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

"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

In this sūtra the word adhyātma-sambandha means "with reference to the Supreme Personality of Godhead", and the word bhuma means "abundance". In this chapter of Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad the word prāṇa repeatedly appears in various contexts where it must unavoidably be interpreted to mean "the Supreme Personality of Godhead." For example:

1. When Pratardana asked for the most beneficial gift, or in other words liberation, Indra replied replied by saying "Worship me as prāṇa." In this context prāṇa must mean "the Supreme Personality of Godhead", for only He can grant liberation.
2. The Upaniṣad explains: eṣa eva sādhu karma kārayati "Prāṇa bestows upon the living entity the power to act wonderfully." This must refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the supreme controller, and not to the tiny demigod Indra.
3. The Upaniṣad also explains: tad yathā rathasyāreṣu nemir arpitā nābhavara arpita evam evaita bhūta-mātraḥ. prajñā-mātrāsv arpitaḥ. prajñā-mātrāḥ prāṇe 'rpitāḥ. "Just as in a chariot wheel the rim rests on the spokes, and the spokes on the hub, in the same way the material elements rest on prajñā (intelligence), and prajñā rests on prāṇa." This quote states that everything sentient and insentient is maintained by prāṇa.
4. The Upaniṣad also explains: sa eṣa prāṇa eva prajñātmānando 'jaro 'mṛtaḥ. eṣa lokādhipatir eṣa sarveśvaraḥ "Prāṇa is the Supersoul present in all living entites. Prāṇa is the transcendental bliss. Prāṇa remains eternally untouched by old-age and death. Prāṇa is the master

of all living entities and all planets. Prāṇa is the Supreme Controller." Because prāṇa is transcendental bliss and has the various qualitites described here, the word prāṇa in this context can refer only to the Supreme Brahman, the Personality of Godhead, who is present in the hearts of all living entities as the Supersoul. The word prāṇa here cannot possibly refer to anyone else. At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that Indra directly describes himself as prāṇa. Why does he do this if your interpretation that prāṇa means "Supreme Brahman" is correct? Śrīla Vyāsadeva answers this objection in the following sūtra. Sūtra 30 śāstra-dṛṣṭyā tūpadeśo vāmadevavat śāstra—of scripture; dṛṣṭyā—from the viewpoint; tu—but; upadeśaḥ—instruction; vāmadeva—Vāmadeva; vat—like. Indra speaks in this way (identifying himself with Brahman) in accordance with the teaching of Vedic literature. He does this just as the sage Vāmadeva also did. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word tu (but) is used here to remove doubt. Even though Indra was perfectly aware that he was an individual spirit soul and not the Supreme Brahman, he still said, "Worship me, knowing me to be Brahman", and this statement is actually perfectly correct according to the philosophy of Vedic literature. It is not untrue. For example, the Chāndogya Upaniṣad states: na vai vāco na cakṣūmṣi na śrotrāṇi na manāmṣīty ācakṣate prāṇa ity evācakṣate prāṇo hy evaitāni sarvāṇi bhavanti "The senses are not properly called voices', eyes', ears', and minds'. The proper name for them all is prāṇa. Everything that is exists is prāṇa." Because prāṇa maintains their activities, the senses are identified as prāṇa. The learned, self-realized speaker, Indra, wishing to teach his humble, well-behaved student, instructed him: "I am that prāṇa." This means that Indra is dependent on prāṇa, or Brahman, not that he is identical with Brahman in all respects.

