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

इस संशय के समाधान हेतु सूत्रकार कहते हैं:
सूत्र १८
अन्यार्थं तु जैमिनिः प्रश्नव्याख्यानाभ्यामपि चैवमेके ॥ १८ ॥
पदच्छेद एवं शब्दार्थ:
अन्यार्थम् — अन्य अर्थ/प्रयोजन के लिए; तु — किन्तु (संशय-निवारणार्थ); जैमिनिः — आचार्य जैमिनि;
प्रश्नव्याख्यानाभ्याम् — प्रश्न तथा व्याख्यान (उत्तर) से; अपि — भी; च — तथा; एवम् — इस प्रकार;
एके — अन्य (वाजसनेयी आदि) शाखा के पाठ में।
सूत्रार्थ:
आचार्य जैमिनि का मत है कि यहाँ जीव का उल्लेख अन्य प्रयोजन (ब्रह्म-प्रतिपादन) के लिए ही है; क्योंकि प्रश्न और उत्तर से ऐसा ही सिद्ध होता है, तथा अन्य शाखा (वाजसनेयि-शाखा) के पाठ में भी इसी प्रकार का भेद स्पष्ट रूप से वर्णित है।
श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचित गोविन्दभाष्य तात्पर्य:
यहाँ 'तु' शब्द पूर्वपक्षीय संशय का निराकरण करने के लिए प्रयुक्त हुआ है। यहाँ जीव का वर्णन
एक भिन्न अर्थ (प्रयोजन) से किया गया है। आचार्य जैमिनि मानते हैं कि यह प्रसंग ब्रह्म और
जीव के भेद को ही स्पष्ट रूप से प्रतिपादित करता है। यह कैसे सिद्ध होता है? क्योंकि इस प्रसंग में
प्रश्न और उत्तर दोनों ही इसी बात को प्रमाणित करते हैं। प्रश्न सुप्त और जाग्रत अवस्था वाले जीवात्मा
के विषय में पूछे गए हैं, जो कि मुख्य प्राण से भिन्न है। श्रुति-पाठ इस प्रकार है: "क्वॆष एतद्बालाके पुरुषोऽशयिष्ट
क्व वा एतदभूत् कुत एतदागात्" (अर्थात् हे बालाके! सुषुप्ति के समय यह पुरुष कहाँ शयन कर रहा था?
यह कहाँ स्थित था? और जाग्रत होने पर यह कहाँ से लौट आया?)। इस प्रश्न में
ब्रह्म और जीव के मध्य स्पष्ट भेद लक्षित होता है। इसका उत्तर श्रुति में दिया गया है: "यदा
सुप्तः स्वप्नं न कञ्चन पश्यत्यथास्मिन् प्राण एवैकधा भवति" (अर्थात् जब वह सुषुप्त होता है
और कोई स्वप्न नहीं देखता, तब वह इसी प्राण में एकीभूत हो जाता है)। इसके पश्चात् का श्रुति-वाक्य:
"एतस्मादात्मनः प्राणा यथायतनं विप्रतिष्ठन्ते प्राणेभ्यो देवा देवेभ्यो
लोकाः" (अर्थात् इस परमात्मा रूप आत्मा से ही समस्त प्राण-इन्द्रियाँ अपने-अपने अधिष्ठानों में प्रवृत्त होती हैं,
प्राणों से देवता और देवताओं से समस्त लोक प्रकट होते हैं) ब्रह्म और जीव के पारस्परिक भेद को ही
दर्शाता है। यहाँ 'प्राण' शब्द का वास्तविक अर्थ परमेश्वर परमात्मा ही है;
क्योंकि परमात्मा ही सुषुप्ति-काल के परम विश्राम-स्थल के रूप में प्रसिद्ध हैं। उन्हीं में
समस्त जीव विलीन होते हैं और जाग्रत अवस्था में पुनः उन्हीं से बहिर्गत होते हैं। अग्रिम प्रसंग
का अभिप्राय यह है कि नाड़ियाँ सुषुप्ति-स्थल (ब्रह्म) तक पहुँचने के केवल मार्ग अथवा द्वार मात्र हैं।
परमात्मा को ही वह परम आधार समझना चाहिए जहाँ सुषुप्त जीव विश्राम करता है
और जहाँ से वह पुनः जाग्रत होकर विषयों का उपभोग करने निकलता है।
बालाकि और अजातशत्रु के इसी संवाद की वाजसनेयि-शाखा में भी जीव का वर्णन
'विज्ञानमय' कहकर किया गया है और ब्रह्म को उससे स्पष्टतः पृथक् निरूपित
किया गया है। उस पाठ में प्रश्न इस प्रकार है: "य एष विज्ञानमयः पुरुषः क्वैष
तदाभूत् कुत एतदागात्" (अर्थात् यह जो विज्ञानमय पुरुष है, वह उस समय कहाँ था? और वह कहाँ से आया?)
और इसका उत्तर दिया गया है: "य एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशस्तस्मिञ्छेते" (अर्थात् जो यह हृदयाकाश के भीतर
परब्रह्म है, उसी में यह शयन करता है)। इस प्रकार, परब्रह्म पुरुषोत्तम ही इस प्रसंग में मुख्य रूप से ज्ञेय तत्व प्रतिपादित हुए हैं।

