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

Supreme Personality of Godhead. At this point someone may raise the following question: Is it, then, that the Vedic literatures mostly describe topics other than the Supreme Brahman, (because mostly they describe these "reference-points" to lead the reader to the Supreme), or do they mostly describe Brahman directly?" I answer this question: Brahman is directly described in the Vedic literatures. For example, in the next chapter of Taittirīya Upaniṣad, Varuṇa, upon being asked by his son to teach him about Brahman, explained to him that Brahman is the original creator, maintaner, and destroyer of the material universes. He further explains that the annamaya, prāṇamaya, manomaya, and vijñānamaya stages of existence, one by one, are all Brahman. Then he explained that the ānandamaya stage is the final Brahman. After explaining this, Varuṇa concluded his teaching by confirming that he has spoken a true description of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He said: etam ānandamayam ātmānam upasaṅkramya imān lokān kāmānī kāma-rūpy anusañcarann etat sama gāyann āste "After leaving his material body, one who understands the supreme ānandamaya person leaves this material world and enters the spiritual world. All his desires become fulfilled, he attains a spiritual form according to his own wish, and he dedicates himself to glorifying that supreme ānandamaya person." That the ānandamaya person in the Vedic literatures is actually the Supreme Brahman is also described in the following statement of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.87.17): puruṣa-vidho 'nvayo 'tra caramo 'nnamyādiṣu yaḥ sad asataḥ paraṁ tvam atha yad eṣv avaśeṣāmṛtam "O Lord, of these persons beginning with the annamaya-puruṣa, You are the Supreme." We may note in this connection that it is not contradictory or illogical to say that the Supreme Brahman has a form. The form of the Supreme is described in the Vedic literatures. For example, the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (3.7.3) explains: pṛthivī śarīram "The material universe is the body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead." It is because the Supreme Personality of Godhead has a form (śarīra), that this

book, the Vedānta-sūtra, is also called Śārīraka-sūtra (sūtras glorifying the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who has a form). Some may say that the word ānandamaya does not refer to the Supreme Brahman, and that only the word brahma-puccham refers to Brahman. This proposal is not very intelligent. Some others may say that the word ānandamaya does not refer to Brahman because the word maya means "transformation". These persons say the word ānandamaya (transformation of bliss) cannot refer to the Supreme Brahman, for Brahman is naturally full of bliss, and not a transformation of some pre-existing state of happiness. For this reason the word ānandamaya must refer to the individual spirit soul, and not Brahman. In order to refute this argument, Śrīla Vyāsadeva speaks the following sūtra: Sūtra 13 vikāra-śabdān neti cen na pracuryāt vikāra—transformation; śabdāt—from the word; na—not; iti—thus; cet—if; na— not; pracuryāt—because of abundance. If (someone argues that the Supreme Brahman cannot be the same as the ānandamaya person described in the Vedas) because the affix maya means "transformation", (and the Supreme Brahman is not a transformation of ānanda, or bliss, then I reply by saying that) because the affix maya used here means "abundance", this interpretation is not correct, (and therefore the word ānandamaya should be understood to mean "He who is filled with limitless bliss"). Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word ānandamaya does not mean "he who is a transformation of bliss." Why? Because the affix maya here means "abundance", and therefore the word ānandamaya means "He who is filled with limitless bliss." The rules of Sanskrit grammar state that the affix maya may not be used to mean "transformation" in vaidika words of more than two syllables. The word ānanda has three syllables, and therefore when the word ānandamaya appears in the vaidika text of the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, it cannot be interpreted to mean "he who is a transformation of bliss." The Supreme Brahman, therefore, is not only free from all suffering, but filled with limitless bliss. This is confirmed by the following statements of Vedic scripture: eṣa sarva-bhūtāntarātmāpahata-pāpmā divyo deva eko nārāyaṇaḥ

"There is one Supreme Personality of Godhead: Lord Nārāyaṇa. He is the transcendental Supersoul in the hearts of all living entities, and He is completely free from all sin." —Subala Upaniṣad parāḥ parāṇāṁ sakalā na yatra kleśādayaḥ sānti parāvareśaḥ "Suffering is not experienced by the Supreme Personality of Godhead." When the affix maya means "abundance", it also implies the meaning "essential nature." Therefore, when we use jyotirmaya (full of light) to mean the sun, the affix maya can also be understood to mean "essential nature". In this way the word jyotirmaya means "that of which the essential nature is light." In this way the word ānandamaya may also be interpreted to mean "He whose essential nature is full of bliss." From all this it may be understood that the word ānandamaya clearly refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It does not refer to the individual spirit soul. Sūtra 14 tad-hetu-vyapadeśāc ca tat—of that; hetu—the origin; vyapadeśāt—because of the statement; ca—also. Because the Vedic literatures declare that the ānandamaya person is the source of bliss for others, (it should be understood that the ānandamaya person is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and not the individual spirit soul). Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa This is confirmed by the following statement of Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.7): ko hy evānyat kaḥ prāṇyāt yady eṣa ākāśa ānando na syāt. eṣa evānandayati.

