गोविन्द भाष्य (श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण - अचिन्त्यभेदाभेद वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र भाष्य सटीक)

(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 Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa In this sūtra 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 Upaniṣads especially describe the Supreme Person. For this reason it is said aupaniṣadaṁ puruṣam (the Supreme Person is undertood through the revelation of the Upaniṣads). The process of logic and speculation as described by the word mantavya (to be understood by logic) as described in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (4.5) should be employed to understand the revelation of the scriptures and not independently. This is confirmed by the following statement of śruti-śāstra: pūrvāpara-virodhena ko 'rtho 'trābhimato bhavet ity ādyam ūhanaṁ tarkaḥ śuṣka-tarkaṁ 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 sūtra 2.1.11. After understanding the Supreme Person by study of the Upaniṣads, one should become rapt in meditation on Him. This will be explained later insūtra 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 Vedānta 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- kāmo yajeta (One desiring to enter the celestial material planets should worship

the demigods), or surām na pibet (No one should drink wine). The Upaniṣads do not give us a string of orders and prohibitions, but merely a description of the eternally perfect Brahman. for example the Upaniṣads tell us satyam jñānam (The Supreme Personality of Godhead is truth and knowledge). This is of small help in the matter of orders and prohibitions. Sometimes the Upaniṣads' 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. āmnāyasya kriyārthatvād anārthakhyam 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." —Pūrva-mīmāṁsā 1.2.1 tad-bhūtānāṁ kriyārthena samāmnāyo 'rthasya tan-nimittatvāt "Just as a verb gives meaning to a sentence, in the same way instructions for action give meaning to the statements of the scriptures." —Pūrva-mīmāṁsā 1.1.25 To this objection I reply: Do not be bewildered. Even though the Upaniṣads 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 Upaniṣads' 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 Upaniṣads 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 Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.1): satyaṁ jñānam anantaṁ brahma yo veda nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ so 'śnute sarvān kāmān

"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 Upaniṣads teach about ordinary fruitive action (karma). Rather, one may say that the Upaniṣads teach one to give up all material, fruitive work. No one can say that the Upaniṣads 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 Upaniṣads. 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. Adhikaraṇa 4 This is Confirmed by the Vedic scriptures

1. Viṣaya (statement): That the Supreme Personality of Godhead is described in all Vedic scriptures is described in the following scriptural quotations: yo 'su sarvair vedair gīyate "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is glorified by all the Vedas." —Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad sarve vedā yat-padam āmananti "All the Vedas describe the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead." —Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.15
2. Saṁśaya (doubt): Lord Viṣṇu is the subject-matter described in all the Vedas. Is this statement true or false?
3. Pūrvapakṣa (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-kāṇḍa sacrifices, such as the karīrī-

वृष्टि हेतु यज्ञ, पुत्र प्राप्ति के लिए पुत्रकामेष्टि-यज्ञ, तथा दिव्य भौतिक लोकों (स्वर्गलोक) के गमन हेतु ज्योतिष्टोम-यज्ञ हैं। इस कारण यह कहना सम्भव नहीं है कि वेदों में एकमात्र भगवान् विष्णु ही प्रतिपाद्य विषय हैं। ४. सिद्धान्त (यथार्थ निष्कर्ष): व्यासदेव निम्नलिखित सूत्र में इन आक्षेपों का उत्तर देते हैं: सूत्र ४ तत्तु समन्वयात् ॥ तत् — यह तथ्य; तु — किन्तु; समन्वयात् — समस्त वैदिक शास्त्रों के समन्वय (एकवाक्यता) से। किन्तु यह तथ्य (कि भगवान् विष्णु ही वेदों के एकमात्र प्रतिपाद्य विषय हैं) समस्त शास्त्रों द्वारा पुष्ट (प्रमाणित) होता है। श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण कृत तात्पर्य: इस सूत्र में 'तु' (किन्तु) शब्द का प्रयोग पूर्वोक्त विपक्षी तर्क के खण्डन हेतु किया गया है। यह कहना सर्वथा उचित है कि समस्त वेदों में एकमात्र भगवान् विष्णु ही मुख्य प्रतिपाद्य विषय हैं। क्यों? उत्तर है: 'समन्वयात्' (क्योंकि शास्त्र स्वयं हमें इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचाते हैं)। 'अन्वय' शब्द का अर्थ है "वास्तविक अर्थ का अवबोध", तथा 'समन्वय' शब्द का अर्थ है "गहन विचार-विमर्श के पश्चात् सम्यक् अवबोध"। जब हम व्याख्या के उपर्युक्त नियमों (उपक्रम एवं उपसंहार आदि षड्विध लिङ्गों) को वेदों के मन्त्रों पर घटाते हैं, तो हम इसी निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचते हैं कि समस्त वेदों में भगवान् विष्णु ही एकमात्र प्रतिपाद्य विषय हैं। यदि ऐसा न होता, तो गोपालतापनी उपनिषद् यह क्यों कहती कि भगवान् विष्णु ही समस्त वेदों द्वारा महिमान्वित हैं? इसकी पुष्टि स्वयं कमलनयन परम पुरुषोत्तम भगवान् ने भी की है, जो कहते हैं: वेदैश्च सर्वैरहमेव वेद्यो वेदान्तकृद्वेदविदेव चाहम् । "समस्त वेदों द्वारा मैं ही जानने योग्य (वेद्य) हूँ। वस्तुतः मैं ही वेदान्त का कर्ता और वेदों का यथार्थ ज्ञाता हूँ।" — भगवद्गीता १५.१५

