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

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."

संशयः — क्या यहाँ 'अजा' शब्द का अर्थ सांख्य का 'प्रधान' है, अथवा इस उपनिषद् में वर्णित ब्रह्म की शक्ति है? पूर्वपक्षः — किसी भी बाह्य सहायता के बिना अजन्मा प्रकृति ही असंख्य जीवों की सृष्टि करती है। सिद्धान्तः — इस विषय में, सांख्यों के सृष्टि-सम्बन्धी मत के निवारणार्थ वे (सूत्रकार) कहते हैं — सूत्र ८ चमसवदविशेषात् ॥ ८ ॥ पदच्छेदः — चमस-वत् (चमस अर्थात् पात्र के सदृश); अविशेषात् (विशेष लक्षण न होने के कारण)। (श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषद् ४.५ में प्रयुक्त 'अजा' शब्द सांख्योक्त प्रकृति का वाचक नहीं है) क्योंकि यहाँ किसी विशेष का निरूपण नहीं है। यह बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् २.२.३ के 'चमस' शब्द के दृष्टान्त के समान है। श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचित तात्पर्य / गोविन्दभाष्य इस सूत्र में पूर्वसूत्र १.४.५ से 'न' (नहीं) शब्द की अनुवृत्ति करनी चाहिए। यहाँ प्रतिपादित अजा को सांख्य-स्मृति में वर्णित प्रकृति नहीं कहा जा सकता। क्यों? क्योंकि इस प्रसंग में प्रकृति का कोई विशेष लक्षण निर्दिष्ट नहीं किया गया है। विशेष लक्षण का अभाव होने से, केवल 'न जायते' (जो उत्पन्न नहीं होती) इस व्युत्पत्ति के आधार पर 'अजा' शब्द से अजन्मा होना मात्र सूचित होता है। यह चमस के दृष्टान्त के समान ही है। बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (२.२.३) में कहा गया है — "अर्वाग्बिलश्चमस ऊर्ध्वबुध्नः" "अधोमुख छिद्र (बिल) वाला और ऊपर पेंदे (बुध्न) वाला एक चमस (पात्र) है।" यहाँ 'चम्' (आस्वादन करना/पीना) धातु से व्युत्पन्न 'चमस' शब्द को इस मन्त्र में केवल यज्ञ में प्रयुक्त साधारण सोमपान-पात्र रूप से ग्रहण करना सम्भव नहीं है। व्युत्पत्ति के सन्दर्भ के बिना किसी शब्द के तात्त्विक अर्थ का निर्धारण नहीं हो सकता। अतः इस मन्त्र में प्रयुक्त शब्द को सांख्य-स्मृति-वर्णित प्रकृति के रूप में व्याख्यायित करना सर्वथा असम्भव है। यह इसलिए भी सम्भव नहीं है क्योंकि सांख्य-स्मृति यह मानती है कि प्रकृति स्वतंत्र रूप से जीवों की सृष्टि करती है। यहाँ 'अजा' शब्द वस्तुतः वेदों में वर्णित परम पुरुष भगवान् की अचिन्त्य शक्ति है। इस अर्थ को स्वीकार करने का विशेष हेतु बताते हुए, वे आगे कहते हैं —

Sūtra 9 jyotir upakramā tu tathā hy adhīyate eke jyotiḥ-light; upakramā-beginning with; tu-indeed; tathā-in that way; hi-indeed; adhīyate-iread; eke-some. Light is its origin. Also, other passages confirm it. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word tu (but) is used in the sense of certainty. The word light is used to mean the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this way He is celebrated in the śruti-śāstra (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 10.4.16): tad devā jyotiṣāṁ jyotiḥ "The demigods meditate on Him, the light of lights." The word upakrama should be understood here in the sense of "cause". Because this aja (unborn) has Brahman as its cause, its being unborn is metaphorical only, just as the "cup" in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.2.3. In that passage it is said: arvāg-bilaś camasa ūrdhva-budhna "There is a cup with its mouth down and its bottom up." As the "cup" here is actually the skull, in the same way the ajā (unborn) here is not actually unborn, but is the potency born from Brahman, as is described in the first and fourth chapters of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad. The first quote is (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 1.3): te dhyāna-yogānugatā apaśyan devātma-śaktiṁ sva-guṇair nigūḍhām