"Who is that person, without whom the living entities cannot feel happiness? That is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who delights the individual spirit souls." This passage explains that the Supreme Brahman is the origin of happiness for the individual spirit souls. From this we may understand that the cause of happiness (the Supreme Personality of Godhead), and the receiver of happiness (the individual spirit soul) must be different persons. They cannot be indentical. Therefore the word ānandamaya refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead only. We may also note that the word ānanda used in this passage of Taittirīya Upaniṣad (is identical with the word ānandamaya.. Sūtra 15 mantra-varṇikam eva ca gīyate mantra—by the mantra portion of the Vedas; varṇikam—described; eva—certainly; ca—also; gīyate—is described. (The same Supreme Personality of Godhead) described in the mantra-portion of the Vedas is also described (as the ānandamaya-person in the text of the Taittirīya Upaniṣad). Purport by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The same Supreme Brahman described in the Vedic mantra, Satyam jñānam anantam brahma (the Supreme Brahman has no limits. He is eternal and full of knowledge), is also described in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad by the word ānandamaya. In this way the above sūtra explains that the word ānandamaya does not refer to the individual living entitiy. Further, the Taittirīya Upaniṣad explains: brahma-vid āpnoti param "One who understands the Supreme Brahman attains the Supreme Brahman." This sentence explains that the individual living entity worships the Supreme Brahman and then attains the association of that Supreme Brahman. This is the same Supreme Brahman previously described in the mantra, satyam jñānam anantam brahma. This is the Supreme Brahman described by the word

ānandamaya. This is the Supreme Brahman described in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad in the passage begining with the words tasmād vā etasmāt. Because the Supreme Brahman is the object of attainment for the individual spirit soul, and because the object of attainment and the attainer must be two distinct entities, and they cannot be identical, therefore the Supreme Brahman and the individual living entities must be distinct persons, and therefore the word ānandamaya refers only to the Supreme Personality of Godhead and not to the individual living entites. At this point someone may raise the following objection: If the Supreme Brahman described in the Vedic mantras were different from the individual living entity, then the individual living enitites could not be the ānandamaya person described in the scriptures. The actual fact is that the Supreme Brahman and the individual living entities are identical. The Vedic mantras state that when the individual spirit soul is free from ignorance and liberated from material bondage, then he become identical with the Supreme Brahman. To answer this objection, Śrīla Vyāsadeva speaks the following sūtra. Sūtra 16 netaro 'nupapatteḥ na—not; itaraḥ—the other; upapatteḥ—because it is illogical. The other person (individual living entity) is not described (in the mantra "satyaṁ jñānam anantam brahma"), because such an interpretation of the mantra is illogical. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The itara (other person) mentioned in this sūtra is the individual living entity. This sūtra, therefore, states that the individual spirit soul, even in the liberated condition, cannot be the Supremem Person described in the mantra, satyam jñānam anantam brahma. This is confirmed by the following statement of Vedic literature: so 'śnute sarvān kāmān saha brahmaṇā vipaścitā "The liberated soul enjoys the fulfillment of all his desires in the company of the omniscient Supreme Brahman."

