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

basis. Siddhānta---To this argument he replies--- Sūtra 1 smṛty-anavakāśa-doṣa-prasaṅga iti cen nānya-smṛty- anavakāśa-doṣa-prasaṅgāt If someone objects that the Vedānta philosophy should not be accepted because it contradicts the Kapila-smṛti, then I say: No. The Kapila-smṛti should not be accepted because it contradicts the other smṛti-śāstras. Purport By Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word anavakāśa in this sūtra means "without any proper place." This means "useless and irrelevant." the sūtra says: If someone says "When interpreted literally, the Vedānta texts seem to denounce the Saṅkhya-smṛti as untrue. This is a great mistake. For this reason the Vedānta texts should be interpreted metaphorically (so not to contradict the saṅkhya- smṛti)," then I say no. Why? The sūtra says: anya-smṛty- anavakāśa-doṣa-prasaṅgāt (The Kapila-smṛti should not be accepted because it contradicts the other smṛti-śāstras). To reject the Manu- smṛti and the other smṛtis that follow the Vedānta philosophy and declare the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be the sole original cause of all causes is a great mistake. In these scriptures the Supreme Personality of Godhead is proved to be the original cause of the creation, maintenance, and destruction of the material universes. These scriptures do not accept Kapila's conclusions. In this question the Manu-smṛti (1.5-9) says: āsīd idaṁ tamo-bhūtam* aprajñātam alakṣaṇam apratarkyam avijñeyaṁ prasuptam iva sarvataḥ "The material universe was dark, unconscious, amorphous, inconceivable, and unknowable. It was as if completely asleep. tataḥ svayambhūr bhagavān* avyakto vyañjayann idam mahā-bhūtādi-vṛttaujāḥ prādurāsīt tamonudaḥ "The self-manifested Supreme Personality of Godhead, who had been unmanifested, then manifested within this world. He manifested the material elements and dispelled the darkness. yo 'sāv atīndriya-grāhyaḥ* sūkṣmo 'vyaktaḥ sanātanaḥ

sarva-bhūtamayo 'cintyaḥ sa eṣa svayam udbabhau "He who is beyond the reach of the material senses, who is subtle, unmanifested, eternal, inconceivable, and within whom everything rests, then personally appeared i this world. so 'bhidhyāya śarīrāt svāt* sisṛkṣur vividhāḥ prajāḥ apa eva sasarjādau tāsu bījam avāsṛjat "Desiring to create the many living beings from His own body, He meditated and then created the waters. In the waters He placed a seed. tad aṇḍam abhavad dhaimam* sahasrāṁśu-sama-prabham tasmin jajñe svayaṁ brahmā sarva-loka-pitāmahaḥ "That seed became a golden egg as splendid as the sun. In that egg was born the demigod Brahmā, the grandfather of all living beings." Parāśara Muni (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 1.1.31-32) also says: viṣṇoḥ sakāśād udbhūtaṁ* jagat tatraiva ca sthitam sthiti-saṁyama-kartāsau jagato 'sya jagac ca saḥ "From Lord Viṣṇu this material was manifested. In Him it rests. He controls it. This material world is His property, and He is this material world. yathorṇanābho hṛdayād* ūrṇāṁ santatya vaktrataḥ tayā vihṛtya bhūyas tāṁ grasaty evaṁ janārdanaḥ "As a spider creates a web within its chest and then manifests it from its mouth, so does Lord Viṣṇu manifest this world and then swallow it again." The other smṛtis also present the same view. They are not merely explanations of karma-kāṇḍa duties. They teach karma-kāṇḍa duites as a means to purify the heart so knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead may arise there. In this way they may be understood as explanations of the jñāna-kāṇḍa portion of the Vedas. This effort to purify the heart is seen in the following statement of the Bṛhad- āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.5.4.22): tam etaṁ vedānuvacanena (By studying the Vedas and performing spiritual activities, the brāhmaṇas understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead). Although in some places they grant results such as the

