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

इस संशय के समाधान हेतु सूत्रकार कहते हैं: सूत्र १८ अन्यार्थं तु जैमिनिः प्रश्नव्याख्यानाभ्यामपि चैवमेके ॥ १८ ॥ पदच्छेद एवं शब्दार्थ: अन्यार्थम् — अन्य अर्थ/प्रयोजन के लिए; तु — किन्तु (संशय-निवारणार्थ); जैमिनिः — आचार्य जैमिनि; प्रश्नव्याख्यानाभ्याम् — प्रश्न तथा व्याख्यान (उत्तर) से; अपि — भी; च — तथा; एवम् — इस प्रकार; एके — अन्य (वाजसनेयी आदि) शाखा के पाठ में। सूत्रार्थ: आचार्य जैमिनि का मत है कि यहाँ जीव का उल्लेख अन्य प्रयोजन (ब्रह्म-प्रतिपादन) के लिए ही है; क्योंकि प्रश्न और उत्तर से ऐसा ही सिद्ध होता है, तथा अन्य शाखा (वाजसनेयि-शाखा) के पाठ में भी इसी प्रकार का भेद स्पष्ट रूप से वर्णित है। श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचित गोविन्दभाष्य तात्पर्य: यहाँ 'तु' शब्द पूर्वपक्षीय संशय का निराकरण करने के लिए प्रयुक्त हुआ है। यहाँ जीव का वर्णन एक भिन्न अर्थ (प्रयोजन) से किया गया है। आचार्य जैमिनि मानते हैं कि यह प्रसंग ब्रह्म और जीव के भेद को ही स्पष्ट रूप से प्रतिपादित करता है। यह कैसे सिद्ध होता है? क्योंकि इस प्रसंग में प्रश्न और उत्तर दोनों ही इसी बात को प्रमाणित करते हैं। प्रश्न सुप्त और जाग्रत अवस्था वाले जीवात्मा के विषय में पूछे गए हैं, जो कि मुख्य प्राण से भिन्न है। श्रुति-पाठ इस प्रकार है: "क्वॆष एतद्बालाके पुरुषोऽशयिष्ट क्व वा एतदभूत् कुत एतदागात्" (अर्थात् हे बालाके! सुषुप्ति के समय यह पुरुष कहाँ शयन कर रहा था? यह कहाँ स्थित था? और जाग्रत होने पर यह कहाँ से लौट आया?)। इस प्रश्न में ब्रह्म और जीव के मध्य स्पष्ट भेद लक्षित होता है। इसका उत्तर श्रुति में दिया गया है: "यदा सुप्तः स्वप्नं न कञ्चन पश्यत्यथास्मिन् प्राण एवैकधा भवति" (अर्थात् जब वह सुषुप्त होता है और कोई स्वप्न नहीं देखता, तब वह इसी प्राण में एकीभूत हो जाता है)। इसके पश्चात् का श्रुति-वाक्य: "एतस्मादात्मनः प्राणा यथायतनं विप्रतिष्ठन्ते प्राणेभ्यो देवा देवेभ्यो लोकाः" (अर्थात् इस परमात्मा रूप आत्मा से ही समस्त प्राण-इन्द्रियाँ अपने-अपने अधिष्ठानों में प्रवृत्त होती हैं, प्राणों से देवता और देवताओं से समस्त लोक प्रकट होते हैं) ब्रह्म और जीव के पारस्परिक भेद को ही दर्शाता है। यहाँ 'प्राण' शब्द का वास्तविक अर्थ परमेश्वर परमात्मा ही है; क्योंकि परमात्मा ही सुषुप्ति-काल के परम विश्राम-स्थल के रूप में प्रसिद्ध हैं। उन्हीं में समस्त जीव विलीन होते हैं और जाग्रत अवस्था में पुनः उन्हीं से बहिर्गत होते हैं। अग्रिम प्रसंग का अभिप्राय यह है कि नाड़ियाँ सुषुप्ति-स्थल (ब्रह्म) तक पहुँचने के केवल मार्ग अथवा द्वार मात्र हैं। परमात्मा को ही वह परम आधार समझना चाहिए जहाँ सुषुप्त जीव विश्राम करता है और जहाँ से वह पुनः जाग्रत होकर विषयों का उपभोग करने निकलता है। बालाकि और अजातशत्रु के इसी संवाद की वाजसनेयि-शाखा में भी जीव का वर्णन 'विज्ञानमय' कहकर किया गया है और ब्रह्म को उससे स्पष्टतः पृथक् निरूपित किया गया है। उस पाठ में प्रश्न इस प्रकार है: "य एष विज्ञानमयः पुरुषः क्वैष तदाभूत् कुत एतदागात्" (अर्थात् यह जो विज्ञानमय पुरुष है, वह उस समय कहाँ था? और वह कहाँ से आया?) और इसका उत्तर दिया गया है: "य एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशस्तस्मिञ्छेते" (अर्थात् जो यह हृदयाकाश के भीतर परब्रह्म है, उसी में यह शयन करता है)। इस प्रकार, परब्रह्म पुरुषोत्तम ही इस प्रसंग में मुख्य रूप से ज्ञेय तत्व प्रतिपादित हुए हैं।