॥ श्रीब्रह्मसूत्रम् — आनन्दमयाधिकरणम् ॥ पूर्वप्रसङ्गः (सूत्र १६ शेष — श्रीगोविन्दभाष्यम्): तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदि (२।१।१) "सोऽश्नुते सर्वान् कामान् सह ब्रह्मणा विपश्चिता" इत्यत्र मुक्तजीवस्य परब्रह्मणा सहभावश्रवणात् तयोर्भेदः स्पष्टः। 'विपश्चित्' शब्दस्य व्युत्पत्तिः—विविधं पश्यतीति विपश्चित्; पाणिनिसूत्रेण "पृषोदरादीनि यथोपदिष्टम्" (६।३।१०९) इति रूपसिद्धिः। अनेन विविधदिव्यानन्दानुभवचतुरेण परब्रह्मणा सह मुक्तजीवः स्वकामान् समश्नुते। 'अश्नुते' इति पदे 'अश भोजने' इत्यस्मात् धातोः परस्मैपदित्वेऽपि "व्यत्ययो बहुलम्" (पाणिनि ३।१।८५) इति छान्दसादात्मनेपदप्रयोगः। परब्रह्म परमेश्वरः स्वतः परमभोक्ता, जीवश्च तदधीनभोक्ता; तथापि भगवान् स्वभक्तानां माहात्म्यं ख्यापयन् आह— स्मृति-प्रमाणम् (श्रीमद्भागवतम् ९।४।६३): वशे कुर्वन्ति मां भक्ताः सत्स्त्रियः सत्पतिं यथा ॥ (यथा साध्व्यः स्त्रियः स्वपतिं वशीकुर्वन्ति, तथा अनन्यभक्ता मां वशीकुर्वन्ति।) ॥ सूत्रम् १७ ॥ भेदव्यपदेशाच्च ॥ १।१।१७ ॥ पदच्छेदः — भेद-व्यपदेशात्, च। अन्वयः — (जीवात् ब्रह्मणः) भेदव्यपदेशात् च (अयमानन्दमयो न जीवः, अपि तु परं ब्रह्मैव)। पदविभागार्थः — भेद (जीव-ब्रह्मणोः भेदस्य), व्यपदेशात् (श्रुतिषु प्रतिपादनात्, कथनात्), च (अपि च)। सूत्रार्थः — श्रुतौ जीव-ब्रह्मणोः परस्परं भेदकथनाद् अपि आनन्दमयः जीवो न भवति, किन्तु ब्रह्मैव। श्रील-बलदेवविद्याभूषण-विरचितं श्रीगोविन्दभाष्यम्: तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदि (२।७।१) श्रूयते — "रसो वै सः। रसं ह्येवायं लब्ध्वानन्दी भवति ॥" इति। पूर्वपक्षः — विकारप्रवाहे पठितत्वात् आनन्दप्रचुरः संसारी जीव एव आनन्दमयपदेन ग्राह्यः। सिद्धान्तः — नायं जीवः, कुतः? भेदव्यपदेशात्। अत्र लब्धव्यस्य रसस्वरूपस्य ब्रह्मणः, लब्धुश्च जीवस्य भेदः स्पष्टतया व्यपदिश्यते। भाष्य-विवरणम् — 'अयम्' इति प्रत्यगात्मा जीवः, 'रसो वै सः' इति तु परमात्मा ब्रह्म; अतः प्राप्य-प्रापकयोः लब्धव्य-लब्ध्रोश्च भेदात् आनन्दमयो ब्रह्मैव। हिन्दी-अनुवादः: तैत्तिरीय श्रुति के वचन "सह ब्रह्मणा विपश्चिता" में मुक्त आत्मा और परब्रह्म के मध्य का भेद वर्णित है। 'विपश्चित्' का अर्थ है जो विविध वस्तुओं का साक्षात् दर्शन करता है (पृषोदरादि गण से व्युत्पन्न)। इस प्रकार मुक्त आत्मा विविध दिव्य आनन्द के भोक्ता भगवान् का सान्निध्य प्राप्त कर अपनी सभी इच्छाओं को पूर्ण करता है। 'अश्नुते' पद में 'अश भोजने' धातु से उपभोग अर्थ है; छान्दस नियम "व्यत्ययो बहुलम्" से यहाँ आत्मनेपद हुआ है। यद्यपि भगवान् स्वतः परम भोक्ता हैं, फिर भी वे भक्तों के वशीभूत होकर कहते हैं: "जैसे पतिव्रता स्त्री अपने पति को वश में करती है, वैसे भक्त मुझे वश में कर लेते हैं।" सूत्र १७ हिन्दी-भावार्थ: "भेदव्यपदेशाच्च" — वेद में जीव और ईश्वर का भेद स्पष्ट रूप से बतलाए जाने के कारण आनन्दमय जीव नहीं, बल्कि परब्रह्म है। उपनिषद्-प्रमाण (तैत्तिरीय २।७।१): "वह परमात्मा ही रस-स्वरूप है; यह जीव उस रस को पाकर ही आनन्दित होता है।" निष्कर्ष: प्राप्त करने योग्य रस (ब्रह्म) और उसे पाकर आनन्दित होने वाला (जीव) दोनों में भेद होने से आनन्दमय परब्रह्म ही सिद्ध होता है।