attainment of rain, sons, or residence in Svargaloka, these results are intended to bring faith in the words of the Vedas. This is confirmed by the Kaṭha Upaniṣad (1.3.15) in the words sarve vedāḥ yat-padam āmananti (All the Vedas aspire to attain the feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead) and the śrīmad- Bhāgavatam (2.5.15) in the words nārāyaṇa-parā vedāḥ (The Vedic literatures are made by and are meant for the Supreme Lord). Because it contradicts the conclusions of the Vedas, the Sāṅkhya-smṛti cannot properly explain the meanings of the Vedas. A text that agrees with the conclusions of the Vedas may properly explain the Vedas. The Sāṅkhya-smṛti does not even agree with the conclusion of the Vedas. The Sāṅkhya-smṛti invented by Kapila contradicts the Vedas. It is not a genuine scripture. Because it is thus worthless we do not fear to reject it. Even if it was written by a famous author, a book that contradicts the Vedas should not be accepted. There are many smṛtis presenting many different philosophies that are all worthless because they contradict the truths of the Vedas. Smṛti that contradicts the Vedas should be rejected, and smṛti that follows the teachings of the Vedas should be accepted. Using evidence from the smṛtis that support the Vedas, we shall refute the smṛtis that reject the Vedas. In this way we shall proclaim those smṛtis to be in error because they contradict the other smṛtis. The quotation from śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (5.2) ṛṣiṁ prasūtaṁ kapilaṁ yas tam agre jñānair bibharti (The great sage Kapila is full of knowledge) does not give authority to the Sāṅkhya-smṛti. Because the Upaniṣads would not glorify a sage who opposed the Vedic conclusion, the Kapila here must be a person different from the author of the Sāṅkhya-smṛti. The Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, however, considers Manu (the author of Manu- smṛti) an exalted authority in these words: yad vai kiñcana manur avadat tad bheṣajam (Whatever Manu has said is certainly the cure for the ills of this world). In the same way the smṛti says that by the mercy of Pulastya Muni and Vasiṣṭha Muni, the sage Parāśara (the author of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa) attained transcendental knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. However, the Kapila who wrote a book contradicting the Vedas, and who was born in the family of Agni, was an ordinary jīva bewildered by the illusory potency māyā. He was not the same Kapila who was born as the son of Kardama Muni and who was an incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Vāsudeva. This is so because the Padma Purāṇa says: kapilo vāsudevākhyaḥ* sāṅkhyaṁ tattvaṁ jagāda ha brahmādibhyaś ca devebhyo bhṛgv-ādibhyas tathaiva ca tathaivāsuraye sarvaṁ vedārthair upabṛṁhitam sarva-veda-viruddhaṁ ca kapilo 'nyo jagāda ha . . .sāṅkhyam āsuraye 'nyasmai kutarka-paribṛṁhitam

॥ श्रीवेदान्तदर्शनम् — द्वितीयाध्याये प्रथमः पादः (स्मृतिपादः) ॥ (स्मृत्यनवकाशाधिकरणशेषः — साङ्ख्यस्मृतिनिरासः) पूर्वपक्ष-सङ्गति-परिहारः — एको हि साक्षाद् भगवदवतारो वासुदेवाख्यो महर्षिः कपिलो यः स्वायम्भुवाय ब्रह्मणे देवेभ्य आसुरये भृग्वादये च श्रुत्यनुकूलं साङ्ख्यं प्रोवाच। अपरस्तु तत्समाननामा कश्चिद् निरीश्वरसाङ्ख्यप्रणेता कपिलः श्रुतिविरुद्धं कुतर्कमूलकं मतमासुरीसंज्ञकाय कस्मैचिदुपादिक्षत्। अतो वैदिकसिद्धान्तविरोधाद् अनाप्तप्रणीतत्वाच्च निरीश्वरसाङ्ख्यस्मृतेरप्रामाण्ये न कोऽपि दोषः। सूत्रम् २: इतरेषां चानुपलब्धेः ॥ २.१.२ ॥ पदच्छेदः — इतरेषाम्, च, अनुपलब्धेः। अन्वयः — इतरेषां (साङ्ख्योक्तानां तत्त्वानां) च (वेदेषु) अनुपलब्धेः (साङ्ख्यस्मृतिरप्रमाणम्)। गोविन्दभाष्यम् (श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचितम्) — इतरेषां च कापिलपरिकल्पितानां तत्त्वानां वेदेष्वनुपलब्धेर्नास्ति साङ्ख्यस्मृतेः प्रामाण्यम्। सा हि स्मृतिर्जीवानां विभुत्वं सर्वगतत्वं चाभ्युपगच्छति। प्रकृतेरेव बन्धमोक्षाविति वदति। बन्धमोक्षौ प्रकृतेर्धर्मविशेषौ न तु पुरुषस्येति तस्या मतम्। सर्वेश्वरः सर्वप्रशासिता पुरुषोत्तमश्च नास्तीत्यपि सा प्रतिपादयति। कालस्यापि वस्तुसत्तां न स्वीकरोति, पञ्च प्राणांश्च करणसामान्यवृत्तिमात्रत्वेन गणयति। एतेषामितरेषां च सिद्धान्तानां वेदे कुत्राप्यनुपलब्धेः साङ्ख्यस्मृतिरवैदिकी हेया चेति सिद्धम्। सूत्रार्थ एवं हिन्दी-अनुवाद — (सूत्रार्थ) साङ्ख्य द्वारा कल्पित अन्य तत्त्वों की वेदों में उपलब्धि (वर्णन) न होने से भी साङ्ख्यस्मृति अमान्य है। (भाष्यभाव) वेदों में साङ्ख्यस्मृति के अनेक सिद्धान्त नहीं पाए जाते, अतः वह प्रमाण नहीं है। यथा—जीवों को सर्वव्यापी मानना, प्रकृति के ही बन्धन और मोक्ष मानना, सर्वेश्वर पुरुषोत्तम भगवान् के अस्तित्व को अस्वीकार करना, काल को काल्पनिक मानना तथा पञ्चप्राणों को केवल ज्ञानेन्द्रियों की सामान्य वृत्ति मानना—ये सभी वैदिक सिद्धान्तों से सर्वथा विपरीत हैं। ॥ अथ द्वितीयमधिकरणम् — योगप्रत्युक्त्यधिकरणम् ॥ अधिकरण-परिचयः — योगस्मृतिनिरासः (योगस्मृतेरवैदिकत्वात् तत्प्रतिषेधः)। अवतरणिका एवं पूर्वपक्षः (श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचित गोविन्दभाष्यम्) — ननु साङ्ख्यस्मृतिर्मा भूद् वेदान्तव्याख्याने समर्था, श्रुतिविरोधात्। योगस्मृतिस्तु वेदान्तसमर्थिका भवितुमर्हति, तस्या वेदसम्मतत्वात्। तथाहि वेदेषु योगस्य बहुशः श्रवणं दृश्यते। कठोपनिषदि योगस्वरूपं निरूपितम् — "तां योगमिति मन्यन्ते स्थिरामिन्द्रियधारणाम्।" (कठोपनिषद् २.३.११) पुनश्च तत्रैव फलकथनम् — "विद्यामेतां योगविधिं च कृत्स्नम्।" (कठोपनिषद् २.३.१८) श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषद्यपि योगासनं ध्यानविधिं च दर्शयति — "त्रिरुन्नतं स्थाप्य समं शरीरं हृदीन्द्रियाणि मनसा सन्निवेश्य।" (श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषद् २.८) एवं श्रुतिसिद्धत्वात् परमर्षिणा भगवता पतञ्जलिना प्रणीता योगस्मृतिः प्रमाणभूता वेदान्तार्थनिर्णायिका भवेदिति पूर्वपक्षः। हिन्दी-अनुवाद (पूर्वपक्ष) — शङ्का: भले ही साङ्ख्यस्मृति श्रुतिविरुद्ध होने से वेदान्त-व्याख्यान के योग्य न हो, किन्तु योगस्मृति तो वेदान्त के अनुकूल ही है; क्योंकि योग का विधान स्वयं वेदों में पाया जाता है। कठोपनिषद् (२.३.११) में कहा गया है: "इन्द्रियों की स्थिर धारणा को ही विद्वान् लोग योग मानते हैं।" उसी उपनिषद् (२.३.१८) में कहा गया है: "उसने इस ब्रह्मविद्या को और सम्पूर्ण योगविधि को प्राप्त किया।" श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषद् (२.८) में भी योगासन का निर्देश है: "वक्ष, ग्रीवा और मस्तक—इन तीनों अंगों को सीधा और सम रखकर मन द्वारा इन्द्रियों को हृदय में स्थापित करे।" अतः महर्षि पतञ्जलि-प्रणीत योगस्मृति वेदान्त-सिद्धान्त के अनुकूल होने से अवश्य मान्य होनी चाहिए।