"The dhyāna-yogīs saw the Supreme Lord's potency, which was hidden by its own qualities." The second quote is (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.1): ya eka-varṇo bahudhā śakti-yogāt "He (the Lord) who is one has become many by the touch of His potency." Then the author gives another reason in the sūtra's words tathā hi. Hi in this context means "reason". The reason is the evidence given in other passages (adhīyate eke). That the material nature is born from the Supreme Personality of Godhead is also explained in the following passage (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.9): tasmād etad brahma nāma rūpam annaṁ ca jāyate "From Him (the Lord), pradhāna, names, forms, and food, are all born." The word brahma here means pradhāna, which is situated in the three modes of nature, and which is also called brahma in Bhagavad-gītā (14.3): mama yonir mahad brahma "The total material substance, called Brahman, is the source of birth."* Now our opponent may ask: How, then, is the material nature unborn? Then, if it is unborn, how can it be born from light? Fearing that these questions may be raised, he says: Sūtra 10 kalpanopadeśāc ca madhv-ādi-vad avirodhaḥ kalpana-creation; upadeśāt-from the instruction; ca-certainly; madhv-honey; ādi-beginning with; vad -like; avirodhaḥ-not a contradiction. Because it is said to be created by the Supreme it is not a contradiction to say

that pradhāna is both created and uncreated. In this way its is like honey and some other things that are both created and uncreated. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa This doubt is dispelled by the word ca (certainly). It is possible for pradhāna to be both created and uncreated. How is that? That is explained by the word kalpana. Kalpana here means “creation”. It should be understood in that way because it was used with that sense in the Ṛṅ Veda's statement, yathā-pūrvam akalpayat (In the beginning the Supreme Personality of Godhead created thew world). The meaning of this is that the pradhāna is manifested from the Supreme Brahman, who is the master of the potencies of darkness. That is the truth in this matter. The Lord has an eternal and very subtle potency named tamas (darkness), which is described in the following statement (Rg Veda 10.1.29.3): tama āsīt tamasā gūḍham agre praketaṁ yadā tamas tan na divā na rātriḥ "In the beginning was darkness. Darkness covered everything. When the darkness was manifested there was neither day nor night." Tamas is also described in the Culika Upaniṣad: gaur anādavatī "Matter has no power to speak." At the time of cosmic annihilation pradhāna attains oneness with Brahman, but does not merge into Brahman. In the passage from śruti-śāstra beginning with the words pṛthivy apsu pralīyate it is said that the material elements, beginning from earth and culminating in ether, all merge into tamas (darkness), but there is no mention of tamas merging into another substance because tamas is already one with the Supreme. Because tamas is very subtle there is no possibility of it being separate from the Supreme, and therefore it is one with Him. It is not otherwise. This does not mean that tamas is identical with the Supreme. If it meant identity with the Supreme the use of the pratyaya cvi in ekī-bhavati, would not be appropriate. When the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of the tamas potency, desires to create, from Him arises the unmanifested (avyakta) three modes of material nature. The śruti-śāstra explains: mahān avyakte līyate avyaktaṁ akṣare akṣaraṁ tamasi "The mahat merges into the avyakta, the avyakta merges into the akṣara, and the akṣara merges into tamas." The Mahābhārata explains,