"When one understands the Personality of God, the reservoir of pleasure, Kṛṣṇa, he actually becomes transcendentally blissful."* This passage clearly shows the difference between the liberated individual spirit soul and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whom the Vedic mantras describe as ānandamaya, and who is the transcendental nectar attained by the individual spirit soul. This difference is also described in the following statement of Bṛhad- āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (4.4.6): brahmaiva san brahmāpnoti "After becoming Brahman, the individual spirit soul attains Brahman." This statement does not mean that after liberation the individual spirit soul becomes non-different from the Supreme Brahman, but rather the liberated soul becomes similar to Brahman and in this condition meets Brahman and attains His association. This is confirmed by the folllowing statementof Māṇḍukya Upaniṣad (3.1.31): nirañjanaḥ paramaṁ sāmyam upaiti "This liberated soul becomes like the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Also, in the Bhagavad-gita (14.2), the Supreme Personality of Godhead declares: idaṁ jñānam upāśritya mama sādharmyam āgatāḥ "By becoming fixed in this knowledge, one can attain to the transcendental nature, which is like My own nature."* In this way the Vedic literatures teach us that the liberated souls become like the Supreme Personality of Godhead. At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that the pradhāna feature of the mode of material goodness (sattva-guṇa) is the actual origin of the ānandamaya person? Śrīla Vyāsadeva answers this objection in the following sūtra. Sūtra 18

सूत्रम्: कामाच्च नानुमानापेक्षा ॥ १८ ॥ पदविभागः एवं शब्दार्थ: कामात् — (परमात्मा की) इच्छा (संकल्प) होने से; च — और; न — नहीं; अनुमान — आनुमानिक (सांख्य-कल्पित प्रधान/प्रकृति) की; अपेक्षा — सम्बन्ध अथवा अपेक्षा। सूत्रार्थ: आनन्दमय पुरुष प्रकृति या सत्त्वगुण का विकार (प्रधान) नहीं हो सकता; क्योंकि प्रधान अचेतन और इच्छारहित है, जबकि आनन्दमय परमेश्वर संकल्प अथवा कामना से युक्त है। श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषणकृत गोविन्दभाष्य-तात्पर्य: तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद् में कहा गया है — श्रुति-वाक्य: «सोऽकामयत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति» हिन्दी अनुवाद: "उस परम पुरुष (आनन्दमय) ने संकल्प (इच्छा) किया — 'मैं बहुत हो जाऊँ, मैं विविध रूपों में उत्पन्न होऊँ'।" इस प्रकार श्रुति-शास्त्र यह प्रतिपादित करता है कि इस विश्व-ब्रह्माण्ड की सृष्टि आनन्दमय परम पुरुष की इच्छा से हुई है। चूंकि वह आनन्दमय पुरुष इस प्रकार संकल्प-इच्छा से पूर्ण है, अतः जड़, अचेतन तथा इच्छारहित 'प्रधान' (प्रकृति का सत्त्वगुण) वह आनन्दमय पुरुष कदापि नहीं हो सकता। सूत्र १९: अस्मिन्नस्य च तद्योगं शास्ति ॥ १९ ॥ पदविभागः एवं शब्दार्थ: अस्मिन् — इस आनन्दमय पुरुष (परमात्मा) में; अस्य — इस (जीवात्मा) का; च — भी; तत्-योगम् — उस (अभय/आनन्द) के सम्बन्ध (योग) को; शास्ति — श्रुति-शास्त्र उपदेश देता है। सूत्रार्थ एवं व्याख्या: आनन्दमय पुरुष प्रधान अथवा प्रकृति से सम्भूत नहीं हो सकता; क्योंकि श्रुति-शास्त्र यह उपदेश करता है कि इस आनन्दमय परमात्मा के साथ सम्बद्ध (युक्त) होने पर ही जीवात्मा को अभय (और आनन्द) की प्राप्ति होती है।

Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The śruti-śāstra teaches that by taking shelter of the ānandamaya person, the individual spirit soul attains fearlessness, and by declining to take shelter of Him, the soul becomes plagued with fears. This confirmed by the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.7.2) in the passage beginning with the words yadā hy eva. On the other hand, contact with the material nature brings fear to the individual spirit souls. The material nature does not bring a condition of fearlessness to the living entities, and for this reason it is not possible that the pradhāna mode of material goodness is the ānandamaya person. Therefore, the ānandamaya person is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Hari. The ānandamaya person is not the individual spirit soul or the material nature. Adhikaraṇa 7 The Nature of the Person Within