The example of Vāmadeva is found in the following passage of Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.4.10): tad vaitat paśyan nṛṣir vāmadevaḥ pratipade ahaṁ manur abhavaṁ sūryaś ca "Seeing this, the sage Vāmadeva repeated at every moment:`I was Manu. I was the sun-god.'" Here Vāmadeva identifies himself with Manu and the sun-god because the Supreme Brahman is the controller who grants powers to Vāmadeva, Manu, and the sun-god. Because they all obtain their powers from the Supreme Brahman, in one sense, they are all one. The Supreme Brahman is all-pervading. He is, in one sense, one with everything that is pervaded by Him. This confirmed by the following statements of smṛti-śāstra: yo 'yaṁ tavāgato deva-samīpaṁ devatā-gaṇaḥ sa tvam eva jagat-sraṣṭā yataḥ sarva-gato bhavān "Whoever comes before You, be he a demigod, is created by You, O Supreme Personality of Godhead."* —Viṣṇu Purāṇa 1.9.69 sarvaṁ samāpnoṣi tato 'si sarvam "You are all-pervading, and thus you are everything."* —Bhagavad-gītā 11.40 In ordinary usage also, when there is a great assembly in a certain place, people call that oneness, because there is unity of place, and also when there is agreement of opinion, that is also called oneness. For example, it is said: "In the evening the scattered cows assemble in one place and thus attain oneness," and "The disputing monarchs finally agreed and became one in their opinion." At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that although there are many passages indicating that the word prāṇa in this passage refers to Brahman, still there are many other passages that demonstrate that it is not possible for the word prāṇa to refer Brahman. Some examples are: na vācaṁ vijijñāsītā vaktāraṁ vidyāt "Do not try to understand the meaning of a statement without first

understanding who has spoken it." —Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad (3.8) tri-śīrṣāṇaṁ tvaṣṭram ahanam "I am the Indra who killed Vṛtrāsura, the three-headed son of Tvaṣṭā." These two quotations clearly identify that the speaker of the passage in question was the demigod Indra, who is an individual spirit soul. That the word prāṇa refers to the life-force, or breath within the body, is confirmed by the following scriptural statements: yāvad asmin śarīre prāṇo vasati tāvad āyur atha khalu prāṇa eva prajñātma idaṁ śarīraṁ parigṛhyotthāpayati "As long as prāṇa remains within it, the body is alive. Prāṇa is the conscious spirit soul. Prāṇa grasps this material body, and makes it rise up and move about." —Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad (2.2-3) yo vai prāṇaḥ sa prajñā yā prajñā sa prāṇaḥ. sa hā hy etāv asmin śarīre vasataḥ. sahotkramate. "Prāṇa is the same as prajñā (consciousness). Prajñā is the same as prāṇa. Together they reside in the material body. At the last moment they both leave the body together." —Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad These quotations clearly show that it is not impossible to interpret the word prāṇa in this context to mean "the individual spirit soul" or "living force". The scriptures teach us that both are actually identical, the living force being the active expression of the inactive spirit-soul. In this way it is valid to interpret the word prāṇa in three ways: 1. the individual spirit soul; 2. the living-force; and 3. the Supreme Brahman. The word prāṇa here refers to all three. All three are worshipable for the living entities. Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes this argument in the following sūtra. Sūtra 31

jīva-mukhya-prāṇa-liṅgān neti cen nopāsya-traividhyād āśritatvād iha tad-yogāt jīva—of the individual spirit soul; mukhya—the primary; prāṇa—living force; liṅgāt—the signs; na—not; iti—thus; cet' if; na—not; upāsya—worshipable; taividhyāt—because of being there; āśritatvāt—because of taking shelter; iha—here; tat-yogāt—because of appropriateness. If someone says the word "prāṇa" also refers to the individual spirit soul and the primary living-force in addition to referring to Brahman, then I reply that such an interpretation is not correct. If the word "prāṇa" referred to all three, then all three would be worshipable. This view is not correct, because neither logic nor the authority of scripture support it. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Someone may say that the natural features of the individual spirit soul and the living-force are such that they are proper objects of worship. To this I reply: This is not true. Why? For then there would be three objects of worship. When Indra says, "Worship me as prāṇa," he uses only one sentence. The rules of rhetoric demand that a sentence have only one correct interpretation, and therefore if we say that the word prāṇa here refers to three different objects, we shall break that rule. This is the true meaning: There are three possible ways to interpret the meaning of prāṇa in this context: 1. Take all these passages, including what directly mentions Brahman, as referring to the individual spirit soul and living- force; 2. Take these passages as referring some to the individual soul and living- force, and some to Brahman. and 3. Take these passages as all referring to Brahman. The first possibility has already been clearly refuted, The second possiblity is not very acceptable, for it recommends that there are three distinct objects of worship. Śrīla Vyāsadeva says the third possibility is actually logical because āśritatvāt (this view is supported by the statements of Vedic literature). We may see that many passages in Vedic literature that seem to refer to the individual spirit soul or the living force, in fact refer to Brahman. If at this point someone were to object: Is it not true that in this passage the natural sense of the words supports the interpretations of the individual spirit soul and the living force?" I would reply by saying: In this passage the worship of prāṇa is described as the most beneficial activity for the living entities. For this reason the interpretation of the Supreme Brahman is logical. For this reason Śrīla Vyāsadeva states in the sūtra, tad-yogāt (because this is logical). Someone may then object: Is it not true that the scriptures explain that the prāṇa and prajñā both reside within the body of the individual spirit soul, and also leave that body together at the time of death? How is this possible if you say that prāṇa means "Brahman"? To this objection I reply: Brahman is present in the body of the individual spirit soul in two ways: as kriyā-śakti (the potency of action), which is also known as