kiṁ vidhatte kiṁ ācaṣṭe kiṁ anūdya vikalpayet ity asyā hṛdayaṁ loke nānyo mad veda kaścana māṁ vidhatte 'bhidhatte māṁ vikalpyāpohyate 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."* —Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.21.42-43) The Vedic literatures also state: sākṣāt-paramparābhyāṁ veda brahmaṇi pravartate "Either directly or indirectly, the Vedas describe Brahman." In the jñāna-kāṇḍa section of the Vedas {.fn 1} the transcendental forms and qualitities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are directly described, and in the karma-kāṇḍa 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: taṁ tv aupaniṣadaṁ puruṣaṁ pṛcchāmi "I shall now ask about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is described in the Upaniṣads." —Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (9.21) tam etaṁ vedānuvacanena brāhmaṇa vividiśanti "Brāhmaṇas study the Vedas to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead." —Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (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-kāṇḍa 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 Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (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. Adhikaraṇa 5 Brahman Is Knowable

1. Viṣaya (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 vāco nivartate aprāpya manasā saha "The mind cannot understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead and words cannot describe Him." —Taittrīya Upaniṣad 2.4.1 yad vacanābhyuditaṁ yena vāg abhyudyate tad eva brahma tad viddhi nedaṁ yad idam upāsate "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 Upaniṣad (1.5) 2. Saṁśaya (doubt): Is Brahman expressable by words or not? 3. Pūrvapakṣa (the opponenet argues): The śruti-śāstra 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 {Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (3.6.40): yato 'prāpya nyavartanta vacaś ca manasā saha ahaṁ cānya ime devās tasmai bhagavate namaḥ "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. Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes these arguments in the following sūtra: Sūtra 5 īkṣater nāśabdam īkṣateḥ—because it is seen; na—not; aśabdam—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 Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Here the word aśabdam means "that which cannot be described by words." In this sūtra Brahman is described as not (na) indescribable by words (aśabdam). Why is this so? Because īkṣateḥ (because it is seen that Brahman is described in the passages of the scriptures). For example, Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad states: taṁ tv aupaniṣadaṁ puruṣaṁ pṛcchāmi

"I shall now ask about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is described in the Upaniṣads." We may note in this connection that the word aupaniṣada means "that glorious person who is described in the Upaniṣads." We may also note that the word īkṣateḥ is bhāva (passive), and it is formed by adding the affix tip-pratyaya. The unusual usage here is ārṣa (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 Kaṭha Upaniṣad (2.15): sarve vedā yat-padam āmananti "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 vāco nivartate (words cannot describe Brahman), aprāpya manasā saha (the mind cannot understand Brahman), and yad vacanābhyuditam (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. Saṁśaya (doubt): This may be so, but still the Suprme Person described in the words of the Vedas may be saguṇa (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, Śrīla Vyāsadeva would answer it in the following sūtra. Sūtra 6 gauṇaś cen nātma-śabdāt gauṇaḥ—Saguṇa Brahman, or the Lord's potencies; cet—if; na—not; ātma—ātma; śabdāt—because of the word.

If (one says that the Brahman described in the Vedas is) Saguṇa 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 Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The Brahman described in the Vedas is not merely a saguṇa manifestation of the mode of Goodness. Why? Because the Vedas use the word ātmā (the Supreme Self) to describe Him. For example: ātmaivedam agra āsīt puruṣa-vidhaḥ "The Supreme Self (ātmā), who is a transcendental person, existed before this material world was manifested in the beginning." —Vājasaneya-saṁhitā ātmā vā idam eka evāgra āsīt nānyat kiñcana miṣat sa īkṣata lokān nu sṛja "Before the material world was manifest, the Supreme Self (ātmā) alone existed. Nothing else was manifested at that time. The Supreme Self then thought, `Let me create the material planets.'" —Aitareya Āraṇyaka Both these texts clearly refer to the Supreme Self (ātmā) who existed before the creation of the material world. Also, In the commentary on sūtra 1.1.2, I have already explained that the word ātmā primarily refers to the perfect Supreme Brahman, and not to anyone or anything else. For this reason the word ātmā 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

• tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam* brahmeti pāramātmeti
• bhagavān iti śabdyate*

"Learned transcendentalist who know the Absolute Truth call this non-dual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān."* 'Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.2.11 śuddhe mahā-vibhūtākhye pare brahmaṇi śabdyate maitreya bhagavac-chabdaḥ sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇe "O Maitreya, the word Bhagavān 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." —Viṣṇu Purāṇa In this way the supremely perfect and pure Brahman is described by the statements of the smṛti-śāstras. 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. Sūtra 7 tan niṣṭhasya mok\śopadeśāt tat—that; niṣṭhasya—of the faithful devotee; mok\śa—of the liberation; upadeśāt— 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 Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word "not" is understood in this sūtra and the following three sūtras as well. The liberation of those devoted to Brahman is described in the following statement of Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.7):

asad vā idam agra āsīt tato vai sad ajāyata tad ātmānaṁ svayam akuruta. . . yadā hy evaiṣa etasminn adṛśye 'nātmye anirukte 'nilayane abhayaṁ pratiṣṭhāṁ vindate 'tha so 'bhayaṁ gato bhavati yadā hy evaiṣa etasminn udāram antaraṁ kurute atha tasya bhayaṁ 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 Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.88.5): harir hi nirguṇaḥ sākṣāt puruṣaḥ prakṛteḥ paraḥ sa sarva-dṛg upadraṣṭā taṁ bhajan nirguṇo bhavet "Śrī 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."* Sūtra 8 heyatva-vacanāc ca

heyatva—worthy of being abandoned; vacanāt—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 Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa 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: anyā vāco vimuñcātha "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. Sūtra 9 svāpyāt sva—into Himself; apyāt—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 Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (5.1.1) explains: oṁ pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaṁ pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate "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 pūrṇa (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 adaḥ (this) refers to the aprakaṭa (not manifested in the material world) form of the Supreme Lord, which is the root from which the various prakaṭa forms of the Lord emanate. Both aprakaṭa and prakaṭa forms of the Lord are perfect and complete. The Lord expands from His aprakaṭa form and appears in the material world in His prakaṭa form, displaying His rāsa-līlā and other transcendental pastimes. When the prakaṭa form of the Lord leaves the material world and enters the aprakaṭa 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 smṛti- śāstra: sa devo bahudhā bhūtvā nirguṇaḥ puruṣottamaḥ ekī-bhūya punaḥ śete nirdoṣo harir ādi-kṛt "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 viṣṇu-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: Saguṇa Brahman (Brahman enmeshed in the modes of material nature), and Nirguṇa Brahman (Brahman untouched by the modes of material nature). The first, or Saguṇa Brahman, has a form constructed of the mode of material goodness. This Saguṇa Brahman is the omnisicent, all-powerful creator of the material universes. The second, or Nirguṇa Brahman, is pure transcendental existence only. This Nirguṇa Brahman is pure, perfect, and complete. The Saguṇa Brahman is the śakti (potency) described by the Vedas, and the Nirguṇa Brahman is the tātparya (meaning) of the Vedas. Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes this argument by explaining, in the next sūtra: Sūtra 10 gati-sāmānyāt gati—the conception; sāmānyāt—because of uniformity. (This is not so) because the Vedas describe only one kind of Brahman. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa In this sūtra 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: Nirguṇa and Saguṇa. Rather, the Vedas describe only one kind of Brahman. This one Brahman is described by Lord Kṛṣṇa in the following words (Bhagavad-gītā 7.7): mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya mayi sarvam idaṁ protaṁ sūtre maṇi-gaṇā 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: Nirguṇa Brahman. Śrīla Vyāsadeva describes this Nirguṇa Brahman in the next sūtra:

Sūtra 11 śrutatvāc ca śrutavāt—because of being described in the Vedas; ca—and. (There is only one kind of Brahman: Nirguṇa Brahman), because Nirguṇa Brahman is described throughout the Vedic literatures. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Nirguṇa Brahman is described in the following statement of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (6.11): eko devaḥ sarva-bhūteṣu gūḍhaḥ sarva-vyāpī sarva-bhūtāntarātmā karmādhyakṣaḥ sarva-bhūtādhivāsaḥ sākṣī cetā kevalo nirguṇaś 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 Nirguṇa Brahman is described in the śruti-śāstra. The śruti-śāstra 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 guṇas (either qualities, or the three modes of material nature), and He cannot be seen by material eyes (adṛśya), 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 guṇas (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 nirguṇa. Because the Supreme Brahman is all-knowing and possess many transcendental qualitites, when the scriptures say that He is nirguṇa, it should be understood to mean that He has no (niḥ) contact with the three modes of material nature (guṇa). This is confirmed by the following statements of smṛti-śāstra: sattvādayo na śāntīśe yatra cāprakṛtā guṇāḥ "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-kalyāṇa-guṇātmako '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 (nirguṇa), and your interpretation of the word nirguṇa 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. Adhikaraṇa 6 The Supreme Brahman is Full of Bliss Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa śabdā vācakatāṁ yānti

