attracted to understand Brahman. These things are not enough. However, if one attains the association of a self-realized soul and follows his instructions, then these ordinarily difficult-to-attain qualifications are automatically attained at once.

Three kinds of persons inquire into the nature of Brahman: 1. Sa-niñöha (they who faithfully perform their duties); 2. Pariniñöha (they who act philantropically for the benefit of all living entities); and 3. Nirapek\ça (they who are rapt in meditation and aloof from the activities of this world). According to their own respective abilities all these persons understand the nature of Brahman. They become more and more purified, and they eventually attain the association of Brahman.

At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that the words oà and atha are auspicious sounds that sprang from Lord Brahmä's throat in ancient times? Is it not also so that these words are traditionally used at the beginning of books to invoke auspiciousness and drive away all obstacles? For this reason I think the word atha in this sütra does not mean "now". It is simply a word to invoke auspiciousness, and has no other meaning.

To this objection I reply: This is not true. Çréla Vyäsadeva, the author of Vedänta-sütra, is the incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, and therefore He has no particular need to invoke auspiciousness or drive away obstacles and dangers. That Vyäsadeva is the Supreme Personality of Godhead is confirmed by the following statement of the småti-çästra:

kåñëa-dvaipäyana-vyäsaà

viddhi näräyaëaà prabhum

"Please understand that Kåñëa Dvaipayana Vyäsa is actually the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Näräyaëa."

Still, ordinary people may take it that Lord Vyäsadeva has spoken the word atha at the beginning of Vedänta-sütra just to invoke auspiciousness, just as one may sound a conch-shell to invoke auspiciousness. In conclusion, we have described here how at a certain point in time, after certain understandings (atha), a person may become eager to inquire about the nature of Brahman.

At this point someone may raise the following objection:Is it not so that the word bhüma or brahma may also refer to the individual spirit soul and not only to the Supreme Personality of Godhead? This fact is explained in Chändogya Upaniñad. Even the dictionary explains: "The word brahma means that which is big, the brähmaëa caste, the individual spirit soul, and the demigod Brahmä who sits on a great lotus flower."

To clear away the misunderstanding of this objector, the following scriptural passages may be quoted:

bhågur vai varuëir varuëaà pitaram upasasära adhéhi bho bhagavo brahma. . . yato vä imäni bhütäni jäyante yena jätäni jévanti yat prayänty abhisaàviçanti tad brahma tad vijijïäsasva

"Bhågu asked his father Varuëa: `My lord, please instruct me about the nature of Brahman.' Varuëa replied: `All living entities have taken their birth because of Brahman. They remain alive because they are maintained by Brahman, and at the time of death they again enter into Brahman. Please try to understand the nature of Brahman.'"

At this point someone may doubt: "In this Vedänta-sütra does the word `Brahman' refer to the individual spirit soul or the Supreme Personality of Godhead?"

Someone may indeed claim that the word "Brahman" here refers to the individual spirit soul, and to support his view he may quote the following statement of Taittiréya Upaniñad (2.5):

vijïänaà brahma ced veda

tasmäc cen na pramadyati

çarére päpmäno hitvä

sarvaë kämän samäçnute

"If one understands the true nature of the Brahman who lives in the body and uses the senses of the body to perceive the material world, then such a knower of Brahman will never become bewildered by illusion. Such a knower of the Brahman in the body refrains from performing sinful actions, and at the time of leaving the body at death, he attains an exalted destination where all his desires become at once fulfilled."

Our philosophical opponent may claim in this way that the word "Brahman" should be interpreted to mean the individual spirit soul. In order to refute this false idea, Çréla Vyäsadeva describes the true nature of Brahman in the next sütra.

Adhikaraëa 2

The Origin of Everything

Sütra 2

janmädy asya yataù

janma - birth; ädi - beginning with; asya - of that; yataù - from whom.

Brahman is He from whom everything emanates.*

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The word janmädi is a tad-guëa-samvijïäna-bahuvréhi-samäsa, and it should interpreted to mean "creation, maintenance, and destruction." The word asya means "of this material universe with fourteen planetary systems, which is inhabitated by various creatures from the demigod Brahmä down to the lowest unmoving blade of grass, who all enjoy and suffer the results of their various fruitive actions (karma), and who cannot understand the astonishing structure of the universe where they live." The word yataù means "from whom", and it refers to the Supreme Brahman who manifested the universe from His inconceivable potency. This is the Brahman about whom one should inquire.

The words bhüma and ätmä both mean "all pervading". These words refer primarily to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This will be elaborately explained in the Bhümädhikaraëa (1.3.7) and Väkyänvayädhikaraëa (1.4.19). The word "Brahman" in particular means "He who possesses boundless exalted qualitites." Brahman, then, refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead and this is clearly confirmed in the following words of çruti-çästra:

atha kasmäd ucyate brahmeti båhanto by asmin guëäù

"From whom has this universe become manifest? From Brahman, who possesses an abundance of exalted transcendental qualities."

Brahman primarily refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and only secondarily to the individual spirit souls, who manifest in small degree the spiritual qualitites of the Supreme Lord. In this way the individual spirit souls may be called Brahman, just as the royal title may be given not only to the king, but also to his associates and subordinates. Therefore, the individual spirit souls, who are all suffering the three-fold miseries of material life, should, in order to attain ultimate liberation, inquire about the Supreme Brahman, who is very merciful towards whose who take shelter of Him. For these reasons it should be understood that the Supreme Brahman, the Personality of Godhead is the object of inquiry in this Vedänta-sütra. This is not an imaginary description of Brahman's qualities. This is the truth about Brahman.

The word jijïäsä means "the desire to know." Knowledge is of two kinds: 1. Parokña (knowledge gathered from sources other than the senses e.g. logic, knowledge obtained from authority, etc.) and 2. Aparokña (knowledge gathered by the senses). An example of these two kinds of knowledge may be seen in the following quotation from the çruti-çästra:

vijïäya prajïäà kurvéta

"After learning about the Supreme Personality of Godhead one should become able to directly see Him in the trance of meditation."

Parokña knowledge helps bring us closer to the Supreme Brahman, and aparokña knowledge manifests the Supreme Lord before us.

If one understands his real identity as spirit soul, that is certainly very helpful in understanding Brahman, but that does not mean that the individual soul is the same as Brahman. The individual spirit soul is always different from Brahman, and even after liberation He remains eternally different from the Supreme Brahman. The difference between the individual soul and Brahman is described in sütras 1.1.16, 1.1.17, 1.3.5, 1.3.21, and 1.3.41.

The Vedic literature gives the following guidelines for the interpretation of obscure passages:

upakramopasaàhäräv

abhyäso 'pürvata-phalam

artha-vädopapatté ca

liìgaà tätparya-nirëaye

"The upakrama (beginning), upasaàhära (ending), abhyäsa (what is repeated again and again), apürvatä (what is unique and novel), phalam (the general purpose of the book), artha-väda (the author's statement of his own intention), and upapatti (appropriateness) are the factors to consider in interpretation of obscure passages."

If we apply these criteria to the çruti-çästra, we will clearly see that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the individual spirit soul are described here as two distinct entities.

Let us analyze the following passage from Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad (4.6-7) in the light of these six criteria.

dvä suparëä sayujä sakhäyä

samänaà våkñaà pariçañvajäte

tayor anyaù pippalaà svädv atty

anaçnann anyo 'bhicakäçéti

"The individual spirit-soul and the Supersoul, Personality of Godhead, are like two friendly birds sitting on the same tree. One of the birds (the individual atomic soul) is eating the fruit of the tree (the sense-gratification afforded to the material body), and the other bird (the Supersoul) is not trying to eat these fruits, but is simply watching His friend.

samäne våkñe puruño nimagno

'néçäya çocati muhyamänaù

juñöaà yadä paçyati anyam éçam

asya mahimänam iti véta-çokaù

"Although the two birds are on the same tree, the eating bird is fully engrossed with anxiety and moroseness as the enjoyer of the fruits of the tree. But if in some way or other he turns his face to his friend who is the Lord and knows His glories, at once the suffering bird becomes free from all anxieties."

In this passage the upakrama (beginning) is dvä suparëä (two birds); the upasaàhära (ending) is anyam éçam (the other person, who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead); the abhyäsa (repeated feature) is the word anya (the other person), as in the phrases tayor anyo 'çnan (the other person does not eat) and anyam éçam ( He sees the other person, who is the Supreme Lord); the apürvatä (unique feature) is the difference between the Supreme Lord and the individual spirit soul, which could never have been understood without the revelation of the Vedic scripture; the phalam (general purpose of the passage) is véta-çokaù (the individual spirit soul becomes free from suffering by seeing the Lord); the artha-väda (the author's statement of his own intention) is mahimänam eti (one who understands the Supeme Lord becomes glorious) and the upapatti (appropriateness) is anyo 'naçan (the other person, the Supreme Lord, does not eat the fruits of material happiness and distress).

By analyzing this passage and other passages from Vedic literatures, one may clearly understand the difference between the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the individual spirit soul.

At this point someone may raise the following objection:

Is it not true that when a scripture teaches something that had not been known to its readers, then it is useful, and if when a scripture simply repeats what its readers already know, it simply wastes time uselessly? People in general think they are different from the Supreme Brahman, and therefore if the scripture were to teach them something new it would have to be that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the indivdual spirit souls are completely identical. For this reason it should be understood that the individual spirit souls are identical with Brahman.

To this objection I reply: This view is not supported by the words of the Vedic scriptures. For example the Çvetäçvatara

Upaniñad (1.6) states:

påthag-ätmänaà preritaà ca matvä

juñöas tatas tenämåtatvam eti

"When one understands that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the individual spirit souls are eternally distinct entities, then he may become qualified for liberation, and live eternally in the spiritual world."

The impersonalist conception of the identity of the individual and the Supreme is a preposterous phantasmagoria, like the horn of a rabbit. It has no reference to reality, and it is completely rejected by the people in general. They do not accept it. Those few texts of the Upaniñads that apparently teach the impersonalist doctrine, are interpreted in a personalist way by the author, Vyäsadeva himself. This will be described later on in Sutra 1.1.30.

Adhikaraëa 3

The Supreme Personality of Godhead May be Understood by the Revelation of the Vedic Scriptures

1. Viñaya (Statement): The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the creator, maintainer and destroyer of the material universes. Because He is inconceivable to the tiny brains of the conditioned souls He must be understood by the revelation of Vedänta philosophy. This is confirmed by the following statements of the Upaniñads:

sac-cid-änanda-rüpäya

kåñëäyäkliñöa-käriëe

namo vedänta-vedyäya

gurave buddhi-säkñiëe

Oà namaù. I offer my respectful obeisances to Çré Kåñëa, whose form is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss, who is the rescuer from distress, who is understood by Vedänta, who is the supreme spiritual master, and who is the witness in everyone's heart.