1. Viṣaya (Statement): The Chāndogya Upaniṣad explains: atha yā so 'ntar ādityo hiraṇmayaḥ puruṣo dṛśyate hiraṇya-śmaśrur hiraṇya-keśa aprāṇakhāt sarva eva suvarṇas tasya yathā kapyāsaṁ puṇḍarīkam evam ak\śiṇi tasyodeti nāma sa eṣa sarvebhyaḥ pāpmābhyaḥ udita udeti hā vai sarvebhyaḥ pāpmābhyo ya evaṁ veda tasya ṛk sāma ca gesnau tasmād udīgīthas tasmāt tv evodgataitasya hi gāthā sa eṣa ye cāmuṣmat parañco lokas teṣāṁ ceṣṭe deva-kāmānāṁ cety adhidaivatam. . . athādhyātmam atha ya eṣo 'ntar-ak\śiṇi puruṣo dṛśyate saiva ṛk tat sāma tad ukthaṁ tad yajus tad brahma tasyaitasya tad eva rūpaṁ yad amuṣya rūpam. yāv amuṣya gesnau tau gesnau yan nāma tan nāma. "Within the sun-globe is a golden person, with golden hair, a golden beard, and a body golden from His fingernails to all His limbs. His eyes are like lotus flowers. He is above all sin. One who understands Him also becomes situated above all sin. The Ṛg and Sāma Vedas sing His glories. From Him the highest spiritual planets, where the demigods desire to go, have become manifested. This is the golden person present among the demigods. . . Now I shall describe the person within the human mind and heart. Within the eyes a wonderful person may be seen. The Ṛg, Sāma, and Yajur Vedas glorify Him. He is identical with the golden person who resides in the sun."
2. Saṁśaya (doubt): "Is this an individual spirit soul who by great piety and spiritual knowledge has attained this exalted position, or is this the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who appears as the all-pervading Supersoul?"
3. Pūrvapakṣa (the opposing argument): Because this person has a form and various humanlike features, He must be a pious spirit soul. By his piety and

spiritual knowledge he has become able to become the great controller of demigods and human beings, who fulfills their desires, and grants them the results of thier actions. 4. Siddhānta (Conclusion): Śrīla Vyāsadeva addresses these views in the following sūtra. Sūtra 20 antas tad-dharmopadeśāt antaḥ—within; tat—of Him; dharma—nature; upadeśāt' because of the instruction. The person within (the sun and the eye is the Supreme Personality of Godhead), because the Vedic literatures explain that His nature fits the description of the Lord. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The person within the sun and the eye is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is present everywhere as the Supersoul. This person is not the individual spirit soul. Why? Because the Vedic literatures describe Him as being sinless and possessing all the qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. For example, He is free from all sin and all karma. The slightest fragrance of karma cannot touch Him. This is not possible for the individual spirit souls, who remain subject to the laws of karma. In many other ways also the individual spirit soul does not fit the description of this perosn within the sun and the eye. For example: the individual spirit soul is not the fulfiller of the desires of the living entities, nor is he the awarder of the fruits of action, nor is he the object of the worship of the living entities. At this point someone may raise the following objection: Because the person within the sun and the eye is described as having a body, therefore He must be an individual spirit soul, for the Supreme Brahman has no body. To this objection I reply: This is not necessarily so. The puruṣa-sūkta prayers (Ṛg Veda 10.90) and many other Vedic verses describe the transcendental body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad also describes the Supreme Lord's transcendental body in the following words: vedhāham etaṁ puruṣaṁ mahāntam āditya-varṇaṁ tamasaḥ parastāt

"I know that Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose form is transcendental to all material conceptions of darkness."* Sūtra 21 bheda-vyapadeśāc cānyaḥ bheda—difference; vyapadeśāt—because of the statement; ca—also; anyaḥ— another. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is different from the individual spirit soul because this doctrine is taught in all Vedic literatures. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The golden person within the sun is not the individual spirit soul who is the solar diety and who thinks the sun-planet is his own body, but rather that golden person is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Supersoul who is present in every atom. This is confirmed by the following statement of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad: ya āditye tiṣṭhann ādityād antaro yam ādityo na veda yasyādityaḥ śarīraṁ ya ādityam antaro yamayaty eṣa ta ātmāntaryāmy amṛtaḥ "That person situated within the sun, who is not the sun-god, whom the sun- god does not know, who manifests the sun-planet as His own body, who controls the sun-planet from within, that person is the immortal Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is present within the heart of every living entity as the Supersoul." From this description we may understand that the golden person within the sun is not the individual spirit soul who is the sun-god, but the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Both this passage and the previous quoted passage from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad agree on this point. Adhikarana 8 The Word "Ākāśa" Refers to Brahman