Adhikaraṇa 6
The "Ātmā" of Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5 is Brahman and Not Jīva
Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5.6 Yājñavalkya teaches his wife, Maitreyī:
na vā are patyuḥ kāmāya patiḥ priyo bhavati
"A husband is not dear because the wife loves the husband. A husband is dear
because she loves the Self."
He also says:
na vā are sarvasya kāmāya sarvaṁ priyaṁ bhavati ātmanas tu kāmāya sarvaṁ
priyaṁ bhavati
"Everything is not dear because one loves everything. Everything is dear
because one loves the Self."
Again, he says:
ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo maitreyy ātmano vā are
darśanena śravaṇena matyā vijñānena idaṁ sarvaṁ viditam
"The Self should be seen, heard, worshiped, and always meditated on. O
Maitreyī, by seeing, hearing, worshiping, and understanding the Self, everything
becomes known."
Saṁśaya: In this passage which self is to be understood: the jīva (individual
spirit soul) described in the Kapila-tantra, or the Paramātmā (the Supreme
Personality of Godhead)?
Pūrvapakṣa: Because in this passage he describes the love of husband and wife
and because in the middle of the passage he says: etebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya
tāny evānuvinaśyati na pretya-saṁjñāsti (He leaves the material elements, his body
is destroyed, he dies and is no longer conscious), words that clearly describe a
resident of the material world who is subject to birth and death, and because at the
end he says: vijñātāram are kena vijānīyāt (How should we understand the person
who is the knower?) this passage should be interpreted to describe the jīva, who is
the knower described in the Kapila-tantra. One may object: "But it says that by
knowing the Self everything becomes known. Certainly this refers to the
Paramātmā and not the jīva." but this objection is not valid. The jīva takes birth in

this world with an aim to enjoy and one may figuratively say that by knowing the
jīva one knows everything for one then knows the world around him meant for his
enjoyment. One may again object, “This passage canot refer to the jīva because the
text says amṛtatvasya tu nāśāsti vittena (By knowing Him one becomes immortal).
Because it is only by knowing the Paramātmā that one becomes immortal, how can
this passage refer to the jīva?" This objection is also not valid because by
understanding that the jīva is by nature different from matter one may also attain
immortality. In the same way all descriptions in this passage that seem to refer to
Brahman should be understood to refer to the jīva. In this way this entire passage
describes the jīva. In this way it should be understood that the material nature,
which is under the control of the jīva, is the original cause of the world.
Siddhānta: In this matter:
Sūtra 19
vākyānvayāt
vākya-statement; anvayāt-because of the connection.
The context of this passage proves that Brahman is the object of discussion.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In this passage the Paramātmā, and not the jīva of the Kapila-tantra, is
described. Why? Because in the context of the whole passage, including what
precedes and follows this quote, that is the appropriate interpretation.
Three sages also confirm this interpretation:
Sūtra 20
pratijñā-siddher liṅgam āśmarathyaḥ
pratijñā-of the promise; siddher -of the fulfillment; liṅgam -the mark;
āśmarathyaḥ-Aśmarathya.
Āśmarthya (maintains that the Self here is Paramātmā because only in that way)
is the promise (that by knowledge of the Self everything is known) fulfilled.

Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Āśmarathya maintains that the promise ātmano vijñānena sarvaṁ viditam (By
knowledge of the Self everything is known) indicates that the Self referred to here
is the Paramātmā. It is not taught here that by knowledge of the jīva everything
becomes known. On the other hand by knowledge of the cause of all causes
everything becomes known. It is not possible to interpret these words in a
figurative way because after promising that by knowing the Self everything
becomes known, in the passage beginning brahma taṁ parādāt (One who thinks
the brāhmaṇas rest in a place other than the Self is spurned by the brāhmaṇas. One
who thinks the kṣatriyas rest in a place other than the Self is spurned by the
kṣatriyas. One who thinks the worlds rest in a place other than the self is spurned
by the worlds) he affirms that the Paramātmā is the form of everything and the
resting place of the brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, and world. For these reasons it is not
possible that the Self here can be any other than the Paramātmā. It is also not
possible for the individual living entity who remains under the control of karma to
be the original cause of all causes decsribed in the passage beginning tasya vā
etasya mahato bhūtasya niḥśvasitam (transcendental he Vedas were manifested
from the breathing of this Supreme Being). It is also not possible for (the sage
Yājñavalkya) to have taught his wife, who had renounced all wealth and material
benefits to attain liberation, only about the jīva and not about the Supreme
Brahman. It is also not possible that the Self referred to here is the jīva because on
cannot attain liberation simply by knowing the jīva. That liberation is attained
only by understanding the Supreme Brahman is confirmed in the following
statement of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.8 and 6.15: tam eva viditvāti mṛtyum eti (By
understanding the Supreme Brahman one is able to transcend death). For all these
reasons it should be understood that the Self described in this passage is the
Paramātmā.
Pūrvapakṣa: The objection may be raised: Because the Self in this passage is
described as the object of love for the husband and other persons, this self must be
the jīva bound to the cycle of repeated birth and death and not the Paramātmā. It
cannot be said that the Self described here must be the Paramātmā because that
interpretation answers the promise (of Yājñavalkya to speak certain words), nor
can it be said that the Self here must be the Paramātmā because this Self is the
shelter of the devotees, the creator of everything, all-powerful, and the origin of
transcendental bliss. The jīva may also be these things, as the Padma Purāṇa
explains: yenārcito haris tena tarpitāni jaganty api rajyanti jantavas tatra sthāvarā
jaṅgamā api (One who worships Lord Hari pleases all the worlds. All moving and
non-moving creatures love the devotee). In this way the Self described here is not
the Paramātmā.
Siddhānta: Fearing that the opponent may speak these words, he says:
Sūtra 21

utkramiṣyata evaṁ bhāvād ity auḍulomiḥ
utkramiṣyataḥ -of a person about to depart; evam-in this way; bhāvāt-from this
condition; iti-thus; auḍulomiḥ-Auḍulomi.
Auḍulomi maintains that one about to become liberated attains the
transcendental qualities of the Lord.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word utkramiṣyataḥ here means a person who by following spiritual
practices attains the Paramātmā. Evaṁ bhāvāt means "because of being dear to
everyone." Ātmā means "Paramātmā." This is the opinion of Auḍulomi. The
passage patyuḥ kāmāya patiḥ priyo bhavati (A husband is not dear because the
wife loves the husband. A husband is dear because she loves the Self) means that if
a wife thinks "By my own power I shall become dear to my husband" her husband
will not love her. However, if the wife loves the Paramātmā, then Lord Paramātmā
will make everyone love this devotee-wife. The word kāma here means "desire"
and kāmāya means "to fulfill the desire." The use of the dative case here is
described in Pāṇini's sūtras (Aṣṭādhyāyī 2.3.1 or Siddhānta-kaumudī 581) in the
following words: kriyārthopapadasya ca karmaṇi sthāninaḥ (The dative case is
used for the object of a verb understood but not expressed. In the dative two verbs
are used together and the action is in the future). In other words this passage
(patyuḥ kāmāya) of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad means "When He is worshiped
with devotion, the Supreme Personality of Godhead makes everything a source of
happiness for His devotees." This is corroborated by the following statement of
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.14.13):
akiñcanasya dāntasya
śāntasya sama-cetasaḥ
mayā santuṣṭa-manasaḥ
sarvāḥ sukhamayā diśaḥ
"For a person who is renounced, self-controlled, peaceful, equal to all, and who
finds his happiness in Me, every place in this world is full of joy."
The passage patyuḥ kāmāya may also be interpreted to mean "Trying to please
the husband does not please him. Only when the wife tries to please the
Paramātmā does the husband become pleased." This interpretation is corroborated
by the following statement of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.23.27):
prāṇa-buddhi-manaḥ-svātma-