- Gopäla-täpané Upaniñad

taà tv aupaniñadaà puruñaà påcchämi

"I shall now inquire about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is revealed in the Upaniñads."

- Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad 3.9.26

2. Saàçaya (doubt): What is the best method for understanding supremely worshipable Lord Hari: the mental speculation of the logicians, or the revelation of the Vedänta scriptures?

3. Pürvapakña (the argument of the philosophical opposition): The sage Gautama (Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad 4.5) and others maintain that the Supreme Personality of Godhead can be understood by the speculations of the logicians.

4. Siddhänta (the conclusion): In the Vedänta-sütra, Çréla Vyäsadeva explains that scriptural revelation is the real way to understand the Supreme Brahman. He says:

Sütra 3

çästra-yonitvät

çästra - the scriptures; yonitvät - because of being the origin of knowledge.

(The speculations of the logicians are unable to teach us about Supreme Personality of Godhead) because He may only be known by the revelation of the Vedic scriptures.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

In this sütra the word "not" should be understood, even though it is not expressed. They who aspire after liberation are not able to understand the Personality of Godhead simply by logic and speculation. Why? Because He is known only by the revelation of the Vedic scriptures. Among the Vedic scriptures, the Upaniñads especially describe the Supreme Person. For this reason it is said aupaniñadaà puruñam (the Supreme Person is undertood through the revelation of the Upaniñads). The process of logic and speculation as described by the word mantavya (to be understood by logic) as described in Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad (4.5) should be employed to understand the revelation of the scriptures and not independently. This is confirmed by the following statement of çruti-çästra:

pürväpara-virodhena

ko 'rtho 'träbhimato bhavet

ity ädyam uhanaà tarkaù

çuñka-tarkaà vivarjayet

"Logic is properly employed to resove apparent contradictions in the texts of the Vedas. Dry logic, without reference to scriptural revelation, should be abandoned."

For this reason the dry logic of Gautama and others should be rejected. This is also confired in sütra 2.1.11. After understanding the Supreme Person by study of the Upaniñads, one should become rapt in meditation on Him. This will be explained later insütra 2.1.27.

The Supreme Lord, Hari, is identical with His own transcendental form. He and His form are not two separate identities. He is the witness of all living entities, He is the resting place of a host of transcendental qualitities, He is the creator of the material universes, and He remains unchanged eternally. By hearing about His transcendental glories, one may worship Him perfectly.

At this point someone may raise the following objection:

The Vedänta philosophy does not give either positive orders or negative prohibitions, but simply descriptions, as the sentence "On the earth there are seven continents." Men need instruction in how to act. Therefore, what is needed is a series of orders to guide men. Men need orders, such as the ordinary orders. "A man desiring wealth should approach the king," or "One suffering from indigestion should restrict his intake of water," or the orders of the Vedas: svarga-kämo yajeta (One desiring to enter the celestial material planets should worship the demigods), or süraà na pibet (No one should drink wine). The Upaniñads do not give us a string of orders and prohibitions, but merely a description of the eternally perfect Brahman. for example the Upaniñads tell us satyam jïänam (The Supreme Personality of Godhead is truth and knowledge). This is of small help in the matter of orders and prohibitions. Sometimes the Upaniñads' descriptions may be a little useful, as for example when they describe a certain demigod, the description may be useful when one performs a sacrifice to that demigod, but otherwise these descriptions afford us little practical beneifit, and are more or less useless. This is confirmed by the following statements of Jaimini Muni.

ämnäyasya kriyärthatväd anärthäkhyam atad-arthanam

"The scriptures teach us pious duties. Any scriptural passage that does not teach us our duty is a senseless waste of our time."

- Pürva-mémäàsä 1.2.1

tad-bhütänäà kriyärthena samämnäyo 'rthasya tan-nimittatvät

"Just as a verb gives meaning to a sentence, in the same way instructions for action give meaning to the statements of the scriptures."

- Pürva-mémäàsä 1.1.25

To this objection I reply: Do not be bewildered. Even though the Upaniñads do not give us a series of orders and prohibitions, still they teach us about the Supreme Brahman, the most important and valuable object to be attained by any living entitiy. Just as if in your house there were hidden treasure, and a description of its location were spoken to you, those words would not be useless simply because they were a description. In the same way the Upaniñads' description of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the greatest treasure to be attained by any living being, whose form is eternal, full of knowledge and full of bliss, who is perfect and beyond any criticism, who is the friend of all living entities, the Supreme Lord who is so kind that He gives Himself to His devotees, and the supreme whole of all existance, of whom I am a tiny part, is not useless, but of great value to the conditioned soul. The descriptions of the Supreme Brahman in the Upaniñads are valuable, just as the description "your son is now born" is useful and a source of great joy, and the decription "This is not a snake, but only a rope partly seen in the darkness," is also useful and a great relief from fear.

The specific benefit attained by understanding the Supreme Brahman are described in the following statement of Taittiréya Upaniñad (2.1):

satyaà jïänam anantaà brahma yo veda nihitaà guhäyäà so 'çnute sarvän kämän

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is limitless. He is transcendental knowledge, and He is the eternal transcendental reality. He is present in everyone's heart. One who properly understands Him becomes blessed and all his desires are completely fulfilled."

No one can say that the Upaniñads teach about ordinary fruitive action (karma). Rather, one may say that the Upaniñads teach one to give up all material, fruitive work. No one can say that the Upaniñads describe anything other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the original creator, maintainer, and destroyer of all the universes, whose spiritual form is eternal, who is a great ocean of unlimited auspicious transcendental qualitities, and who is the resting-place of the goddess of fortune. Jaimini's description of the importance of karma, therefore, has no bearing on the Upaniñads.

In fact Jaimini was a faithful devotee of the Lord, and his apparent criticisms (in the two quotations presented above) of the Vedic texts that do not encourage fruitive work (karma) with sufficient enthusiasm, are his hint to us that there is more that pious fruitive work in the instructions of the Vedas. In this way it may be understood that the Supreme Brahman is the subject-matter described in the Vedic scriptures.

Adhikaraëa 4

This is Confirmed by the Vedic scriptures

1. Viñaya (statement): That the Supreme Personality of Godhead is described in all Vedic scriptures is described in the following scriptural quotations:

yo 'su sarvair vedair géyate

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is glorified by all the Vedas."

- Gopäla-täpané Upaniñad

sarve vedä yat-padam ämananti

"All the Vedas describe the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

- Kaöha Upaniñad 1.2.15

2. Saàçaya (doubt): Lord Viñëu is the subject-matter described in all the Vedas. Is this statement true or false?

3. Pürvapakña (the argument of our philosophical opponent): It is not true that the Vedas teach only about the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Actually the Vedas mainly describe various fruitive karma-käëòa sacrifices, such as the kariri-yajïa for bringing rain, the putra-kämyeñöi-yajïa for gaining a son, and the jyotiñöoma-yajïa for traveling to the celestial material planets (Svargaloka). For this reason it is not possible to say that Lord Viñëu is the only topic discussed in the Vedas.

4. Siddhänta (the proper conclusion): Vyäsadeva replies to the objections in the following sütra:

Sütra 4

tat tu samanvayät

tat - this fact; tu - but; samanvayät - because of the agreement of all the Vedic scriptures.

But that (Lord Viñëu is the sole topic of discussion in the Vedas) is confirmed by all scriptures.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The word tu (but) in this sütra is used to rebut the previously stated opposing argument. It is proper to say that Lord Viñëu is the sole topic of discussion in all the Vedas. Why? The answer is: samanvayät (because the scriptures themselves bring us to this conclusion). The word anvaya means "understanding the actual meaning," and the word samanvaya means "perfect understanding after careful deliberation". When we apply the above-mentioned rules of interpretation (beginning with upakrama and upasaàhära) to the texts of the Vedas, we will come to the conclusion that Lord Viñëu is the sole topic of discussion in all the Vedas. If it were not so, then why should the Gopäla-täpané Upaniñad state that Lord Viñëu is glorified by all the Vedas? This is also confirmed by the lotus-eyed Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, who says:

vedaiç ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedänta-kåd veda-vid eva cäham

"By all the Vedas I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of the Vedänta, and I am the knower of the Vedas."*

- Bhagavad-gétä 15.15

kià vidhatte kim äcañöe

kim anüdya vikalpayet

ity asyä kådayaà loke

nänyo mad veda kaçcana

mäà vidhatte 'bhidhatte mäà

vikalpyäpohyate hy aham

"What is the direction of all Vedic literatures? On whom do they set focus? Who is the purpose of all speculation? Outside of Me no one knows these things. Now you should know that all these activities are aimed at ordaining and setting forth Me. The purpose of Vedic literature is to know Me by different speculations, either by indirect understanding or by dictionary understanding. Everyone is speculating about Me."*

- Çrémad-Bhägavatam (11.21.42-43)

The Vedic literatures also state:

säkñät-paramparäbhyäm veda brahmaëi pravartate

"Either directly or indirectly, the Vedas describe Brahman."

In the jïäna-käëòa section of the Vedas the transcendental forms and qualitities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are directly described, and in the karma-käëòa section of the Vedas the Lord is indirectly described in the discussion of fruitive action and various divisions of material knowledge

That the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the sole topic of discussion in the Vedas is also confirmed by the following scriptural passages:

tam tv aupaniñadaà puruñam påcchämi

"I shall now ask about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is described in the Upaniñads."

- Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad (9.21)

tam etam vedänuvacanena brähmaëa vividiçanti

"Brähmaëas study the Vedas to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

- Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad (4.4.22)

As for the various fruitive results, such as the attainment of rain, a son, or residence in the celestial material planets, that are offered to the follwers of the karma-käëòa rituals in the Vedas, these beneifts are offered to attract the minds of ordinary men. When ordinary men see that these material benefits are actually attained by performing Vedic rituals, they become attracted to study the Vedas. By studying the Vedas they become able to discriminate between what is temporary and what is eternal. In this way they gradually become averse to the temporary things of this world and they come to hanker after Brahman. In this way it may be understood that all the parts of the Vedas describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Vedic rituals bring material benefits as a result only when the performer of the ritual is filled with material desire. If the performer is materially desireless, then he does not gain a material result, but rather the result he obtains is purification of the heart and the manifestation of spiritual knowledge. Therefore, the meaning of the previously quoted text from Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad (4.4.22) is that the demigods are considered to be the various limbs of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and by worshiping them, one actually worships the Supreme Lord, and the result of such worship is that one gradually become pure in heart and awake with spiritual knowledge.

Adhikaraëa 5

Brahman Is Knowable

1. Viñaya (statement): Now, by the use of logic and scriptural quotation, we shall refute the misconception that Brahman cannot be described. One may argue, however, that many scriptural passages support the theory that Brahman cannot be described by words. For example:

yato väco nivartate

apräpya manasä saha

"The mind cannot understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead and words cannot describe Him."