तस्मादव्यक्तमुत्पन्नं त्रिगुणं द्विजसत्तम ॥ "हे द्विजश्रेष्ठ! उस (परमेश्वर) से ही यह त्रिगुणात्मक अव्यक्त (प्रकृति) उत्पन्न हुआ है, जो परमपुरुष भगवान् से ही प्रादुर्भूत हुआ।" शास्त्र के ये वचन प्रधान तथा अन्य तत्त्वों की सृष्टि का स्पष्ट रूप से प्रतिपादन करते हैं। इस प्रकार शास्त्र यह शिक्षा देते हैं कि प्रधान सृष्ट होता है और वह एक ही साथ कारण तथा कार्य दोनों रूप है। श्रीविष्णुपुराण में इसे इस प्रकार समझाया गया है: प्रधानपुंसोरजयोः कारणं कार्यभूतयोः । "भगवान् विष्णु ही अजन्मा प्रधान तथा पुरुष के भी कारण हैं।" सृष्टि के समय प्रधान में प्रकृति के तीन गुण उद्भूत होते हैं और प्रधान विविध नामों से अभिव्यक्त होता है, जैसे 'प्रधान-अव्यक्त', तथा रक्त आदि विविध वर्णों के रूपों में प्रकट होता है। उस समय यह कहा जाता है कि प्रधान परंज्योति से उत्पन्न हुआ है (ज्योतिरुपन्ना)। अनन्तर वे (सूत्रकार) एक दृष्टान्त देते हैं: "मध्वादि के समान (मध्वादिवत्)।" सूर्य कारण रूप में रहते हुए एक ही रहता है, और जब वह कार्य रूप होता है, तब वह अन्य वस्तुओं के रूप में परिणत होता है, जैसे वसुओं द्वारा उपभोग किया जाने वाला मधु। इस प्रकार सूर्य एक ही साथ कारण और कार्य दोनों है। इसमें कोई विरोध नहीं है। अधिकरण ३ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् ४.४.१७ में प्रयुक्त "पञ्च-पञ्च-जनाः" पद सांख्य-प्रतिपादित पञ्चविंशति तत्त्वों का वाचक नहीं है विषय: बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् ४.४.१७ में कहा गया है: यस्मिन् पञ्च पञ्चजना आकाशश्च प्रतिष्ठितः । तमेव मन्य आत्मानं विद्वान् ब्रह्मामृतोऽमृतम् ॥ "जिस (परब्रह्म) में पञ्च-पञ्च-जन और आकाश प्रतिष्ठित हैं, उसी अमृतस्वरूप आत्मा को ब्रह्म जानकर मैं अमृतमय हो गया हूँ।" संशय: क्या 'पञ्च-पञ्च-जनाः' पद कपिल-तन्त्र (सांख्य) में वर्णित पचीस तत्त्वों का वाचक है, अथवा किन्हीं अन्य पाँच पदार्थों का? पूर्वपक्ष: क्योंकि 'पञ्च-पञ्च' एक बहुव्रीहि-समास है और 'पञ्च-पञ्च-जनाः' एक कर्मधारय-समास है, अतः 'पञ्च-पञ्च-जनाः' पद कपिल-प्रतिपादित पचीस तत्त्वों को ही लक्षित करता है। आत्मा और आकाश ये दो तत्त्व यहाँ किसी प्रकार इस सूची में अतिरिक्त जोड़ दिए गए हैं। यहाँ 'जन' शब्द का अर्थ तत्त्व है। सिद्धान्त: सूत्रकार कहते हैं:

Sūtra 11 na saṅkhyopasaṅgrahād api nānā-bhāvād atirekāc ca na -not; saṅkhya-of numbers; upasaṅgrahāt -because of enumeration; api -even; nānā-various; bhāvāt-states; atirekāt-because of going beyond; ca-and. Even though they give the same numbers as the saṅkhya theory, these words do not refer to the saṅkhya theory because the the numbers here actually exceed saṅkhya's numbers and because the elements of saṅkhya are variegated (and not grouped into five groups of five). Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word api (even) here is used in the sense of "even if we consider for a moment this view." By noting that the number here is the same number as the saṅkhya elements does not prove that pañca-pañca-jana refers to the saṅkhya elements. Why? The answer is given in the words beginning nānā-bhāvāt. Because the variegated saṅkhya elements are not divided into five groups of five, it is not possible to accept the 5 X 5 here as referring to the 25 saṅkhya elements. Also, the addition of atmā and ākāśa brings the number up to 27. Simply by hearing the word pañca five) twice one should not be bewildered into thinking these two fives refer to the 25 elements of the saṅkhya theory. "What is your interpretation of pañca-pañca-jana?" someone may ask. The word pañca-jana is the name of a group just as the word saptaṛṣi (the seven sages) is the name of a group. This is explained by Pāṇini (Aṣṭādhyāyī 2.1.50) in the words dik-saṅkhye saṁjñāyām (Words indicating direction or number may be compounded with another word in the same case). As each of the saptaṛṣis may be called saptaṛṣi, in the same way there may be five pañca-janas, each of whom may be called a pañca-jana, and all the pañca-janas together may be called the five pañca-janas. In this way the meaning of the word pañca-jana is very clear. Who are these pañca-janas? To answer this question he says: Sūtra 12 prāṇādayo vākya-śeṣāt prāṇa-breath; ādayaḥ -beginning with; vākya-of the statement; śeṣāt-from the remainder.