Adhikaraṇa 6 The "Ātmā" of Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5 is Brahman and Not Jīva Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5.6 Yājñavalkya teaches his wife, Maitreyī: na vā are patyuḥ kāmāya patiḥ priyo bhavati "A husband is not dear because the wife loves the husband. A husband is dear because she loves the Self." He also says: na vā are sarvasya kāmāya sarvaṁ priyaṁ bhavati ātmanas tu kāmāya sarvaṁ priyaṁ bhavati "Everything is not dear because one loves everything. Everything is dear because one loves the Self." Again, he says: ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo maitreyy ātmano vā are darśanena śravaṇena matyā vijñānena idaṁ sarvaṁ viditam "The Self should be seen, heard, worshiped, and always meditated on. O Maitreyī, by seeing, hearing, worshiping, and understanding the Self, everything becomes known." Saṁśaya: In this passage which self is to be understood: the jīva (individual spirit soul) described in the Kapila-tantra, or the Paramātmā (the Supreme Personality of Godhead)? Pūrvapakṣa: Because in this passage he describes the love of husband and wife and because in the middle of the passage he says: etebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya tāny evānuvinaśyati na pretya-saṁjñāsti (He leaves the material elements, his body is destroyed, he dies and is no longer conscious), words that clearly describe a resident of the material world who is subject to birth and death, and because at the end he says: vijñātāram are kena vijānīyāt (How should we understand the person who is the knower?) this passage should be interpreted to describe the jīva, who is the knower described in the Kapila-tantra. One may object: "But it says that by knowing the Self everything becomes known. Certainly this refers to the Paramātmā and not the jīva." but this objection is not valid. The jīva takes birth in

this world with an aim to enjoy and one may figuratively say that by knowing the jīva one knows everything for one then knows the world around him meant for his enjoyment. One may again object, “This passage canot refer to the jīva because the text says amṛtatvasya tu nāśāsti vittena (By knowing Him one becomes immortal). Because it is only by knowing the Paramātmā that one becomes immortal, how can this passage refer to the jīva?" This objection is also not valid because by understanding that the jīva is by nature different from matter one may also attain immortality. In the same way all descriptions in this passage that seem to refer to Brahman should be understood to refer to the jīva. In this way this entire passage describes the jīva. In this way it should be understood that the material nature, which is under the control of the jīva, is the original cause of the world. Siddhānta: In this matter: Sūtra 19 vākyānvayāt vākya-statement; anvayāt-because of the connection. The context of this passage proves that Brahman is the object of discussion. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa In this passage the Paramātmā, and not the jīva of the Kapila-tantra, is described. Why? Because in the context of the whole passage, including what precedes and follows this quote, that is the appropriate interpretation. Three sages also confirm this interpretation: Sūtra 20 pratijñā-siddher liṅgam āśmarathyaḥ pratijñā-of the promise; siddher -of the fulfillment; liṅgam -the mark; āśmarathyaḥ-Aśmarathya. Āśmarthya (maintains that the Self here is Paramātmā because only in that way) is the promise (that by knowledge of the Self everything is known) fulfilled.

Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Āśmarathya maintains that the promise ātmano vijñānena sarvaṁ viditam (By knowledge of the Self everything is known) indicates that the Self referred to here is the Paramātmā. It is not taught here that by knowledge of the jīva everything becomes known. On the other hand by knowledge of the cause of all causes everything becomes known. It is not possible to interpret these words in a figurative way because after promising that by knowing the Self everything becomes known, in the passage beginning brahma taṁ parādāt (One who thinks the brāhmaṇas rest in a place other than the Self is spurned by the brāhmaṇas. One who thinks the kṣatriyas rest in a place other than the Self is spurned by the kṣatriyas. One who thinks the worlds rest in a place other than the self is spurned by the worlds) he affirms that the Paramātmā is the form of everything and the resting place of the brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, and world. For these reasons it is not possible that the Self here can be any other than the Paramātmā. It is also not possible for the individual living entity who remains under the control of karma to be the original cause of all causes decsribed in the passage beginning tasya vā etasya mahato bhūtasya niḥśvasitam (transcendental he Vedas were manifested from the breathing of this Supreme Being). It is also not possible for (the sage Yājñavalkya) to have taught his wife, who had renounced all wealth and material benefits to attain liberation, only about the jīva and not about the Supreme Brahman. It is also not possible that the Self referred to here is the jīva because on cannot attain liberation simply by knowing the jīva. That liberation is attained only by understanding the Supreme Brahman is confirmed in the following statement of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.8 and 6.15: tam eva viditvāti mṛtyum eti (By understanding the Supreme Brahman one is able to transcend death). For all these reasons it should be understood that the Self described in this passage is the Paramātmā. Pūrvapakṣa: The objection may be raised: Because the Self in this passage is described as the object of love for the husband and other persons, this self must be the jīva bound to the cycle of repeated birth and death and not the Paramātmā. It cannot be said that the Self described here must be the Paramātmā because that interpretation answers the promise (of Yājñavalkya to speak certain words), nor can it be said that the Self here must be the Paramātmā because this Self is the shelter of the devotees, the creator of everything, all-powerful, and the origin of transcendental bliss. The jīva may also be these things, as the Padma Purāṇa explains: yenārcito haris tena tarpitāni jaganty api rajyanti jantavas tatra sthāvarā jaṅgamā api (One who worships Lord Hari pleases all the worlds. All moving and non-moving creatures love the devotee). In this way the Self described here is not the Paramātmā. Siddhānta: Fearing that the opponent may speak these words, he says: Sūtra 21