- Taittréya Upaniñad 2.4.1

yad vacanäbhyuditaà yena väg abhyudyate tad eva

brahma tad viddhi nedaà yad idam upäsate

"No one has the power to describe Brahman with words, even though everyone's speech occurs by the power granted by Brahman. Know that this Brahman is not material. Worship this Brahman."

- Kena Upaniñad (1.5)

2. Saàçaya (doubt): Is Brahman expressable by words or not?

3. Pürvapakña (the opponenet argues): The çruti-çästra states that Brahman cannot be described by words. If this were not so, it would not be said that the Supreme Brahman is self-manifested. That Brahman cannot be described with words is also explained in the following statement of {Çrémad-Bhägavatam (3.6.40):

yato 'präpya nyavartanta

vacaç ca manasä saha

ahaà cänya ime deväs

tasmai bhagavate namaù

"Words, mind and ego, with their respective controlling demigods, have failed to achieve success in knowing the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, we simply have to offer our respectful obeisances unto Him as a matter of sanity."*

4. Çréla Vyäsadeva refutes these arguments in the following sütra:

Sütra 5

ékñater näçabdam

ékñateh - because it is seen; na - not; açabdam - indescribable by words.

Because it is seen (that Brahman is vividly described in the Vedic scriptures, it should be understood that Brahman) is not indescribable by words.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

Here the word açabdam means "that which cannot be described by words." In this sütra Brahman is described as not (na) indescribable by words (açabdam). Why is this so? Because ékñateù (because it is seen that Brahman is described in the passages of the scriptures).

For example, Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad states:

taà tv aupaniñadaà puruñaà påcchämi

"I shall now ask about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is described in the Upaniñads."

We may note in this connection that the word aupaniñada means "that glorious person who is described in the Upaniñads."

We may also note that the word ékñateù is bhava (passive), and it is formed by adding the affix tip-pratyaya. The unusual usage here is ärña (a certain degree of grammatical liberty allowed to an exalted author).

That the Supreme Personality of Godhead may be described in words is also confirmed by the following statement of Kaöha Upaniñad (2.15):

sarve vedä yat-padam ämananti

"All the Vedas describe the feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

When it is said that Brahman cannot be described in words, the intention is that He cannot be completely described in words. In the same way it is sometimes said that no one can see Mount Meru because no one can see the entire mountain, but only small parts of it at any one time. Without accepting this understanding, that Brahman is not completely expressible by words or understandable by the mind, we would not properly understand the meaning of the scritpural statements yato väco nivartate (words cannot describe Brahman), apräpya manasä saha (the mind cannot understand Brahman), and yad vacanäbhyuditam (No one has the power to describe Brahman with words). These statements explain that Brahman cannot be completely described in words.

That Brahman can to some extent be described with words does not contradict the fact that Brahman reveals Himself by His own wish. The Vedas are actually the incarnation of Brahman, and therefore Brahman may reveal Himself in the words of the Vedas.

2. Saàçaya (doubt): This may be so, but still the Suprme Person described in the words of the Vedas may be saguëa (a manifestation of the Lord according to the modes of material nature), and not the perfect, complete and pure original Brahman who remains indescribable by words.

If this doubt were to arise, Çréla Vyäsadeva would answer it in the following sütra.

Sütra 6

gauëaç cen nätma-çabdät

gauëaù - Saguëa Brahman, or the Lord's potencies; cet - if; na - not; ätma - ätma; çabdät - because of the word.

If (one says that the Brahman described in the Vedas is) Saguëa Brahman (a manifestation of the modes of material nature, and not the original Supreme Lord Himself), Then I say this cannot be true, because Brahman is described in the Vedas as "Atma" (the Supreme Self).

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The Brahman described in the Vedas is not merely a saguëa manifestation of the mode of Goodness. Why? Because the Vedas use the word ätmä (the Supreme Self) to describe Him. For example:

ätmaivedam agra äsét puruña-vidhaù

"The Supreme Self (ätmä), who is a transcendental person, existed before this material world was manifested in the beginning."

- Väjasaneya-saàhitä

ätmä vä idam eka evägra äsét nänyat kiïcana

miñät sa ékñata lokän nu såja

"Before the material world was manifest, the Supreme Self (ätmä) alone existed. Nothing else was manifested at that time. The Supreme Self then thought, `Let me create the material planets.'"

- Aitareya Äraëyaka

Both these texts clearly refer to the Supreme Self (ätmä) who existed before the creation of the material world. Also, In the commentary on sütra 1.1.2, I have already explained that the word ätmä primarily refers to the perfect Supreme Brahman, and not to anyone or anything else. For this reason the word ätmä used in the scriptures should be understood to refer to the transcendental Supreme Personality of Godhead, and not to any material manifestation of the mode of goodness. The transcendental Supreme Person is described in the following statements of Vedic literature:

vadanti tat tattva-vidas

tattvaà yaj jïänam advayam

brahmeti päramätmeti

bhagavän iti çabdyate

"Learned transcendentalist who know the Absolute Truth call this non-dual substance Brahman, Paramätmä or Bhagavän."*

'Çrémad-Bhägavatam 1.2.11

çuddhe mahä-vibhütäkhye

pare brahmaëi çabdyate

maitreya bhagavac-chabdaù

sarva-käraëa-käraëe

"O Maitreya, the word Bhagavän refers to the Supreme Brahman, who is full of all powers and opulences, the original cause of all causes, and the supreme transcendence, pure and always untouched by matter."

- Viñëu Puräëa

In this way the supremely perfect and pure Brahman is described by the statements of the småti-çästras. If it were not possible to describe Him with words, then the scriptures would not have been able to describe Him in the above quotations.

Sütra 7

tan niñöhasya mok\çopadeçät

tat - that; niñöhasya - of the faithful devotee; mokça - of the liberation; upadeçät - because of the instructions.

(The Brahman described in the scriptures is the transcendental Supreme Lord, and not a temporary manifestation of the mode of goodness, because the scriptures) teach us that they who become His devotees attain liberation.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The word "not" is understood in this sütra and the following three sütras as well. The liberation of those devoted to Brahman is described in the following statement of Taittiréya Upaniñad (2.7):

asad vä idam agra äsét tato vai sad ajäyata tad ätmänaà svayam akuruta. . . yadä hy evaiña etasminn adåçye anätmye anirukte 'nilayane abhayaà pratiñöhaà vindate 'tha so 'bhayaà gato bhavati yadä hy evaiña etasminn udäram antaram kurute atha tasya bhayaà bhavati

"Before the material cosmos was manifested, it existed in a subtle form. At a certain time it became manifested in a gross form, and at a certain time the Supreme Brahman manifested as the Universal Form. When an individual spirit soul takes shelter of that Supreme Brahman, who is different from the individual spirit souls, invisible to the gross material senses, indescribable by material words, and self-effulgent, then the individual spirit soul attains liberation and is no longer afraid of the cycle of repeated birth and death. If one does not take shelter of this Supreme Brahman, he must remain afraid of taking birth again and again in this world."

The Brahman described in this passage of the Vedic literature must be the Supreme Brahman who is beyond the limitations of the material world, and who is the creator of the material universes, and yet beyond them. This passage could not be interpreted to describe a Brahman that is actually a manifestation of the modes of material nature, for if this were so, then it would not have explained that they who become devoted to this Brahman attain ultimate liberation. They who are devoted to the manifestations of the modes of nature do not attain liberation by that material devotion. Therefore, because the devotees attain liberation, the Brahman mentioned here must be the transcendental Supreme Person, who is beyond the modes of nature, and completely non-material in nature.

This non-material, transcendental Supreme Brahman is described in the following statement of Çrémad-Bhägavatam (10.88.5):

harir hi nirguëaù säkñät

puruçaù prakåteù paraù

sa sarva-dåg upadrañöä

taà bhajan nirguëo bhavet

"Çré Hari, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is situated beyond the range of material nature; therefore He is the supreme transcendental person. He can see everything inside and outside; therefore He is the supreme overseer of all living entities. If someone takes shelter at His lotus feet and worships Him, he also attains a transcendental position."*

Sütra 8

heyatva-vacanäc ca

heyatva - worthy of being abandoned; vacanät - because of the statement; ca - also.

(The Brahman described in the Vedic scriptures is not a manifestation of the modes of material nature,) because no scriptural passage advises one to abandon (Brahman in order to attain something higher).

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

If the Brahman described in the scriptures were enmeshed in the modes of material nature, then why do the scriptures not direct men and women to abandon the worship of Brahman and worship something higher? If this Brahman were under the spell of the modes of nature, then why do those aspiring after liberation worship this Brahman to become free from the grip of the modes of nature? Clearly, the Brahman described in the scriptures is not entangled in the modes of material nature, and for this reason the scripture state:

anyä väco vimuïcätha

"Give up talking about things that have no relation to the Supreme Brahman!"

They who aspire for liberation should meditate with pure faith on this Supreme Brahman, who is eternal, filled with all transcendental qualities, and the orginal creator of the material universes. In this way it may be understood that the Brahman described in the Vedic scriptures is not a product of the modes of material nature.

Sütra 9

sväpyät

sva - into Himself; apyät - because He merges.

(The Supreme Brahman described in the Vedic literatures is not bound by the modes of nature,) because He merges into Himself, (unlike the creatures bound by nature's modes, who all merge into something other than their self).

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad (5.1.1) explains:

oà pürëam adaù pürëam idaà

pürëät pürëam udacyate

pürëasya pürëam ädäya

pürëam evävaçiñyate

"The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the complete whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the complete whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance."*

This verse explains that that which is pürëa (perfect and complete), enters into itself. This cannot be said of that which is not perfect and complete. If the Supreme Brahman described in the scriptures were a product of the modes of material nature, then it would merge into the Supreme and not into itself. In this way it could not be described as truly perfect and complete. In this verse the word adaù (this) refers to the aprakaöa (not manifested in the material world) form of the Supreme Lord, which is the root from which the various prakaöa forms of the Lord emanate. Both aprakaöa and prakaöa forms of the Lord are perfect and complete. The Lord expands from His aprakaöa form and appears in the material world in His prakaöa form, displaying His räsa-lélä and other transcendental pastimes. When the prakaöa form of the Lord leaves the material world and enters the aprakaöa form of the Lord, the Lord remains unchanged, eternally perfect and complete. That the Lord is untouched by the modes of material nature, and that He expands into many forms, are confired by the following statement of småti-çästra:

sa devo bahudhä bhütvä

nirguëah puruñottamaùeké-bhüya punaù çete

nirdoño harir ädi-kåt

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is faultless. Even though He is the original creator of the material world, He remains always untouched by matter. He expands in innumerable viñëu-tattva incarnations, and then these incarnations enter Him and He again becomes one."