prāṇa, and as jñāna-śakti (the potency of knowledge), which is also known as prajñā. Both are manifested from Brahman. These two potencies remain within the body of the individual spirit soul, and also leave it together at the time of death. Another objection may be raised in the following words: Is it not true that prāṇa and the other words you claim are names of the Supreme Brahman are all actually adjectives, and therefore cannot function as names? To this objection I reply: This not true. These words are simultaneously adjectives and nouns. When Indra says prāṇo 'smi prajñātmā (I am prāṇa, prajñā, and ātmā), he uses these words as nouns. For these reasons prāṇa, prajñā, and other words used by Indra should be understood to refer to Brahman. At this point a further objection may be raised: Is it not true that in the beginning you adequately demonstrated that the word prāṇa refers to Brahman? Most of your arguments are redundant. To this objection I reply: This is not true. In the beginning I dispelled the doubts that may have arisen in regard to the single word prāṇa taken by itself. After that I discussed the word prāṇa in relation to a specific quotation, where it was related with other words, such as ānanda, and in this discussion I demonstrated that the word prāṇa was used there in such a way that it could only be understood to mean Brahman, and not the individual spirit soul, or anything else. For this reason I have discussed this specific passage of Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad separately. Pada 2 Adhikaraṇa 1 The Word "Manomaya" Refers to Brahman Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa manomayādibhiḥ śabdaiḥ svarūpaṁ yasya kīrtyate hṛdaye sphuratu śrīmān mamāsau śyāmasundaraḥ In the First Pada of this chapter it was said that one should inquire about the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the creator of all universes. Certain words used in Vedic literature were also clearly shown to refer to that Supreme Brahman. In the Second and Third Padas it will be demonstrated that certain other words, although less clearly related to Brahman, also describe Him. In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, Śāṇḍilya-vidyā (3.14.1) the following explanation is given:

sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma taj jalān iti śānta upāsīta. atha khalu kratumayaḥ puruṣaḥ. yathā kratur asmin loke puruṣo bhavati tathetaḥ pretya bhavati. sa kratuṁ kurvīta. manomayaḥ prāṇa-śarīro bhā-rūpaḥ satya-saṅkalpa ākāśātmā sarva-karmā sarva-kāmaḥ sarva-gandhaḥ sarva-rasaḥ sarvam idaṁ abhyāto avākyān ādaraḥ. "Everything is Brahman. From Him everything has come. The peaceful sage should worship Brahman with this idea. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the activities of devotional service. When devotional service is performed in this world the Supreme Personality of Godhead is present. As one performs devotional service in this life he will attain an appropriate body after death. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is known by those whose minds are pure. He is the controller of all life. He is effulgent and glorious. His every desire is automatically fulfilled. He is all-pervading. He is the original creator of everything. He fulfills all desires. He possesses all pleasant fragrances. He is all sweetness. He is present everywhere. He cannot be described in words. He cannot be known." Saṁśaya: Do the adjectives (beginning with manomaya) in this passage describe the jīva or the Paramātmā? Pūrvapakṣa: The words manaḥ and prāṇa here appropriately describe the jīva. The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (2.1.2) explains: aprāṇo hy amanāḥ śubhraḥ (The splendid Supreme Person has neither breath nor mind). Because this passage from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad contradicts the description of the Supreme Lord in this way, it should be understood to refer to the jīva. The opening words sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma (Everything is Brahman) do not necessarily mean that the entire passage following them are about Brahman, but are merely spoken so that the worshiper may become peaceful. The teaching there is that because Brahman is everything one should become peaceful. The rest of the passage should then be understood to refer to the jīva and the word brahma at the end of the passage should also be understood to refer to the jīva. Siddhānta: The proper conclusion is: Sūtra 1 sarvatra prasiddhopadeśāt sarvatra—everywhere; prasiddha—celebrated; upadeśāt—because of the teaching. (The word "manomaya" here refers to the Paramātmā) because (in this passage) the famous (attributes of the Paramātmā as are taught) everywhere (in Vedānta literature are) described.