dārāpatya-dhanādayaḥ
yat-samparkāt priyā āsaṁs
tataḥ ko 'nyaḥ paraḥ priyaḥ
"Our life, property, home, wife, children, house, country, society, and all
paraphernalia which are very dear to us are expansions of the Supreme Personality
of Godhead. Who is more dear to us than the Supreme Person?"
In this interpretation the word kāma means "happiness" and the dative case is
used in the same sense as the previous interpretation. This interpretation means
that by the will of the Paramātmā, by the nearness of the Paramātmā, or by the
touch of the Paramātmā, even what is ordinarily unpleasant becomes blissful.
Therefore when the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad says ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ (The
Self should be seen), the word ātmā means the dear Lord Hari. It is not possible to
interpret the word ātmā here to mean the jīva because here the primary meaning of
ātmā is the supremely powerful Personality of Godhead. To interpret ātmā in any
other way would contradict the way the word had been used in the previous
passage (vākya-bheda). We do not see how it is possible to interpret ātmā in a way
different from the way it was clearly used in the immediately previous passage. In
this way the word ātmā in ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ must be the Paramātmā. In both
passages (ātmanas tu kāmāya and ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ) the word ātmā cannot
mean the jīva, for in these contexts the word ātmā can only refer to Brahman.
Although Auḍulomi is a nirguṇa-ātmavādī (impersonalist) as will be explained
later on in the words (Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.6) citi tan-mātreṇa tad-ātmakatvād ity
auḍulomiḥ (When he is liberated the jīva enters the Supreme Intelligence, for the
jīva is actually intelligence only. This the the opinion of Auḍulomi.), still
Auḍulomi maintains that in order to dispel ignorance and reveal the true nature of
the self Lord Hari should be worshiped, as will be explained in the following
words (Vedānta-sūtra 3.4.45): ārtvijyam ity auḍulomis tasmai hi parikrīyate (Just
as a Vedic priest is purchased to perform a yajña, the Supreme Personality of
Godhead is purchased by His devotees' love). In this way it is proved that pure
devotion to Lord Hari fulfills all desires.
Our opponent may say: So be it. However, in the same Bṛhad-āraṇyaka
Upaniṣad (2.4.12) we find the following words:
sa yathā saindhava-khilya udake prāptam udakam evānulīyate na
hāsyodgrahaṇāyaiva syād yato yatas tv ādīta lavaṇam evaivaṁ vā. are idaṁ mahad
bhūtam anantam apāraṁ vijñāna-ghana evaitebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya tāny
evānuvinaśyati
"As a little salt merges into water and cannot be again extracted from it,
although the water itself becomes salty, so does this great being, limitless, endless,
and full of knowledge, rise from these elements and then vanish into them."
How do you reconcile this statement with your interpretation of the word ātmā
in this Upaniṣad? Clearly this passage refers to the jīva described in the Kapila-
tantra because that is the appropriate interpretation.
To answer this doubt he says:

Sūtra 22
avasthiter iti kāśakṛtsnaḥ
avasthiter -because of residence; iti -thus; kāśakṛtsnaḥ-Kāśakṛtsna.
This passage refers to Paramātmā, for Paramātmā resides within the jīva. This is
the opinion of Kāśakṛtsna.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In this statement the word avasthiteḥ (residing) which refers to the Paramātmā,
the Great Being who is different from the jīva, and who is described as vijñāna-
ghana (full of knowledge), teaches that the Paramātmā is different from the jīva
and resides within him. Kāśakṛtsna considers that because the Paramātmā and the
jīva are different the words mahad-bhūtam (Great being), anantam (limitless) and
vijñāna-ghana cannot refer to the jīva. A summary of the passage from Bṛhad-
āraṇyaka Upaniṣad under discussion follows.
Yenāhaṁ nāmṛtaḥ syāṁ kim ahaṁ tena kuryām
"Tell me what I must do to become free of death."
Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5.4)
Asked this question about the means to attain liberation, the sage answered:
ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo maitreyy ātmano vā are
darśanena śravaṇena matyā vijñānena idaṁ sarvaṁ viditam
"The Self should be seen, heard, worshiped, and always meditated on. O
Maitreyī, by seeing, hearing, worshiping, and understanding the Self, everything
becomes known."
In this way he explains that the worship of Paramātmā is the way to attain
liberation.
Then he says:
sa yathā dundubher hanyamānasya bāhyāñ chabdāñ chakruyād grahaṇāya
dundubhes tu grahaṇena dundubhy-āghātasya vā śabdo gṛhītaḥ