At this point someone may raise the following objection: There are actually two kinds of Brahman: Saguëa Brahman (Brahman enmeshed in the modes of material nature), and Nirguëa Brahman (Brahman untouched by the modes of material nature). The first, or Saguëa Brahman, has a form constructed of the mode of material goodness. This Saguëa Brahman is the omnisicent, all-powerful creator of the material universes. The second, or Nirguëa Brahman, is pure transcendental existence only. This Nirguëa Brahman is pure, perfect, and complete. The Saguëa Brahman is the çakti (potency) described by the Vedas, and the Nirguëa Brahman is the tätparya (meaning) of the Vedas.

Çréla Vyäsadeva refutes this argument by explaining, in the next sütra:

Sütra 10

gati-samanyät

gati - the conception; samanyät - because of uniformity.

(This is not so) because the Vedas describe only one kind of Brahman.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

In this sütra the word gati means "conception." The Vedic literatures describe Brahman as full of transcendental knowledge, omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, complete, pure, the all-pervading Supersoul, the original creator of the material universes, the object of worship for the saintly devotees, and the bestower of liberation. The Vedas do not describe two kinds of Brahman: Nirguëa and Saguëa. Rather, the Vedas describe only one kind of Brahman. This one Brahman is described by Lord Kåñëa in the following words (Bhagavad-gétä 7.7):

mattaù parataraà nänyat

kiïcid asti dhanaïjaya

mayi sarvam idaà protaà

sütre maëi-gaëä iva

"O conqueror of wealth, there is not truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon me as pearls strung on a thread."*

Thus the Vedic literatures describe only one kind of Brahman: Nirguëa Brahman. Çréla Vyäsadeva describes this Nirguëa Brahman in the next sütra:

Sütra 11

çrutatväc ca

çrutavät - because of being described in the Vedas; ca - and.

(There is only one kind of Brahman: Nirguëa Brahman), because Nirguëa Brahman is described throughout the Vedic literatures.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

Nirguëa Brahman is described in the following statement of Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad (6.11):

eko devaù sarva-bhüteñu güòhaù

sarva-vyäpé sarva-bhütäntarätmä

karmädhyakñaù sarva-bhütädhiväsaù

säkñé cetä kevalo nirguëaç ca

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead manifests Himself as the all-pervading Supersoul, the witness present in the hearts of all living entities. He witnesses all activities of the living entity. He is the supreme living force. He is transcendental to all material qualities."

In this way Nirguëa Brahman is described in the çruti-çästra. The çruti-çästra does not say that it is impossible to describe Brahman. Some say that Brahman may be understood not from the direct statements of the Vedic literatures, but merely indirectly, or from hints found in the Vedic texts. This is not the correct understanding, for if the Vedic scriptures had no power to directly describe Brahman, then naturally they would also not have any power to indirectly describe Him or hint about Him. The Vedic literatures may say that Brahman has no contact with guëas (either qualities, or the three modes of material nature), and He cannot be seen by material eyes (adåçya), still it does not say that the words of the Vedas have no power to describe Him.

At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not said in the Vedas that Brahman has no guëas (qualities)? Your statement that Brahman has qualities contradicts the description of the scriptures.

To this I reply: This is not true. You can only say this because you do not understand the confidential meaning of the word nirguëa. Because the Supreme Brahman is all-knowing and possess many transcendental qualitites, when the scriptures say that He is nirguëa, it should be understood to mean that He has no (niù) contact with the three modes of material nature (guëa).

This is confirmed by the following statements of småti-çästra:

sattvädayo na çänöiçe

yatra cäprakåtä guëäù

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who possesses numberless transcendental qualities, is eternally free from the touch of the three modes of material nature: goodness, passion, and ignorance."

samasta-kalyäëa-guëätmako 'sau

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead possesses all auspicious qualities."

For all these reasons it should be accepted that the Vedic literatures have the power to describe the perfect, pure, complete Supreme Brahman. When it is said by the scriptures that the Supreme Brahman has no names, forms, or qualities it should be understood that the Supreme Brahman has no material names, forms, or qualities, and that His names, forms and qualities are limitless and beyond the counting of limited spirit souls.

At this point someone may object, saying that the literal interpretation of the Vedic statements is that Brahman is without qualities (nirguëa), and your interpretation of the word nirguëa is wrong.

To this objection I reply: Does this description that Brahman has no qualities help to positively undertand Brahman? If you say yes, then you have to admit that the Vedas do have the power to describe Brahman; and if you say no, then you have to admit that your careful studies of the Vedic literature have been a great waste of time, and as a result you remain wholly ignorant of Brahman's real nature.

Adhikaraëa 6

The Supreme Brahman is Full of Bliss

Introduction by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

çabdä väcakatäà yänti

yantränandamayädayaù

vibhum änanda-vijïänaà

taà çuddhaà çraddadhémahi

Let us place our faith in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is supremely pure, all-powerful, all-knowing, and full of transcendental bliss. He is perfectly described in the änandamaya-sütra and the other statements of Vedänta-sütra.

From the 12th Sütra (änandamaya) to the end of this First Chapter, Çréla Vyäsadeva will prove that the statements of the Vedic literatures are intended to describe Brahman. In the First Pada, Çréla Vyäsadeva discusses those words of the Vedic literatures, which, taken by themselves, whould not necessarily refer to Brahman, but which, in their Vedic context, certainly do refer to Brahman.

1. Viñaya (Statement): In the passages from Taittiréya Upaniñad beginning brahma-vid äpnoti param and sa vä eña puruso 'nna-rasamayaù, we find a description of the annamaya, präëamaya, manomaya, and vijïänamaya stages of existence, and after that we find the following statement:

tasmäd vä etasmäd vijïänamayäd anyo 'ntarätmänandamayas tenaiña pürëaù. sa vä eña puruña-vidha eva tasya puruña-vidhatäm anvayaà puruña-vidhaù. tasya priyam eva çiraù. modo dak\çiëaù pak\çaù. pramoda uttaraù pak\çaù. änanda ätmä. brahma-pucchaà pratiñöhä.

"Higher than the vijïänamaya stage is the änandamaya stage of existence. The änandamaya stage is a person whose head is pleasure (priya), whose right side is joy (moda), whose left side is delight (pramoda), and whose identity is bliss (änanda). The änandamya is Brahman."

2. Saàçaya (doubt): Is the änandamaya person the individual spirit soul or the Supreme Brahman?

3. Pürvapakña (the opposition speaks): Because änandamaya is described as a person it must refer to the conditioned spirit soul residing in a material body.

4. Siddhänta (the proper conclusion): Çréla Vyäsadeva answers this argument by speaking the following sütra:

Sütra 12

änandamayo 'bhyäsät

änanda - bliss; mayah - full of ; abhyäsät - because of repetition.

The word änandamaya (full of bliss) used in the Vedic literatures must refer to the Supreme Brahman, for it is repeatedly used to describe Him.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The Supreme Brahman is the änandamaya described in Vedic literature. Why do we say so? Because the word änandamaya is repeatedly used to describe the Supreme Brahman. Directly following the description of änandamaya in the Taittiréya Upaniñad (2.6.1), we find the following statement:

asann eva sambhavati

asad brahmeti veda cet

asti brahmeti ced veda

santam enaà tato viduù

"One who thinks, `The Supreme Brahman does not exist' becomes a demonic atheist, and one who thinks, `The Supreme Brahman does exist' is known as a saint."

In this passage the word Brahman was repeated. This repetition is called abhyäsa. In the previous quotation from Taittiréya Upaniñad, the word Brahman appeared in the word brahma-puccham, but in that case the word only occurred once, and therefore there was no abhyäsa.

The four verses of Taittiréya Upaniñad beginning with the verse annäd vai prajäù prajäyante describe the annamaya, präëamaya, manomaya, and vijïänamaya levels of existence. Each of these levels is progressively higher than the preceding one, and after them the änandamaya level, which is different in quality, is the highest of all. This will be more elaborately explained in the passage following the sütra: priya-çiras tv ädya-präpter (3.3.13) of this book.

At this point someone may raise the following objection: These stages of existence describe the conditioned souls who have fallen into the raging river of material suffering. Why has the stage of blissfulness (änandamaya) been made the chief of these stages of suffering?"

To this objection I reply: There is no fault in this. The all-blissful Personality of Godhead is pesent in the hearts of all the suffering conditioned souls, and therefore it is perfectly appropriate to mention them together.

The Vedic literatures speak in this way to make a difficult subject-matter intelligible for the unlettered common man. Just as one may point out the small, difficult-to-see star Arundhati by first pointing to a nearby large easy-to-see star, and then lead the viewer from that reference-point to the tiny Arundhati, in the same way the Vedic literatures first describe the suffering-filled life of the conditioned souls, and then from that reference point teach about the all-blissful Supreme Personality of Godhead.

At this point someone may raise the following question: Is it, then, that the Vedic literatures mostly describe topics other than the Supreme Brahman, (because mostly they describe these "reference-points" to lead the reader to the Supreme), or do they mostly describe Brahman directly?"

I answer this question: Brahman is directly described in the Vedic literatures. For example, in the next chapter of Taittiréya Upaniñad, Varuëa, upon being asked by his son to teach him about Brahman, explained to him that Brahman is the original creator, maintaner, and destroyer of the material universes. He further explains that the annamaya, präëamaya, manomaya, and vijïänamaya stages of existence, one by one, are all Brahman. Then he explained that the änandamaya stage is the final Brahman. After explaining this, Varuëa concluded his teaching by confirming that he has spoken a true description of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He said:

etam änandamayam ätmänam upasaìkramya imän lokän kämäni käma-rüpy anusaïcarann etat sama gäyann äste

"After leaving his material body, one who understands the supreme änandamaya person leaves this material world and enters the spiritual world. All his desires become fulfilled, he attains a spiritual form according to his own wish, and he dedicates himself to glorifying that supreme änandamaya person."

That the änandamaya person in the Vedic literatures is actually the Supreme Brahman is also described in the following statement of Çrémad-Bhägavatam (10.87.17):

puruña-vidho 'nvayo 'tra caramo 'nnamyädiñu yaù

sad asataù paraà tvam atha yad eñv avaçeñämåtam

"O Lord, of these persons beginning with the annamaya-puruña, You are the Supreme."