how to overcome the disadvantaged position of living in the material world. In the first two sūtras of the Yoga-smṛti he says atha yogānuśāsanam (Now yoga will be taught) and yogaś citta-vṛtti- nirodhaḥ (Yoga stops the activities of the mind). When the Vedas are interpreted literally the yoga- smṛti may not be always in harmony with them because the yoga-smṛti teaches about yoga exclusively. The Manu-smṛti and other dharma-śāstras, however, because they only teach the performance of religious duties, are always in harmony with the Vedas. Therefore the Vedas should not be interpreted in a literal sense. They should be interpreted in the light of the Yoga- smṛti. Siddhānta---The conclusion follows. Sūtra 3 etena yoga-prayuktaḥ By the preceding refutation of saṅkhya, yoga is also refuted. Purport By Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa By the preceding refutation of the Saṅkhya-smṛti, the Yoga-smṛti is understood to be also refuted. This is so because the Yoga-smṛti also contradicts the Vedānta philosophy. When the Vedānta is interpreted according to the Yoga-smṛti, the the Manu-smṛti and the other smṛtis that follow the Vedas, all become meaningless. For this reason the Vedānta should not be interpreted according to the Yoga-smṛti. It cannot be said that the Yoga-smṛti does not contradict Vedānta. In the Yoga- smṛti the pradhāna is held to be the original independent cause of all causes. Both the Supreme Personality of Godhead and all jīvas are held to be all- pervading consciousness only. Liberation, obtained only by yoga, is described as merely the cessation of pain. Because it contradicts the Vedānta on these points, the Yoga- smṛti should not be accepted. Also because its views on sensory perception and other sources of knowledge, its views on mental activities, and many other of its views