॥ श्रीमद्ब्रह्मसूत्रम् — प्रथमाध्याये द्वितीयः पादः ॥ ॥ सर्वत्रप्रसिद्ध्यधिकरणम् (सूत्रम् १) ॥ सूत्रम्: सर्वत्र प्रसिद्धोपदेशात् ॥ १।२।१ ॥ विषयवाक्यम् (छान्दोग्योपनिषद् ३।१४।१-२): "सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म तज्जलानिति शान्त उपासीत... मनोमयः प्राणशरीरो भारूपः..." श्रील बलदेवविद्याभूषण-कृत-गोविन्दभाष्य-तात्पर्यम् (हिन्दी-अनुवादसहितम्): [तात्पर्यम्]: यह प्रसंग परमात्मा का ही निरूपण करता है, जीवात्मा का नहीं। ऐसा क्यों? क्योंकि जो गुण केवल परमात्मा में ही संभव हैं—जैसे सम्पूर्ण जगत् का स्रष्टा होना— तथा जिनका वर्णन वेदान्त-शास्त्रों में सर्वत्र (सर्वत्र प्रसिद्ध) मिलता है, वे सभी गुण इस प्रसंग में 'तज्जलान्' इत्यादि पदों द्वारा स्पष्टतः कहे गए हैं। यद्यपि इस प्रसंग का प्रारम्भिक वाक्य "सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म" साक्षात् ब्रह्म-निरूपण के लिए नहीं, अपितु चित्त के उपशम (शान्ति) के विधान के लिए प्रयुक्त हुआ है, तथापि आगे आने वाला 'मनोमयः' शब्द निश्चित रूप से परब्रह्म परमात्मा का ही प्रतिपादन करता है। यहाँ 'क्रतु' शब्द का अर्थ 'उपासना/भक्ति' है तथा 'मनोमय' का अर्थ है—'विशुद्ध मन द्वारा ग्राह्य'। जैसा कि बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (४।४।१९) में कहा गया है: "मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्" (अर्थात् परमात्मा को केवल विशुद्ध अन्तःकरण द्वारा ही साक्षात्कृत किया जा सकता है)। तैत्तिरीय-श्रुति का यह वचन कि: "यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह" (जहाँ से वाणी और मन परमात्मा को पूर्णतया प्राप्त किए बिना लौट आते हैं), इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि अज्ञानी जन परमात्मा के वास्तविक स्वरूप को नहीं जान सकते, तथा परम ज्ञानी एवं मुनिजन भी उनके अनन्त गुणों की पूर्ण सीमा को मन-वाणी से नहीं नाप सकते। 'प्राणशरीर' शब्द का अर्थ है—"जो समस्त प्राणों एवं जीवन का नियन्ता (प्रेरक) है।" कुछ आचार्यों के अनुसार इसका अर्थ यह भी है—"जिनका दिव्य अप्राकृत स्वरूप प्राणों से भी अधिक प्रिय है।" श्रुति में जो "अप्राणो ह्यमनाः" (मुण्डक २।१।२) कहा गया है, उसका अर्थ यह है कि परमात्मा परम स्वतन्त्र हैं, उन्हें प्राकृत प्राण अथवा भौतिक मन की अपेक्षा नहीं है; अथवा इसका अभिप्राय यह है कि वे प्राकृत (भौतिक) प्राण और मन से रहित हैं, न कि दिव्य स्वरूप से। श्रुति-शास्त्र अन्यत्र भी परमात्मा को 'मनोवान्' (दिव्य मन से सम्पन्न) तथा "आनीदवातम्" (प्राकृत वायु के बिना ही नित्य प्राणवन्त) कहकर निरूपित करता है। अन्य शास्त्रों में भी परमात्मा को 'मनोमय' शब्द से सम्बोधित किया गया है, जैसे: श्रुति-प्रमाण १ (मुण्डकोपनिषद् २।२।७): "मनोमयः प्राणशरीरनेता" (अर्थात्: वे विशुद्ध मन द्वारा ज्ञेय हैं तथा प्राण और स्थूल शरीर के नियन्ता एवं पथप्रदर्शक हैं।) श्रुति-प्रमाण २ (तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद् १।६।१): "स एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशस्तस्मिन्नयं पुरुषो मनोमयोऽमृतमयो हिरण्मयः" (अर्थात्: हृदय-गुहा के भीतर जो दहराकाश है, उसमें यह अमृतमय, ज्योतिर्मय एवं विशुद्ध मन द्वारा ग्राह्य पुरुष विद्यमान है।) श्रुति-प्रमाण ३ (कठोपनिषद् ६।९): "हृदा मनीषा मनसाभिक्लृप्तो य एतद्विदुरमृतास्ते भवन्ति" (अर्थात्: जो साधक हृदय, बुद्धि और विशुद्ध मन की एकाग्रता द्वारा उन परमेश्वर को जान लेते हैं, वे अमर हो जाते हैं।) श्रुति-प्रमाण ४ (केनोपनिषद् / बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् ४।४।१८): "प्राणस्य प्राणः" (अर्थात्: वे समस्त प्राणों के भी मूल प्राण हैं।)

