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

kṣatriyatvāvagates cottaratra caitrarathena liṅgāt kṣatriyatva-status of being a kṣatriya; avagateś-from the understanding; ca-also; uttaratra-in a later passage; caitrarathena-with Caitraratha; liṅgāt-because of the sign. That he is a kṣatriya is understood from the clue related to the caitraratha. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Jānaśruti is understood to be a kṣatriya. He possesses religious faith and a host of other virtues. He is very charitable. He gives charity generously. He is the ruler of the people. For these reasons it is said that he is a kṣatriya. Because he sent (a messenger to search for Raiṅka) and because he gave cows, necklaces, chariots, his daughter, and many other things in charity, it is said that he is a kṣatriya. It is not possible for anyone but a kṣatriya to possess these qualities. Because he thus displays the qualities of a king, Jānaśruti should be understood to be a kṣatriya. At the end of the story it is also understood that he is a kṣatriya. At the end of the story, where the description of saṁvarga-vidyā is concluded, there is mention of the kṣatriya status of a person named Abhipratārī Caitraratha. In the concluding passage a brahmacārī begged alms from Śaunaka Kāpeya and Abhipratārī Kākṣaseni when these two were serving food to others. If someone objects: "In this passage the status of Abhipratārī as either a kṣatriya or caitraratha is not proved in any way," then the sūtra answers: liṅgāt (because of a clue). The clue that Śaunaka Kāpeya and Abhipratārī Kākṣaseni were friends proves it. The Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa (20.12.5) says: caitena caitrarathaṁ kāpeyo ayājayan (The members of the Kāpeya family made Caitraratha perform a sacrifice). In this way the śruti maintains that because of his relationship with the Kāpeyas, Abhipratārī must have been a Caitraratha. That the Caitraratha family were kṣatriyas is confirmed by the words tasmāc caitrarathir nāma kṣatra-patir ajāyata (From him was born another kṣatriya of the Caitraratha family). In this way his kṣatriya status is clearly proved. Therefore Śaunaka Kāpeya and Abhipratārī Caitraratha, who were both learned in saṁvarga-vidyā, were a brāhmaṇa and a kṣatriya respectively, and in the subject of saṁvarga-vidyā they were also guru and disciple respectively. Raiṅka and Jānaśruti had the same relationship, and therefore Jānaśruti must have been a kṣatriya. In this way it is proved that a śūdra is not qualified to study the Vedas. Referring to the śruti, he again establishes this point. Sūtra 36

saṁskāra-parāmarśāt tad-abhāvābhilāpāc ca saṁskāra-of the purificatory rituals; parāmarśāt-because of the reference; tad-of them; abhāva-of the non-existence; abhilāpāt-because of the explanation; ca-also. This is also so because the scriptures state both the necessity of undergoing the saṁskāras (rituals of purification) and the exclusion of the śūdras from these rituals. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa In the śruti-śāstra is the passage aṣṭa-varṣaṁ brāhmaṇaṁ upanīyata tam adhyāpayed ekādeśe kṣatriyaṁ dvādaśe vaiśyam (One should perform the saṁskāra and teach a brāhmaṇa boy when he is eight years old a kṣatriya boy when he is eleven years old, and a vaiśya boy when he is twelve years old). This shows that brāhmaṇas are eligible to study the Vedas because they are also eligible for the saṁskāras. The scriptures also say nāgnir na yajño na kriyā na saṁskāro na vratāni śūdrasya (A śudra is not allowed to light the sacred fire, perform a fire-sacrifice, perform religious rituals, undergo the saṁskāras, or follow vows of penance). In this way it is established that because a śūdra is not allowed to undergo the saṁskāras he is also not allowed to study the Vedas. Now he confirms the view that the śūdras are not eligible for the saṁskāras. Sūtra 37 tad-abhāva-nirdhāraṇe ca pravṛtteḥ tat-of that; abhāva-of the non-existence; nirdhāraṇe-in ascertaining; ca-also; pravṛtteḥ-because of endeavor. (This is so) also because care is taken to determine that (a student) is not (a śūdra). Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa

छान्दोग्योपनिषद् (४.४.४-५) में (जब उनके गोत्र व जाति के विषय में पूछा गया, तब जाबालि ने कहा)— "नाहमेतद् वेदे भो यद्गोत्रोऽहमस्मि" (हे भगवन्! मैं यह नहीं जानता कि मैं किस गोत्र अथवा जाति में उत्पन्न हुआ हूँ)। इन सत्यपूर्ण वचनों ने महर्षि गौतम को यह विश्वास दिला दिया कि जाबाल शूद्र नहीं हैं। तदनन्तर गौतम ऋषि ने कहा— "नैतदब्राह्मणो विवक्तुमर्हति समिधं सोम्याहरोप त्वा नेष्ये न सत्यादगाः" (अर्थात्: कोई अब्राह्मण ऐसा सत्य बोलने में समर्थ नहीं हो सकता। हे सौम्य! समिधा ले आओ, मैं तुम्हारा उपनयन-संस्कार करूँगा; क्योंकि तुम सत्य से विचलित नहीं हुए)। गुरु गौतम का यह आचरण प्रमाणित करता है कि केवल ब्राह्मण, क्षत्रिय और वैश्य ही संस्कारों के अधिकारी हैं; शूद्र इसके अधिकारी नहीं हैं। ॥ सूत्र ३८ ॥ श्रवणाध्ययनार्थप्रतिषेधात् स्मृतेश्च ॥ ३८ ॥ पदच्छेद एवं शब्दार्थ: श्रवण-अध्ययन-अर्थ-प्रतिषेधात् — (शूद्रों के लिए वेदों के) श्रवण, अध्ययन और उसके अर्थ-ज्ञान का निषेध होने के कारण, स्मृतेः — स्मृतियों में (प्रतिपादित होने से), च — और भी। सूत्रार्थ: स्मृतियों में शूद्रों के लिए वेदों के श्रवण, अध्ययन तथा उनके अर्थ-ज्ञान का स्पष्ट प्रतिषेध किया गया है, अतः शूद्रों को ब्रह्मविद्या/वेदाधिकार प्राप्त नहीं है। श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचित भाष्य/तात्पर्य: स्मृति-शास्त्र का कथन है— "पद्वु ह वा एतच्छ्मशानं यच्छूद्रस्तस्माच्छूद्रसमीपे नाध्येतव्यम्" (अर्थात् शूद्र साक्षात् पादचारी श्मशान के समान है, अतः शूद्र के समीप वेद का अध्ययन नहीं करना चाहिए)। स्मृति में यह भी कहा गया है— "तस्माच्छूद्रो बहुपशुरयज्ञीयः" (अर्थात् शूद्र पशु-तुल्य है और वह वैदिक यज्ञों का अनुष्ठान करने के अयोग्य है)। इन निषेधों के कारण शूद्र वेदों के श्रवण का अधिकारी नहीं है। जब उसे वेद-श्रवण का ही अधिकार नहीं है, तो उसके लिए वेदों का अध्ययन, उनके अर्थ का अवबोध, अथवा वेदोक्त यज्ञों एवं तपस्याओं का अनुष्ठान करना सर्वथा असम्भव है। ये सभी कार्य उसके लिए निषिद्ध हैं। स्मृति-शास्त्र कहता है— "नाग्निर्न यज्ञः शूद्रस्य तथैवाध्ययनं कुतः। केवलैव तु शुश्रूषा त्रैवर्णिकानां विधीयते॥" (अर्थात् शूद्र के लिए न तो आधान-योग्य वैदिक अग्नि है और न ही यज्ञ का अधिकार; फिर स्वाध्याय तो सम्भव ही कहाँ है? उसका एकमात्र कर्तव्य तीनों उच्च वर्णों की निष्कपट सेवा करना विहित है)। स्मृति का अन्य वचन भी है— "वेदाक्षरविचारणे शूद्रः पतति तत्क्षणात्" (अर्थात् वेदों के अक्षरों का विचार या अध्ययन करने पर शूद्र तत्काल पतित हो जाता है)। यद्यपि विदुर आदि कतिपय महानुभाव शूद्र-योनि में उत्पन्न हुए, तथापि वे पूर्वजन्मों के पुण्यों के प्रभाव से परिपूर्ण दिव्य तत्त्वज्ञान को प्राप्त कर परम पद को प्राप्त हुए। पुराणों एवं अन्य सात्त्विक इतिहास-ग्रन्थों के श्रवण एवं अवबोधन से शूद्र तथा अन्य सभी जीव भी मुक्त हो सकते हैं। मानवों में उच्चता अथवा नीचता का वास्तविक निर्धारण उनके जीवन के अन्तिम आध्यात्मिक फल और भगवत्प्राप्ति से ही होता है।

अधिकरण ९ : कम्पनाधिकरणम् विषय : कठोपनिषद् (२.३.२) में वर्णित 'वज्र' शब्द परमब्रह्म (परमेश्वर) का वाचक है। श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचित गोविन्दभाष्य - भूमिका : इस प्रकार प्रासङ्गिक विचार (अवान्तर विषय) की समाप्ति के अनन्तर सूत्रकार पुनः प्रस्तुत (मूल) प्रकृत विषय का विचार करते हैं। विषयवाक्य (कठोपनिषद् २.३.२) : यदिदं किञ्च जगत्सर्वं प्राण एजति निःसृतम् । महद्भयं वज्रमुद्यतं य एतद्विदुरमृतास्ते भवन्ति ॥ श्रुत्यर्थ (हिन्दी अनुवाद) : "यह सम्पूर्ण जगत् जो कुछ भी विद्यमान है, उस परम प्राणस्वरूप (परमेश्वर) से निःसृत होकर उसी के भय से कम्पित (चेष्टारत) होता है। वह उद्यत (उठाए हुए) वज्र के समान महाभयस्वरूप है; जो इस प्रकार उसे जानते हैं, वे अमर (मुक्त) हो जाते हैं।" संशय : यहाँ 'वज्र' शब्द इन्द्र के आयुध प्रसिद्ध वज्र का वाचक है अथवा परमपुरुषोत्तम भगवान् (परब्रह्म) का? पूर्वपक्ष : यहाँ 'वज्र' शब्द से जगत् में कम्पन (भय) का कारण वर्णित है, तथा इस वज्र के ज्ञान से जो मुक्ति (अमृतत्व) की प्राप्ति कही गई है, वह केवल औपचारिक या गौण अर्थवाद मात्र है; अतः 'वज्र' शब्द का अर्थ प्रसिद्ध आयुध विशेष ही स्वीकार करना चाहिए। इसके अतिरिक्त यहाँ 'प्राण' शब्द का अर्थ वायु (श्वास) न होकर 'रक्षक' भी नहीं माना जा सकता, इसलिए इस सन्दर्भ में 'वज्र' शब्द परमेश्वर का वाचक नहीं हो सकता। 'उद्यतं वज्रम्' (उठाया हुआ वज्र) यह पद भी परमेश्वर-परक अर्थ का बाधक है, अतः यहाँ 'वज्र' का अर्थ अशनि (इन्द्र का वज्र) ही है। सिद्धान्त : इस पूर्वपक्ष के निराकरण में सूत्रकार निम्नलिखित सिद्धान्त प्रतिपादित करते हैं— ब्रह्मसूत्र १.३.३९ : कम्पनात् ॥ ३९ ॥ पदच्छेद : कम्पनात् (हेतौ पञ्चमी)। सूत्रार्थ : सम्पूर्ण जगत् का कम्पन (परमेश्वर के भय से चेष्टा करना) वर्णित होने के कारण यहाँ 'वज्र' और 'प्राण' शब्द से परब्रह्म परमेश्वर का ही ग्रहण होता है। भाष्य (हिन्दी व्याख्या) : चूँकि सम्पूर्ण चराचर जगत् उस परम तत्त्व के ही अनुशासन व भय से कम्पित होकर अपने-अपने कार्यों में प्रवृत्त होता है, अतः यहाँ 'वज्र' शब्द परमात्मा का ही वाचक है, किसी भौतिक अस्त्र का नहीं।

Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Because it makes the entire universe tremble, this vajra must be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is so also because of the following statement of Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa: cakraṁ caṅkramaṇād eṣa vajanād vajram ucyate khaṇḍanāt khaḍga evaiṣa heti-nāmā hariḥ svayam "Because He goes (caṅkramaṇa) everywhere He is called "Cakra" (moving in a circle). Because He moves about (vajana He is called "Vajra" (thunderbold). Because He cuts apart (khaṇḍana) the demons He is called "Khaḍga" (sword). These are names of Lord Hari." Also, because the word prāṇa (breath) and the word bhaya (fear) are used, the passage must refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In these ways it is established that the word vajra here refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sūtra 40 jyotir-darśanāt jyotiḥ-effulgence; darśanāt-because of seeing. It is so because the vajra is described as jyotiḥ (splendor). Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Before the passage discussed is the following statement (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.15): na tatra sūryo bhāti na candra-tārake (When He does not shine, then neither sun, moon, nor stars show their splendor). After the passage discussed is the statement (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.3.3) bhayād asyāgnis tapati (Out of fear of Him fire glows). In both these passages the Supreme Personality of Godhead is described as transcendental splendor, and therefore the passage describing the vajra (thunderbolt) between these two passages, must refer to the efulgent Supreme Personality of Godhead.

॥ अथ दशमम् आकाशाधिकरणम् ॥ (विषयः—छान्दोग्योपनिषदः ८.१४.१ मन्त्रे 'आकाश' शब्दः परब्रह्मपरः) श्रील-बलदेव-विद्याभूषण-विरचित-गोविन्दभाष्यस्य भूमिका— [श्रुति-विषयवाक्यम्] छान्दोग्योपनिषदि (८।१४।१) श्रूयते— "आकाशो ह वै नामरूपयोर्निर्वहिता ते यदन्तरा तद्ब्रह्म तदमृतं स आत्मा" इति। (अर्थात्—आकाश ही निश्चयपूर्वक नाम और रूप का निर्वहन करने वाला है। वे दोनों जिसके मध्य में हैं, वह ब्रह्म है, वह अमृत है, वही आत्मा है।) [संशयः] संशयः—किमिहाकाश-शब्देन संसार-बन्ध-विमुक्तो जीवोऽभिधीयते, उत परब्रह्म पुरुषोत्तम इति? (संशय—क्या यहाँ 'आकाश' शब्द से जन्म-मृत्यु रूप बन्धन से मुक्त जीव का ग्रहण है, अथवा परमपुरुषोत्तम भगवान् का?) [पूर्वपक्षः] पूर्वपक्षः—"अश्व इव रोमाणि विधूय पापम्" इति पूर्ववाक्ये पापनिवृत्तिपूर्वकं मुक्तजीवस्यैव प्रकृतत्वात्, 'आकाश' शब्देनापि मुक्तजीव एव ग्राह्यः। "ते यदन्तरा" इति वाक्येन नाम-रूपास्पृष्टत्वं प्रतिपाद्यते, यत्तु मुक्तजीवे सम्यक् संगच्छते। तथा च "नामरूपयोर्निर्वहिता" इति पूर्वतन-संसार्यवस्थायामपि जीवस्य संभवति। 'आकाश' शब्दश्चात्र दीप्ति-प्रकाश-वाचित्वेन मुक्तस्यैव द्योतकः। "तद्ब्रह्म तदमृतम्" इत्यादयश्च गुणाः मुक्तजीवेनैव प्राप्यन्ते। तस्माद् अत्र 'आकाश' शब्देन मुक्तजीव एव ग्राह्य इति पूर्वपक्षे प्राप्ते— [सिद्धान्तः] सिद्धान्तः—अत्रोच्यते समाधानम्— ॥ ब्रह्मसूत्रम् ४१ ॥ आकाशोऽर्थान्तरत्वादिव्यपदेशात् ॥ १।३।४१ ॥ [पदच्छेदः] आकाशः (प्रथमान्तम्), अर्थान्तरत्वादि-व्यपदेशात् (पञ्चम्यन्तम्)। [पदार्थः] आकाशः = 'आकाश' शब्दवाच्यः परमेश्वरः (परब्रह्म)। अर्थान्तरत्वादि-व्यपदेशात् = अर्थान्तरत्वम् (मुक्तजीवाद् भिन्नत्वम्), आदिशब्दात् नामरूपनिर्वोढृत्वम्—तयोः व्यपदेशात् (शास्त्रात् प्रतिपादनात्)। [सूत्रार्थः / हिन्दी-अनुवादः] यहाँ 'आकाश' शब्द परब्रह्म पुरुषोत्तम का ही वाचक है, क्योंकि उसका मुक्त जीव से भिन्न (अर्थान्तर) रूप में तथा नाम-रूप के निर्वाहक आदि के रूप में स्पष्ट व्यपदेश (प्रतिपादन) किया गया है। [श्रील-बलदेव-विद्याभूषण-विरचित-गोविन्दभाष्य-तात्पर्यम्] न ह्यत्र मुक्तजीवस्याकाश-शब्देन ग्रहणं संभवति; यतो हि परमात्मा मुक्तजीवादर्थान्तरत्वेन (सर्वथा भिन्नत्वेन) व्यपदिश्यते। नाम-रूपयोर्निर्वहणं तु केवलं जगत्कर्तुः परब्रह्मण एव सामर्थ्यम्, न तु जीवस्य। "तद्ब्रह्म तदमृतं स आत्मा" इति च मुख्यया वृत्त्या परब्रह्मणि श्रीहरौ एवोपपद्यते। अतः छान्दोग्योपनिषदः अस्मिन् वाक्ये 'आकाश' शब्दः परब्रह्म परमात्मा ही सिद्ध होता है।