utkramiṣyata evaṁ bhāvād ity auḍulomiḥ utkramiṣyataḥ -of a person about to depart; evam-in this way; bhāvāt-from this condition; iti-thus; auḍulomiḥ-Auḍulomi. Auḍulomi maintains that one about to become liberated attains the transcendental qualities of the Lord. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word utkramiṣyataḥ here means a person who by following spiritual practices attains the Paramātmā. Evaṁ bhāvāt means "because of being dear to everyone." Ātmā means "Paramātmā." This is the opinion of Auḍulomi. The passage patyuḥ kāmāya patiḥ priyo bhavati (A husband is not dear because the wife loves the husband. A husband is dear because she loves the Self) means that if a wife thinks "By my own power I shall become dear to my husband" her husband will not love her. However, if the wife loves the Paramātmā, then Lord Paramātmā will make everyone love this devotee-wife. The word kāma here means "desire" and kāmāya means "to fulfill the desire." The use of the dative case here is described in Pāṇini's sūtras (Aṣṭādhyāyī 2.3.1 or Siddhānta-kaumudī 581) in the following words: kriyārthopapadasya ca karmaṇi sthāninaḥ (The dative case is used for the object of a verb understood but not expressed. In the dative two verbs are used together and the action is in the future). In other words this passage (patyuḥ kāmāya) of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad means "When He is worshiped with devotion, the Supreme Personality of Godhead makes everything a source of happiness for His devotees." This is corroborated by the following statement of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.14.13): akiñcanasya dāntasya śāntasya sama-cetasaḥ mayā santuṣṭa-manasaḥ sarvāḥ sukhamayā diśaḥ "For a person who is renounced, self-controlled, peaceful, equal to all, and who finds his happiness in Me, every place in this world is full of joy." The passage patyuḥ kāmāya may also be interpreted to mean "Trying to please the husband does not please him. Only when the wife tries to please the Paramātmā does the husband become pleased." This interpretation is corroborated by the following statement of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.23.27): prāṇa-buddhi-manaḥ-svātma-

dārāpatya-dhanādayaḥ yat-samparkāt priyā āsaṁs tataḥ ko 'nyaḥ paraḥ priyaḥ "Our life, property, home, wife, children, house, country, society, and all paraphernalia which are very dear to us are expansions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Who is more dear to us than the Supreme Person?" In this interpretation the word kāma means "happiness" and the dative case is used in the same sense as the previous interpretation. This interpretation means that by the will of the Paramātmā, by the nearness of the Paramātmā, or by the touch of the Paramātmā, even what is ordinarily unpleasant becomes blissful. Therefore when the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad says ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ (The Self should be seen), the word ātmā means the dear Lord Hari. It is not possible to interpret the word ātmā here to mean the jīva because here the primary meaning of ātmā is the supremely powerful Personality of Godhead. To interpret ātmā in any other way would contradict the way the word had been used in the previous passage (vākya-bheda). We do not see how it is possible to interpret ātmā in a way different from the way it was clearly used in the immediately previous passage. In this way the word ātmā in ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ must be the Paramātmā. In both passages (ātmanas tu kāmāya and ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ) the word ātmā cannot mean the jīva, for in these contexts the word ātmā can only refer to Brahman. Although Auḍulomi is a nirguṇa-ātmavādī (impersonalist) as will be explained later on in the words (Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.6) citi tan-mātreṇa tad-ātmakatvād ity auḍulomiḥ (When he is liberated the jīva enters the Supreme Intelligence, for the jīva is actually intelligence only. This the the opinion of Auḍulomi.), still Auḍulomi maintains that in order to dispel ignorance and reveal the true nature of the self Lord Hari should be worshiped, as will be explained in the following words (Vedānta-sūtra 3.4.45): ārtvijyam ity auḍulomis tasmai hi parikrīyate (Just as a Vedic priest is purchased to perform a yajña, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is purchased by His devotees' love). In this way it is proved that pure devotion to Lord Hari fulfills all desires. Our opponent may say: So be it. However, in the same Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (2.4.12) we find the following words: sa yathā saindhava-khilya udake prāptam udakam evānulīyate na hāsyodgrahaṇāyaiva syād yato yatas tv ādīta lavaṇam evaivaṁ vā. are idaṁ mahad bhūtam anantam apāraṁ vijñāna-ghana evaitebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya tāny evānuvinaśyati "As a little salt merges into water and cannot be again extracted from it, although the water itself becomes salty, so does this great being, limitless, endless, and full of knowledge, rise from these elements and then vanish into them." How do you reconcile this statement with your interpretation of the word ātmā in this Upaniṣad? Clearly this passage refers to the jīva described in the Kapila- tantra because that is the appropriate interpretation. To answer this doubt he says:

Sūtra 22 avasthiter iti kāśakṛtsnaḥ avasthiter -because of residence; iti -thus; kāśakṛtsnaḥ-Kāśakṛtsna. This passage refers to Paramātmā, for Paramātmā resides within the jīva. This is the opinion of Kāśakṛtsna. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa In this statement the word avasthiteḥ (residing) which refers to the Paramātmā, the Great Being who is different from the jīva, and who is described as vijñāna- ghana (full of knowledge), teaches that the Paramātmā is different from the jīva and resides within him. Kāśakṛtsna considers that because the Paramātmā and the jīva are different the words mahad-bhūtam (Great being), anantam (limitless) and vijñāna-ghana cannot refer to the jīva. A summary of the passage from Bṛhad- āraṇyaka Upaniṣad under discussion follows. Yenāhaṁ nāmṛtaḥ syāṁ kim ahaṁ tena kuryām "Tell me what I must do to become free of death." Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5.4) Asked this question about the means to attain liberation, the sage answered: ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo maitreyy ātmano vā are darśanena śravaṇena matyā vijñānena idaṁ sarvaṁ viditam "The Self should be seen, heard, worshiped, and always meditated on. O Maitreyī, by seeing, hearing, worshiping, and understanding the Self, everything becomes known." In this way he explains that the worship of Paramātmā is the way to attain liberation. Then he says: sa yathā dundubher hanyamānasya bāhyāñ chabdāñ chakruyād grahaṇāya dundubhes tu grahaṇena dundubhy-āghātasya vā śabdo gṛhītaḥ

"As the sounds of a drum when beaten cannot be seized externally, although when the drum or the player of the drum are seized then the sounds are also seized). Thus, in a very general way he explains the proper method of worshiping the Paramātmā: sense-control. He continues in the following words: sa yathārdhraidho 'gner abhyāhitasya pṛthag dhūmā viniścaranty evaṁ vā are 'sya mahato bhūtasya niśvāsitam etad yad ṛg vedo yajur vedaḥ sāma-vedo 'tharvāṅgirasa itihāsaḥ purāṇaṁ vidyā upaniṣadaḥ ślokāḥ sūtrāṇy anuvyākhyānāni vyākhyānānīṣṭaṁ hutam āśitaṁ pāyitam ayaṁ ca lokaḥ paraś ca lokaḥ sarvāṇi ca bhūtāny asyaikaitāni sarvāṇi niśvasitāni. sa yathā sarvāsāṁ apāṁ samudra ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ sparśānāṁ tvacaikāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ rasānāṁ jihvaikāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ gandhānāṁ nāsikaikāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ rūpāṇāṁ cak.sur ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ śabdānāṁ śrotram ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ saṅkalpānāṁ mana ekāyanam evaṁ sarvāsāṁ vidyānāṁ hṛdayam ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ karmaṇāṁ hastāv ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ ānandānāṁ upastha ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ visargāṇāṁ pāyur ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ adhvanāṁ pādāv ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ vedānāṁ vāg ekāyanam "As smoke comes from a fire made with wet fuel, the Ṛg Veda, Sāma Veda, Yajur Veda, Atharva Veda, Purāṇas, Itihāsas, Vidyās, Upaniṣads, ślokas, sūtras, vyākhyās, and anuvyākhyās, come from the breath of the Supreme Person. As the ocean is the sole resting place of all waters, so the skin is the sole resting-place of all tactile sensations, the nose is the sole resting-place of all fragrances, the tongue is the sole resting-place of all tastes, the eyes are the sole resting-place of all forms, the ears are the sole resting-place of all sounds, the mind is the sole resting-place of all thoughts and desires, the heart is the sole resting place of all knowledge, the hands are the sole resting-place of all work, the genitals are the sole resting-place of all material bliss, the anus is the sole resting-place of all expulsions, the feet are the sole resting-place of all pathways, and words are the sole resting-place of all the Vedas)." To encourage the desire for liberation he says: sa yathā saindhava-khilya udake prāptam udakam evānulīyate na hāsyodgrahaṇāyaiva syād yato yatas tv ādīta lavaṇam evaivaṁ vā. are idaṁ mahad bhūtam anantam apāraṁ vijñāna-ghana evaitebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya tāny evānuvinaśyati "As a little salt merges into water and cannot be again extracted from it, although the water itself becomes salty, so does this great being, limitless, endless, and full of knowledge, rise from these elements and then vanish into them." In this way he explains that the supreme object of worship is immanent: always near to the jīva. In the words etebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya tāny evānuvinaśyati (So does this great being, limitless, endless, and full of knowledge, rise from these elements and

then vanish into them) he describes the non-devotees who do not worship the Lord, who mistake the external material body for the self, who at the time of death remain in the cycle of repeated birth and death, and for whom the Supreme Lord remains invisible, hidden within the material elements. The words na pretya saṁjñāsti (After death he becomes free of the world of names) describe the devotee when he leaves the material body and attains liberation. At that time the liberated devotee becomes aware of his real spiritual identity. He then considers all material designations to be the same and he no longer thinks of himself as a human being, demigod, or any other kind of material being. The words yatra hi dvaitam iva bhavati tad itara itaraṁ paśyati tad itara itaraṁ jighrati tad itara itaraṁ rasayate tad itara itaraṁ abhivadati tad itara itaraṁ śṛṇoti tad itara itaraṁ manute tad itara itaraṁ spṛśati tad itara itaraṁ vijānāti yatra tv asya sarvam ātmaivābhūt tat tena kaṁ paśyet tat tena kaṁ jighret tat kena kaṁ rasayet tat kena kam abhivadet tat kena kaṁ śṛṇuyāt tat kena kaṁ manvīta tata tena kaṁ spṛśet tat tena kaṁ vijānīyāt (Where there is duality one sees another, smells another, tastes another, offers respect to another, hears another, thinks of another, touches another, and is aware of another. But for one for whom the Supreme Self is everything how can he see another? How can he smell another? Hopw can he taste another? How can he offer respect to another? How can he hear another? How can he think of another? How can he touch another? How can he be aware of another?) explain how the liberated jīva takes shelter of the the Paramātmā. The words yenedaṁ sarvaṁ vijānāti taṁ kena vijānīyāt (How can a person, even if he understands the entire world, understand Him?) teach that it is very difficult to understand the Supreme Lord. The words vijñātāram are kena vijānīyāt (How can one understand the Supreme Knower?) mean "How can one understand the all-knowing Supreme Personality of Godhead without first worshiping Him and attaining His mercy? There is no other way than this." In this way the worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is described as the actual means of liberation. The speaker of the Upaniṣad concludes by declaring that actual liberation is the same as attaining the Paramātmā. From all this it may be understood that this passage of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad describes the Paramātmā and not the puruṣa as described in the Kapila- tantra, or the material nature controlled by the puruṣa. Adhikaraṇa 7 Brahman is Both Primary and Secondary Cause Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Viṣaya: Now that he has refuted the atheistic pradhāna theory, he will refute some theistic theories and prove that all scriptural descriptions of the cause of the

universe refer to the Supreme Brahman. Let us consider the following scriptural passages. tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśaḥ sambhūtaḥ "From ātmā the sky was manifested." Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1 yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante "From the Supreme these creatures were born." Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1 sad eva saumyedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyaṁ tad aikṣata bahu syāṁ prajāyeya "O gentle one, in the beginning was the Supreme, who was one without a second. He thought: Let me become many. Let me become the father of many." Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.1 sa aikṣata lokān nu sṛjā "He thought: Now I shall create the worlds." Aitareya Upaniṣad 1.1.2 Saṁśaya: Should Brahman be considering the Primary Cause or the ingredient of the creation? Because the Upasniṣads say sa aikṣata (He thought: "Now I shall create the worlds") the first proposal, that Brahman is the Primary cause and not the ingredient of creation, should be considered true. Although the Upaniṣad says tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśaḥ sambhūtaḥ (From ātmā the sky was manifested) still this should be interpreted to mean only that the Supreme is the Primary Creator (and not the ingredient of creation) of the worlds. The quotes tad aikṣata bahu syām prajāyeya (He thought: "Let me become many. Let me become the father of many.") and sa aikṣata lokān nu sṛjā (He thought: "Now I shall create the worlds."), because of their clear explanation that the Lord's thinking precedes the creation, show that the Lord is the Primary Creator in the same way a potter is the creator of pots. Because the creation itself and the ingredients of which it is made must have the same nature, the ingredient of the material creation must be the material energy (prakṛti). It is not possible to say that the Primary Cause of creation is identical with the ingredients of the creation. In the material world made of dull matter the ingredients are earth and the other elements and the creator is consciousness, just as pots are made of the elements and the creator of the pots is the conscious potter. Here the pots and the potter are clearly different. Furthermore many diverse causes may create a single effect. Therefore it cannot be said that a single thing is both the primary cause and the ingredient of creation. The changing material energy (prakṛti), which is controlled by the unchanging Brahman is the ingredient of the changing material

universe and Brahman is only its Primary Cause. This statement is not based only on logic, for it is also supported by the following passage of the Culika Upaniṣad: vikāra-jananīm ajñāṁ aṣṭa-rūpām ajāṁ dhruvam dhyāyate 'dhyāsitā tena tanyate preritā punaḥ sūyate puruṣārthaṁ ca tenaivādhiṣṭhitā jagat gaur anādy-antavatī sā janitrī bhūta-bhāvinī sitāsitā ca raktā ca sarvakām adhunā vibhoḥ pibanty enām aviṣamām avijñātāḥ kumārakāḥ ekas tu pibate devaḥ svacchando 'tra vaśānugām dhyāna-kriyābhyāṁ bhagavān bhuṅkte 'sau prasabhaṁ vibhuḥ sarva-sādhāraṇīṁ dogdhrīm pīyamānāṁ tu yajvabhiḥ catur-viṁśati-saṅkhyākāṁ avyaktaṁ vyaktam ucyate "The Supreme Personality of Godhead meditates on the unborn, eternal, unintelligent material nature (prakṛti), who has eight forms, and by His order the material nature creates the material worlds and the various goals of life adopted by the living entities. Material nature is a beginningless, endless cow, the mother of the worlds. Without knowing, her children, the creatures in goodness, passion, and ignorance all drink her nourishing milk. The one independent, all-powerful Supreme Personality of Godhead strongly enjoys her with thought and deed, she who is the milk-giving mother of all, who is drunk by the performers of sacrifice, and who is said to be both the unmanifested and the manifested divided into 24 elements." Furthermore, the Viṣṇu Purāṇa says: yathā sannidhi-mātreṇa gandhaḥ kṣobhāya jāyate manaso nopakartṛtvāt tathāsau parameśvaraḥ

sannidhānād yathākāśa- kālādyāḥ kāraṇaṁ taroḥ tathaivāparigāmena viśvasya bhagavān hariḥ nimitta-mātram evāsau sṛṣṭānāṁ sarga-karmaṇi pradhāna-kāriṇī bhūtā yato vai sṛjya-śaktayaḥ "When there is a fragrant flower before someone, the fragrance is touched by the smelling power of the person, yet the smelling and the flower are detached from one another. There is a similar connection between the material world and the Supreme Personality of Godhead: actually He has nothing to do with this material world, but He creates by His glance and ordains. In summary, material nature, without the superintendence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, cannot do anything. Yet the Supreme Personality is detached from all material activities." For these reasons whatever scriptural passages state that Brahman is the ingredient of the creation should be interpreted to have a different meaning. SiddhāntaTo this argument: Sūtra 23 prakṛtiś ca pratijñā dṛṣṭāntānuparodhāt prakṛtiḥ -material nature; ca -and; pratijñā -the proposition to be proved; dṛṣṭānta-example; anuparodhāt-because of not contradicting. Brahman is also the material nature (prakṛti) because this view is not contradicted by the statements and examples (given in the scriptures). Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Brahman is the material nature (prakṛti), the ingredient of the world. How is that? It is so because pratijñā-dṛṣṭāntānuparodhāt, which means "Because this view is not contradicted by the statements and examples of the scriptures." An example may be given from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.1.3: śvetaketo yan nu saumyedaṁ mahā-manā anūcāna-mānī stabdho 'sy uta tam

ādeśaṁ aprākṣīr yenāśrutaṁ śrutaṁ bhavaty amataṁ matam avijñātaṁ vijñātam ity eka-vijñānena sarva-vijñāna-viṣayā pratijñā "Gentle Śvetaketu, you are now very proud and arrogant, thinking yourself a great Vedic scholar. Did you ask for the teaching that makes the unheard heard, the unthinkable thinkable, and the unknown known?" Here the statement is the existence of a single teaching, the knowledge of which makes everything known. This teaching must be about the ingredient of the world for only that knowledge would not contradict the description in this passage. That ingredient of the world is not different from the original creator of the world. They are one, unlike the pot and the potter, which are different from each other. The following example is given (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.1.10): yathā saumyaikena mṛt-piṇḍena sarvaṁ mṛṇ-mayaṁ vijñātaṁ syāt "O gentle one, as by knowing the nature of clay, everything made of clay becomes known, in the same way by understanding this one teaching everything becomes known." These words of the śruti must refer to the ingredient of the world. they cannot refer to only the original creator of the world, for by understanding only the potter one does not understand the pot. Therefore, to avoid contradicting these words of the scripture, it must be concluded that Brahman is not only the original creator of the world, but the ingredient of which the world is made as well. Sūtra 24 abhidhyopadeśāc ca abhidhya-will; upadeśāc -because of the teaching; ca-and. Because (the scriptures) teach (that in this age the world was created by His) will and (in previous creations the world was also created by His will, it must be concluded that Brahman is both the original cause of creation and the ingredient of the creation as well). Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa In this sūtra the word ca (and) means "and many other things that are not explicitly mentioned here."

The Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.6.1) explains: so 'kāmayata bahu syāṁ prajāyeya sa tapo 'tapyata tapas taptvā idaṁ sarvam asṛjat. yad idaṁ kiñcana tat sṛṣṭvā tad evānuprāviśat. tad anupraviśya sac ca tyac cābhavat. "He desired: I will become many. I will father many children. He performed austerities and created everything. Then He entered within the world He had created. After He entered He became all that is manifest and all that is unmanifest." Because it is here taught that by His own desire He resides as Paramātmā within all conscious living entities and unconscious matter, and because it is also taught here that he is the creator of everything, it must be concluded that He is both the ingredient of the which the creation is made and the original creator and as well. Sūtra 25 sākṣāc cobhayāmnānāt sākṣāt -directly; ca-certainly; ubhaya-both; āmnānāt-because of direct statement. (Brahman is both creator and the ingredient of creation) because both (truths) are directly stated (in the scriptures). Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word ca here means "certainly." The Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (2.8.9.6) explains: kiṁsvid vanaṁ ka u sa vṛkṣa āsīt yato dyāvā-pṛthivī niṣṭatakṣuḥ manīṣiṇo manasā pṛcchataitat yad adhyatiṣṭhad bhuvanāni dhārayan brahma vanaṁ brahma sa vṛkṣa āsīt yato dyāvā-pṛthivī niṣṭatakṣuḥ manīṣiṇo manasā prabravīmi vo brahmādhyatiṣṭhad bhuvanāni dhārayan

