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

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.

The repetition of the last word (vyākyātāḥ) here indicates the end of the chapter. sarve vedāḥ paryavasyanti yasmin satyānantācintya-śaktau pareśe viśvotpatti-sthema-bhaṅgādi-līle nityaṁ tasmin nas tu kṛṣṇe matir naḥ On Lord Kṛṣṇa, who is the final goal taught by all the Vedas, who is the master of unlimited and inconcievable transcendental potencies, who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and who in His own pastimes creates, maintains and destroys the material universes, may we always fix our hearts. Chapter 2 Pada 1 Mangalacarana By Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa duryuktika-droṇaja-bāṇa-vikṣataṁ* parīkṣitaṁ yaḥ sphuṭam uttarāśrayam sudarśanena śruti-maulim avyathaṁ vyadhāt sa kṛṣṇaḥ prabhur astu me gatiḥ (Translation 1) With His sudarśana-cakra Lord Kṛṣṇa protected (the great devotee) Parīkṣit, who within Uttarā's womb was wounded by the arrows of the wicked son of Droṇa. Lord Kṛṣṇa may him free from all suffering and enlightened him with the crest jewel of Vedic knowledge. I pray that Lord Kṛṣṇa may become my shelter. (Translation 2) With the perfect logic of His scriptural analysis, Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa protected the Upaniṣads, which contain the answers to all questions, and which were wounded by the arrows of the black crows of false logicians. Lord Vyāsa made the Upaniṣads free from all suffering. I pray that Lord Vyāsa may become my shelter. Note: By carefully using certain ambiguous words Śrīla Baladeva Visyābhūṣaṇa has composed this verse so it has two distinct meanings. Adhikaraṇa 1 The Saṅkhya Philosophy Refuted

Introduction By Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Viṣaya---In the First Chapter was proved that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is faultless, is the master of unlimited inconceivable potencies, has unlimited transcendental virtues, is the Supersoul present everywhere, is different from everything, is the creator of the material world and the ingredient of which the creation is made, is the controller and master of everything, is the object of Vedānta study, and is described by all the Vedas. In the Second Chapter the arguments claiming that this Vedānta philosophy is contradicted by the smṛti- śāstra and by logic will be refuted, the sāṅkhya theory that pradhāna is the original cause of creation will be refuted with clear logic, and the Vedānta explanation of creation will be proved to be the only truth. These are the topics that will be described. In the beginning the idea that the śruti-śāstra contradicts the Vedānta view will be refuted. Saṁśaya---Is the view that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original cause of everything refuted by the sāṅkhya-smṛti or not? Pūrvapakṣa---According to Vedanta philosophy the saṅkhya-smṛti is untrue. The saṅkhya smṛti was written by the great sage Kapila as a commentary to explain the jñāna-kāṇḍa portion of the Vedas. He hoped in this way to teach the path of liberation. Kapila firmly approved of the agnihotra-yajñas and other rituals described in the karma-kāṇḍa portion of the Vedas. The śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (5.2) glorifies him in the words ṛṣiṁ prasūtaṁ kapilaṁ (the great sage Kapila). In his Kapila-smṛti, which contains statements like atha tri-vidha-duḥkhātyanta- nivṛttir atyanta-puruṣārthaḥ (the complete cessation of the threefold miseries of the material world is the ultimate goal of human life) and na dṛṣṭārtha-siddhir nivṛtter apy anuvṛtti-darśanāt (The threefold miseries cannot be completely stopped by any method seen in this world, for whenever they are stopped it is seen that they always return) he explained in the words vimukta-mokṣārthaṁ svārthaṁ vā pradhānasya (the pradhāna creates the material world either to fulfill the living entities' material desires or grant them liberation), the words acetanatve 'pi kṣīravac ceṣṭitaṁ pradhānasya (although it is lifeless and unconscious, the pradhāna creates this world just as milk spontaneously creates cheese), and other statements of his writings, the truth that insentient pradhāna is the independent creator of the material universes. If the idea that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original cause of everything is accepted, then the statements of the Kapila-smṛti must be held to be useless. This is especially so because the Kapila- smṛti is a book of philosophy with the understanding of the ultimate truth as its sole objective. For this reason the Vedānta texts must be interpreted in such a way that they do not contradict the great Kapila-smṛti. This interpretation, even if it contradicts the Manu-smṛti and other smṛti- śāstras would not make these scriptures useless. Because these scriptures explain the karma-kāṇḍa portion of the Vedas, and because they explain the path of dharma (and not theoretical philosophy), they would not be made useless by contradicting their philosophical

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

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

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

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