We may note in this connection that it is not contradictory or illogical to say that the Supreme Brahman has a form. The form of the Supreme is described in the Vedic literatures. For example, the Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad (3.7.3) explains:

påthivé çaréram

"The material universe is the body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

It is because the Supreme Personality of Godhead has a form (çaréra), that this book, the Vedänta-sütra, is also called Çäréraka-sütra (sütras glorifying the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who has a form). Some may say that the word änandamaya does not refer to the Supreme Brahman, and that only the word brahma-puccham refers to Brahman. This proposal is not very intelligent. Some others may say that the word änandamaya does not refer to Brahman because the wordmaya means "transformation". These persons say the word änandamaya (transformation of bliss) cannot refer to the Supreme Brahman, for Brahman is naturally full of bliss, and not a transformation of some pre-existing state of happiness. For this reason the word änandamaya must refer to the individual spirit soul, and not Brahman. In order to refute this argument, Çréla Vyäsadeva speaks the following sütra:

Sütra 13

vikära-çabdän neti cen na pracuryät

vikära - transformation; çabdät - from the word; na - not; iti - thus; cet - if; na - not; pracuryät - because of abundance.

If (someone argues that the Supreme Brahman cannot be the same as the änandamaya person described in the Vedas) because the affix maya means "transformation", (and the Supreme Brahman is not a transformation of änanda, or bliss, then I reply by saying that) because the affix maya used here means "abundance", this interpretation is not correct, (and therefore the word änandamaya should be understood to mean "He who is filled with limitless bliss").

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The word änandamaya does not mean "he who is a transformation of bliss." Why? Because the affix maya here means "abundance", and therefore the word änandamaya means "He who is filled with limitless bliss." The rules of Sanskrit grammar state that the affix maya may not be used to mean "transformation" in vaidika words of more than two syllables. The word änanda has three syllables, and therefore when the word änandamaya appears in the vaidika text of the Taittiréya Upaniñad, it cannot be interpreted to mean "he who is a transformation of bliss."

The Supreme Brahman, therefore, is not only free from all suffering, but filled with limitless bliss. This is confirmed by the following statements of Vedic scripture:

eña sarva-bhütäntarätmäpahata-päpmä divyo deva eko näräyaëaù

"There is one Supreme Personality of Godhead: Lord Näräyaëa. He is the transcendental Supersoul in the hearts of all living entities, and He is completely free from all sin."

- Subala Upaniñad

paräù paräëäà sakalä na yatra

kleçädayaù sänti parävareçaù

"Suffering is not experienced by the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

When the affix maya means "abundance", it also implies the meaning "essential nature." Therefore, when we use jyotirmaya (full of light) to mean the sun, the affix maya can also be understood to mean "essential nature". In this way the word jyotirmaya means "that of which the essential nature is light." In this way the word änandamaya may also be interpreted to mean "He whose essential nature is full of bliss." From all this it may be understood that the word änandamaya clearly refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It does not refer to the individual spirit soul.

Sütra 14

tad-hetu-vyapadeçäc ca

tat - of that; hetu - the origin; vypadeçät - because of the statement; ca - also.

Because the Vedic literatures declare that the änandamaya person is the source of bliss for others, (it should be understood that the änandamaya person is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and not the individual spirit soul).

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

This is confirmed by the following statement of Taittiréya Upaniñad (2.7):

ko hy evänyat kaù präëyät yady eña äkäça änando na syät. esa evänandayati.

"Who is that person, without whom the living entities cannot feel happiness? That is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who delights the individual spirit souls."

This passage explains that the Supreme Brahman is the origin of happiness for the individual spirit souls. From this we may understand that the cause of happiness (the Supreme Personality of Godhead), and the receiver of happiness (the individual spirit soul) must be different persons. They cannot be indentical. Therefore the word änandamaya refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead only. We may also note that the word änanda used in this passage of Taittiréya Upaniñad (is identical with the word änandamaya..

Sütra 15

mantra-varëikam eva ca géyate

mantra - by the mantra portion of the Vedas; varëikam - described; eva - certainly; ca - also; géyate - is described.

(The same Supreme Personality of Godhead) described in the mantra-portion of the Vedas is also described (as the änandamaya-person in the text of the Taittiréya Upaniñad).

Purport by Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The same Supreme Brahman described in the Vedic mantra, Satyam jïänam anantam brahma (the Supreme Brahman has no limits. He is eternal and full of knowledge), is also described in the Taittiréya Upaniñad by the word änandamaya. In this way the above sütra explains that the word änandamaya does not refer to the individual living entitiy. Further, the Taittiréya Upaniñad explains:

brahma-vid äpnoti param

"One who understands the Supreme Brahman attains the Supreme Brahman."

This sentence explains that the individual living entity worships the Supreme Brahman and then attains the association of that Supreme Brahman. This is the same Supreme Brahman previously described in the mantra, satyam jïänam anantam brahma. This is the Supreme Brahman described by the word änandamaya. This is the Supreme Brahman described in the Taittiréya Upaniñad in the passage begining with the words tasmäd vä etasmät. Because the Supreme Brahman is the object of attainment for the individual spirit soul, and because the object of attainment and the attainer must be two distinct entities, and they cannot be identical, therefore the Supreme Brahman and the individual living entities must be distinct persons, and therefore the word änandamaya refers only to the Supreme Personality of Godhead and not to the individual living entites.

At this point someone may raise the following objection: If the Supreme Brahman described in the Vedic mantras were different from the individual living entity, then the individual living enitites could not be the änandamaya person described in the scriptures. The actual fact is that the Supreme Brahman and the individual living entities are identical. The Vedic mantras state that when the individual spirit soul is free from ignorance and liberated from material bondage, then he become identical with the Supreme Brahman.

To answer this objection, Çréla Vyäsadeva speaks the following sütra.

Sütra 16

netaro 'nupapatteù

na - not; itaraù - the other; upapatteù - because it is illogical.

The other person (individual living entity) is not described (in the mantra "satyam jïänam anantam brahma"), because such an interpretation of the mantra is illogical.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The itara (other person) mentioned in this sütra is the individual living entity. This sütra, therefore, states that the individual spirit soul, even in the liberated condition, cannot be the Supremem Person described in the mantra, satyam jïänam anantam brahma. This is confirmed by the following statement of Vedic literature:

so 'çnute sarvän kämän saha brahmaëä vipaçcitä

"The liberated soul enjoys the fulfillment of all his desires in the company of the omniscient Supreme Brahman."

In this passage the difference between the liberated spirit-soul and the Supreme Brahman is described in the words "He enjoys in the company of the Supreme Brahman." The word vipascit means "He whose consciousness (cit) sees (paçyati) the great variety of that which exists (vividham). The word paçya is changed to paç in this word by the grammatical formula påçodarädi-gaëa (Päëini 6.3.109). In this way the liberated individual soul attains the association of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is expert at enjoying many varieties of transcendental bliss, and with Him, the individual spirit soul enjoys, fulfilling all his desires.

The word asnute should be understood to mean "enjoys" in this context. The verb aç means "to enjoy", and although we would expect it to be conjugated in the parasmaipada, (açnäti), in this passage it is conjugated in the ätmanepada (açnute). The reason for this is explained by Päëini in the sütra vyatyayo bahulam iti chandasi tathä småteù (3.1.85).

The Supreme Personality of Godhead is naturally the Supreme Enjoyer, and the individual spirit soul is His subordinate in the matter of enjoyment also. Still, the Supreme Personality of Godhead glorifies the liberated souls, when He says:

vaçe kurvanti mäà bhaktäù

sat-striyaù sat-patià yathä

"My pure devotees bring Me under their control, just as faithful wives bring a kind-hearted husband under their control."

Sütra 17

bheda-vyapadeçäc ca

bheda - difference; vyapadeçät - because of the statement; ca - also.

(The Supreme Personality of Godhead and the individual spirit soul are) different, because the Vedic literature teaches this fact.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The Taittiréya Upaniñad (7.1) explains:

raso vai saù rasaà hy eväyaà labdhvänandé bhavati.

"When one understands the Personality of God, the reservoir of pleasure, Kåñëa, he actually becomes transcendentally blissful."*

This passage clearly shows the difference between the liberated individual spirit soul and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whom the Vedic mantras describe as änandamaya, and who is the transcendental nectar attained by the individual spirit soul. This difference is also described in the following statement of Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad (4.4.6):

brahmaiva san brahmäpnoti

"After becoming Brahman, the individual spirit soul attains Brahman."

This statement does not mean that after liberation the individual spirit soul becomes non-different from the Supreme Brahman, but rather the liberated soul becomes similar to Brahman and in this condition meets Brahman and attains His association. This is confirmed by the folllowing statementof Mäëòukya Upaniñad (3.1.31):

niraïjanaù paramaà sämyam upaiti

"This liberated soul becomes like the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

Also, in the Bhagavad-gita (14.2), the Supreme Personality of Godhead declares:

idaà jïänam upäçritya

mama sädharmyam ägatäù

"By becoming fixed in this knowledge, one can attain to the transcendental nature, which is like My own nature."*

In this way the Vedic literatures teach us that the liberated souls become like the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that the pradhäna feature of the mode of material goodness (sattva-guëa) is the actual origin of the änandamaya person?

Çréla Vyäsadeva answers this objection in the following sütra.

Sütra 18

kämäc ca nänumänäpekñä

kämät - because of desire; ca - also; na - not; anumäna - to the theory; apekñä - in relation.

(The änandamaya person) cannot be (a product of the mode of material goodness), because (the mode of goodness is insentient and desireless, whereas the änandamaya person) is filled with desires.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The Taittiréya Upaniñad explains:

so 'kämayata bahu syäà prajäyeya

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead desired: Let Me become many. Let Me father many living entities."

In this way the çruti-çästra explains that the universe was created by the desire of the änandamaya person. Because the änandamaya person is thus filled with desires, it is not possible for the pradhäna mode of material goodness, which is lifeless, insentient, and desireless, to be that änandamaya person.

Sütra 19

asminn asya ca tad-yogam çästi

asmin - in that änandamaya person; asya - of the individual spirit soul; ca - also; tat - of fearlessness; yogam - contact; sasti - the Vedic scriptures teach.

(The änandamaya person cannot be manifested from the pradhäna mode of material goodness, because) the Vedic scriptures teach that contact with the änandamaya person brings fearlessness (to the individual spirit soul).

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The çruti-çästra teaches that by taking shelter of the änandamaya person, the individual spirit soul attains fearlessness, and by declining to take shelter of Him, the soul becomes plagued with fears. This confirmed by the Taittiréya Upaniñad (2.7.2) in the passage beginning with the words yadä hy eva.

On the other hand, contact with the material nature brings fear to the individual spirit souls. The material nature does not bring a condition of fearlessness to the living entities, and for this reason it is not possible that the pradhäna mode of material goodness is the änandamaya person. Therefore, the änandamaya person is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Hari. The änandamaya person is not the individual spirit soul or the material nature.