"As the sounds of a drum when beaten cannot be seized externally, although
when the drum or the player of the drum are seized then the sounds are also
seized). Thus, in a very general way he explains the proper method of worshiping
the Paramātmā: sense-control.
He continues in the following words:
sa yathārdhraidho 'gner abhyāhitasya pṛthag dhūmā viniścaranty evaṁ vā are
'sya mahato bhūtasya niśvāsitam etad yad ṛg vedo yajur vedaḥ sāma-vedo
'tharvāṅgirasa itihāsaḥ purāṇaṁ vidyā upaniṣadaḥ ślokāḥ sūtrāṇy anuvyākhyānāni
vyākhyānānīṣṭaṁ hutam āśitaṁ pāyitam ayaṁ ca lokaḥ paraś ca lokaḥ sarvāṇi ca
bhūtāny asyaikaitāni sarvāṇi niśvasitāni. sa yathā sarvāsāṁ apāṁ samudra
ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ sparśānāṁ tvacaikāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ rasānāṁ
jihvaikāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ gandhānāṁ nāsikaikāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ
rūpāṇāṁ cak.sur ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ śabdānāṁ śrotram ekāyanam evaṁ
sarveṣāṁ saṅkalpānāṁ mana ekāyanam evaṁ sarvāsāṁ vidyānāṁ hṛdayam
ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ karmaṇāṁ hastāv ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ ānandānāṁ
upastha ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ visargāṇāṁ pāyur ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ
adhvanāṁ pādāv ekāyanam evaṁ sarveṣāṁ vedānāṁ vāg ekāyanam
"As smoke comes from a fire made with wet fuel, the Ṛg Veda, Sāma Veda,
Yajur Veda, Atharva Veda, Purāṇas, Itihāsas, Vidyās, Upaniṣads, ślokas, sūtras,
vyākhyās, and anuvyākhyās, come from the breath of the Supreme Person. As the
ocean is the sole resting place of all waters, so the skin is the sole resting-place of
all tactile sensations, the nose is the sole resting-place of all fragrances, the tongue
is the sole resting-place of all tastes, the eyes are the sole resting-place of all forms,
the ears are the sole resting-place of all sounds, the mind is the sole resting-place
of all thoughts and desires, the heart is the sole resting place of all knowledge, the
hands are the sole resting-place of all work, the genitals are the sole resting-place
of all material bliss, the anus is the sole resting-place of all expulsions, the feet are
the sole resting-place of all pathways, and words are the sole resting-place of all
the Vedas)."
To encourage the desire for liberation he says:
sa yathā saindhava-khilya udake prāptam udakam evānulīyate na
hāsyodgrahaṇāyaiva syād yato yatas tv ādīta lavaṇam evaivaṁ vā. are idaṁ mahad
bhūtam anantam apāraṁ vijñāna-ghana evaitebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya tāny
evānuvinaśyati
"As a little salt merges into water and cannot be again extracted from it,
although the water itself becomes salty, so does this great being, limitless, endless,
and full of knowledge, rise from these elements and then vanish into them."
In this way he explains that the supreme object of worship is immanent:
always near to the jīva.
In the words etebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya tāny evānuvinaśyati (So does this
great being, limitless, endless, and full of knowledge, rise from these elements and

then vanish into them) he describes the non-devotees who do not worship the
Lord, who mistake the external material body for the self, who at the time of death
remain in the cycle of repeated birth and death, and for whom the Supreme Lord
remains invisible, hidden within the material elements.
The words na pretya saṁjñāsti (After death he becomes free of the world of
names) describe the devotee when he leaves the material body and attains
liberation. At that time the liberated devotee becomes aware of his real spiritual
identity. He then considers all material designations to be the same and he no
longer thinks of himself as a human being, demigod, or any other kind of material
being.
The words yatra hi dvaitam iva bhavati tad itara itaraṁ paśyati tad itara itaraṁ
jighrati tad itara itaraṁ rasayate tad itara itaraṁ abhivadati tad itara itaraṁ śṛṇoti
tad itara itaraṁ manute tad itara itaraṁ spṛśati tad itara itaraṁ vijānāti yatra tv
asya sarvam ātmaivābhūt tat tena kaṁ paśyet tat tena kaṁ jighret tat kena kaṁ
rasayet tat kena kam abhivadet tat kena kaṁ śṛṇuyāt tat kena kaṁ manvīta tata
tena kaṁ spṛśet tat tena kaṁ vijānīyāt (Where there is duality one sees another,
smells another, tastes another, offers respect to another, hears another, thinks of
another, touches another, and is aware of another. But for one for whom the
Supreme Self is everything how can he see another? How can he smell another?
Hopw can he taste another? How can he offer respect to another? How can he hear
another? How can he think of another? How can he touch another? How can he be
aware of another?) explain how the liberated jīva takes shelter of the the
Paramātmā.
The words yenedaṁ sarvaṁ vijānāti taṁ kena vijānīyāt (How can a person,
even if he understands the entire world, understand Him?) teach that it is very
difficult to understand the Supreme Lord.
The words vijñātāram are kena vijānīyāt (How can one understand the Supreme
Knower?) mean "How can one understand the all-knowing Supreme Personality of
Godhead without first worshiping Him and attaining His mercy? There is no other
way than this." In this way the worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is
described as the actual means of liberation. The speaker of the Upaniṣad concludes
by declaring that actual liberation is the same as attaining the Paramātmā.
From all this it may be understood that this passage of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka
Upaniṣad describes the Paramātmā and not the puruṣa as described in the Kapila-
tantra, or the material nature controlled by the puruṣa.
Adhikaraṇa 7
Brahman is Both Primary and Secondary Cause
Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Viṣaya: Now that he has refuted the atheistic pradhāna theory, he will refute
some theistic theories and prove that all scriptural descriptions of the cause of the

universe refer to the Supreme Brahman.
Let us consider the following scriptural passages.
tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśaḥ sambhūtaḥ
"From ātmā the sky was manifested."
Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1
yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante
"From the Supreme these creatures were born."
Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1
sad eva saumyedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyaṁ tad aikṣata bahu syāṁ prajāyeya
"O gentle one, in the beginning was the Supreme, who was one without a
second. He thought: Let me become many. Let me become the father of many."
Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.1
sa aikṣata lokān nu sṛjā
"He thought: Now I shall create the worlds."
Aitareya Upaniṣad 1.1.2
Saṁśaya: Should Brahman be considering the Primary Cause or the ingredient
of the creation? Because the Upasniṣads say sa aikṣata (He thought: "Now I shall
create the worlds") the first proposal, that Brahman is the Primary cause and not
the ingredient of creation, should be considered true. Although the Upaniṣad says
tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśaḥ sambhūtaḥ (From ātmā the sky was manifested)
still this should be interpreted to mean only that the Supreme is the Primary
Creator (and not the ingredient of creation) of the worlds. The quotes tad aikṣata
bahu syām prajāyeya (He thought: "Let me become many. Let me become the
father of many.") and sa aikṣata lokān nu sṛjā
(He thought: "Now I shall create the worlds."), because of their clear explanation
that the Lord's thinking precedes the creation, show that the Lord is the Primary
Creator in the same way a potter is the creator of pots. Because the creation itself
and the ingredients of which it is made must have the same nature, the ingredient
of the material creation must be the material energy (prakṛti). It is not possible to
say that the Primary Cause of creation is identical with the ingredients of the
creation. In the material world made of dull matter the ingredients are earth and
the other elements and the creator is consciousness, just as pots are made of the
elements and the creator of the pots is the conscious potter. Here the pots and the
potter are clearly different. Furthermore many diverse causes may create a single
effect. Therefore it cannot be said that a single thing is both the primary cause and
the ingredient of creation. The changing material energy (prakṛti), which is
controlled by the unchanging Brahman is the ingredient of the changing material

universe and Brahman is only its Primary Cause. This statement is not based only
on logic, for it is also supported by the following passage of the Culika Upaniṣad:
vikāra-jananīm ajñāṁ
aṣṭa-rūpām ajāṁ dhruvam
dhyāyate 'dhyāsitā tena
tanyate preritā punaḥ
sūyate puruṣārthaṁ ca
tenaivādhiṣṭhitā jagat
gaur anādy-antavatī sā
janitrī bhūta-bhāvinī
sitāsitā ca raktā ca
sarvakām adhunā vibhoḥ
pibanty enām aviṣamām
avijñātāḥ kumārakāḥ
ekas tu pibate devaḥ
svacchando 'tra vaśānugām
dhyāna-kriyābhyāṁ bhagavān
bhuṅkte 'sau prasabhaṁ vibhuḥ
sarva-sādhāraṇīṁ dogdhrīm
pīyamānāṁ tu yajvabhiḥ
catur-viṁśati-saṅkhyākāṁ
avyaktaṁ vyaktam ucyate
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead meditates on the unborn, eternal,
unintelligent material nature (prakṛti), who has eight forms, and by His order the
material nature creates the material worlds and the various goals of life adopted by
the living entities. Material nature is a beginningless, endless cow, the mother of
the worlds. Without knowing, her children, the creatures in goodness, passion,
and ignorance all drink her nourishing milk. The one independent, all-powerful
Supreme Personality of Godhead strongly enjoys her with thought and deed, she
who is the milk-giving mother of all, who is drunk by the performers of sacrifice,
and who is said to be both the unmanifested and the manifested divided into 24
elements."
Furthermore, the Viṣṇu Purāṇa says:
yathā sannidhi-mātreṇa
gandhaḥ kṣobhāya jāyate
manaso nopakartṛtvāt
tathāsau parameśvaraḥ