1. Viṣaya (Statement): The Chāndogya Upaniṣad states: asya lokasya kā gatir iti ākāśa iti hovāca sarvāṇi ha vā imāni bhūtāny ākāśād eva samutpadyante. ākāśaṁ pratyastaṁ yānty ākāśaḥ parāyaṇam iti. "He asked: What is the ultimate destination of all living entities? He replied: Ākāśa is the ultimate destination. All living entities and all material elements have emanated from ākāśa, and they will again enter into ākāśa."
2. Saṁśaya (doubt): What is the meaning of the word ākāśa here? Does it mean the element ether, or does it mean the Supreme Brahman?
3. Pūrvapakṣa (the opposing argument): The word ākāśa here means "the element ether", because air and the other elements evolve from it. Indeed, ether is the origin of all the other elements.
4. Siddhānta (Conclusion): Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes this argument in the following sūtra. Sūtra 22 ākāśas tal-liṅgāt ākāśaḥ—the word ākāśa; tat—of Him; liṅgāt—because of the qualities. The word "ākāśa" in the Vedic literature refers to the Supreme Brahman, for the description of "ākāśa" aptly fits the description of the qualities of Brahman. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word ākāśa here refers to Brahman and not the material element ether. Why? Because the ākāśa described here has alll the characteristics of Brahman. The ākāśa described here is the source from which the material elements emanate, the maintainer who sustains them, and the ultimate refuge into which they enter at the time of comsic annihilation. That is Brahman. The scriptures explain: sarvāṇi ha vā imāni bhūtāni (All material elements have emanated from ākāśa). Because ether is one of the material elements, it is included in the word sarvāṇi (all the elements). It is not the independent origin of the causal chain, but merely one of

the links. For this reason it cannot be the ākāśa that is the source of all the elements (including ether). The use of the word eva (certainly) in this context reinforces the interpretation that ākāśa refers to Brahman because eva implies "there is no other cause". For this reason ākāśa cannot refer to the material element ether. For example, clay is the origin from which clay pots are produced, and other material substances are the origins of other objects, but all these "origins" are not primal origins, but merely intermediate steps in a great causal chain. By using the word eva (the sole cause) the text clearly refers to the primal, uncaused cause, Brahman, and not ether or any other particular intermediate stage in the causal chain. The Vedic literatures describe Brahman as the master of all potencies and the source of all forms, and therefore, because the ākāśa is described (eva) as the "sole cause", it can refer only to the primal cause Brahman and not the material element ether. Although the word ākāśa generally means "ether" in ordinary usage, in this context the secondary meaning "Brahman" is far more appropriate. Adhikaraṇa 9 The Word "Prāṇa" Refers to Brahman

1. Viṣaya (Statement): The Chāndogya Upaniṣad explains: katama sa devateti. prāṇa iti hovāca. sarvāṇi hā vai imāni bhūtāni prāṇam evābhisamviśanti prāṇam abhyujjīhate. "They asked: Who is this deity of whom you speak? He replied: It is prāṇa. From prāṇa all the material elements have emanated, and into prāṇa they enter at the end."
2. Saṁśaya (doubt): Does the word prāṇahere refer to the breath that travels in and out of the mouth, or does it refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead?
3. Pūrvapakṣa (opposing argument): The ordinary meaning of the word prāṇa is "the breath that travels in and out the mouth." That meaning is intended here.
4. Siddhānta (Conclusion): Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes this view by speaking the following sūtra. Sūtra 23 ata eva prāṇaḥ ataḥ eva—therefore; prāṇaḥ—the word prāṇa.

The word "prāṇa" in the Vedic literatures refers to the Supreme Brahman, for the same reasons expressed in the previous sūtra. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word prāṇa in this passage from Chāndogya Upaniṣad refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and not to the transformations of air. Why? Because this text describes prāṇa as the original cause from which the material elements have emanated, and into which they enter at the end. These are the characteristics of the Supreme Brahman, and not the material element air. Adhikarana 10 The Word "Jyotis" Refers to Brahman Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The Chāndogya Upaniṣad (3.13.7) states: atha yad ataḥ paro divo jyotir dīpyate viśvataḥ pṛṣṭheṣu sarvataḥ pṛṣṭheṣv anuttameṣūttameṣu lokeṣu idaṁ vāva tad yad idam asminn antaḥ puruṣe jyotiḥ "Jyotis shines in the spiritual world, above all the material planets. Jyotis forms the background on which all material universes and all material planets, from lowest to highest, rest. This jyotis is present in the heart of every living being." 2. Saṁśaya (doubt): What is the jyotis described here? Is it the light of the sun and other luminous objects, or is it the Supreme Brahman? 3.Pūrvapakṣa (the opposing argument): Because there is no mention of Brahman in this passage, the word jyotis in this text must refer to the light of the sun and other luminous objects. 4. Siddhānta (Conclusion): Śrīla Vyāsadeva replies in the following sūtra. Sūtra 24 jyotiś-caraṇābhidhānāt