Adhikaraëa 7

The Nature of the Person Within

1. Viñaya (Statement): The Chändogya Upaniñad explains:

atha yä so 'ntar ädityo hiraëmayaù puruço dåçyate hiraëya-çmaçrur hiraëya-keça apräëakhät sarva eva suvarëas tasya yathä kapyasaà puëòarékam evam ak\çiëi tasyodeti näma sa eña sarvebhyaù päpmäbhyah udita udeti hä vai sarvebhyaù päpmäbhyo ya evaà veda tasya åk säma ca gesnau tasmäd udégithas tasmät tv evodgataitasya hi gäthä sa eña ye cämuñmat paraëco lokas teñäà ceñöe deva-kämänäà cety adhidaivatam. . . athädhyätmam atha ya eño 'ntar-ak\çiëi puruño dåçyate saiva åk tat säma tad ukthaà tad yajus tad brahma tasyaitasya tad eva rüpaà yad amuñya rüpam. yäv amuñya gesnau tau gesnau yan näma tan näma.

"Within the sun-globe is a golden person, with golden hair, a golden beard, and a body golden from His fingernails to all His limbs. His eyes are like lotus flowers. He is above all sin. One who understands Him also becomes situated above all sin. The Åg and Säma Vedas sing His glories. From Him the highest spiritual planets, where the demigods desire to go, have become manifested. This is the golden person present among the demigods. . . Now I shall describe the person within the human mind and heart. Within the eyes a wonderful person may be seen. The Åg, Säma, and Yajur Vedas glorify Him. He is identical with the golden person who resides in the sun."

2. Saàçaya (doubt): "Is this an individual spirit soul who by great piety and spiritual knowledge has attained this exalted position, or is this the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who appears as the all-pervading Supersoul?"

3. Pürvapakña (the opposing argument): Because this person has a form and various humanlike features, He must be a pious spirit soul. By his piety and spiritual knowledge he has become able to become the great controller of demigods and human beings, who fulfills their desires, and grants them the results of thier actions.

4. Siddhänta (Conclusion): Çréla Vyäsadeva addresses these views in the following sütra.

Sütra 20

antas tad-dharmopadeçät

antah - within; tat - of Him; dharma - nature; upadeçät' because of the instruction.

The person within (the sun and the eye is the Supreme Personality of Godhead), because the Vedic literatures explain that His nature fits the description of the Lord.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The person within the sun and the eye is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is present everywhere as the Supersoul. This person is not the individual spirit soul. Why? Because the Vedic literatures describe Him as being sinless and possessing all the qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. For example, He is free from all sin and all karma. The slightest fragrance of karma cannot touch Him. This is not possible for the individual spirit souls, who remain subject to the laws of karma. In many other ways also the individual spirit soul does not fit the description of this perosn within the sun and the eye. For example: the individual spirit soul is not the fulfiller of the desires of the living entities, nor is he the awarder of the fruits of action, nor is he the object of the worship of the living entities.

At this point someone may raise the following objection: Because the person within the sun and the eye is described as having a body, therefore He must be an individual spirit soul, for the Supreme Brahman has no body.

To this objection I reply: This is not necessarily so. The puruña-sükta prayers (Åg Veda 10.90) and many other Vedic verses describe the transcendental body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Svetäçvatara Upaniñad also describes the Supreme Lord's transcendental body in the following words:

vedhäham etaà puruñaà mahäntam

äditya-varëaà tamasaù parastät

"I know that Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose form is transcendental to all material conceptions of darkness."*

Sütra 21

bheda-vyapadeçäc cänyaù

bheda - difference; vyapadeçät - because of the statement; ca - also; anyaù - another.

The Supreme Personality of Godhead is different from the individual spirit soul because this doctrine is taught in all Vedic literatures.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The golden person within the sun is not the individual spirit soul who is the solar diety and who thinks the sun-planet is his own body, but rather that golden person is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Supersoul who is present in every atom. This is confirmed by the following statement of the Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad:

ya äditye tiñöhann ädityäd antaro yam ädityo

na veda yasyädityaù çaréraà ya ädityam antaro

yamayaty eña ta ätmäntaryämy amåtaù

"That person situated within the sun, who is not the sun-god, whom the sun-god does not know, who manifests the sun-planet as His own body, who controls the sun-planet from within, that person is the immortal Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is present within the heart of every living entity as the Supersoul."

From this description we may understand that the golden person within the sun is not the individual spirit soul who is the sun-god, but the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Both this passage and the previous quoted passage from the Chändogya Upaniñad agree on this point.

Adhikaraëa 8

The Word "Äkäça" Refers to Brahman

1. Viñaya (Statement): The Chändogya Upaniñad states:

asya lokasya kä gatir iti äkäça iti hoväca

sarväëi hä vä imäni bhütäny äkäçäd eva

samutpadyante. äkäçaà pratyastaà yänty äkäçaù

paräyanam iti.

"He asked: What is the ultimate destination of all living entities? He replied: Äkäça is the ultimate destination. All living entities and all material elements have emanated from äkäça, and they will again enter into äkäça."

2. Saàçaya (doubt): What is the meaning of the word äkäça here? Does it mean the element ether, or does it mean the Supreme Brahman?

3. Pürvapakña (the opposing argument): The word äkäça here means "the element ether", because air and the other elements evolve from it. Indeed, ether is the origin of all the other elements.

4. Siddhänta (Conclusion): Çréla Vyäsadeva refutes this argument in the following sütra.

Sütra 22

äkäças tal-liìgät

äkäçah - the word äkäça; tat - of Him; lingat - because of the qualities.

The word "äkäça" in the Vedic literature refers to the Supreme Brahman, for the description of "äkäça" aptly fits the description of the qualities of Brahman.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The word äkäça here refers to Brahman and not the material element ether. Why? Because the äkäça described here has alll the characteristics of Brahman. The äkäça described here is the source from which the material elements emanate, the maintainer who sustains them, and the ultimate refuge into which they enter at the time of comsic annihilation. That is Brahman. The scriptures explain: sarväëi hä vä imäni bhütäni (All material elements have emanated from äkäça). Because ether is one of the material elements, it is included in the word sarväëi (all the elements). It is not the independent origin of the causal chain, but merely one of the links. For this reason it cannot be the äkäça that is the source of all the elements (including ether). The use of the word eva (certainly) in this context reinforces the interpretation that äkäça refers to Brahman because eva implies "there is no other cause". For this reason äkäça cannot refer to the material element ether. For example, clay is the origin from which clay pots are produced, and other material substances are the origins of other objects, but all these "origins" are not primal origins, but merely intermediate steps in a great causal chain. By using the word eva (the sole cause) the text clearly refers to the primal, uncaused cause, Brahman, and not ether or any other particular intermediate stage in the causal chain. The Vedic literatures describe Brahman as the master of all potencies and the source of all forms, and therefore, because the äkäça is described (eva) as the "sole cause", it can refer only to the primal cause Brahman and not the material element ether. Although the word äkäça generally means "ether" in ordinary usage, in this context the secondary meaning "Brahman" is far more appropriate.

Adhikaraëa 9

The Word "Präëa" Refers to Brahman

1. Viñaya (Statement): The Chändogya Upaniñad explains:

katama sa devateti. präëa iti hoväca. sarväëi hä vai imäni bhütäni präëam eväbhisamviçanti präëam abhyujjéhate.

"They asked: Who is this deity of whom you speak? He replied: It is präëa. From präëa all the material elements have emanated, and into präëa they enter at the end."

2. Saàçaya (doubt): Does the word präëahere refer to the breath that travels in and out of the mouth, or does it refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead?

3. Pürvapakña (opposing argument): The ordinary meaning of the word präëa is "the breath that travels in and out the mouth." That meaning is intended here.

4. Siddhänta (Conclusion): Çréla Vyäsadeva refutes this view by speaking the following sütra.

Sütra 23

ata eva präëaù

ataù eva - therefore; präëah - the word präëa.

The word "präëa" in the Vedic literatures refers to the Supreme Brahman, for the same reasons expressed in the previous sütra.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The word präëa in this passage from Chändogya Upaniñad refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and not to the transformations of air. Why? Because this text describes präëa as the original cause from which the material elements have emanated, and into which they enter at the end. These are the characteristics of the Supreme Brahman, and not the material element air.

Adhikaraëa 10

The Word "Jyotis" Refers to Brahman

Introduction by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The Chändogya Upaniñad (3.13.7) states:

atha yad ataù paro divo jyotir dépyate viçvataù påñöheñu sarvataù påñöheñv anuttameñüttameñu lokeñu idaà väva tad yad idam asminn antaù puruñe jyotiù

"Jyotis shines in the spiritual world, above all the material planets. Jyotis forms the background on which all material universes and all material planets, from lowest to highest, rest. This jyotis is present in the heart of every living being."

2. Saàçaya (doubt): What is the jyotis described here? Is it the light of the sun and other luminous objects, or is it the Supreme Brahman?

3.Pürvapakña (the opposing argument): Because there is no mention of Brahman in this passage, the word jyotis in this text must refer to the light of the sun and other luminous objects.

4. Siddhänta (Conclusion): Çréla Vyäsadeva replies in the following sütra.

Sütra 24

jyotiç-caraëäbhidhänät

jyotih - of the jyotih; caraëa - of the feet; abhidhänät' because of the mention.

Because the "jyotis" in this text is described as having feet, (it must refer to the Supreme Brahman).

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The word jyotis here should be understood to mean "the Supreme Brahman". Why? Because this jyotis is described as having feet. The Chändogya Upaniñad (3.12.6) states:

etävan asya mahimato jyäyäàs" ca puruñaù. pado 'sya sarva-bhütäni tri-pad asyämåtaà divi

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of glory and opulence. His one foot is all material elements and all living entities, and His three feet are the eternal spiritual world."

In the previously quoted text of Chändogya Upaniñad (3.13.7), as well as in this text from Chändogya Upaniñad (3.12.6), (where Brahman is described as having four feet), the spiritual world is mentioned. Although both texts are separated by a little distance, they are brought together by joint mention of the spiritual world, as well as by use of the relative and co-relative pronouns yat and tat. For these reasons it should be understood that both texts describe the all-powerful Supreme Personality of Godhead. For these reasons the jyotis described in this text is the all-powerful Supreme Personality of Godhead, and not the light of the sun and other luminous objects.

Sütra 25

chando-'bhidhänän neti cen na tathä ceto 'rpaëa-nigädät tathä hi darçanam

chandah - of a meter; abhidhänät - because of being the description; na - not; tathä - in that way; cetah - the mind; arpaëa - placing; nigädät - because of the instruction; tathä hi' furthermore; darçanam - logical.

If someone were to claim: "The word jyotis" here does not refer to Brahman, but to the Gäyatré meter," then I would reply: This is not true. The Gäyatré meter is taught to assist meditation on Brahman. For this reason it is logical and appropriate to interpret the word jyotis to mean "Brahman".

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

At this point someone may raise the following objection:Is it not true that the Vedic literatures state:

gäyatré vä idaà sarvaà bhütaà yad idaà kiïcit

"Gäyatré is everything that exists."

tam eva bhüta-väk-påthivé-çaréra-hådaya-prabhedaiù

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

caiña catuñ-padä ñaò-vidhä gäyatré tad etad åcäbhyuktam

"The Gäyatré meter, of which there are four feet and six varieties, is extensively employed in the mantras of the Vedas."

etävan asya mahimä

"Gäyatré is glorious."