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the life of all life." —Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.18 Sūtra 2 vivakṣita-guṇopapatteś ca vivakṣita—wished to be said; guṇa—qualities; upapatteḥ—because of being appropriate; ca—and. The word "manomaya" here must refer to Brahman) because the qualities (given here) most appropriately describe Brahman. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Manomaya (knowable by the pure mind), prāṇa-śarīra (the controller of life), bhā-rūpa (effulgent and glorious) and the other qualities mentioned here are appropriate for the Supreme Personality of Godhead but not at all for the jīva. Sūtra 3 anupapattes tu na śārīraḥ anupapatteḥ—because of inappropriateness; tu—indeed; na—not; śārīraḥ—the jīva. (The word "manomaya" here) cannot refer to the jīva because the qualities (described in this passage) cannot be attributed to him. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The manomaya her cannot refer to the jīva because it is not possible that the qualities described here refer to the tiny, glowworm-like jīva.

Sūtra 4 karma-kartṛ-vyapadeśāc ca karma—object; kartṛ—agent; vyapadeśāt—because of the statement; ca—also. And because the distinction is drawn here between the agent and the object. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa With the words (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.14.4) etam itaḥ pretyābhisambhavitāsmi (After death I will attain Him) at the end the manomaya is clearly designated as the object of the sentence and the jīva, with the words abhisambhavitāsmi (I will attain) is clearly identified as the agent. Therefore the manomaya, being the object, must be different from the jīva, which is the agent. The manomaya must therefore be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The word abhisambhavitāsmi here describes meeting. The jīva meets the Supreme Lord as a great river meets the ocean. Sūtra 5 śabda-viśeṣāt śabda—words; viśeṣāt—because of the difference. (The word "manomaya" here cannot refer to the jīva because the words are in different cases. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The text says (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.3) eṣa ma ātmāntar-hṛdaye (He is within my heart). In these words the devotee jīva is placed in the genitive case and the object of his worship is placed in the nominative case. Because the jīva and the object of his worship are in different cases they must be two distinct persons.