अत्र "आकाश" शब्दः परमपुरुषः परमात्मा एव, न तु मुक्तजीवः। कुतः? यतः सूत्रं वदति—"अर्थान्तरत्वादिव्यपदेशात्" (ब्रह्मसूत्र १.३.४१)। (अर्थात् अत्र वर्णितः "आकाशः" मुक्तजीवाद् भिन्नतयोक्तः, अन्यानि च कारणानि सन्ति)। अस्यार्थः अयम्—मुक्तजीवः नाम-रूपयोः कर्ता भवितुं न शक्नोति, अतः अत्र "आकाशः" जीवाद् भिन्नः कश्चिद् एव भवितुमर्हति। यदा जीवः संसारे बद्धः भवति, तदा स स्वपूर्वकर्माधीनो भूत्वा विविधानि नामानि रूपाणि च प्राप्नोति। स्वयमेव तु स एतानि नाम-रूपाणि स्रष्टुं समर्थः न भवति। यदा च जीवः मुक्तः भवति, तदापि स जगद्व्यापारे न प्रभवति, यथा अग्रे सूत्रे (४.४.१७) "जगद्व्यापारवर्जम्" इति वक्ष्यते। परमेश्वरस्तु श्रुतिषु जगत्स्रष्टृत्वेनैव प्रसिद्धः अस्ति। छान्दोग्योपनिषदि (६.३.२) अतः एवोक्तम्—"अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरवाणि" (जीवेन सह प्रविश्य अहं नाम-रूपयोः व्याकरणं करिष्यामि इति)। एतेभ्यः सर्वेभ्यः हेतुभ्यः अत्र "आकाश" शब्देन परमपुरुषः परमात्मा एव विज्ञेयः। सूत्रे "आदि" शब्दः उपनिषद्वाक्ये "ब्रह्म" (बृहत्त्वानन्तत्वगुणविशिष्टम्) इति पदं निर्दिशति। एतत् पदं मुक्तजीवं न निर्देष्टुं शक्नोति, यद्यपि परमेश्वरस्य कृते इदं स्वाभाविकमेव वर्तते। अतः अत्र "आकाश" शब्दः सर्वव्यापकं परमात्मानमेव बोधयति। यस्माद् एतादृशं लक्षणं केवलं परमेश्वरे एव सङ्गच्छते, तस्मात् सिद्धम् यद् अत्र "आकाश" शब्दवाच्यः परमेश्वरः एव। अधिकरणम् ११ : सुषुप्त्युत्क्रान्त्यधिकरणम् सुषुप्तिकाले उत्क्रान्तिकालयोश्च बद्ध-मुक्तजीवाद् परमेश्वरस्य भेदप्रतिपादनम् श्रीमद्-बलदेव-विद्याभूषण-विरचितम् भाष्यम् (गोविन्दभाष्यम्) पूर्वपक्षः—अस्तु नाम। तथापि मुक्तजीवस्य परमेश्वराद् भेदः नाङ्गीकर्तुं शक्यते। यतो हि श्रुतौ अभेदस्यैव प्रबलानि प्रमाणानि दृश्यन्ते। तथाहि बृहदारण्यकोपनिषदि (४.३.७) पठ्यते— कतम आत्मेति योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु हृद्यन्तर्ज्योतिः पुरुषः स समानः सन्नुभौ लोकावनुसञ्चरति "कतमः आत्मा? यः अयं प्राणेषु मध्ये विज्ञानमयः, हृदये अन्तर्ज्योतिःस्वरूपः पुरुषः। स सर्वदा एकरूपः समानः सन्नेव उभयोः लोकयोः अनुसञ्चरति।"

Describing the conditioned jīva in this way, the text continues: sa vā ayam ātmā brahma vijñānamayaḥ "This Self is the omniscient Brahman." In this way it says that the jīva is Brahman. It further says: athākāmayamānaḥ "He becomes free from all desires." This described the liberated jīva's condition. Then it says: brahmaiva san brahmāpyeti "Being Brahman, he attains Brahman." In this way it is conclusively stated that he is identical with Brahman. Then, at the end it says: abhayaṁ vai brahma bhavati ya eva veda "He who knows this becomes the fearless Brahman." The result of hearing the passage is given here. The statement, in some passages, that the jīva and Brahman are different are like the sky within a pot and the great sky beyond it. When he is liberated, the jīva becomes the Supreme just as when the pot is broken the sky in the pot becomes the same as the great sky beyond. Because the jīva is thus the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he is the creator of the universes and everything else that the Supreme is. In this way there is no difference bewteen the libreated jiva and the Supreme Brahman. Siddhānta: To refute this, he says:

Sūtra 42 suṣupty-utkrāntyor bhedena suṣupti-in dreamless sleep; utkrāntyor-and in death; bhedena-because of the difference. Because the difference is present in both death and dreamless sleep. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word vyapadeśāt (because of the description), which was used in the previous sūtra, should be understood in this sūtra also. In the previously quoted passages it is not possible to dreaw the understanding that the liberated jīva is actually Brahman. Why? Because it is clearly explained that in the states of dreamless sleep and death the jīva and Brahman are different. The difference in dreamless sleep is described in these words (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.12): prājñenātmanā sampariṣvakto na bāhyaṁ kiñcana veda nāntaram "Embraced by the omniscient Self, he knows nothing else, either without or within." The difference in death is described in these words from the same passage: prājñenātmanā anvārūḍha utsarjan yāti "Mounted by the omniscient Self, and groaning, he leaves." The word utsarjan here means groaning. It is not possible that the jīva, who knows hardly anything, can be the omniscient Self by whom he is mounted. Because the jīva is not omniscient it is also not possible that the omniscient Slef here is another jīva. If it is said "Because in these conditions the jīva is still influenced by material designations, your point is not proved," then the author replies:

Sūtra 43 paty-ādi-śabdebhyaḥ pati-Lord; ādi-beginning with; śabdebhyaḥ-because of the words. Because of the use of Pati (Lord) and other words. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa In the same Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, a little afterwards, the word "pati" and other similar words are used in these words (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.22): sa vā ayam ātmā sarvasya vaśī sarvasyeṣāṇaḥ sarvasyādhipatiḥ sarvam idam praśāsti yad idaṁ kiñca sa na sādhunā karmaṇā bhūyān nātra vāsādhunā kanīyān eṣa bhūtādhipatir eṣa lokeśvara eṣa loka-pālaḥ sa setur vidharaṇa eṣāṁ lokānām asambhedāya "He is the Self, the dominator over all, the controller of all, the king of all. He rules over all. He is not made greater by pious work, nor lesser by impious work. He is the king of all that is. He is the master of the worlds. He is the protector of the worlds. He is the boundary so the worlds will not break apart." From this is may be understood that Brahman, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is different from the liberated jīva. Because it cannot be said that the liberated jīva has dominion over all or control over all, and because sūtra 4.4.17 will say jagad-vyāpāra-varjyam (The liberated jīva has not the power to create the universes), the idea the Brahman and the liberated jīva are identical is refuted. This idea is also refuted by the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, where it is said of Brahman: antaḥ praviṣṭaḥ śastā janānām "He is the controller in the living entities hearts." Neither can it be said that the difference between them is only because of the jīva's identification with a material body, because the śruti-śāstra explains that the difference between them is present even after the jīva is liberated. In the aṁśādhikaraṇa of this book (2.3.41) I will refute the identification of jīva and Brahman in more detail.

The statement ayam ātmā brahma (the self is Brahman) simply means that the jīva has a small portion of Brahman's qualities. The phrase brahmaiva san brahmāpyeti (Becoming Brahman, he attains Brahman) should be understood to mean that the jīva, by attaining a portion of eight of Brahman's qualities, becomes like Brahman. Because the śruti-śāstra says paramaṁ sāmyam upaiti (He becomes like Brahman), and because of the previous explanation of brahmaiva san brahmāpyeti, therefore the nature of Brahman is different from that of the liberated jīva. In this proof that Brahman is different form the jīva in either conditioned or liberated states of existence, that the "sky" from which all names and forms have come is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and not the liberated jīva, is also proved. Any doubt that may have remained in spite of the statements of the sūtras netaro 'nupapatteḥ (1.1.16) and bheda-vyapadeśāc ca (1.1.17) is dispelled by this proof that even at the time of liberation the jīva remains different from Brahman. Therefore there is no fault in the explanations given for these two (1.1.16 and 1.1.17) sūtras. Pāda 4 Adhikaraṇa 1 The Word "Avyakta" in Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.11 Refers to the Subtle Body and Not to Pradhāna Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Invocation tamaḥ saṅkhya-ghanodīrṇa- vidīrṇaṁ yasya go-gaṇaiḥ taṁ saṁvid-bhūṣaṇaṁ kṛṣṇa- pūṣaṇaṁ samupāsmahe Let us offer our respectful obeisances to the Kṛṣṇa-sun, which is decorated with transcendental knowledge, and which with its effulgence dispels the deep darkness of Saṅkhya.