jyotiḥ—of the jyotiḥ; caraṇa—of the feet; abhidhānāt' because of the mention. Because the "jyotis" in this text is described as having feet, (it must refer to the Supreme Brahman). Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word jyotis here should be understood to mean "the Supreme Brahman". Why? Because this jyotis is described as having feet. The Chāndogya Upaniṣad (3.12.6) states: etāvan asya mahimato jyāyāṁs" ca puruṣaḥ. pado 'sya sarva-bhūtāni tri-pad asyāmṛtaṁ divi "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of glory and opulence. His one foot is all material elements and all living entities, and His three feet are the eternal spiritual world." In the previously quoted text of Chāndogya Upaniṣad (3.13.7), as well as in this text from Chāndogya Upaniṣad (3.12.6), (where Brahman is described as having four feet), the spiritual world is mentioned. Although both texts are separated by a little distance, they are brought together by joint mention of the spiritual world, as well as by use of the relative and co-relative pronouns yat and tat. For these reasons it should be understood that both texts describe the all-powerful Supreme Personality of Godhead. For these reasons the jyotis described in this text is the all-powerful Supreme Personality of Godhead, and not the light of the sun and other luminous objects. Sūtra 25 chando-'bhidhānān neti cen na tathā ceto 'rpaṇa-nigādāt tathā hi darśanam chandaḥ—of a meter; abhidhānāt—because of being the description; na—not; tathā—in that way; cetaḥ—the mind; arpaṇa—placing; nigādāt—because of the instruction; tathā hi' furthermore; darśanam—logical. If someone were to claim: “The word {.sy 1682}jyotis" here does not

refer to Brahman, but to the Gāyatrī meter," then I would reply: This is not true. The Gāyatrī meter is taught to assist meditation on Brahman. For this reason it is logical and appropriate to interpret the word jyotis to mean "Brahman". Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa At this point someone may raise the following objection:Is it not true that the Vedic literatures state: gāyatrī vā idaṁ sarvaṁ bhūtaṁ yad idaṁ kiñcit "Gāyatrī is everything that exists." tam eva bhūta-vāk-pṛthivī-śarīra-hṛdaya-prabhedaiḥ "Gāyatrī is everything. Gāyatrī is speech, earth, body, and mind." caiṣa catuṣ-padā ṣaḍ-vidhā gāyatrī tad etad ṛcābhyuktam "The Gāyatrī meter, of which there are four feet and six varieties, is extensively employed in the mantras of the Vedas." etāvan asya mahimā "Gāyatrī is glorious." For these reasons it should be understood that the word jyotis in the Vedic literatures refers to the Gāyatrī mantra. Why, without any good reason, do you insist that the word jyotis refers to Brahman? To this objection I reply: Gāyatrī is a meter, and therefore it is not sensible to claim that it is everything, and everything has emanated from it. For this reason it is only reasonable to assume that the word jyotis in this context refers to Brahman and not Gāyatrī. Why? Because in this sūtra Śrīla Vyāsadeva states: tathā hi darśanam (that the word jyotis refers to Brahman is only logical and consistent. Any other interpretation is illogical). The truth is that the Supreme Brahman has incarnated in this world in the form of the Gāyatrī mantra to enable the living entities to meditate on Him. This fact is

confirmed by the statements of Vedic literature. If we accept that Gāyatrī is an incarnation of Brahman, then the scriptural statement "Gāyatrī is everything" is perfectly sensible. Otherwise, the interpretation we concoct is illogical and forced. In this way we have demonstrated that the Gāyatrī mantra is an incarnation of Brahman. Sūtra 26 bhūtādi-pāda-vyapadeśopapatteś caivam bhūta—the living entities; ādi—beginning with; pada—feet; vyapadeśa—of the statement; upapatteḥ—for the reason; ca—also; evam—in this way. Because the Vedic literatures state that the living entities, (their speech, bodies, and minds are the four) feet (of Gāyatrī), it should be understood (that Gāyatrī is an incarnation of Brahman). Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Gāyatrī should be considered the same as Brahman. Why? Because Gāyatrī is described in the words: tam eva bhūta-vāk-pṛthivī-śarīra-hṛdaya-bhedaiḥ "Gāyatrī is everything. The four feet of Gāyatrī are speech, earth, body, and mind." Without Gāyatrī being an incarnation of Brahman, it is not possible for these four things to be Gāyatrī's feet. For this reason, as previously explained, it is only natural to interpret the word "Gāyatrī" to mean "Brahman". In the two quotations from Vedic literature that have formed the basis of our discussion, the word dyu (the spiritual world) has occurred. This appearance of the word dyu in both passages further confirms that the ambiguous words in these two passages refer to Brahman, and not to something else. At this point someone may raise the following objection: The word dyu appearing in these two passages refers to different things. To answer this objection, Śrīla Vyāsadeva speaks the following sūtra.