yantrānandamayādayaḥ vibhum ānanda-vijñānaṁ taṁ śuddhaṁ śraddadhīmahi 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 ānandamaya-sūtra and the other statements of Vedānta-sūtra. From the 12th Sūtra (ānandamaya) to the end of this First Chapter, Śrīla Vyāsadeva will prove that the statements of the Vedic literatures are intended to describe Brahman. In the First Pada, Śrīla Vyāsadeva 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. Viṣaya (Statement): In the passages from Taittirīya Upaniṣad beginning brahma-vid āpnoti param and sa vā eṣa puruṣo 'nna-rasamayaḥ, we find a description of the annamaya, prāṇamaya

The word ānandamaya (full of bliss) used in the Vedic literatures must refer to the Supreme Brahman, for it is repeatedly used to describe Him. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The Supreme Brahman is the ānandamaya described in Vedic literature. Why do we say so? Because the word ānandamaya is repeatedly used to describe the Supreme Brahman. Directly following the description of ānandamaya in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.6.1), we find the following statement: asann eva saṁbhavati asad brahmeti veda cet asti brahmeti ced veda santam enaṁ tato viduḥ "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 abhyāsa. In the previous quotation from Taittirīya Upaniṣad, the word Brahman appeared in the word brahma-puccham, but in that case the word only occurred once, and therefore there was no abhyāsa. The four verses of Taittirīya Upaniṣad beginning with the verse annād vai prajāḥ prajāyante describe the annamaya, prāṇamaya, manomaya, and vijñānamaya levels of existence. Each of these levels is progressively higher than the preceding one, and after them the ānandamaya level, which is different in quality, is the highest of all. This will be more elaborately explained in the passage following the sūtra: priya-śiras tv ādya-prāpter (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 (ānandamaya) 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 Arundhatī by first pointing to a nearby large easy-to-see star, and then lead the viewer from that reference-point to the tiny Arundhatī, 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 Taittirīya Upaniṣad, Varuṇa, 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, prāṇamaya, manomaya, and vijñānamaya stages of existence, one by one, are all Brahman. Then he explained that the ānandamaya stage is the final Brahman. After explaining this, Varuṇa concluded his teaching by confirming that he has spoken a true description of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He said: etam ānandamayam ātmānam upasaṅkramya imān lokān kāmānī kāma-rūpy anusañcarann etat sama gāyann āste "After leaving his material body, one who understands the supreme ānandamaya 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 ānandamaya person." That the ānandamaya person in the Vedic literatures is actually the Supreme Brahman is also described in the following statement of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.87.17): puruṣa-vidho 'nvayo 'tra caramo 'nnamyādiṣu yaḥ sad asataḥ paraṁ tvam atha yad eṣv avaśeṣāmṛtam "O Lord, of these persons beginning with the annamaya-puruṣa, 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 Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (3.7.3) explains: pṛthivī śarīram "The material universe is the body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead." It is because the Supreme Personality of Godhead has a form (śarīra), that this

book, the Vedānta-sūtra, is also called Śārīraka-sūtra (sūtras glorifying the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who has a form). Some may say that the word ānandamaya 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 ānandamaya does not refer to Brahman because the word maya means "transformation". These persons say the word ānandamaya (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 ānandamaya must refer to the individual spirit soul, and not Brahman. In order to refute this argument, Śrīla Vyāsadeva speaks the following sūtra: Sūtra 13 vikāra-śabdān neti cen na pracuryāt vikāra—transformation; śabdāt—from the word; na—not; iti—thus; cet—if; na— not; pracuryāt—because of abundance. If (someone argues that the Supreme Brahman cannot be the same as the ānandamaya person described in the Vedas) because the affix maya means "transformation", (and the Supreme Brahman is not a transformation of ānanda, 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 ānandamaya should be understood to mean "He who is filled with limitless bliss"). Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word ānandamaya does not mean "he who is a transformation of bliss." Why? Because the affix maya here means "abundance", and therefore the word ānandamaya 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 ānanda has three syllables, and therefore when the word ānandamaya appears in the vaidika text of the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, 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: eṣa sarva-bhūtāntarātmāpahata-pāpmā divyo deva eko nārāyaṇaḥ