॥ श्रीमद्ब्रह्मसूत्रम् - आनुमानिकाधिकरणम् ॥ [विषयः] पूर्वसूत्रेषु प्रतिपादितं यत् परब्रह्मैव परमप्राप्यं मोक्षप्रदञ्च, यतोऽस्य जगतो जन्म-स्थिति-प्रलयाः सम्भवन्ति। तच्च परं ब्रह्म जडजीवाभ्यां विलक्षणम्, अचिन्त्य-अनन्त-शक्तिसमन्वितम्, सर्वज्ञम्, निखिल-दोष-रहितम्, समस्त-कल्याण-गुणात्मकं च वर्तते। साम्प्रतं कपिलतन्त्रोक्तस्य प्रधानस्य (प्रकृतेः) पुंसश्च (जीवस्य) जगत्कारणत्ववादिनां मतं विचार्यते। तत्र केषाञ्चिच्छाखायां कठोपनिषद्वाक्यमुदाहृत्य साङ्ख्यमतमाशङ्क्यते— [श्रुति-प्रमाणम् (कठोपनिषद् ३.१०-११)] इन्द्रियेभ्यः परा ह्यर्था अर्थेभ्यश्च परं मनः । मनसस्तु परा बुद्धिर्बुद्धेरात्मा महान्परः ॥ महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुषः परः । पुरुषान्न परं किञ्चित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः ॥ [श्रुतेः हिन्दी-अनुवादः] इन्द्रियों की अपेक्षा विषय (अर्थ) पर (सूक्ष्म एवं श्रेष्ठ) हैं; विषयों की अपेक्षा मन पर है; मन से परे बुद्धि है और बुद्धि से परे महत्तत्त्व (महान् आत्मा) है। महत्तत्त्व से परे अव्यक्त है तथा अव्यक्त से परे पुरुष (परमात्मा) है। पुरुष से परे कुछ भी नहीं है; वही चरम सीमा (काष्ठा) है और वही परम गति है। [संशयः] अत्र संशयः उत्पद्यते—किमस्मिन् वाक्ये 'अव्यक्त' शब्देन साङ्ख्यस्मृत्युक्तं स्वतन्त्रं प्रधानं गृह्यते, अथवा शरीरं गृह्यते इति? (हिन्दी: यहाँ यह संशय है कि श्रुति में प्रयुक्त 'अव्यक्त' शब्द से साङ्ख्योक्त प्रधान लिया जाए या शरीर?) [पूर्वपक्षः] पूर्वपक्षी मन्यते यत्—श्रुतौ महच्छब्दात् परत्वेनाव्यक्तस्य, अव्यक्ताच्च परत्वेन पुरुषस्य कीर्तनात् साङ्ख्यस्मृतिप्रसिद्धमेव प्रधानमिह अव्यक्तशब्देन ग्राह्यम्। यतः स्मृतिसिद्धः क्रम एव इहापि प्रत्यभिज्ञायते, तस्मादव्यक्तं प्रधानमेवेति। (हिन्दी: पूर्वपक्षी का कथन है कि श्रुति और स्मृति दोनों में महत्, अव्यक्त और पुरुष का क्रम समान होने से अव्यक्त शब्द साङ्ख्य के त्रिगुणात्मक प्रधान का ही वाचक है।) [सिद्धान्तः] अत्रोच्यते—'अव्यक्त' शब्देन साङ्ख्योक्तं प्रधानं न गृह्यते, किन्तु शरीरमेव गृह्यते। एतदेव भगवता बादरायणेन अग्रिमे सूत्रे स्पष्टीक्रियते— [ब्रह्मसूत्रम् १.४.१] आनुमानिकमप्येकेषामिति चेन्न शरीररूपकविन्यस्तगृहीतेर्दर्शयति च ॥ १ ॥ [पदच्छेदः एवं शब्दार्थः] आनुमानिकम् = अनुमानेन कल्पितं साङ्ख्यसिद्धं प्रधानम् (अनुमानसिद्ध प्रधान) अपि = अपि च (भी) एकेषाम् = शाखिनां कठशाखाप्रभृतीनाम् (शाखा-विशेष के मत में) इति चेत् = यदि एवं मन्येत (यदि ऐसा कहें) न = तन्न साधु (तो ऐसा नहीं है) शरीररूपकविन्यस्तगृहीतेः = पूर्ववाक्ये रथरूपकेण निक्षिप्तस्य शरीरस्यैवात्र अव्यक्तशब्देन परिग्रहात् (शरीर के रूपक में स्थित होने के कारण उसी का ग्रहण होने से) दर्शयति = श्रुतिः स्वयमेवैतत् स्पष्टीकरोति (श्रुति स्वयं ऐसा दिखलाती है) च = तथा (और) [सूत्रार्थः एवं भाष्य-निष्कर्षः] यदि कोई कहे कि शाखा-विशेष (कठोपनिषद्) में अनुमानसिद्ध साङ्ख्य का प्रधान ही 'अव्यक्त' शब्द से कहा गया है, तो यह कथन उचित नहीं है; क्योंकि पूर्वप्रकरण में रथरूपक की योजना करते हुए 'आत्मानं रथिनं विद्धि शरीरं रथमेव तु' इत्यादि वाक्यों द्वारा शरीर को ही रथ के रूप में निरूपित किया गया है। अतः परिशेषप्रमाण से यहाँ 'अव्यक्त' शब्द का अर्थ साङ्ख्यस्मृत्युक्त अचेतन प्रधान न होकर भौतिक 'शरीर' ही सिद्ध होता है, और श्रुति आगे के प्रकरण में भी इसी भाव को प्रकट करती है।

If some assume (that the word "avyakta" in this passage of the Kaṭha Upaniṣad refers to the pradhāna), then I say "No." The fact that this passage is part of a metaphor referring to the body clearly shows (that the word “avyakta" here means śarīra). Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The Kāṭhakas (ekeṣām) consider (anumānikam) that the word avyakta here refers to the pradhāna. The opponent may object: The etymology of the word avyakta is "That which is not (a) manifested" (vyakta). If this is so, then the word avyakta cannot mean anything except the pradhāna (unmanifested material nature). What is the answer to this objection? The answer is given in this sūtra in the phrase beginning with the word śarīra. Because it is employed in a passage where the body is compared to a chariot, the word avyakta here refers to the śarīra (body). The passage preceding this mention of avyakta, which is a metaphor where the material body is considered to be a chariot, clearly shows this. The preceding passage is given here. ātmānaṁ rathinaṁ viddhi śarīraṁ ratham eva ca buddhiṁ tu sārathiṁ viddhi manaḥ pragraham eva ca indriyāṇi hayān āhur viṣayāṁs teṣu gocarān ātmendriya-mano-yuktaṁ bhoktety āhur manīṣiṇaḥ yas tv avijñānavān bhavaty ayuktena manasā sadā tasyendriyāṇy avaśyāni duṣṭāśvā iv sāratheḥ yas tu vijñānavān bhavati yuktena manasā sadā tasyendriyāṇi vaśyāni sad-aśvā iva sāratheḥ yas tu vijñānavān bhavaty amanaskaḥ sadā-śuciḥ na sa tat-padam āpnoti saṁsāraṁ cādhigacchati

देवनागरी-प्रतिलिपिकरणम् एवं सन्दर्भः (Devanagari Sanskrit Text & Context)

ब्रह्मसूत्रम् (वेदान्तदर्शनम् १.४.१)