For these reasons it should be understood that the word jyotis in the Vedic literatures refers to the Gäyatré mantra. Why, without any good reason, do you insist that the word jyotis refers to Brahman?

To this objection I reply: Gäyatré is a meter, and therefore it is not sensible to claim that it is everything, and everything has emanated from it. For this reason it is only reasonable to assume that the word jyotis in this context refers to Brahman and not Gäyatré. Why? Because in this sütra Çréla Vyäsadeva states: tathä hi darçanam (that the word jyotis refers to Brahman is only logical and consistent. Any other interpretation is illogical).

The truth is that the Supreme Brahman has incarnated in this world in the form of the Gäyatré mantra to enable the living entities to meditate on Him. This fact is confirmed by the statements of Vedic literature. If we accept that Gäyatré is an incarnation of Brahman, then the scriptural statement "Gäyatré is everything" is perfectly sensible. Otherwise, the interpretation we concoct is illogical and forced. In this way we have demonstrated that the Gäyatré mantra is an incarnation of Brahman.

Sütra 26

bhütädi-pada-vyapadeçopapatteç caivam

bhüta - the living entities; ädi - beginning with; pada - feet; vyapadeça - of the statement; upapatteù - for the reason; ca - also; evam - in this way.

Because the Vedic literatures state that the living entities, (their speech, bodies, and minds are the four) feet (of Gäyatré), it should be understood (that Gäyatré is an incarnation of Brahman).

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

Gäyatré should be considered the same as Brahman. Why? Because Gäyatré is described in the words:

tam eva bhüta-väk-påthivé-çaréra-hådaya-bhedaiù

"Gäyatré is everything. The four feet of Gäyatré are speech, earth, body, and mind."

Without Gäyatré being an incarnation of Brahman, it is not possible for these four things to be Gäyatré's feet. For this reason, as previously explained, it is only natural to interpret the word "Gäyatré" to mean "Brahman". In the two quotations from Vedic literature that have formed the basis of our discussion, the word dyu (the spiritual world) has occurred. This appearance of the word dyu in both passages further confirms that the ambiguous words in these two passages refer to Brahman, and not to something else.

At this point someone may raise the following objection: The word dyu appearing in these two passages refers to different things.

To answer this objection, Çréla Vyäsadeva speaks the following sütra.

Sütra 27

upadeça-bhedän neti cen nobhayasminn apy avirodhät

upadeça - of instruction; bhedät - because of the difference; na - not; iti - thus; cet - if; na - not; ubhayasmin - in both places; api - also; avirodhät - because of non-contradicition.

The objection that because the two scriptural passages employ the word "dyu" in two different cases (locative and ablative), therefore they describe two different objects, which cannot both be Brahman, is not a valid objection. The use of the two different causes does not mean that the two passages must describe two different things.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that two contradictory descriptions of Brahman are found in the scriptures? In one place the scriptures state:

tri-padasyämåtaà divi

"The eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead resides in the spiritual world, which constitutes three-quarters of all existence."

In another place the scriptures state:

paro divaù

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead resides on top of the spiritual world."

In the first quotation the spiritual world was placed in the locative case. Since this is so, both passages contradict each other, They describe two different objects, one within the spiritual world, and the other above it.

To this objection I reply: Why do you say this? Both passages refer to the same object. The uses of the locative and ablative cases in these quotations does not present a contradiction. for example, in the material world a parrot may be said to be "in" a tree or "on" it. There is no real difference in the two statements. In the same way the Supreme Personality of Godhead may be said to be "in" the spiritual world or "on" it. There is no real difference.

Adhikaraëa 11

The Word "Präëa" Refers to Brahman

1. Viñaya (Statement): In the Kauñétaké Brähmaëa, Pratardana, the son of Mahäräja Divodasa, was able, by virtue of His chivalry and heroism, to enter the favorite residence of Mahäräja Indra. When Indra granted Pratardana a benediction, and Pratardana requested Indra choose the benediction he was to give, Indra instructed Pratardana in the following words:

präëo 'smi prajïätmä taà mäm äyur-amåtam upasasva

"I am präëa. An intelligent person will worship me as the great immortal person."

2. Saàçaya (doubt): Who is this person named präëa? Is he an individual spirit soul, or is He the Supreme Personality of Godhead who resides in everyone's heart as the Supersoul?

3. Pürvapakña (the opposing argument): The words "indra" and präëa here refer to a specific individual spirit soul. When pratardana inquired, Indra replied by saying the worship of Indra was the most beneficial activity for the living entities.

4. Siddhänta (conclusion): Çréla Vyäsadeva responds to this argument in the following sütra.

Sütra 28

präëas tathänugamät

präëaù - the word präëa; tathä - in the same way; anugamät - because of the context.

The word "präëa" (should be understood to refer to Brahman) because of the context of it's use.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The präëa here must refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is present in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. Präëa here cannot refer to the individual spirit soul. Why? Çréla Vyäsadeva explains: tathänugamät (because of the context). The präëa described here is intelligence, the self, and transcendental bliss. He is free from old-age and death. These attributes clearly indicate that the word präëa here refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not true that to interpret the word präëa here is mean Brahman is very inappropriate? Mahäräja Indra is speaking, and he says präëo 'smi (I am präëa). The speaker is Mahäräja Indra, and he clearly refers to himself. He then proceeds to further identify himself, saying: tri-çirñäëaà tvañöram ahanam aruëmukhän åñén çalavåkebhyaù prayacchan (I killed Våträsura, the three-headed son of Tvañöä, and I gave the Aruëmukha sages to the çalavåkas). All this shows that the Indra described here is an individual spirit soul who advises the living entities to worship him. Even though at the end of this passage präëa is described as änanda (transcendental bliss), this also is not inconsistent, because the transcendental glories of the individual spirit souls are also described in the Vedic literatures. In fact, when Indra says he is präëa and everyone should worship him, he refers to himself, the individual spirit soul Indra. Indra's statement may be compared to the advice of the Vedic literature: väcaà dhenum upäséta (One should worship the goddess of speech just as one worships the cow). Because Mahäräja Indra is the strongest of living entities, and because strength is identified with the living-force (präëa), he identifies himself with that präëa. This is perfectly in accord with the statement of Vedic literature: präëo vai balam (the living-force is strength). In this way it should be understood that the words präëa and indra here refer to a specific individual spirit soul.

Çréla Vyäsadeva refutes this argument in the next sütra.

Sütra 29

na vaktur ätmopadeçäd iti ced adhyätma-sambandha-bhüma hy asmin

na - not; vaktuù - of the speaker; ätma - of the self; upadeçät - because of the instruction; iti - thus; cet - if; adhyätma - to the Supreme Personality of Godhead; sambandha' references; bhüma - abundance; hi - indeed; asmin - in this Upaniñad.

If it is said that the speaker here refers to himself, I say that is not true. In this passage there are many references to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

In this sütra the word adhyätma-sambandha means "with reference to the Supreme Personality of Godhead", and the word bhuma means "abundance". In this chapter of Kauñétaké Upaniñad the word präëa repeatedly appears in various contexts where it must unavoidably be interpreted to mean "the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

For example:

1. When Pratardana asked for the most beneficial gift, or in other words liberation, Indra replied replied by saying "Worship me as präëa." In this context präëa must mean "the Supreme Personality of Godhead", for only He can grant liberation.

2. The Upaniñad explains:

eña eva sädhu karma kärayati

"Präëa bestows upon the living entity the power to act wonderfully."

This must refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the supreme controller, and not to the tiny demigod Indra.

3. The Upaniñad also explains:

tad yathä rathasyäreñu nemir arpitä näbhavara arpita evam evaita bhüta-mätraù. prajïä-mäträsv arpitaù. prajïä-mäträù präëe 'rpitaù.

"Just as in a chariot wheel the rim rests on the spokes, and the spokes on the hub, in the same way the material elements rest on prajïä (intelligence), and prajïä rests on präëa."

This quote states that everything sentient and insentient is maintained by präëa.

4. The Upaniñad also explains:

sa eña präëa eva prajïätmänando 'jaro 'måtaù. eña lokädhipatir eña sarveçvaraù

"Präëa is the Supersoul present in all living entites. Präëa is the transcendental bliss. Präëa remains eternally untouched by old-age and death. Präëa is the master of all living entities and all planets. Präëa is the Supreme Controller."

Because präëa is transcendental bliss and has the various qualitites described here, the word präëa in this context can refer only to the Supreme Brahman, the Personality of Godhead, who is present in the hearts of all living entities as the Supersoul. The word präëa here cannot possibly refer to anyone else.

At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that Indra directly describes himself as präëa. Why does he do this if your interpretation that präëa means "Supreme Brahman" is correct?

Çréla Vyäsadeva answers this objection in the following sütra.

Sütra 30

çästra-dåñöyä tüpadeço vämadevavat

çästra - of scripture; dåñöyä - from the viewpoint; tu - but; upadeçaù - instruction; vämadeva - Vämadeva; vat - like.

Indra speaks in this way (identifying himself with Brahman) in accordance with the teaching of Vedic literature. He does this just as the sage Vämadeva also did.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

The word tu (but) is used here to remove doubt. Even though Indra was perfectly aware that he was an individual spirit soul and not the Supreme Brahman, he still said, "Worship me, knowing me to be Brahman", and this statement is actually perfectly correct according to the philosophy of Vedic literature. It is not untrue. For example, the Chändogya Upaniñad states:

na vai väco na cakñümsi na çroträëi na manäàséty äcakñate präëa ity eväcakñate präëo hy evaitäni sarväëi bhavanti

"The senses are not properly called `voices', `eyes', `ears', and `minds'. The proper name for them all is präëa. Everything that is exists is präëa."

Because präëa maintains their activities, the senses are identified as präëa. The learned, self-realized speaker, Indra, wishing to teach his humble, well-behaved student, instructed him: "I am that präëa." This means that Indra is dependent on präëa, or Brahman, not that he is identical with Brahman in all respects.

The example of Vämadeva is found in the following passage of Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad (1.4.10):

tad vaitat paçyan nåñir vämadevaù pratipade ahaà manur abhavaà süryaç ca

"Seeing this, the sage Vämadeva repeated at every moment:`I was Manu. I was the sun-god.'"