"What was the forest? What was the tree? From what tree in what forest did He fashion heaven and earth? Ask these questions, O wise ones. Where did He stand when He created the worlds? Brahman was the forest. Brahman was the tree. From Brahman He created heaven and earth. O wise ones, I tell you, He stood on Brahman when He created the worlds." These questions and answers clearly show that Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient from which the creation is made. From the tree-ingredient the creation, designated by the word "heaven and earth" comes. The word niṣṭatakṣuḥ means "the Supreme Personality of Godhead created." Although niṣṭatakṣuḥ is plural, the opposite, the singular, is intended here. This is a use of Vedic poetic license. The questions "What is the tree? What is the forest where the tree rests? Where does He stand when He created the worlds?" are asked in terms of the things of this world and the answers describe something beyond this world. In this way it may be understood that Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of which the world is made. Sūtra 26 ātma-kṛteḥ pariṇāmāt ātma-self; kṛteḥ -because of making; pariṇāmāt-because of transformation. (Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of the creation) because He transformed Himself (into the world). Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.6.2) says: so 'kāmayata "He desired: I shall become many." It also says (2.7.1): tad ātmānaṁ svayam akuruta "He created the world from His own Self." In this way the scriptures explain that Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient from which the creation is made. Someone may object: How can the eternally-perfect creator be also the

creation? To answer this objection he says pariṇāmāt (because He has transformed Himself). This does not contradict the changelessness of Brahman for a certain kind of transformation is not incompatible with changelessness. Here is the truth of this. In the following passages the śruti explains that Brahman has three potencies: parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śruyate "The Supreme has many potencies." Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.8 pradhāna-kṣetrajña-patir guṇeśaḥ "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of pradhāna (material nature), kṣetrajña (the individual spirit souls), and guṇa (the three material modes)." Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.16 The smṛti (Viṣṇu Purāṇa) also explains: viṣṇu-śaktiḥ parā proktā kṣetrajñākhyā tathā parā avidyā-karma-saṁjñānyā tṛtīyā śaktir ucyate "The potency of Lord Viṣṇu is summarized in three categories: namely the spiritual potency, the living entities, and ignorance. The spiritual potency is full of knowledge; the living entitles, although belonging to the spiritual potency, are subject to bewilderment; and the third energy, which is full of ignorance, is always visible in fruitive activities." In this way the scriptures explain that Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of which the creation is made. He is the first (the creator) by the agency of His spiritual potency and He is the second (the ingredient of which the creation is made) by the agency of the other two potencies. This interpretation is confirmed by the aphorism sa-viśeṣeṇa vidhi-niṣedhau viśeṣaṇam upasaṅkrāmate (an adjective describes both what a noun is and what it is not). The scriptures also explain (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.1): ya eko 'varṇo bahudhā śakti-yogād varṇān anekān nihitārtho dadhāti vi caiti cānte viśvam ādau sa devaḥ sa no buddhyā śubhayā saṁyunaktau

"May the one, unrivalled Supreme Personality of Godhead, who for His own purpose created the many varieties of living entities by the agency of His potencies, who created everything in the beginning and into whom everything enters at the end, grant pure intelligence to us." As the supreme unchangeable the Supreme Brahman is the original cause of creation, and as the pariṇāmī (the transformable) Brahman is also the ingredient of which the creation is made. In His subtle nature Brahman is the creator and in His nature as gross matter He is the creation itself. In this way it is established that the Supreme Brahman is both creator and creation. The creation is thus like a lump of clay that may be shaped in different ways. The word pariṇāmāt (because of transformation) in this sūtra clearly refutes the theory that declares the material world a vivarta (illusion) that has no reality. The statement that the material world is an illusion superimposed on Brahman just as the existence of silver is an illusion superimposed on an oyster shell with a silvery sheen cannot be accepted because the oyster shell is an object that can be placed before the viewer, but Brahman, because it is all-pervading cannot be placed before the viewer and therefore an illusion cannot be superimposed on it. One may object that although the sky is all- pervading illusions may be superimposed on it. However, Brahman is not like the sky in the sense that the sky may be approached by the material observer but Brahman remains beyond the reach of the material senses and therefore an illusion cannot be superimposed on it. Furthermore, the existence of an illusion implies the existence of something different from the thing on which the illusion is superimposed. Without the existence of something separate there is no possibility of an illusion. In the end, therefore, the vivarta theory postulates the existence of something different from Brahman. This is the fault in their theory. When the scriptures state that the material world is an illusion it should be understood these words are are a device intended to create renunciation. This is the opinion of they who know the truth. The material world, however, displays a complicated structure of different elements grouped in categories of higher and lower, and in this way it is very much unlike an illusion, where nothing is very stable and one things is continually changing into another. In this way it may be understood that the vivarta theory (that the material world isd an illusion) is untrue and the pariṇāma theory (that the material world is a transformation of Brahman) is the truth taught in the Vedic scriptures. Sūtra 27 yoniś ca hi gīyate yoniḥ-the place of birth; ca -also; hi -indeed; gīyate-is declared. (The scriptures) declare that (Brahman is the) womb (from which the material world was born).

Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The śruti-śāstra explains: yad bhūta-yoniṁ paripaśyanti dhīrāḥ "The wise see that Brahman is the womb from which everything was born." Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.6 kartāraṁ īśaṁ puruṣaṁ brahma-yonim "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original creator, the womb from which everything was born." Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.6 In these verses the word yonim (womb) describes Brahman as the ingredient of creation and the words kartāraṁ puruṣam (the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the original creator) describe Brahman as the creator. In this way Brahman is described as both the creator and the ingredient of which the creation is made. The word yoni (womb) means "the ingredient of which the creation is made." This is confirmed in the words: pṛthivī yonir oṣadhi-vanaspatīnām "The earth is the womb from which the trees and plants are born." In both common sense and Vedic revelation the creator and the ingredients from which the creation is made are considered are always considered different and it is not possible to say that the creator and the ingredient of which his creation is made are identical. However, the previously quoted passages from the śruti clearly explain that in this case Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of which His creation is made. Adhikaraṇa 8 All Names Are Names of Lord Viṣṇu Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Someone may object: Many passages in the scriptures do not support your conclusion at all. This adhikaraṇa is written to dispel this doubt. The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad

explains: kṣaraṁ pradhānam amṛtākṣaraḥ haraḥ "Material nature is in constant flux and the Supreme, Lord Hara is eternal and unchanging." (1.10) eko rudro na dvitīyāya tasthuḥ "Lord Rudra is the Supreme. He has no rival." (3.2) yo devānāṁ prabhavaś codbhavaś ca viśvādhiko rudraḥ śivo maharṣiḥ "Lord Śiva, who is known as Rudra, is the omniscient ruler of the universe. He is the father of all the demigods. He gives the demigods all their powers and opulences." (3.4) yadā tamas tan na divā na rātrir na san na cāsac chiva eva kevalaḥ "When the final darkness comes and there is no longer day or night, when there is no longer being and non-being, then only Lord Śiva exists." (4.18) The scriptures also explain: pradhānād idam utpannam pradhānam adhigacchati pradhāne layam abhyeti na hy anyat kāraṇaṁ matam "From pradhāna this material world was born. This world knows only pradhāna. This world merges into pradhāna at the time of annihilation. Nothing else is the cause of this world." jīvād bhavanti bhūtāni jīve tiṣṭhanty acañcalāḥ jīve ca layam icchanti na jīvāt kāraṇaṁ param "From the jīva all the elements of this world have come. In the jīva they rest without moving, and they finally merge into the jīva. Nothing else is the cause of this world." Saṁśaya: Should Hara and the other names given in these quotes be understood in their ordinary senses, as names of Lord Śiva, pradhāna, and jīva, or should they all be understood to be names of the Supreme Brahman? Pūrvapakṣa: The names should all be understood in their ordinary senses, as

names of Lord Śiva, pradhāna, and jīva. Siddhānta: The conclusion follows. Sūtra 28 etena sarve vyākhyātā vyākhyātāḥ etena -in this way; sarve -all; vyākhyātāḥ -explained; vyākhyātāḥ-explained. All (words in the scriptures) should be interpreted to agree with the explanation (that the Supreme Brahman is the original cause). Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa In this sūtra the word etena means "according to the explanations already given," sarve means "Hara and the other names," and vyākhyātāḥ means "should be understood to be names of the Supreme Brahman because all names are originally names of the Supreme Brahman." The Bhālvaveya-śruti explains: nāmāni viśvāni na santi loke yad āvirāsīt puruṣasya sarvam nāmāni sarvāṇi yam āviśanti taṁ vai viṣṇuṁ paramam udāharanti "The names of this world are not different from Him. All names in this world are names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All names refer to Him, Lord Viṣṇu, whom the wise declare is the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Vaiśampāyana Muni explains that all these names are names of Lord Kṛṣṇa. The Skanda Purāṇa also explains: śrī-nārāyaṇādīni nāmāni vinānyāni rudrādibhyo harir dattavān "Except for Nārāyaṇa and some other names, Lord Hari gave away His names to Lord Śiva and the other demigods." This is the rule that should be followed: When the ordinary sense of these names does not contradict the essential teaching of the Vedas, the ordinary meaning should be accepted. When the ordinary sense of these names does contradict the teaching of the Vedas, these names should be understood to be names of Lord Viṣṇu.