आनुमानिकमप्येकेषामिति चेन्न शरीररूपकविन्यस्तगृहीतेर्दर्शयति च ॥ १.४.१ ॥

• अधिकरणम्: आनुमानिकाधिकरणम् (१.४.१–७)
• पूर्वपक्षः: काठकोपनिषदि (१.३.११) ‘महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुषः परः’ इत्यत्र ‘अव्यक्त’ शब्देन साङ्ख्योक्तं त्रिगुणात्मकं प्रधानमेव गृह्यते।
• सिद्धान्तः: अत्र ‘अव्यक्त’ शब्देन शरीरमेव गृह्यते, कुतः? ‘शरीररूपकविन्यस्तगृहीतेः’ — पूर्वस्मिन् सन्दर्भे शरीरस्य रथरूपकेण विन्यस्तत्वात्।

काठकोपनिषदः उद्धृत-मन्त्राः (कठोपनिषद् १.३.३–७)

आत्मानं रथिनं विद्धि शरीरं रथमेव च । बुद्धिं तु सारथिं विद्धि मनः प्रग्रहमेव च ॥ ३ ॥

इन्द्रियाणि हयानाहुर्- विषयांस्तेषु गोचरान् । आत्मेन्द्रियमनोयुक्तं भोक्तेत्याहुर्मनीषिणः ॥ ४ ॥

यस्त्वविज्ञानवान् भवत्य्- अयुक्तेन मनसा सदा । तस्येन्द्रियाण्यवश्यानि दुष्टाश्वा इव सारथेः ॥ ५ ॥

यस्तु विज्ञानवान् भवति युक्तेन मनसा सदा । तस्येन्द्रियाणि वश्यानि सदश्वा इव सारथेः ॥ ६ ॥

यस्त्वविज्ञानवान् भवत्य्- (मूलपाठे: यस्त्वविज्ञानवान्; ग्रन्थे मुद्रितप्रमादवशात्: 'यस्तु विज्ञानवान्') अमनस्कः सदाऽशुचिः । न स तत्पदमाप्नोति संसारं चाधिगच्छति ॥ ७ ॥

yas tu vijñānavān bhavati sa-manaskaḥ sadā śuciḥ sa tu tat-padam āpnoti yasmād bhūyo na jāyate vijñāna-sārathir yas tu manaḥ pragrahavān naraḥ so 'dhvanaḥ pāram āpnoti tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padam indriyebhyaḥ parā hy arthā arthebhyaś ca paraṁ manaḥ manasas tu parā buddhir buddher ātmā mahān paraḥ mahataḥ param avyaktam avyaktāt puruṣaḥ paraḥ puruṣān na paraṁ kiñcit sā kāṣṭhā sā parā gatiḥ "The individual is the passenger in the car of the material body, and the intelligence is the driver. Mind is the driving instrument, and the senses are the horses. The self is thus the enjoyer or sufferer in the association of the mind and senses. So it is understood by great thinkers. "For a fool who does not control his mind, the senses are wild horses drawing the charioteer. For the wise man who controls his mind the senses are good horses obedient to the charioteer. "An impious fool who does not control his mind does not attain the spiritual world. He attains the world of repeated birth and death. A pious wise man who controls his mind attains the spiritual world. He never again takes birth. "A person who has transcendental knowledge as a charioteer, and who tightly holds the reins of the mind, attains the path's final destination: the supreme abode of Lord Viṣṇu. "The sense-objects are higher than the senses. The mind is higher than the sense-objects. Intelligence is higher than the mind. The mahat (material nature) is higher than the intelligence. The avyakta (the unmanifested) is higher than the mahat. The puruṣa (person) is higher than the unmanifested. Nothing is higher than the person. The person is the highest." Here the devotee who desires to attain the abode of Lord Viṣṇu is described as the passenger in a chariot. His body and other possessions are described as a chariot with its various parts. The traveller who keeps the chariot and its parts under control attains the supreme abode of Lord Viṣṇu. After this is explained, the verses beginning indriyebhyaḥ parā hy arthāḥ explain how in the control of the body and its various adjuncts, which are metaphorically considered a chariot and its adjuncts, the various members is more or less difficult to control. In this

metaphor of the chariot the senses and other adjuncts of the body are described as horses or other adjuncts of the chariot. The indriyebhyaḥ verses continue this discussion. Of the things mentioned in the previous verses only the body itself is not listed in the indriyebhyaḥ verses, and therefore the single ambiguous item (avyakta) must refer to the śarīra (body) by default. The pradhāna interpretation of this word is also disproved because the content of the indriyebhyaḥ verses disagrees with the tenants of saṅkhya philosophy. Now the following objection may be raised. The body is clearly manifest. How is it that it is here described as unmanifest? To answer this doubt the author says: Sūtra 2 sūkṣmaṁ tu tad-arhatvāt sūkṣmaṁ -subtle; tu -certainly; tad-arhatvāt-because of appropriateness. The word "śarīra" (body) here certainly means the sutble body (sūkṣma-śarīra) because that is appropriate in this context. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word tu (certainly) is used here to dispel doubt. The word śarīra here means sūkṣma-śarīra (the subtle body). Why? Because that meaning is appropriate. Because it is appropriate to describe the sūkṣma-śarīra as avyakta (unmanifest). The quote from Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.4.7) "tad dhedaṁ tarhy avyākṛtam āsīt (Then there was the unmanifested)" shows that before the gross material universe was manifested the living force was present. This shows that the word "unmanifested" is appropriate to describe the subtle body. The objection may be raised: If the original cause is subtle, then why should that subtle cause not be described as the pradhāna (unmanifested material nature) of the saṅkhya theory. To answer this doubt he says: Sūtra 3 tad-adhīnatvād arthavat tad-on Him; adhīnatvād -because of dependence; arthavat-possessing the meaning.