Sūtra 27 upadeśa-bhedān neti cen nobhayasminn apy avirodhāt upadeśa—of instruction; bhedāt—because of the difference; na—not; iti—thus; cet—if; na—not; ubhayasmin—in both places; api—also; avirodhāt—because of non- contradicition. The objection that because the two scriptural passages employ the word "dyu" in two different cases (locative and ablative), therefore they describe two different objects, which cannot both be Brahman, is not a valid objection. The use of the two different causes does not mean that the two passages must describe two different things. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that two contradictory descriptions of Brahman are found in the scriptures? In one place the scriptures state: tri-padasyāmṛtaṁ divi "The eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead resides in the spiritual world, which constitutes three-quarters of all existence." In another place the scriptures state: paro divaḥ "The Supreme Personality of Godhead resides on top of the spiritual world." In the first quotation the spiritual world was placed in the locative case. Since this is so, both passages contradict each other, They describe two different objects, one within the spiritual world, and the other above it. To this objection I reply: Why do you say this? Both passages refer to the same object. The uses of the locative and ablative cases in these quotations does not present a contradiction. for example, in the material world a parrot may be said to be "in" a tree or "on" it. There is no real difference in the two statements. In the

same way the Supreme Personality of Godhead may be said to be "in" the spiritual world or "on" it. There is no real difference. Adhikaraṇa 11 The Word "Prāṇa" Refers to Brahman

1. Viṣaya (Statement): In the Kauṣītakī Brāhmaṇa, Pratardana, the son of Mahārāja Divodasa, was able, by virtue of His chivalry and heroism, to enter the favorite residence of Mahārāja Indra. When Indra granted Pratardana a benediction, and Pratardana requested Indra choose the benediction he was to give, Indra instructed Pratardana in the following words: prāṇo 'smi prajñātmā taṁ mām āyur-amṛtam upasasva "I am prāṇa. An intelligent person will worship me as the great immortal person."
2. Saṁśaya (doubt): Who is this person named prāṇa? Is he an individual spirit soul, or is He the Supreme Personality of Godhead who resides in everyone's heart as the Supersoul?
3. Pūrvapakṣa (the opposing argument): The words "indra" and prāṇa here refer to a specific individual spirit soul. When pratardana inquired, Indra replied by saying the worship of Indra was the most beneficial activity for the living entities.
4. Siddhānta (conclusion): Śrīla Vyāsadeva responds to this argument in the following sūtra. Sūtra 28 prāṇas tathānugamāt prāṇaḥ—the word prāṇa; tathā—in the same way; anugamāt—because of the context. The word "prāṇa" (should be understood to refer to Brahman) because of the context of it's use. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa

The prāṇa here must refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is present in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. Prāṇa here cannot refer to the individual spirit soul. Why? Śrīla Vyāsadeva explains: tathānugamāt (because of the context). The prāṇa described here is intelligence, the self, and transcendental bliss. He is free from old-age and death. These attributes clearly indicate that the word prāṇa here refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not true that to interpret the word prāṇa here is mean Brahman is very inappropriate? Mahārāja Indra is speaking, and he says prāṇo 'smi (I am prāṇa). The speaker is Mahārāja Indra, and he clearly refers to himself. He then proceeds to further identify himself, saying: tri-śīrṣāṇaṁ tvaṣṭram ahanam aruṇmukhān ṛṣīn śalāvṛkebhyaḥ prayacchan (I killed Vṛtrāsura, the three-headed son of Tvaṣṭā, and I gave the Aruṇmukha sages to the śalāvṛkas). All this shows that the Indra described here is an individual spirit soul who advises the living entities to worship him. Even though at the end of this passage prāṇa is described as ānanda (transcendental bliss), this also is not inconsistent, because the transcendental glories of the individual spirit souls are also described in the Vedic literatures. In fact, when Indra says he is prāṇa and everyone should worship him, he refers to himself, the individual spirit soul Indra. Indra's statement may be compared to the advice of the Vedic literature: vācaṁ dhenum upāsīta (One should worship the goddess of speech just as one worships the cow). Because Mahārāja Indra is the strongest of living entities, and because strength is identified with the living-force (prāṇa), he identifies himself with that prāṇa. This is perfectly in accord with the statement of Vedic literature: prāṇo vai balam (the living-force is strength). In this way it should be understood that the words prāṇa and indra here refer to a specific individual spirit soul. Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes this argument in the next sūtra. Sūtra 29 na vaktur ātmopadeśād iti ced adhyātma-sambandha-bhūma hy asmin na—not; vaktuḥ—of the speaker; ātma—of the self; upadeśāt—because of the instruction; iti—thus; cet—if; adhyātma—to the Supreme Personality of Godhead; sambandha' references; bhūma—abundance; hi—indeed; asmin—in this Upaniṣad. If it is said that the speaker here refers to himself, I say that is not true. In this passage there are many references to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa