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

॥ तैत्तिरीयोपनिषत् (२.५.१) ॥
विज्ञानं ब्रह्म चेद् वेद तस्माच्चेन्न प्रमाद्यति।
शरीरे पाप्मनो हित्वा सर्वान् कामान् समश्नुते॥
(अनुवाद:)
"यदि कोई शरीर में स्थित उस ब्रह्म के यथार्थ स्वरूप को जान लेता है जो भौतिक जगत् की
प्रतीति के लिए शारीरिक इन्द्रियों का प्रयोग करता है, तो ऐसा ब्रह्मविद् कभी प्रमादग्रस्त या
मोहग्रस्त नहीं होता। शरीरस्थ ब्रह्म का ऐसा ज्ञाता समस्त पापकर्मों का त्याग कर देता है,
तथा मृत्यु के समय शरीर को त्यागकर उस परम पद को प्राप्त करता है जहाँ उसकी समस्त कामनाएँ
युगपत् परिपूर्ण हो जाती हैं।"
(पूर्वपक्ष एवं सिद्धान्त-अवतरणिका:)
यहाँ पूर्वपक्षी यह आक्षेप कर सकता है कि इस प्रकार 'ब्रह्म' शब्द का अर्थ व्यष्टि जीवात्मा ही
स्वीकार किया जाना चाहिए। इस मिथ्या धारणा का खण्डन करने हेतु, श्रील व्यासदेव
आगामी सूत्र में परब्रह्म के वास्तविक स्वरूप और असाधारण लक्षण का निरूपण करते हैं।
॥ अधिकरणम् २ : जन्माद्यधिकरणम् (सर्वकारणत्व-निरूपणम्) ॥
॥ ब्रह्मसूत्रम् २ ॥
जन्माद्यस्य यतः ॥ २ ॥
पदच्छेद एवं शब्दार्थ:
जन्म-आदि — सृष्टि (उत्पत्ति), स्थिति (पालन) तथा लय (प्रलय);
अस्य — इस (प्रत्यक्ष दृश्यमान चतुर्दशभुवनात्मक जगत्) का;
यतः — जिससे (जिस परम कारण से सम्पादित होता है)।
सूत्रार्थ:
परब्रह्म वह परम तत्त्व हैं, जिनसे इस सम्पूर्ण जगत् की उत्पत्ति, स्थिति तथा प्रलय होते हैं।*
॥ श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचित गोविन्दभाष्य-तात्पर्यम् ॥
यहाँ 'जन्मादि' पद 'तद्गुणसंविज्ञान-बहुव्रीहि-समास' है, जिसका अर्थ
"सृष्टि, स्थिति एवं प्रलय" समझना चाहिए।
सूत्र में 'अस्य' पद का अर्थ है — "यह चतुर्दश भुवनात्मक भौतिक जगत्,
जिसमें ब्रह्मा से लेकर क्षुद्रतम तृण-गुल्म पर्यन्त विविध योनियों के जीव वास करते हैं,
जो सभी अपने-अपने विविध सकाम कर्मों (कर्मफल) के सुख तथा दुःख का भोग करते हैं,
तथा जो इस जगत् की आश्चर्यजनक एवं अचिन्त्य रचना को बुद्धि द्वारा समझने में सर्वथा असमर्थ हैं।"

the universe where they live." The word yataḥ means "from whom", and it refers
to the Supreme Brahman who manifested the universe from His inconceivable
potency. This is the Brahman about whom one should inquire.
The words bhūma and ātmā both mean "all pervading". These words refer
primarily to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This will be elaborately
explained in the Bhūmādhikaraṇa (1.3.7) and Vākyānvayādhikaraṇa (1.4.19). The
word "Brahman" in particular means "He who possesses boundless exalted
qualitites." Brahman, then, refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead and this
is clearly confirmed in the following words of śruti-śāstra:
atha kasmād ucyate brahmeti bṛhanto by asmin guṇāḥ
"From whom has this universe become manifest? From Brahman, who
possesses an abundance of exalted transcendental qualities."
Brahman primarily refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and only
secondarily to the individual spirit souls, who manifest in small degree the
spiritual qualitites of the Supreme Lord. In this way the individual spirit souls may
be called Brahman, just as the royal title may be given not only to the king, but
also to his associates and subordinates. Therefore, the individual spirit souls, who
are all suffering the three-fold miseries of material life, should, in order to attain
ultimate liberation, inquire about the Supreme Brahman, who is very merciful
towards whose who take shelter of Him. For these reasons it should be understood
that the Supreme Brahman, the Personality of Godhead is the object of inquiry in
this Vedānta-sūtra. This is not an imaginary description of Brahman's qualities.
This is the truth about Brahman.
The word jijñāsā means "the desire to know." Knowledge is of two kinds: 1.
Parokṣa (knowledge gathered from sources other than the senses e.g. logic,
knowledge obtained from authority, etc.) and 2. Aparokṣa (knowledge gathered by
the senses). An example of these two kinds of knowledge may be seen in the
following quotation from the śruti-śāstra:
vijñāya prajñāṁ kurvīta
"After learning about the Supreme Personality of Godhead one should become
able to directly see Him in the trance of meditation."
Parokṣa knowledge helps bring us closer to the Supreme Brahman, and
aparokṣa knowledge manifests the Supreme Lord before us.
If one understands his real identity as spirit soul, that is certainly very helpful
in understanding Brahman, but that does not mean that the individual soul is the
same as Brahman. The individual spirit soul is always different from Brahman, and
even after liberation He remains eternally different from the Supreme Brahman.
The difference between the individual soul and Brahman is described in sūtras

1.1.16, 1.1.17, 1.3.5, 1.3.21, and 1.3.41.
The Vedic literature gives the following guidelines for the interpretation of
obscure passages:
upakramopasaṁhārāv
abhyāso 'pūrvatā-phalam
artha-vādopapattī ca
liṅgaṁ tātparya-nirṇaye
"The upakrama (beginning), upasaṁhāra (ending), abhyāsa (what is repeated
again and again), apūrvatā (what is unique and novel), phalam (the general
purpose of the book), artha-vāda (the author's statement of his own intention),
and upapatti (appropriateness) are the factors to consider in interpretation of
obscure passages."
If we apply these criteria to the śruti-śāstra, we will clearly see that the Supreme
Personality of Godhead and the individual spirit soul are described here as two
distinct entities.
Let us analyze the following passage from Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (4.6-7) in the
light of these six criteria.
dvā suparṇā sayujā sakhāyā
samānaṁ vṛkṣaṁ pariṣasvajāte
tayor anyaḥ pippalaṁ svādv atty
anaśnann anyo 'bhicakāśīti
"The individual spirit-soul and the Supersoul, Personality of Godhead, are like
two friendly birds sitting on the same tree. One of the birds (the individual atomic
soul) is eating the fruit of the tree (the sense-gratification afforded to the material
body), and the other bird (the Supersoul) is not trying to eat these fruits, but is
simply watching His friend.
samāne vṛkṣe puruṣo nimagno
'nīśāya śocati muhyamānaḥ
juṣṭaṁ yadā paśyati anyam īśam
asya mahimānam iti vīta-śokaḥ
"Although the two birds are on the same tree, the eating bird is fully engrossed
with anxiety and moroseness as the enjoyer of the fruits of the tree. But if in some
way or other he turns his face to his friend who is the Lord and knows His glories,
at once the suffering bird becomes free from all anxieties."
In this passage the upakrama (beginning) is dvā suparṇā (two birds); the

वेदान्त-दर्शनम् — ब्रह्मसूत्र-गोविन्दभाष्यम्

प्रथमोध्यायः — प्रथमः पादः

द्वितीयाधिकरणम् (जन्माद्यधिकरणम् — उपसंहारः)

षड्विध-तात्पर्य-लिङ्ग-समन्वयः (श्रुति-सिद्धान्तः)
[मूल संस्कृत भाष्यम्]
उपसंहारोऽप्यन्यमीशमिति।
अभ्यासश्च 'तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्त्यनश्नन्नन्यो अभिचाकशीति' तथा 'अन्यमीशं पश्यति' इति।
अपूर्वता च श्रुत्येकगम्यः सर्वज्ञ-परमेश्वर-जीवयोर्भेदः।
फलं च 'वीतशोकः' इति मोक्षप्राप्तिः।
अर्थवादश्च 'महिमानमेति' इति भगवन्महिमानुभवः।
उपपत्तिश्च 'अन्योऽनश्नन्' इति भोक्तृत्व-अभोक्तृत्व-वैलक्षण्यम्।
अनेन श्रुत्यन्तरेण च परस्माद् ब्रह्मणो जीवस्य भेदः स्फुटः।
[हिन्दी अनुवाद]
यहाँ षड्विध तात्पर्य-लिङ्गों के द्वारा जीव और ब्रह्म का भेद स्पष्ट किया गया है:
१. उपसंहार — श्रुति का उपसंहार 'अन्यमीशम्' (परमेश्वर अन्य हैं) पद से होता है।
२. अभ्यास — 'तयोरन्यः' (उन दोनों में अन्य) तथा 'अन्यमीशम्' (अन्य परमेश्वर को देखता है) पदों का बारम्बार अभ्यास है।
३. अपूर्वता — केवल वेदों द्वारा ही ज्ञेय सर्वज्ञ ईश्वर तथा अल्पज्ञ जीव का नित्य भेद प्रतिपादित है।
४. फल — 'वीतशोकः' अर्थात् ईश्वर के साक्षात्कार से जीव का समस्त शोकों से मुक्त हो जाना ही फल है।
५. अर्थवाद — 'महिमानमेति' अर्थात् परमेश्वर के ऐश्वर्य एवं महिमा की स्तुति करना अर्थवाद है।
६. उपपत्ति — 'अन्योऽनश्नन्' अर्थात् कर्मफल-भोग से रहित साक्षी रूप में ईश्वर की सिद्धि होना उपपत्ति (तर्क) है।
इस प्रकार इस श्रुति तथा अन्य वैदिक वचनों से परम पुरुषोत्तम भगवान् और जीवात्मा का स्पष्ट भेद सिद्ध होता है।
पूर्वपक्षः (अद्वैत-शङ्का)
[मूल संस्कृतम्]
ननु ज्ञातज्ञापकं शास्त्रमप्रमाणमिति लोकसिद्धभेदस्य न श्रुतिप्रतिपाद्यत्वम्,
अलोकसिद्धमभेदमेव श्रुतिर्बोधयतीति स एवाभिप्रेत इति चेत्?
[हिन्दी अनुवाद]
पूर्वपक्षी का आक्षेप: क्या यह सत्य नहीं है कि शास्त्र अज्ञात विषय का ज्ञापक होने पर ही प्रमाण होता है? जो बात लोक में पहले से सिद्ध हो, उसका निरूपण करना व्यर्थ है। संसार में सभी लोग जीव और ब्रह्म का भेद स्वाभाविक रूप से जानते ही हैं, अतः शास्त्र को अज्ञात अभेद की ही शिक्षा देनी चाहिए। इसलिए जीव और ब्रह्म का पूर्ण अभेद ही श्रुति का वास्तविक तात्पर्य होना चाहिए।
सिद्धान्तः (श्रीगोविन्दभाष्यम्)
[मूल संस्कृतम्]
मैवम्; श्रुतिविरोधात्। तथा हि श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषदि (१.६) —
'पृथगात्मानं प्रेरितारं च मत्वा जुष्टस्ततस्तेनामृतत्वमेति।'
[श्रुत्यर्थः एवं व्याख्या]
'जीवात्मा अपने को नियामक (प्रेरयिता) परमेश्वर से पृथक् (भिन्न) जानकर तथा उनसे सेवित व सन्तुष्ट होकर ही अमृतत्व (मोक्ष) को प्राप्त होता है।'
[मूल संस्कृतम्]
अभेदस्य चानुभूत्यभावेन शशशृङ्गतुल्यत्वेनालोकसिद्धत्वात्।
लोकाप्रतीतेश्च न तादृश-कल्पना युक्ता।
ये चामूष्वभेदपरा वादास्तेऽपि बादरायणेन साक्षादविरोधे निरसिष्यन्ते (सूत्र १.१.३०)।
[हिन्दी अनुवाद]
यह पूर्वपक्षीय विचार वैदिक श्रुतियों के प्रत्यक्ष विरुद्ध होने के कारण सर्वथा त्याज्य है।
जीव और ब्रह्म की आत्यन्तिक एकता की अनुभूति किसी को भी नहीं होती; यह तो खरगोश के सींग (शश-शृङ्ग) के समान सर्वथा असत् एवं अवास्तविक कल्पना है। सामान्य जन भी इसे कभी स्वीकार नहीं करते।
उपनिषदों में जहाँ कहीं अभेद-प्रतिपादक वाक्य आते हैं, उनका व्यक्तिगत (सविशेष) तात्पर्य सूत्रकार महर्षि वेदव्यास जी स्वयं आगे चलकर सूत्र १.१.३० में स्पष्ट करेंगे।

तृतीयाधिकरणम् — शास्त्रयोनित्वाधिकरणम्

अधिकरण-प्रतिपाद्य-विषयः
परमेश्वरस्य सर्वज्ञत्वं वेदैकगम्यत्वं च। (परम पुरुषोत्तम भगवान् केवल वैदिक शास्त्रों के द्वारा ही जाने जाते हैं।)
ब्रह्मसूत्रम् — १.१.३
शास्त्रयोनित्वात् ॥ ३ ॥
[पदच्छेदः]
शास्त्र — योनित्वात् (हेतौ पञ्चमी)।
[सूत्रार्थः]
शास्त्र (ऋग्वेदादि सकल वेद) की योनि (कारण अथवा प्रमाण) होने के कारण ब्रह्म सर्वज्ञ और जगत्कारण सिद्ध होता है; अथवा समस्त शास्त्रों के एकमात्र प्रमाणगम्य (योनि) होने से ब्रह्म शास्त्रैकगम्य है।

1. Viṣaya (Statement): The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the creator,
   maintainer and destroyer of the material universes. Because He is inconceivable to
   the tiny brains of the conditioned souls He must be understood by the revelation
   of Vedānta philosophy. This is confirmed by the following statements of the
   Upaniṣads:
   sac-cid-ānanda-rūpāya
   kṛṣṇāyākliṣṭa-kāriṇe
   namo vedānta-vedyāya
   gurave buddhi-sākṣiṇe
   Oṁ namaḥ. I offer my respectful obeisances to Śrī Kṛṣṇa, whose form is eternal
   and full of knowledge and bliss, who is the rescuer from distress, who is
   understood by Vedānta, who is the supreme spiritual master, and who is the
   witness in everyone's heart.
   —Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad
   taṁ tv aupaniṣadaṁ puruṣaṁ pṛcchāmi
   "I shall now inquire about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is
   revealed in the Upaniṣads."
   —Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.9.26
2. Saṁśaya (doubt): What is the best method for understanding supremely
   worshipable Lord Hari: the mental speculation of the logicians, or the revelation of
   the Vedānta scriptures?
3. Pūrvapakṣa (the argument of the philosophical opposition): The sage
   Gautama (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5) and others maintain that the Supreme
   Personality of Godhead can be understood by the speculations of the logicians.
4. Siddhānta (the conclusion): In the Vedānta-sūtra, Śrīla Vyāsadeva explains
   that scriptural revelation is the real way to understand the Supreme Brahman. He
   says:
   Sūtra 3
   śāstra-yonitvāt
   śāstra—the scriptures; yonitvāt—because of being the origin of knowledge.

(The speculations of the logicians are unable to teach us about Supreme
Personality of Godhead) because He may only be known by the revelation of the
Vedic scriptures.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In this sūtra the word "not" should be understood, even though it is not
expressed. They who aspire after liberation are not able to understand the
Personality of Godhead simply by logic and speculation. Why? Because He is
known only by the revelation of the Vedic scriptures. Among the Vedic scriptures,
the Upaniṣads especially describe the Supreme Person. For this reason it is said
aupaniṣadaṁ puruṣam (the Supreme Person is undertood through the revelation of
the Upaniṣads). The process of logic and speculation as described by the word
mantavya (to be understood by logic) as described in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad
(4.5) should be employed to understand the revelation of the scriptures and not
independently. This is confirmed by the following statement of śruti-śāstra:
pūrvāpara-virodhena
ko 'rtho 'trābhimato bhavet
ity ādyam ūhanaṁ tarkaḥ
śuṣka-tarkaṁ vivarjayet
"Logic is properly employed to resove apparent contradictions in the texts of
the Vedas. Dry logic, without reference to scriptural revelation, should be
abandoned."
For this reason the dry logic of Gautama and others should be rejected. This is
also confired in sūtra 2.1.11. After understanding the Supreme Person by study of
the Upaniṣads, one should become rapt in meditation on Him. This will be
explained later insūtra 2.1.27.
The Supreme Lord, Hari, is identical with His own transcendental form. He and
His form are not two separate identities. He is the witness of all living entities, He
is the resting place of a host of transcendental qualitities, He is the creator of the
material universes, and He remains unchanged eternally. By hearing about His
transcendental glories, one may worship Him perfectly.
At this point someone may raise the following objection:
The Vedānta philosophy does not give either positive orders or negative
prohibitions, but simply descriptions, as the sentence "On the earth there are
seven continents." Men need instruction in how to act. Therefore, what is needed
is a series of orders to guide men. Men need orders, such as the ordinary orders.
"A man desiring wealth should approach the king," or "One suffering from
indigestion should restrict his intake of water," or the orders of the Vedas: svarga-
kāmo yajeta (One desiring to enter the celestial material planets should worship

the demigods), or surām na pibet (No one should drink wine). The Upaniṣads do
not give us a string of orders and prohibitions, but merely a description of the
eternally perfect Brahman. for example the Upaniṣads tell us satyam jñānam (The
Supreme Personality of Godhead is truth and knowledge). This is of small help in
the matter of orders and prohibitions. Sometimes the Upaniṣads' descriptions may
be a little useful, as for example when they describe a certain demigod, the
description may be useful when one performs a sacrifice to that demigod, but
otherwise these descriptions afford us little practical beneifit, and are more or less
useless. This is confirmed by the following statements of Jaimini Muni.
āmnāyasya kriyārthatvād anārthakhyam atad-arthanam
"The scriptures teach us pious duties. Any scriptural passage that does not
teach us our duty is a senseless waste of our time."
—Pūrva-mīmāṁsā 1.2.1
tad-bhūtānāṁ kriyārthena samāmnāyo 'rthasya tan-nimittatvāt
"Just as a verb gives meaning to a sentence, in the same way instructions for action
give meaning to the statements of the scriptures."
—Pūrva-mīmāṁsā 1.1.25
To this objection I reply: Do not be bewildered. Even though the Upaniṣads do
not give us a series of orders and prohibitions, still they teach us about the
Supreme Brahman, the most important and valuable object to be attained by any
living entitiy. Just as if in your house there were hidden treasure, and a description
of its location were spoken to you, those words would not be useless simply
because they were a description. In the same way the Upaniṣads' description of the
Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the greatest treasure to be attained by any
living being, whose form is eternal, full of knowledge and full of bliss, who is
perfect and beyond any criticism, who is the friend of all living entities, the
Supreme Lord who is so kind that He gives Himself to His devotees, and the
supreme whole of all existance, of whom I am a tiny part, is not useless, but of
great value to the conditioned soul. The descriptions of the Supreme Brahman in
the Upaniṣads are valuable, just as the description "your son is now born" is useful
and a source of great joy, and the decription "This is not a snake, but only a rope
partly seen in the darkness," is also useful and a great relief from fear.
The specific benefit attained by understanding the Supreme Brahman are
described in the following statement of Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.1):
satyaṁ jñānam anantaṁ brahma yo veda nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ so 'śnute sarvān kāmān

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is limitless. He is transcendental
knowledge, and He is the eternal transcendental reality. He is present in everyone's
heart. One who properly understands Him becomes blessed and all his desires are
completely fulfilled."
No one can say that the Upaniṣads teach about ordinary fruitive action (karma).
Rather, one may say that the Upaniṣads teach one to give up all material, fruitive
work. No one can say that the Upaniṣads describe anything other than the Supreme
Personality of Godhead, who is the original creator, maintainer, and destroyer of
all the universes, whose spiritual form is eternal, who is a great ocean of unlimited
auspicious transcendental qualitities, and who is the resting-place of the goddess
of fortune. Jaimini's description of the importance of karma, therefore, has no
bearing on the Upaniṣads.
In fact Jaimini was a faithful devotee of the Lord, and his apparent criticisms (in
the two quotations presented above) of the Vedic texts that do not encourage
fruitive work (karma) with sufficient enthusiasm, are his hint to us that there is
more that pious fruitive work in the instructions of the Vedas. In this way it may
be understood that the Supreme Brahman is the subject-matter described in the
Vedic scriptures.
Adhikaraṇa 4
This is Confirmed by the Vedic scriptures

1. Viṣaya (statement): That the Supreme Personality of Godhead is described in
   all Vedic scriptures is described in the following scriptural quotations:
   yo 'su sarvair vedair gīyate
   "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is glorified by all the Vedas."
   —Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad
   sarve vedā yat-padam āmananti
   "All the Vedas describe the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
   —Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.15
2. Saṁśaya (doubt): Lord Viṣṇu is the subject-matter described in all the Vedas.
   Is this statement true or false?
3. Pūrvapakṣa (the argument of our philosophical opponent): It is not true that
   the Vedas teach only about the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Actually the
   Vedas mainly describe various fruitive karma-kāṇḍa sacrifices, such as the karīrī-

वृष्टि हेतु यज्ञ, पुत्र प्राप्ति के लिए पुत्रकामेष्टि-यज्ञ, तथा
दिव्य भौतिक लोकों (स्वर्गलोक) के गमन हेतु ज्योतिष्टोम-यज्ञ हैं। इस
कारण यह कहना सम्भव नहीं है कि वेदों में एकमात्र भगवान् विष्णु ही प्रतिपाद्य
विषय हैं।
४. सिद्धान्त (यथार्थ निष्कर्ष): व्यासदेव निम्नलिखित सूत्र में इन आक्षेपों का
उत्तर देते हैं:
सूत्र ४
तत्तु समन्वयात् ॥
तत् — यह तथ्य; तु — किन्तु; समन्वयात् — समस्त वैदिक शास्त्रों के समन्वय (एकवाक्यता) से।
किन्तु यह तथ्य (कि भगवान् विष्णु ही वेदों के एकमात्र प्रतिपाद्य विषय हैं)
समस्त शास्त्रों द्वारा पुष्ट (प्रमाणित) होता है।
श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण कृत तात्पर्य:
इस सूत्र में 'तु' (किन्तु) शब्द का प्रयोग पूर्वोक्त विपक्षी तर्क के खण्डन हेतु किया गया है।
यह कहना सर्वथा उचित है कि समस्त वेदों में एकमात्र भगवान् विष्णु ही मुख्य प्रतिपाद्य विषय हैं।
क्यों? उत्तर है: 'समन्वयात्' (क्योंकि शास्त्र स्वयं हमें इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचाते हैं)।
'अन्वय' शब्द का अर्थ है "वास्तविक अर्थ का अवबोध", तथा 'समन्वय' शब्द का अर्थ है
"गहन विचार-विमर्श के पश्चात् सम्यक् अवबोध"। जब हम व्याख्या के उपर्युक्त नियमों
(उपक्रम एवं उपसंहार आदि षड्विध लिङ्गों) को वेदों के मन्त्रों पर घटाते हैं, तो हम
इसी निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचते हैं कि समस्त वेदों में भगवान् विष्णु ही एकमात्र प्रतिपाद्य विषय हैं।
यदि ऐसा न होता, तो गोपालतापनी उपनिषद् यह क्यों कहती कि भगवान् विष्णु ही
समस्त वेदों द्वारा महिमान्वित हैं? इसकी पुष्टि स्वयं कमलनयन परम पुरुषोत्तम
भगवान् ने भी की है, जो कहते हैं:
वेदैश्च सर्वैरहमेव वेद्यो वेदान्तकृद्वेदविदेव चाहम् ।
"समस्त वेदों द्वारा मैं ही जानने योग्य (वेद्य) हूँ। वस्तुतः मैं ही वेदान्त का कर्ता
और वेदों का यथार्थ ज्ञाता हूँ।"
— भगवद्गीता १५.१५

kiṁ vidhatte kiṁ ācaṣṭe
kiṁ anūdya vikalpayet
ity asyā hṛdayaṁ loke
nānyo mad veda kaścana
māṁ vidhatte 'bhidhatte māṁ
vikalpyāpohyate hy aham
"What is the direction of all Vedic literatures? On whom do they set focus?
Who is the purpose of all speculation? Outside of Me no one knows these things.
Now you should know that all these activities are aimed at ordaining and setting
forth Me. The purpose of Vedic literature is to know Me by different speculations,
either by indirect understanding or by dictionary understanding. Everyone is
speculating about Me."*
—Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.21.42-43)
The Vedic literatures also state:
sākṣāt-paramparābhyāṁ veda brahmaṇi pravartate
"Either directly or indirectly, the Vedas describe Brahman."
In the jñāna-kāṇḍa section of the Vedas {.fn 1} the transcendental forms and
qualitities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are directly described, and in the
karma-kāṇḍa section of the Vedas the Lord is indirectly described in the
discussion of fruitive action and various divisions of material knowledge
That the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the sole topic of discussion in the
Vedas is also confirmed by the following scriptural passages:
taṁ tv aupaniṣadaṁ puruṣaṁ pṛcchāmi
"I shall now ask about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is described
in the Upaniṣads."
—Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (9.21)
tam etaṁ vedānuvacanena brāhmaṇa vividiśanti
"Brāhmaṇas study the Vedas to understand the Supreme Personality of
Godhead."
—Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (4.4.22)

As for the various fruitive results, such as the attainment of rain, a son, or
residence in the celestial material planets, that are offered to the follwers of the
karma-kāṇḍa rituals in the Vedas, these beneifts are offered to attract the minds of
ordinary men. When ordinary men see that these material benefits are actually
attained by performing Vedic rituals, they become attracted to study the Vedas. By
studying the Vedas they become able to discriminate between what is temporary
and what is eternal. In this way they gradually become averse to the temporary
things of this world and they come to hanker after Brahman. In this way it may be
understood that all the parts of the Vedas describe the Supreme Personality of
Godhead.
Vedic rituals bring material benefits as a result only when the performer of the
ritual is filled with material desire. If the performer is materially desireless, then he
does not gain a material result, but rather the result he obtains is purification of
the heart and the manifestation of spiritual knowledge. Therefore, the meaning of
the previously quoted text from Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (4.4.22) is that the
demigods are considered to be the various limbs of the Supreme Personality of
Godhead, and by worshiping them, one actually worships the Supreme Lord, and
the result of such worship is that one gradually become pure in heart and awake
with spiritual knowledge.
Adhikaraṇa 5
Brahman Is Knowable

1. Viṣaya (statement): Now, by the use of logic and scriptural quotation, we
   shall refute the misconception that Brahman cannot be described. One may argue,
   however, that many scriptural passages support the theory that Brahman cannot be
   described by words. For example:
   yato vāco nivartate
   aprāpya manasā saha
   "The mind cannot understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead and words
   cannot describe Him."
   —Taittrīya Upaniṣad 2.4.1
   yad vacanābhyuditaṁ yena vāg abhyudyate tad eva
   brahma tad viddhi nedaṁ yad idam upāsate
   "No one has the power to describe Brahman with words, even though
   everyone's speech occurs by the power granted by Brahman. Know that this
   Brahman is not material. Worship this Brahman."

—Kena Upaniṣad (1.5)
2. Saṁśaya (doubt): Is Brahman expressable by words or not?
3. Pūrvapakṣa (the opponenet argues): The śruti-śāstra states that Brahman
cannot be described by words. If this were not so, it would not be said that the
Supreme Brahman is self-manifested. That Brahman cannot be described with
words is also explained in the following statement of {Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam
(3.6.40):
yato 'prāpya nyavartanta
vacaś ca manasā saha
ahaṁ cānya ime devās
tasmai bhagavate namaḥ
"Words, mind and ego, with their respective controlling demigods, have failed
to achieve success in knowing the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, we
simply have to offer our respectful obeisances unto Him as a matter of sanity."*
4. Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes these arguments in the following sūtra:
Sūtra 5
īkṣater nāśabdam
īkṣateḥ—because it is seen; na—not; aśabdam—indescribable by words.
Because it is seen (that Brahman is vividly described in the Vedic scriptures, it
should be understood that Brahman) is not indescribable by words.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Here the word aśabdam means "that which cannot be described by words." In
this sūtra Brahman is described as not (na) indescribable by words (aśabdam).
Why is this so? Because īkṣateḥ (because it is seen that Brahman is described in
the passages of the scriptures).
For example, Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad states:
taṁ tv aupaniṣadaṁ puruṣaṁ pṛcchāmi

"I shall now ask about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is described
in the Upaniṣads."
We may note in this connection that the word aupaniṣada means "that glorious
person who is described in the Upaniṣads."
We may also note that the word īkṣateḥ is bhāva (passive), and it is formed by
adding the affix tip-pratyaya. The unusual usage here is ārṣa (a certain degree of
grammatical liberty allowed to an exalted author).
That the Supreme Personality of Godhead may be described in words is also
confirmed by the following statement of Kaṭha Upaniṣad (2.15):
sarve vedā yat-padam āmananti
"All the Vedas describe the feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
When it is said that Brahman cannot be described in words, the intention is
that He cannot be completely described in words. In the same way it is sometimes
said that no one can see Mount Meru because no one can see the entire mountain,
but only small parts of it at any one time. Without accepting this understanding,
that Brahman is not completely expressible by words or understandable by the
mind, we would not properly understand the meaning of the scritpural statements
yato vāco nivartate (words cannot describe Brahman), aprāpya manasā saha (the
mind cannot understand Brahman), and yad vacanābhyuditam (No one has the
power to describe Brahman with words). These statements explain that Brahman
cannot be completely described in words.
That Brahman can to some extent be described with words does not contradict
the fact that Brahman reveals Himself by His own wish. The Vedas are actually the
incarnation of Brahman, and therefore Brahman may reveal Himself in the words
of the Vedas.
2. Saṁśaya (doubt): This may be so, but still the Suprme Person described in
the words of the Vedas may be saguṇa (a manifestation of the Lord according to
the modes of material nature), and not the perfect, complete and pure original
Brahman who remains indescribable by words.
If this doubt were to arise, Śrīla Vyāsadeva would answer it in the following
sūtra.
Sūtra 6
gauṇaś cen nātma-śabdāt
gauṇaḥ—Saguṇa Brahman, or the Lord's potencies; cet—if; na—not; ātma—ātma;
śabdāt—because of the word.

If (one says that the Brahman described in the Vedas is) Saguṇa Brahman (a
manifestation of the modes of material nature, and not the original Supreme Lord
Himself), Then I say this cannot be true, because Brahman is described in the
Vedas as "Atma" (the Supreme Self).
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The Brahman described in the Vedas is not merely a saguṇa manifestation of the
mode of Goodness. Why? Because the Vedas use the word ātmā (the Supreme Self)
to describe Him. For example:
ātmaivedam agra āsīt puruṣa-vidhaḥ
"The Supreme Self (ātmā), who is a transcendental person, existed before this
material world was manifested in the beginning."
—Vājasaneya-saṁhitā
ātmā vā idam eka evāgra āsīt nānyat kiñcana
miṣat sa īkṣata lokān nu sṛja
"Before the material world was manifest, the Supreme Self (ātmā) alone existed.
Nothing else was manifested at that time. The Supreme Self then thought, `Let me
create the material planets.'"
—Aitareya Āraṇyaka
Both these texts clearly refer to the Supreme Self (ātmā) who existed before the
creation of the material world. Also, In the commentary on sūtra 1.1.2, I have
already explained that the word ātmā primarily refers to the perfect Supreme
Brahman, and not to anyone or anything else. For this reason the word ātmā used
in the scriptures should be understood to refer to the transcendental Supreme
Personality of Godhead, and not to any material manifestation of the mode of
goodness. The transcendental Supreme Person is described in the following
statements of Vedic literature:
vadanti tat tattva-vidas

• tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam*
  brahmeti pāramātmeti
• bhagavān iti śabdyate*

"Learned transcendentalist who know the Absolute Truth call this non-dual
substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān."*
'Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.2.11
śuddhe mahā-vibhūtākhye
pare brahmaṇi śabdyate
maitreya bhagavac-chabdaḥ
sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇe
"O Maitreya, the word Bhagavān refers to the Supreme Brahman, who is full of
all powers and opulences, the original cause of all causes, and the supreme
transcendence, pure and always untouched by matter."
—Viṣṇu Purāṇa
In this way the supremely perfect and pure Brahman is described by the
statements of the smṛti-śāstras. If it were not possible to describe Him with words,
then the scriptures would not have been able to describe Him in the above
quotations.
Sūtra 7
tan niṣṭhasya mok\śopadeśāt
tat—that; niṣṭhasya—of the faithful devotee; mok\śa—of the liberation; upadeśāt—
because of the instructions.
(The Brahman described in the scriptures is the transcendental Supreme Lord,
and not a temporary manifestation of the mode of goodness, because the
scriptures) teach us that they who become His devotees attain liberation.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word "not" is understood in this sūtra and the following three sūtras as
well. The liberation of those devoted to Brahman is described in the following
statement of Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.7):

asad vā idam agra āsīt tato vai sad ajāyata tad ātmānaṁ svayam akuruta. . . yadā
hy evaiṣa etasminn adṛśye 'nātmye anirukte 'nilayane abhayaṁ pratiṣṭhāṁ vindate
'tha so 'bhayaṁ gato bhavati yadā hy evaiṣa etasminn udāram antaraṁ kurute atha
tasya bhayaṁ bhavati
"Before the material cosmos was manifested, it existed in a subtle form. At a
certain time it became manifested in a gross form, and at a certain time the
Supreme Brahman manifested as the Universal Form. When an individual spirit
soul takes shelter of that Supreme Brahman, who is different from the individual
spirit souls, invisible to the gross material senses, indescribable by material words,
and self-effulgent, then the individual spirit soul attains liberation and is no longer
afraid of the cycle of repeated birth and death. If one does not take shelter of this
Supreme Brahman, he must remain afraid of taking birth again and again in this
world."
The Brahman described in this passage of the Vedic literature must be the
Supreme Brahman who is beyond the limitations of the material world, and who is
the creator of the material universes, and yet beyond them. This passage could not
be interpreted to describe a Brahman that is actually a manifestation of the modes
of material nature, for if this were so, then it would not have explained that they
who become devoted to this Brahman attain ultimate liberation. They who are
devoted to the manifestations of the modes of nature do not attain liberation by
that material devotion. Therefore, because the devotees attain liberation, the
Brahman mentioned here must be the transcendental Supreme Person, who is
beyond the modes of nature, and completely non-material in nature.
This non-material, transcendental Supreme Brahman is described in the
following statement of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.88.5):
harir hi nirguṇaḥ sākṣāt
puruṣaḥ prakṛteḥ paraḥ
sa sarva-dṛg upadraṣṭā
taṁ bhajan nirguṇo bhavet
"Śrī Hari, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is situated beyond the range of
material nature; therefore He is the supreme transcendental person. He can see
everything inside and outside; therefore He is the supreme overseer of all living
entities. If someone takes shelter at His lotus feet and worships Him, he also
attains a transcendental position."*
Sūtra 8
heyatva-vacanāc ca

heyatva—worthy of being abandoned; vacanāt—because of the statement; ca—also.
(The Brahman described in the Vedic scriptures is not a manifestation of the
modes of material nature,) because no scriptural passage advises one to abandon
(Brahman in order to attain something higher).
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
If the Brahman described in the scriptures were enmeshed in the modes of
material nature, then why do the scriptures not direct men and women to abandon
the worship of Brahman and worship something higher? If this Brahman were
under the spell of the modes of nature, then why do those aspiring after liberation
worship this Brahman to become free from the grip of the modes of nature?
Clearly, the Brahman described in the scriptures is not entangled in the modes of
material nature, and for this reason the scripture state:
anyā vāco vimuñcātha
"Give up talking about things that have no relation to the Supreme Brahman!"
They who aspire for liberation should meditate with pure faith on this Supreme
Brahman, who is eternal, filled with all transcendental qualities, and the orginal
creator of the material universes. In this way it may be understood that the
Brahman described in the Vedic scriptures is not a product of the modes of
material nature.
Sūtra 9
svāpyāt
sva—into Himself; apyāt—because He merges.
(The Supreme Brahman described in the Vedic literatures is not bound by the
modes of nature,) because He merges into Himself, (unlike the creatures bound by
nature's modes, who all merge into something other than their self).

Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (5.1.1) explains:
oṁ pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaṁ
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya
pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate
"The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is
completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are
perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the complete
whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the complete whole, even though so
many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance."*
This verse explains that that which is pūrṇa (perfect and complete), enters into
itself. This cannot be said of that which is not perfect and complete. If the
Supreme Brahman described in the scriptures were a product of the modes of
material nature, then it would merge into the Supreme and not into itself. In this
way it could not be described as truly perfect and complete. In this verse the word
adaḥ (this) refers to the aprakaṭa (not manifested in the material world) form of
the Supreme Lord, which is the root from which the various prakaṭa forms of the
Lord emanate. Both aprakaṭa and prakaṭa forms of the Lord are perfect and
complete. The Lord expands from His aprakaṭa form and appears in the material
world in His prakaṭa form, displaying His rāsa-līlā and other transcendental
pastimes. When the prakaṭa form of the Lord leaves the material world and enters
the aprakaṭa form of the Lord, the Lord remains unchanged, eternally perfect and
complete. That the Lord is untouched by the modes of material nature, and that
He expands into many forms, are confired by the following statement of smṛti-
śāstra:
sa devo bahudhā bhūtvā
nirguṇaḥ puruṣottamaḥ
ekī-bhūya punaḥ śete
nirdoṣo harir ādi-kṛt
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is faultless. Even though He is the
original creator of the material world, He remains always untouched by matter. He
expands in innumerable viṣṇu-tattva incarnations, and then these incarnations
enter Him and He again becomes one."
At this point someone may raise the following objection: There are actually two

kinds of Brahman: Saguṇa Brahman (Brahman enmeshed in the modes of material
nature), and Nirguṇa Brahman (Brahman untouched by the modes of material
nature). The first, or Saguṇa Brahman, has a form constructed of the mode of
material goodness. This Saguṇa Brahman is the omnisicent, all-powerful creator of
the material universes. The second, or Nirguṇa Brahman, is pure transcendental
existence only. This Nirguṇa Brahman is pure, perfect, and complete. The Saguṇa
Brahman is the śakti (potency) described by the Vedas, and the Nirguṇa Brahman
is the tātparya (meaning) of the Vedas.
Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes this argument by explaining, in the next sūtra:
Sūtra 10
gati-sāmānyāt
gati—the conception; sāmānyāt—because of uniformity.
(This is not so) because the Vedas describe only one kind of Brahman.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In this sūtra the word gati means "conception." The Vedic literatures describe
Brahman as full of transcendental knowledge, omniscient, omnipotent, perfect,
complete, pure, the all-pervading Supersoul, the original creator of the material
universes, the object of worship for the saintly devotees, and the bestower of
liberation. The Vedas do not describe two kinds of Brahman: Nirguṇa and Saguṇa.
Rather, the Vedas describe only one kind of Brahman. This one Brahman is
described by Lord Kṛṣṇa in the following words (Bhagavad-gītā 7.7):
mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat
kiñcid asti dhanañjaya
mayi sarvam idaṁ protaṁ
sūtre maṇi-gaṇā iva
"O conqueror of wealth, there is not truth superior to Me. Everything rests
upon me as pearls strung on a thread."*
Thus the Vedic literatures describe only one kind of Brahman: Nirguṇa
Brahman. Śrīla Vyāsadeva describes this Nirguṇa Brahman in the next sūtra:

Sūtra 11
śrutatvāc ca
śrutavāt—because of being described in the Vedas; ca—and.
(There is only one kind of Brahman: Nirguṇa Brahman), because Nirguṇa
Brahman is described throughout the Vedic literatures.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Nirguṇa Brahman is described in the following statement of Śvetāśvatara
Upaniṣad (6.11):
eko devaḥ sarva-bhūteṣu gūḍhaḥ
sarva-vyāpī sarva-bhūtāntarātmā
karmādhyakṣaḥ sarva-bhūtādhivāsaḥ
sākṣī cetā kevalo nirguṇaś ca
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead manifests Himself as the all-pervading
Supersoul, the witness present in the hearts of all living entities. He witnesses all
activities of the living entity. He is the supreme living force. He is transcendental
to all material qualities."
In this way Nirguṇa Brahman is described in the śruti-śāstra. The śruti-śāstra
does not say that it is impossible to describe Brahman. Some say that Brahman may
be understood not from the direct statements of the Vedic literatures, but merely
indirectly, or from hints found in the Vedic texts. This is not the correct
understanding, for if the Vedic scriptures had no power to directly describe
Brahman, then naturally they would also not have any power to indirectly describe
Him or hint about Him. The Vedic literatures may say that Brahman has no
contact with guṇas (either qualities, or the three modes of material nature), and He
cannot be seen by material eyes (adṛśya), still it does not say that the words of the
Vedas have no power to describe Him.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not said in the
Vedas that Brahman has no guṇas (qualities)? Your statement that Brahman has
qualities contradicts the description of the scriptures.
To this I reply: This is not true. You can only say this because you do not