Liberation is not attained by following the path of yoga, nor is it attained by the knowledge of saṅkhya, where the soul is distinguished from matter. The śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (3.8) says tam eva viditvāti mṛtyum eti (One can overcome the path of birth and death only by understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead). The Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (4.4.21) says vijñāya prajñāṁ kurvīta (One should meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead). The scriptures also say etad yo dhyāyati rasati bhajati so 'mṛto bhavati (He who meditates on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, finds his happiness in Him, and worships Him, attains liberation). We are not opposed to those portions of the saṅkhya and yoga philosophies that do not contradict the Vedas. However, we completely reject those portions that contradict the Vedas. Although the Yoga-smṛti teaches faith in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as in the passages īśvara- paridhānād vā (Yoga may be attained by devotion to the Supreme Personality of Godhead) and kleśa-karma- vipākāśayair aparākṛṣṭaḥ puruṣa-viśeṣa īśvaraḥ (God is a single specific person who is untouched by suffering or the fruits of action), still many people reject these sūtras and say that their author was bewildered when he spoke them. Actually it is Gautama Muni and other atheists who are bewildered, for they propound theories that defy the Vedas. (The author of Vedānta) will refute these theories (in future sūtras). Even though they were very learned and intelligent, still they were bewildered. In the opinion of some they had become very proud, thinking themselves omniscient, and in the opinion of others they were bewildered by the illusory potency of Lord Hari, who had His own purpose in making them speak these theories. Because the yoga philosophy accepts the existence of God, there may be some reluctance to reject it. Therefore in order to refute the yoga philosophy the argument from the previous Adhikaraṇa is repeated here. Even though it was authored by the demigod Brahmā himself, the yoga-smṛti is rejected here. Adhikaraṇa 3 The Vedas Are Eternal and Infalliable Introduction By Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Some followers of saṅkhya and yoga may argue: "You may reject the saṅkhya- smṛti and yoga- smṛti because they contradict the Vedas, but we reject the Vedas because they contradict saṅkhya and yoga." The following is a refutation of this argument. Saṁśaya---Are the Vedas are reliable source of knowledge or not? Pūrvapakṣa---the Vedas say kārīryā yajate vṛṣṭi-kāmaḥ (He who desires rain should perform a kārīrī-yajña). If one thus performs a kārīrī-yajña or other Vedic ritual, he may not necessarily attain the promised result. For this reason the Vedas are an unreliable source of knowledge. Siddhānta---The conclusion follows.

Sūtra 4 na vilakṣaṇatvād asya tathātvaṁ ca śabdāt Because they have a fundamentally different nature, and because their own words are evidence for them, the Vedas are not an unreliable source of knowledge. Purport By Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The Vedas are not an unreliable source of knowledge, as the sāṅkhya-smṛti and yoga- smṛti are. Why? The sūtra says vilakṣaṇāt (Because they have a fundamentally different nature). This means that because they were written by jīvas, the saṅkhya-smṛti and yoga- smṛti are subject to the four defects of being prone to mistakes, illusions, cheating, and defective perception. the Vedas, however, because they are eternal, are free from these defects. The śruti says vācā virūpa nityayā (O Virūpa, the Vedas are eternal) and the smṛti says: anādi-nidhanā nityā* vāg utsṛṣṭā svayambhuvā ādau vedamayī divyā yataḥ sarvāḥ pravṛttayaḥ "In the beginning of creation the Supreme Personality of Godhead spoke and from His words the eternal, beginningless, endless, transcendental Vedas were manifested. From the Vedas all other scriptures have come." The Manu-smṛti and the other smṛtis authoritative because they have emanated from the Vedas. In a previous sūtra (1.3.29) the eternity of the Vedas was proved by logic, and in this sūtra it is proved by the Vedas themsleves. That is the difference between these two sūtras. An opponent may object: "In the Puruṣa-sūkta (Ṛṅ Veda 10.90.9) are the words: tasmād yajñāt sarva-huta* ṛcaḥ sāmāni jajñire chandāṁsi jajñire tasmād yajus tasmād ajāyata 'From that sacrifice all fire-sacrifices, the ṛg Veda and the Sāma Veda were born. From it the Vedic hymns were born. From it the Yajur Veda was born.' This passage proves that the Vedas were born and, because they were born, must also perish in the end. For this reason the Vedas are not eternal." To this opponent I say: No. It is not so. The word "born" here means "manifested" (not born in the ordinary sense). For this reason the scriptures say:

do not occur. This so because the promised" -> it's "it do not occur."

Everything is clear. Formatting with , ... up to .svayambhūr eṣa bhagavān* vedo gītas tvayā purā śivādyā ṛṣi-paryantāḥ smartāro 'sya na kārakāḥ "O Lord, You first recited the self-manifested, transcendental Vedas. Zīva, the demigods, and the sages, are not the authors, but are only reciters of the Vedas." The Vedas do not cease to be a source of genuine knowledge because sometimes the results promised by it do not occur. This so because the promised results always occur when the Vedic rituals are performed by properly qualified persons. When sometimes the promised results do not occur, this means that the performer of the rituals was not properly qualified. Therefore, because they contradict the Vedas the saṅkhya- smṛti and yoga-smṛti are not genuine sources of knowledge. Adhikaraṇa 4 The Words "Fire" and "Earth" Refer to the