This meaning should be accepted because the pradhāna (unmanifested material nature) is ultimately dependent on Him (the Supreme Brahman). Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The meaning here is that because pradhāna is ultimately dependent on the Supreme Brahman, which is the original cause of all causes, the creative actions of pradhāna are not the original cause, but are themselves caused by the Supreme Brahman. Because pradhāna is naturally inactive, it only acts when inspired by the glance of Brahman. This is described in the following statements of Vedic literature. māyāṁ tu prakṛtiṁ vidyān māyinaṁ tu maheśvaram "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is a magician, and the material world is His magical show." Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (4.10) asmān māyī sṛjate viśvam etat "The master of Māyā creates this world." Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (4.9). ya eka varṇo bahudhā śakti-yogād varṇān anekān nihitārtho dadhāti "He who has no rival creates the varieties of this world, using His own potencies according to His own wish." Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (4.1). sa eva bhūyo nija-vīrya-coditṁ sva-jīva-māyāṁ prakṛtiṁ sisṛkṣatīm

anāma-rūpātmani rūpa-nāmanī vidhitsamāno 'nusasāra śāstra-kṛt "The Personality of Godhead, again desiring to give names and forms to His parts and parcels, the living entities, placed them under the guidance of material nature. By His own potency, material nature is empowered to re-create." Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.10.22 pradhānaṁ puruṣaṁ cāpi praviśyātmecchayā hariḥ kṣobhayām āsa samprāpte sarga-kāle vyayāvyayau "At the time of creation Lord Hari enters the changing pradhāna and the unchanging living souls, and agitates them according to His wish." Viṣṇu Purāṇa mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram hetunānena kaunteya jagad viparivartate "The material nature, which is one of my energies, is working under my direction, O son of Kuntī, producing all moving and non-moving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again." Bhagavad-gītā 9.10 We do not accept the saṅkhya theory because it considers pradhāna the original, independent cause of all causes. Sūtra 4 jñeyatvāvacanātvāc ca jñeyatva-the state of being the object of knowledge; avacanātvāt-because of non-description; ca-and.

The "avyakta" of this passage is not described as the object of knowledge. This another reason for not interpreting this "avyakta" to be pradhāna. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Claiming that liberation is obtained by understanding the difference between the the spiritual living entity, or soul and the modes of material nature, the saṅkhya theorists affirm that one should know the real nature of pradhāna in order to obtain certain powers. Because this passage from the Kaṭha Upaniṣad in no way describes any of this, the word avyakta here cannot refer to the pradhāna of the Saṅkhyites. Sūtra 5 vadatīti cen na prājño hi prakaraṇāt vadati-says; iti -thus; cet -if; na -no; prājño -the omniscient Paramātmā; hi - indeed; prakaraṇāt-because of reference. If someone says "This passage does describe pradhāna in this way" then I say "No. That statement refers to the omniscient Personality of Godhead." Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Someone may object: "Your contention that the word avyakta in this passage of Kaṭha Upaniṣad cannot refer to pradhāna because the avyakta here is not described as the object of knowledge has in no way been proved. Pradhāna is described in this way in the very next verse (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.15): aśabdam asparśam arūpam avyayaṁ tathā-rasaṁ nityam agandhavac ca yat anādy anantaṁ mahataḥ paraṁ dhruvaṁ nicāyya taṁ mṛtyu-mukhāt pramucyate "By meditating on the soundless, touchless, formless, unchanging, tasteless, eternal, fragranceless, beginningless, endless, Supreme Great, one becomes free from the mouth of death."

Someone may object: If these words do not describe pradhāna as the ultimate object of knowledge, then what do they describe? To this objection I reply: These words describe the omniscient Personality of Godhead. These words are an appropriate description of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, about whom the following words are said: puruṣān na paraṁ kiñcit sā kāṣṭhā sā parā gatiḥ "Nothing is higher than the Supreme Person. The Supreme Person is the highest." Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.11 eṣa sarveṣu bhūteṣu gūḍhātmā na prakāśate "Hiding in the hearts of all beings, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not openly manifest." Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.12 To further explain that the word in question does not refer to pradhāna he says: Sūtra 6 trayāṇām eva caivam upanyāsaḥ praśnaś ca trayāṇām -of the three;eva -indeed; ca-certainly; evam -in this way; upanyāsaḥ - mention; praśnaś -question; ca-and. In this context three questions certainly are mentioned. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word ca (certainly) here is meant to remove doubt. In this passage of Kaṭha Upaniṣad only three questions are asked. They are: 1. Naciketa's request that his father be kind to him, 2. his request for celestial fire, and 3. his desire to know the true nature of the self. Nothing else is asked. There is no mention of pradhāna.

Sūtra 7 mahadvac ca mahat-the mahat; vat -like; ca-also. This usage is like the usage of the word "mahat". Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Because the word mahān in the phrase buddher ātmā mahān paraḥ (The Great Self is higher than the intelligence.) is never taken to mean the mahat-tattva (material nature) of the saṅkhya theory, in the same way the avyakta (unmanifested) mentioned here to be higher than this mahat should not be taken to mean the pradhāna of saṅkhya. Adhikaraṇa 2 The "Ajā" of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.5 Does Not Mean Pradhāna Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Now another smārta theory is refuted. The following is quoted from the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (4.5): ajām ekāṁ lohita-śukla-kṛṣṇāṁ bahvīḥ prajāḥ sṛjamānāṁ sarūpāḥ ajo hy eko juṣamāṇo 'nuśete jahaty enāṁ bhukta-bhogām ajo 'nyaḥ "A certain unborn male serves the red, white, and black unborn female that creates the many living entities and their forms, while another another unborn male abandons her as she enjoys pleasures."