The pañca-janas here are five things beginning with prāṇa (breath), as is clear from the words immediately following the mention of pañca-jana. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The five things beginning with prāṇa are described in the following words (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.18): prāṇasya prāṇam uta cakṣuṣaś cakṣur uta śrotrasya śrotram annasyānnaṁ manaso ye mano viduḥ "They know the breath of breath, the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, the food of food, the mind of the mind." The objection may be raised: The word annam (food) here is included in the Mādhyandina recension of the Upaniṣad but not in the Kāṇva recension. In the Kāṇva recension, then, there are only four items and not five. To answer this doubt he says: Sūtra 13 jyotiṣaikeṣām asaty anne jyotiṣā-by light; ekeṣām -of some; asaty -in the absence; anne-of food. In some versions (the Kāṇva recension) the word "jyotiḥ" (light) replaces the word "anna" (food). Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa In the version of some (the Kāṇvas), even though the word anna is missing, the addition of the word jyotiḥ brings the number up to five. This word jyotiḥ is found in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.6 in the words tad devā jyotiṣāṁ jyotiḥ (The demigods worship Him, the light of lights). The word jyotiḥ appears here in both recensions and it should be counted among the five or not as is appropriate.

Adhikaraṇa 4 Brahman Is The Only Original Cause The saṅkhya theorist raises another doubt: "It cannot be said that the Vedānta describes Brahman as the sole cause of the universe, for the Vedānta philosophy does not describe a single original cause of creation. In Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1 ātma (self) is revealed as the source of creation in the following words: tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśaḥ sambhūtaḥ "From ātmā the sky was born." Another passage (Tatittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7.1) describes asat (non-existence) as the original cause in the following words: asad vā idam agra āsīt tato vā sad ajāyata tad ātmānaṁ svayam akuruta "In the beginning was non-existence. From non-existence existence was born. Existence created the self." Another passage (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 1.9.1) affirms that ākāśa (sky) is the original cause: asya lokasya kā gatir ity ākāśa iti hovāca "What is the origin of this world? Sky is the origin, he said." Another passage (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 1.11.5) affirms that breath is the original cause in the following words: sarvāṇi ha vā imāni bhūtāni prāṇam evābhisaṁviśanti "Everything was born from breath and ultimately enters into breath again." Another passage again proclaims asat (non-existence) as the original cause in the following words: asad evedam agra āsīt tat samabhavat "In the beginning was non-existence. From non-existence this world was manifested." Another passage (Chāndogya Upaniṣād 6.2.1) proclaims Brahman the original cause in the following words: sad eva saumyedam agra āsīt

"O saintly one, in the beginning was Brahman." Another passage (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.7) proclaims avyākṛta (the unmanifested) as the original cause in the following words: tad vaidaṁ tarhy avyākṛtam āsīt tan-nāma-rūpābhyāṁ vyākriyata " In the beginning was the unmanifested. From it all the names and forms have come." Many other passages could also be quoted to show the different theories of creation. Because in these passages of the Vedas many different things have been described as the sole original cause of creation, it cannot be said that Brahman is the sole cause of the creation of the world. However, it is possible to say that pradhāna is the sole cause of creation, as we find in the passage (beginning with the word tarhi already quoted from the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad. If this view is accepted, then the contradiction of seeing one thing sometimes as the original cause and sometimes as a product of the original cause becomes at once resolved. Because it is all-pervading the pradhāna can appropriately be called ātmā, ākāśa, and brahma, because it is the resting-place of all transformations and because it is eternal it may appropriately be called asat, and because it is the origin of all breathing it may metaphorically be called breath. When the scriptures state that the original cause performed activities, such as thinking (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.2.5 explains sa aikṣata: The original cause thought.) these may also be considered metaphors. All this evidence clearly demonstrates that pradhāna is the original cause of creation of the world as described in the Vedānta literature. In the context of this argument: Sūtra 14 kāraṇatvena cākāśādiṣu yathā vyapadiṣṭokteḥ kāraṇatvena -as the cause; ca-certainly; ākāśa-sky; ādiṣu -beginning with; yathā -as; vyapadiṣṭa-described; ukteḥ-from the statement. The Upaniṣads state that Brahman is the cause of sky and the other elements. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word ca (certainly) is used here to dispel doubt. It may be said that Brahman is the only cause of the world. Why? Because "the Upaniṣads state that Brahman is the cause of sky and the other elements." The words yathā vyapadiṣṭam (as described) mean “Brahman who in the lakṣaṇa-sūtra ofVedānta

(1.1.2) and in other places in Vedic literature is described as all-knowing, all- powerful, and full of all other powers and virtues." This is true because in all Vedānta literatures Brahman is described as the original cause of sky and all the elements. That Brahman is all-knowing and full of a host of transcendental qualities: is described in the following words (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 1.2.2): satyaṁ jñānam anantam "Brahman is eternal, limitless, and full of knowledge." That Brahman is the original cause of all causes is described in these words (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 1.2.3): tasmād vā etasmāt "From Brahman sky is manifested." The qualities of Brahman are described in the following words (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.1): sad eva saumyedam "O gentle one, in the beginning was the eternal Brahman." Also, in these words (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.3): tad aikṣata bah syām "He thought: I shall become many." The truth of Brahman is also described in the following words (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 6.2.3): tat tejo 'sṛjata " Then He created light." The relationship between cause and effect in regard to Brahman we will describe later on. The words atmā, ākāśa, prāṇa, sat, and Brahman mean “all- pervading", "all-effulgent," "all-powerful," "the supreme existence," and "the greatest," respectively. These words are very appropriate as names for Brahman. In the same way the statement sa aikṣata (He thought.) is very appropriate for Brahman. Now, describing the meaning of the words asat (non-existence) and avyākṛta (unmanifested), he says:

Sūtra 15 samākarṣāt samākarṣāt-from appropriateness. The words "asat" (non-existence) and "avyākṛta" (unmanifested) also refer to Brahman, for that interpretation is appropriate in this context. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Because it is preceded by the words so 'kāmayata (He desired.) the word asat in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7.1 passage asad vā idam agra āsīt (In the beginning was asat) must refer to the Supreme Brahman, and because it is preceded by the words ādityo brahma (splendid Brahman) the word asat in the passage asad evedam (In the beginning was asat) must also refer to the Supreme Brahman. Because before the creation of the material world the Supreme Brahman's names and forms had not existed in the material world, the Supreme Brahman is sometimes known as asat (non-existence). The idea that asat and not the Supreme Brahman is the original cause of creation

potencies are supremely subtle and fine. That is the proper understanding of the word asat in this context. The Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.4.7) explains: tad vaidaṁ tarhy avyākṛtam āsīt tan-nāma-rūpābhyāṁ vyākriyata "In the beginning was the avyākṛta. From it all the names and forms have come." The word avyākṛta should be understood to mean Brahman. In the words sa eṣa iha praviṣṭaḥ (Then He entered within) that immediately follow it becomes clear that the avyākṛta that becomes manifested by name and form is the powerful Supreme Brahman who appears by His own wish. Any conclusion other than this would oppose the clear teachings of Vedānta-sūtra and the general conclusions of all the śruti-śāstras. For these reasons it is therefore confirmed that the Supreme Brahman is the actual cause of the material universes. Adhikaraṇa 5 The "Puruṣa" of the Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad Is Brahman Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa In the next passage the author of the sūtras) again refutes the saṅkhya theory. In the Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad 4.18 Bālākī Vipra promises “I shall tell you about Brahman," and proceeds to describe 16 puruṣas, beginning with the sun-god, as Brahman. King Ajātaśatru then rejects these instructions and says: “O Bālākī, the person who is the creator of these 16 puruṣas, the person engaged in this karma is the actual Brahman." Saṁśaya: At this point the doubt may be raised: "Is the superintendent of matter, the enjoyer described in the sankhya texts, or is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Viṣṇu, to be understood as the Brahman mentioned here? Pūrvapakṣa: Someone may object: Because the use of the word karma here identifies this Brahman with the experiencing the results of good and bad work, because it the next passage this Brahman is described as sometimes sleeping (tau ha suptaṁ puruṣam ājagmatuḥ, and because in the passage after that this Brahman is described as an enjoyer (tad yathā śreṣṭhī svair bhuṅkte), it should be understood that the Brahman here is the jīva (individual spirit soul) described in the tantras. The use of the word prāṇa (life-breath) here also confirms that the Brahman described here is the living individual soul. This Brahman (the jīva), which is different from matter, should thus be understood as the original cause of the many enjoyerpuruṣas and the original cause of their sinless activities as well. In this way it has been proven that the Brahman described in this passage is the individual spirit soul (jīva). The theory that there is a Supreme Personality of