'तु' शब्द यहाँ संशय का निवारण करने के लिए प्रयुक्त हुआ है। छान्दोग्योपनिषद् (६.२.३) का यह वाक्य—"तत्तेज ऐक्षत" (उस तेज ने ईक्षण/विचार किया)— चेतन, विचारशील तेजोभिमानी देवता का ही निर्देश करता है, अचेतन जड़ तेज-तत्त्व का नहीं। ऐसा क्यों? इस पर ब्रह्मसूत्रकार कहते हैं—"विशेषानुगतिभ्याम्" (अर्थात् तत्त्वों को 'देवता' विशेषण से निर्दिष्ट किए जाने के कारण तथा उनमें देवताओं के अनुप्रवेश का वर्णन होने से)। पूर्वोक्त छान्दोग्योपनिषद् आगे (६.३.२) में यह कहकर इसकी पुष्टि करती है कि— पूर्व में वर्णित तेज, जल और अन्न वस्तुतः देवता ही हैं: "हन्ताहमिमास्तिस्रो देवताः" (अहो! मैं इन तीनों देवताओं में प्रविष्ट होऊँ)। कौषीतकि-उपनिषद् (२.१४) में भी कहा गया है: "सर्वा ह वै देवता अहं श्रेयसे विवदमानाः... ते देवाः प्राणे निःश्रेयसं विदित्वा" (समस्त इन्द्रिय-देवता अपने-अपने श्रेष्ठत्व के लिए विवाद करने लगे... अन्ततः उन देवों ने प्राण को ही सर्वश्रेष्ठ जानकर स्वीकार किया)। यहाँ प्राण और प्रत्येक इन्द्रिय का वर्णन 'देवता' रूप में किया गया है। अतः इस कारण यह स्पष्ट रूप से समझा जा सकता है कि यहाँ इन्द्रियों और तत्त्वों के नाम उनके नियामक अभिमानी देवताओं के ही वाचक हैं। ऐतरेयारण्यक (२.४) में कहा गया है: "अग्निर्वाग्भूत्वा मुखं प्राविशत्... आदित्यश्चक्षुर्भूत्वाक्षिणी प्राविशत्" (अग्नि-देवता वाणी बनकर मुख में प्रविष्ट हुए... सूर्य-देवता चक्षु बनकर नेत्रों में प्रविष्ट हुए)। क्योंकि यह श्रुति-वचन यह स्पष्ट करता है कि अग्नि-देवता वाणी में और अन्य देवता अन्य इन्द्रियों में प्रविष्ट होते हैं, अतः यह पुनः सिद्ध होता है कि यहाँ तत्त्वों और इन्द्रियों के नाम उनके नियन्ता देवताओं के ही परिचायक हैं। भविष्य-पुराण में भी कहा गया है: पृथिव्याद्यभिमानिन्यो देवताः प्रथिताौजसः। अचिन्त्याः शक्तयस्तासां दृश्यन्ते मुनिभिश्च ताः॥ "मुनिजन यह जानते हैं कि 'पृथ्वी' आदि तत्त्वों के नाम उन परम प्रभावोत्पादक अभिमानी देवताओं के ही नाम हैं, जिनकी अचिन्त्य शक्तियाँ मुनियों द्वारा प्रत्यक्ष देखी जाती हैं।" "ग्रावाणः प्लवन्ते" (पाषाण तैरते हैं) यह श्रुति-वाक्य भी उन देवताओं की ही स्तुति करता है, जो एक विशिष्ट प्रभाव से पत्थरों में भी अनुप्रविष्ट होने में समर्थ थे। ऐसा उस समय प्रत्यक्ष हुआ जब भगवान् श्रीराम ने (शिलाओं द्वारा) समुद्र पर सेतु-निर्माण आरम्भ किया था। इस प्रकार वेदों में कोई भी कथन असङ्गत अथवा अनुचित नहीं है, तथा यह श्रुति-सिद्धान्त पूर्णतः सिद्ध होता है कि परब्रह्म परमेश्वर ही इस जड़-प्रपञ्च के एकमात्र मूल स्रष्टा हैं। ॥ पञ्चमाधिकरणम् ॥ (तर्क के द्वारा परब्रह्म के मूल जगत्कारणत्व की सिद्धि) श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचित भूमिका: इस बार केवल तर्क का आश्रय लेकर साङ्ख्यवादी दार्शनिक पुनः इस सिद्धान्त का खण्डन करने की चेष्टा करता है कि परम पुरुष भगवान् ही इस भौतिक जगत् के उपादान-कारण हैं। यद्यपि स्वयं साङ्ख्य-स्मृति (६.३५) में यह कहा गया है— "श्रुतिविरोधान्न कुतर्कापसदस्यात्मलाभः" (श्रुति के विरुद्ध होने के कारण कुतर्क में रत अधम पुरुषों को आत्म-साक्षात्कार प्राप्त नहीं होता), जिसके अनुसार साङ्ख्य-दर्शन स्वयं केवल शुष्क तर्क का तिरस्कार करता है, तथापि...

(hypocritically) does so only to defeat its opponents. Saṁśaya---Is or is not the Supreme Personality of Godhead the ingredient of which the material universe is made? Pūrvapakṣa---Is the Supreme Personality of Godhead the ingredient of which the material universe is made? No, because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is completely different from this world of matter. It is generally accepted that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is all-knowing, all- powerful, completely pure, and full of all transcendental bliss. The material universe, on the other hand, is directly seen to be full of ignorance, weakness, impurity, and misery. Therefore there is no debate about whether the two of them have differing natures. That a substance and the ingredient of which it is made must have the same nature is clearly seen. For example clay, gold, and thread are the ingredients of which poettery, crowns, and cloth are made. However, because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is different in nature from the material universe, another ingredient should be sought. That ingredient is pradhāna because pradhāna possesses the same nature as this material universe filled with material happinesses, material sufferings, and various illusions. In order to prove that the Supreme Personality of Godhead has the same nature as the material universe, someone may say: "Within the Supreme Personality of Godhead are two very subtle potencies: a conscious spiritual potency, and an inert material potency. In this way the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ingredient of which the material universe is made." Because it states that a very subtle potency is the ingredient of which the very gross material world is made, even this argument does not resolve the great difference between the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the material universe. Other differences between the two may also be seen. In this way the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not the ingredient of which the material universe is made. Although logic must be subordinate to scripture, still, in order to understand the truth scripture must sometimes be subordinate to logic. This is the statement of the Pūrvapakṣa. Siddhānta---He now refutes this argument. Sutra 6 dṛṣyate tu But this is (not) seen by direct perception. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word tu (but) is used here to dispel doubt. The word na (not), taken from the previous sūtra, should be understood in this sūtra also. Someone may say: "Because He is different in nature, the Supreme Personality of Godhead cannot be the ingredient from which the material universe is made." The answer is given: "Because it is many times seen that there is a difference between things and the ingredients of which they are made, it cannot be said that the Supreme Personality of Godhead cannot be the ingredient of which the material universe is made." The

material universe is made from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, just as many things are manifested from sources very different in nature, just as worms come from honey, as elephants, horses, and other animals come from the kalpa- drumatree, and as gold and other things come from the cintāmaṇi jewel. The ātharvaṇikas give the following example (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.7): yathorṇanābhiḥ sṛjate gṛṇate ca* yathā pṛthivyām oṣadhayaḥ sambhavanti yathā sataḥ puruṣāt keśa-lomani tathākṣarāt sambhavatīha viśvam "As a spider expands and withdraws its web, as innumerable plants sprout from the soil, and as hairs grow on a person's body, so is the material universe manifested from the imperishable Supreme Personality of Godhead." Adhikaraṇa 6 Nothingness Is Not The First Cause Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Someone may object: "If the material world is different from its ingredient, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then before the world was manifested, it was not already existent within the Supreme. Before it was manifested it did not exist. Because the Supreme Personality of Godhead alone existed then, in the beginning the material world did not exist. However this view cannot be held by they who affirm that the the material world is real because it is created by the Supreme Reality." If this objection is raised, he replies is the following words. Sūtra 7 If someone maintains the material world to be unreal, then I say no. The world is not unreal merely because it is in nature different from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa There is no fault in this. Why? The sūtra says pratiṣedha-mātratvāt (The world is not unreal merely because it is in nature different from the Supreme Personality of Godhead). The previous sūtra denied that a substance and its ingredient must have the same nature. It is not that a thing and its ingredient are different in substance. This is so because the Supreme Personality of Godhead becomes transformed, becoming the body of the material world, which is by nature different from Him. This is the meaning: Is it because 1. His nature is different from the

nature of the world, or because 2. none of His qualities are present in the world that you reject the idea that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ingredient of the material world? The first is not a good reason because (difference) is naturally present in the relation between ingredient and product. For example a clay pot or other piece of pottery is, because it is not an amorphous lump, unlike the ball of clay that is its ingredient. In this way they are different. The second argument is, because existence (sat) and many other qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are present in the material world, not a valid argument either. If the objection is raised: "The qualities of the ingredient that differentiate it from other things should be transferred from the ingredient to the substance it creates. The qualities that distinguish gold from thread are also seen to distinguish golden bracelets and other ornaments from cloth made of thread," then the following answer may be given: "Because insects come from honey, many other things are also created from ingredients very unlike the final product, and even articles of gold often present a nature very different from the original substance, this argument is not valid. Just as gold is not different from the cintāmaṇi jewel that created it and a bracelet is not different from the gold that created it, in the same way the material world, because it is created from the Supreme Reality, is not different from Him, and is therefore not unreal. Sutra 8 apītau tadvat prasaṅgād asama/vjasam (Someone may object: "If the Supreme Personality of Godhead were the ingredient of which the material world is made, then) at the time when the material world is destroyed, (the Supreme Personality of Godhead would be destroyed). Because this view is untenable (the Supreme Personality of Godhead cannot be the ingredient of the material world)." Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa If the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of all subtle spiritual potencies, is the ingredient from which the material world, which consists of both matter and spirit, and which thwarts the spiritual aspirations of the living entities, then at the time of cosmic devastation, (when the material universes enter the Lord's body), the Lord must become like the material world (infected with all its faults). In the sūtra's word tadvat the word tad is in the genitive case and the word vat means "like." ( CHAPTER II Pada 1 - Sutras 9 onwards and the complete Pada 2 missing!)

Pada 3 Adhikaraṇa 1 Ether Is Created Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa vyomādi-viṣayaṁ gobhir bibharti vijaghāna yaḥ sa tāṁ mad-viṣayāṁ bhāsvān kṛṣṇaḥ praṇīhaniṣyati May the brilliant sun of Lord Kṛṣṇa, who with rays of logic destroys a host of misconceptions about ether and the other elements, destroy the misconceptions in my heart. In the Second Pāda were revealed the fallacies present in the theories of they who say pradhāna is the the first cause and they who claim something other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the first cause. In the Third Pāda will be shown the truth that the various elements of the material world are manifested from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, that they merge into Him at the end, that the individual spirit souls always existed, there not being a point in time when they were created, that the individual spirit souls have spiritual bodies full of knowledge, that the individual spirit souls are atomic in size although by their consciousness they are all-pervading within the material body, that the individual spirit souls are part-and-parcel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, that Matsya-avatāra and the other avatāras are directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and that the variety of situations into which the conditioned souls are placed is caused by the previous karma. These will all be proved by refuting the ideas of they who claim that these statements are not true. The various aspects of the material world are created in the following sequence:

1. pradhāna, 2. mahat-tattva, 3. false-ego, 4. the tan-mātras, 5. the senses, and 6. the gross elements, beginning with ether. This sequence is given in the Subala- śruti and other scriptures. The sequence found in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad and other scriptures will also be discussed in order to show that sequence does not contradict what has already been said. Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.2.1) explains:

sad eva saumyedyam agra āsīt "O gentle one, in the beginning the Supreme Personality of Godhead alone existed." Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.2.3-4) continues: tad aikṣata bahu syāṁ prajāyeyeti tat tejo 'srjata. tat teja aikṣata bahu syāṁ prajāyeyeti tad āpo 'srjata . . . tā āpa aikṣanta bahvayaḥ syāma prajāyemahīti tā annam asrjanta. "The Supreme Personality of Godhead thought: I shall become many. I shall father children.' Then He created fire. Then fire thought: I shall become many. I shall father children.' Then fire created water. . . . Then water thought: `I shall become many. I shall father children.' Then water created grains." In this way it is clearly shown that fire, water, and grains were created. In this, however, there is a doubt. Saṁśaya (doubt): Was ether ever created or not? Pūrvapakṣa (the opponent speaks): Because the Śruti-śāstra does not mention any creation of ether, therefore ether was never created, but was always existing. This idea is expressed in the following sūtra. Sūtra 1 na viyad aśruteḥ na—not; viyat—ether; aśruteḥ—because of not being described in the Śruti- śāstra. Not so for ether, because that is not described in the Śruti-śāstra. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Ether is eternal and was never created. Why is that? The sūtra explains: "Because that is not described in the Śruti-śāstra." The relevant passage of Chāndogya Upaniṣad mentions the creation of the other elements, but it does not

mention the creation of ether. In the previously quoted passage of Chāndogya Upaniṣad the creation of fire, water, and grains is mentioned. However there is no mention of the creation of ether. For this reason ether must not have been created. That is the meaning. This idea is refuted in the following sūtra: Sūtra 2 asti tu asti—is; tu—indeed. Indeed it is so. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word "tu" (indeed) is used here to remove doubt. The word "asti" (it is so) means, "It is so that ether was created." Although the creation of ether is not described in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, it is described in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad in the following words: tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśaḥ sambhūtaḥ ākāśād vāyur vāyor agnir agner āpo ābhyo mahatī pṛthivī "From the Supreme Personality of Godhead, ether was manifested. From ether, air was manifested. From air, fire was manifested. From fire, water was manifested. From water, earth was manifested." Another doubt is expressed in the next sūtra. Sūtra 3 gauṇy asambhavāc chabdāc ca gauṇī—figure of speech; asambhavāt—because of being impossible; śabdāt— because of scripture; ca—also.

Because of scripture, and because it is impossible, it must be a mere figure of speech. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa It is not possible that ether was created. This is confirmed by Kaṇāda Muni and other great philosophers. The Taittirīya Upaniṣad's description of the creation of ether is a mere figure of speech, as when, in ordinary speech one says, "Please make some space" or "Some space has been made". For what other reasons is it not possible that ether is created? Because it is impossible to create ether. It is not possible to create ether because ether is formless and all-pervading, because it is not included in the chain of causes, and because scripture proclaims that ether is not created. Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (2.3.2-3) proclaims: vāyus cāntarīkṣaṁ caitad amṛtam "Air and ether are both eternal." This proves that ether was never created. However, if the passage from the Taittirīya Upaniṣad used the word "sambhūta" (created) only once to refer to the list of elements beginning with fire, how is it possible to claim that this word is used literally for all the elements and figuratively for ether alone? The opponent of Vedānta replies in the next sūtra. Sūtra 4 syāc caikasya brahma-śabda-vat syāt—may be; ca—and; ekasya—of one; brahma—Brahma; śabda—the word; vat—like. It may be for one, as in the word "Brahman". Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (3.2) it is said:

tapasā brahma vijijñāsasva tapo brahma "By performing austerities strive to understand Brahman, for austerities are Brahman." In this passage the word Brahman is used in two ways. Used to describe the object of knowledge attained by performing austerities, Brahman is used in its literal sense. Then, equated with austerities, it is used figuratively to mean, "the way to know Brahman". In the same way the word "sambhūta" in the previously discussed passage can be use literally and figuratively simultaneously. In this way the fact that the passage of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad makes no mention of it refutes the description in other Upaniṣads that ether was created. The author of the sūtras refutes this idea in the following words. Sūtra 5 pratijñāhānir avyatirekāc cabdebhyaḥ pratijñā—statement of intent; ahāniḥ—non-abandonment; avyatirekāt— because of non-difference; śabdebhyaḥ—from the statements of scripture. It is affirmed because it is not different and because of the statements of scripture. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.1.3) affirms: yenāśrutaṁ śrutaṁ bhavati "Now I will teach how to hear what cannot be heard." In these words the intention to teach about Brahman is expressed. If this intention is not broken, then all that follows must be about Brahman and it must be affirmed that nothing is different from Brahman. The idea that something is different from Brahman is to be rejected. If everything is not-different from Brahman, then Brahman is clearly the ingredient of which everything is made. Thus, simply by knowing Brahman one knows everything. If this is accepted then

it is also accepted that ether was created. The Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.2.1) again affirms: sad eva saumyedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyam aitad-ātmyam idaṁ sarvam "O gentle one, in the beginning the Supreme Personality of Godhead alone existed. He was alone. There was no one else. Everything has Him as its ingredient." These words affirm that in the beginning everything was manifested from Him, and after the creation was manifested everything had Him as its ingredient. This should be accepted. Here someone may object: There is no clear statement in that Upaniṣad that ether was created. How can you talk like that? In the following words the author of the sūtras replies to this objection. Sūtra 6 yāvad vikāraṁ tu vibhāgo loka-vat yāvat—to what extent; vikāram—creation; tu—indeed; vibhāgaḥ—creator; loka—the world; vat—like. Indeed, if there is a creation there must be a creator, as we see in the world. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word "tu" (indeed) is used here to remove doubt. The Chāndogya Upaniṣad explains: aitad-ātmyam idaṁ sarvam "Everything has Him as its ingredient." This statement shows that there is both a creator and a creation. When the

Subala Upaniṣad and other scriptures explain that the pradhāna, mahat-tattva, and other things are created, they imply that everything that exists was created. That is the meaning. The following example from the material world may be given. A person may say, "All these are the sons of Caitra." In this way he affirms that they were all born from a man named Caitra. In the same way, when the Upaniṣad affirms that, “Everything has the Supreme Personality of Godhead as its ingredient," it is clear that pradhāna, mahat-tattva, and everything else has come from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Thus when the Upaniṣad states that fire, water, and grains come from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, it means to say that everything comes from Him. In this way it is understand that ether also was created. The word "vibhāgaḥ" in this sūtra means “creation". Sūtra 3 affirmed that it is not possible for ether to have been created. However, the Śruti-śāstra affirms that the Supreme Personality of Godhead has inconceivable powers. Even though it may be inconceivable, He can do anything without restriction. In some passages it is said that ether is immortal, which means that it is neither created nor destroyed. These statements may be taken as figures of speech because we can find other passages describing the creation and destruction of ether. Because ether is counted among the elements it must be created and also destroyed. Because ether has temporary material qualities, as fire and the other elements do, it must also be temporary, as the other elements are. Whatever is not matter is spirit. Ether is not like spirit. It is different. In this way the idea that ether was not created is disproved. Modern philosophers that state the contrary are wrong. It must be accepted that ether was created. Adhikaraṇa 2 Air Is Created Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa To show that the same arguments may also show the creation of air, the author of the sūtras gives the following explanation. Sūtra 7 etena mātariśvā vyākhyātaḥ etena—by this; mātariśvā—air; vyākhyātaḥ—is explained.

This also refers to air. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa This proof that ether was created clearly shows that air, which exists within ether, must also have been created. That is the meaning. This is so because the limbs of something must have the same qualities as the whole of which they are parts. Our opponent may object: Because it was never described in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, it is clear that air was never created. To this I reply: The Taittirīya Upaniṣad explains that air was created from ether. Then our opponent may say: That description of the creation of air must have been a figure of speech, because the Śruti-śāstra explains that air is eternal. To this I reply: The Chāndogya Upaniṣad affirms in a pratijñā statement (aitad- ātmyam idaṁ sarvam) that everything was created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this way the creation of air is proved. When it is said that air is eternal the intention is that it is so only relative to some other things. Air was discussed in a separate sūtra and not discussed together with ether. This was done to facilitate the argument of Sūtra 9. Adhikaraṇa 3 The Eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead Is Not Created Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.2.1) affirms: sad eva saumyedam "O gentle one, in the beginning the Supreme Personality of Godhead alone existed." A doubt may arise about this statement. Was the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead created or not? Pradhāna, mahat-tattva, and many other things that are causes or creators of other things were created, so perhaps the Supreme