Here Vämadeva identifies himself with Manu and the sun-god because the Supreme Brahman is the controller who grants powers to Vämadeva, Manu, and the sun-god. Because they all obtain their powers from the Supreme Brahman, in one sense, they are all one. The Supreme Brahman is all-pervading. He is, in one sense, one with everything that is pervaded by Him. This confirmed by the following statements of småti-çästra:

yo 'yaà tavägato deva-samépaà devatä-gaëaù sa tvam eva jagat-srañöä yataù sarva-gato bhavän

"Whoever comes before You, be he a demigod, is created by You, O Supreme Personality of Godhead."*

- Viñëu Puräëa 1.9.69

sarvaà samäpnoñi tato 'si sarvam

"You are all-pervading, and thus you are everything."*

- Bhagavad-gétä 11.40

In ordinary usage also, when there is a great assembly in a certain place, people call that oneness, because there is unity of place, and also when there is agreement of opinion, that is also called oneness. For example, it is said: "In the evening the scattered cows assemble in one place and thus attain oneness," and "The disputing monarchs finally agreed and became one in their opinion."

At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that although there are many passages indicating that the word präëa in this passage refers to Brahman, still there are many other passages that demonstrate that it is not possible for the word präëa to refer Brahman. Some examples are:

na väcaà vijijïäsitä vaktäraà vidyät

"Do not try to understand the meaning of a statement without first understanding who has spoken it."

- Kauñétaké Upaniñad (3.8)

tri-çirñäëaà tvañöram ahanam

"I am the Indra who killed Våträsura, the three-headed son of Tvañöä."

These two quotations clearly identify that the speaker of the passage in question was the demigod Indra, who is an individual spirit soul.

That the word präëa refers to the life-force, or breath within the body, is confirmed by the following scriptural statements:

yävad asmin çarére präëo vasati tävad äyur atha khalu präëa eva prajïätma idaà çaréraà parigåhyotthäpayati

"As long as präëa remains within it, the body is alive. Präëa is the conscious spirit soul. Präëa grasps this material body, and makes it rise up and move about."

- Kauñétaké Upaniñad (2.2-3)

yo vai präëaù sa prajïä yä prajïä sa präëaù. sa hä hy etäv asmin çarére vasataù. sahotkramate.

"Präëa is the same as prajïä (consciousness). Prajïä is the same as präëa. Together they reside in the material body. At the last moment they both leave the body together."

- Kauñétaké Upaniñad

These quotations clearly show that it is not impossible to interpret the word präëa in this context to mean "the individual spirit soul" or "living force". The scriptures teach us that both are actually identical, the living force being the active expression of the inactive spirit-soul.

In this way it is valid to interpret the word präëa in three ways: 1. the individual spirit soul; 2. the living-force; and 3. the Supreme Brahman. The word präëa here refers to all three. All three are worshipable for the living entities.

Çréla Vyäsadeva refutes this argument in the following sütra.

Sütra 31

jéva-mukhya-präëa-liìgän neti cen nopäsya-traividhyäd äçritatväd iha tad-yogät

jéva - of the individual spirit soul; mukhya - the primary; präëa - living force; liìgät - the signs; na - not; iti - thus; cet' if; na - not; upäsya - worshipable; taividhyät - because of being there; äçritatvät - because of taking shelter; iha - here; tat-yogät - because of appropriateness.

If someone says the word "präëa" also refers to the individual spirit soul and the primary living-force in addition to referring to Brahman, then I reply that such an interpretation is not correct. If the word "präëa" referred to all three, then all three would be worshipable. This view is not correct, because neither logic nor the authority of scripture support it.

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

Someone may say that the natural features of the individual spirit soul and the living-force are such that they are proper objects of worship. To this I reply: This is not true. Why? For then there would be three objects of worship. When Indra says, "Worship me as präëa," he uses only one sentence. The rules of rhetoric demand that a sentence have only one correct interpretation, and therefore if we say that the word präëa here refers to three different objects, we shall break that rule. This is the true meaning: There are three possible ways to interpret the meaning of präëa in this context: 1. Take all these passages, including what directly mentions Brahman, as referring to the individual spirit soul and living-force; 2. Take these passages as referring some to the individual soul and living-force, and some to Brahman. and 3. Take these passages as all referring to Brahman. The first possibility has already been clearly refuted, The second possiblity is not very acceptable, for it recommends that there are three distinct objects of worship. Çréla Vyäsadeva says the third possibility is actually logical because äçritatvät (this view is supported by the statements of Vedic literature).

We may see that many passages in Vedic literature that seem to refer to the individual spirit soul or the living force, in fact refer to Brahman.

If at this point someone were to object: Is it not true that in this passage the natural sense of the words supports the interpretations of the individual spirit soul and the living force?" I would reply by saying: In this passage the worship of präëa is described as the most beneficial activity for the living entities. For this reason the interpretation of the Supreme Brahman is logical. For this reason Çréla Vyäsadeva states in the sütra, tad-yogät (because this is logical).

Someone may then object: Is it not true that the scriptures explain that the präëa and prajïä both reside within the body of the individual spirit soul, and also leave that body together at the time of death? How is this possible if you say that präëa means "Brahman"?

To this objection I reply: Brahman is present in the body of the individual spirit soul in two ways: as kriyä-çakti (the potency of action), which is also known as präëa, and as jïäna-sakti (the potency of knowledge), which is also known as prajïä. Both are manifested from Brahman. These two potencies remain within the body of the individual spirit soul, and also leave it together at the time of death.

Another objection may be raised in the following words: Is it not true that präëa and the other words you claim are names of the Supreme Brahman are all actually adjectives, and therefore cannot function as names?

To this objection I reply: This not true. These words are simultaneously adjectives and nouns. When Indra says präëo 'smi prajïätmä (I am präëa, prajïä, and ätmä), he uses these words as nouns. For these reasons präëa, prajïä, and other words used by Indra should be understood to refer to Brahman.

At this point a further objection may be raised: Is it not true that in the beginning you adequately demonstrated that the word präëa refers to Brahman? Most of your arguments are redundant.

To this objection I reply: This is not true. In the beginning I dispelled the doubts that may have arisen in regard to the single word präëa taken by itself. After that I discussed the word präëa in relation to a specific quotation, where it was related with other words, such as änanda, and in this discussion I demonstrated that the word präëa was used there in such a way that it could only be understood to mean Brahman, and not the individual spirit soul, or anything else. For this reason I have discussed this specific passage of Kauñétaké Upaniñad separately.

Baladeva Vidyabhusana

The Vedantasutras - http://www.exoticindia.es

• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen Six - Adhikarana 4 (06--4)...
• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen Six - Pada 4 (06-4-intro)
• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen Six - Adhikarana 1 - Pada ...

• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen Six - Chapter Four - Pada ...
• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen Five - Adhikarana 29 (05--...
• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen Five - Adhikarana 15 (05--...
• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen Five - Adhikarana 7 (05-7-...
• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen Five - Pada 3 (05-3-1)
• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen Four - Adhikarana 16 (04--...
• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen Four - Adhikarana 11 (04--...
• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen Four - Pada 3 (04-3-1)

• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen Three - Pada 4
• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen Three - Pada 3

• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen Three - Pada 4 (03-4-1)
• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen Three - Pada 3 (03-3-1)

• Vedanta Sutra - (03-2-2)
• Sri Gopala-Tapani Upanishad
• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen - Pada 3 (03-2-1)
• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen - Sutra 12 (03-1-12)
• Sri Vedanta-sutra - Invocation
• Govinda Bhasya (index)
• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen One - Pada 4 (01-4-1)
• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen One - Pada 3 (01-3-1)
• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen One - Pada 2 (01-2-1)
• Vedanta Sutra - Volumen One (01--intro)
• Baladeva Vidyabhushana

Página PRINCIPAL
OBRAS y AUTORES CLÁSICOS
Agradecimientos
Cuadro General

Disculpen las Molestias

Conceptos Hinduistas (1428)SC

Category:Hindu (mythology) (3256)SC | Category:Hindu mythology (3270)SC | Categoría:Mitología hindú (3288)SC (indice) | Categoría:Mitología hindú (videos) (3289)SC | Conceptos Hinduista (A - G) SK y SC (videos) (3294)SC Aa-Anc · Aga - Ahy · Ai - Akshay · Akshe - Amshum · Ana - Ancie · Ang - Asvayu · Ata - Az · Baa-Baz · Be-Bhak · Bhal-Bu · C · Daa-Daz · De · Dha-Dry · Du-Dy · E · F · Gaa-Gayu · Ge-Gy · Ha-He · Hi-Hy · I · J · K · Ka - Kam · Kan - Khatu · Ki - Ko · Kr - Ku · L · M · N · O · P · R · S · Saa-San · Sap-Shy · Si-Sy · Ta - Te · U · V · Ve-Vy · Y · Z

Conceptos Hinduistas (2919)SK | (2592)SK

Aa-Ag · Ah-Am · Ana-Anc · And-Anu · Ap-Ar · As-Ax · Ay-Az · Baa-Baq · Bar-Baz · Be-Bhak · Bhal-Bhy · Bo-Bu · Bra · Brh-Bry · Bu-Bz · Caa-Caq · Car-Cay · Ce-Cha · Che-Chi · Cho-Chu · Ci-Cn · Co-Cy · Daa-Dan · Dar-Day · De · Dha-Dny · Do-Dy · Ea-Eo · Ep-Ez · Faa-Fy · Gaa-Gaq · Gar-Gaz · Ge-Gn · Go · Gra-Gy · Haa-Haq · Har-Haz · He-Hindk · Hindu-Histo · Ho-Hy · Ia-Iq · Ir-Is · It-Iy · Jaa-Jaq · Jar-Jay · Je-Jn · Jo-Jy · Kaa-Kaq · Kar-Kaz · Ke-Kh · Ko · Kr · Ku - Kz · Laa-Laq · Lar-Lay · Le-Ln · Lo-Ly · Maa-Mag · Mah · Mai-Maj · Mak-Maq · Mar-Maz · Mb-Mn · Mo-Mz · Naa-Naq · Nar-Naz · Nb-Nn · No-Nz · Oa-Oz · Paa-Paq · Par-Paz · Pe-Ph · Po-Py · Raa-Raq · Rar-Raz · Re-Rn · Ro-Ry · Saa-Sam · San-Sar · Sas-Sg · Sha-Shy · Sia-Sil · Sim-Sn · So - Sq · Sr - St · Su-Sz · Taa-Taq · Tar-Tay · Te-Tn · To-Ty · Ua-Uq · Ur-Us · Vaa-Vaq · Var-Vaz · Ve · Vi-Vn · Vo-Vy · Waa-Wi · Wo-Wy · Yaa-Yav · Ye-Yiy · Yo-Yu · Zaa-Zy

Sri Garga-Samhita | Oraciones Selectas al Señor Supremo | Devotees Vaishnavas | Dandavat pranams - All glories to Srila Prabhupada | Hari Katha | Santos Católicos | El Mundo del ANTIGUO EGIPTO II | El Antiguo Egipto I | Archivo Cervantes | Sivananda Yoga | Neale Donald Walsch | SWAMIS