sannidhānād yathākāśa-
kālādyāḥ kāraṇaṁ taroḥ
tathaivāparigāmena
viśvasya bhagavān hariḥ
nimitta-mātram evāsau
sṛṣṭānāṁ sarga-karmaṇi
pradhāna-kāriṇī bhūtā
yato vai sṛjya-śaktayaḥ
"When there is a fragrant flower before someone, the fragrance is touched by
the smelling power of the person, yet the smelling and the flower are detached
from one another. There is a similar connection between the material world and
the Supreme Personality of Godhead: actually He has nothing to do with this
material world, but He creates by His glance and ordains. In summary, material
nature, without the superintendence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead,
cannot do anything. Yet the Supreme Personality is detached from all material
activities."
For these reasons whatever scriptural passages state that Brahman is the
ingredient of the creation should be interpreted to have a different meaning.
SiddhāntaTo this argument:
Sūtra 23
prakṛtiś ca pratijñā dṛṣṭāntānuparodhāt
prakṛtiḥ -material nature; ca -and; pratijñā -the proposition to be proved;
dṛṣṭānta-example; anuparodhāt-because of not contradicting.
Brahman is also the material nature (prakṛti) because this view is not
contradicted by the statements and examples (given in the scriptures).
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Brahman is the material nature (prakṛti), the ingredient of the world. How is
that? It is so because pratijñā-dṛṣṭāntānuparodhāt, which means "Because this view
is not contradicted by the statements and examples of the scriptures." An example
may be given from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.1.3:
śvetaketo yan nu saumyedaṁ mahā-manā anūcāna-mānī stabdho 'sy uta tam

ādeśaṁ aprākṣīr yenāśrutaṁ śrutaṁ bhavaty amataṁ matam avijñātaṁ vijñātam
ity eka-vijñānena sarva-vijñāna-viṣayā pratijñā
"Gentle Śvetaketu, you are now very proud and arrogant, thinking yourself a
great Vedic scholar. Did you ask for the teaching that makes the unheard heard,
the unthinkable thinkable, and the unknown known?"
Here the statement is the existence of a single teaching, the knowledge of which
makes everything known. This teaching must be about the ingredient of the world
for only that knowledge would not contradict the description in this passage. That
ingredient of the world is not different from the original creator of the world. They
are one, unlike the pot and the potter, which are different from each other.
The following example is given (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.1.10):
yathā saumyaikena mṛt-piṇḍena sarvaṁ mṛṇ-mayaṁ vijñātaṁ syāt
"O gentle one, as by knowing the nature of clay, everything made of clay
becomes known, in the same way by understanding this one teaching everything
becomes known."
These words of the śruti must refer to the ingredient of the world. they cannot
refer to only the original creator of the world, for by understanding only the potter
one does not understand the pot. Therefore, to avoid contradicting these words of
the scripture, it must be concluded that Brahman is not only the original creator of
the world, but the ingredient of which the world is made as well.
Sūtra 24
abhidhyopadeśāc ca
abhidhya-will; upadeśāc -because of the teaching; ca-and.
Because (the scriptures) teach (that in this age the world was created by His)
will and (in previous creations the world was also created by His will, it must be
concluded that Brahman is both the original cause of creation and the ingredient
of the creation as well).
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In this sūtra the word ca (and) means "and many other things that are not
explicitly mentioned here."

The Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.6.1) explains:
so 'kāmayata bahu syāṁ prajāyeya sa tapo 'tapyata tapas taptvā idaṁ sarvam asṛjat.
yad idaṁ kiñcana tat sṛṣṭvā tad evānuprāviśat. tad anupraviśya sac ca tyac
cābhavat.
"He desired: I will become many. I will father many children. He performed
austerities and created everything. Then He entered within the world He had
created. After He entered He became all that is manifest and all that is unmanifest."
Because it is here taught that by His own desire He resides as Paramātmā within
all conscious living entities and unconscious matter, and because it is also taught
here that he is the creator of everything, it must be concluded that He is both the
ingredient of the which the creation is made and the original creator and as well.
Sūtra 25
sākṣāc cobhayāmnānāt
sākṣāt -directly; ca-certainly; ubhaya-both; āmnānāt-because of direct
statement.
(Brahman is both creator and the ingredient of creation) because both (truths)
are directly stated (in the scriptures).
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word ca here means "certainly." The Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (2.8.9.6)
explains:
kiṁsvid vanaṁ ka u sa vṛkṣa āsīt
yato dyāvā-pṛthivī niṣṭatakṣuḥ
manīṣiṇo manasā pṛcchataitat
yad adhyatiṣṭhad bhuvanāni dhārayan
brahma vanaṁ brahma sa vṛkṣa āsīt
yato dyāvā-pṛthivī niṣṭatakṣuḥ
manīṣiṇo manasā prabravīmi
vo brahmādhyatiṣṭhad bhuvanāni dhārayan

"What was the forest? What was the tree? From what tree in what forest did He
fashion heaven and earth? Ask these questions, O wise ones. Where did He stand
when He created the worlds? Brahman was the forest. Brahman was the tree. From
Brahman He created heaven and earth. O wise ones, I tell you, He stood on
Brahman when He created the worlds."
These questions and answers clearly show that Brahman is both the creator and
the ingredient from which the creation is made. From the tree-ingredient the
creation, designated by the word "heaven and earth" comes. The word niṣṭatakṣuḥ
means "the Supreme Personality of Godhead created." Although niṣṭatakṣuḥ is
plural, the opposite, the singular, is intended here. This is a use of Vedic poetic
license. The questions "What is the tree? What is the forest where the tree rests?
Where does He stand when He created the worlds?" are asked in terms of the
things of this world and the answers describe something beyond this world. In this
way it may be understood that Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of
which the world is made.
Sūtra 26
ātma-kṛteḥ pariṇāmāt
ātma-self; kṛteḥ -because of making; pariṇāmāt-because of transformation.
(Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of the creation) because He
transformed Himself (into the world).
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.6.2) says:
so 'kāmayata
"He desired: I shall become many."
It also says (2.7.1):
tad ātmānaṁ svayam akuruta
"He created the world from His own Self."
In this way the scriptures explain that Brahman is both the creator and the
ingredient from which the creation is made.
Someone may object: How can the eternally-perfect creator be also the

creation?
To answer this objection he says pariṇāmāt (because He has transformed
Himself). This does not contradict the changelessness of Brahman for a certain
kind of transformation is not incompatible with changelessness. Here is the truth
of this. In the following passages the śruti explains that Brahman has three
potencies:
parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śruyate
"The Supreme has many potencies."
Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.8
pradhāna-kṣetrajña-patir guṇeśaḥ
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of pradhāna (material
nature), kṣetrajña (the individual spirit souls), and guṇa (the three material
modes)."
Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.16
The smṛti (Viṣṇu Purāṇa) also explains:
viṣṇu-śaktiḥ parā proktā
kṣetrajñākhyā tathā parā
avidyā-karma-saṁjñānyā
tṛtīyā śaktir ucyate
"The potency of Lord Viṣṇu is summarized in three categories: namely the
spiritual potency, the living entities, and ignorance. The spiritual potency is full of
knowledge; the living entitles, although belonging to the spiritual potency, are
subject to bewilderment; and the third energy, which is full of ignorance, is always
visible in fruitive activities."
In this way the scriptures explain that Brahman is both the creator and the
ingredient of which the creation is made. He is the first (the creator) by the agency
of His spiritual potency and He is the second (the ingredient of which the creation
is made) by the agency of the other two potencies. This interpretation is confirmed
by the aphorism sa-viśeṣeṇa vidhi-niṣedhau viśeṣaṇam upasaṅkrāmate (an
adjective describes both what a noun is and what it is not).
The scriptures also explain (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.1):
ya eko 'varṇo bahudhā śakti-yogād
varṇān anekān nihitārtho dadhāti
vi caiti cānte viśvam ādau sa devaḥ
sa no buddhyā śubhayā saṁyunaktau

"May the one, unrivalled Supreme Personality of Godhead, who for His own
purpose created the many varieties of living entities by the agency of His potencies,
who created everything in the beginning and into whom everything enters at the
end, grant pure intelligence to us."
As the supreme unchangeable the Supreme Brahman is the original cause of
creation, and as the pariṇāmī (the transformable) Brahman is also the ingredient of
which the creation is made. In His subtle nature Brahman is the creator and in His
nature as gross matter He is the creation itself. In this way it is established that the
Supreme Brahman is both creator and creation. The creation is thus like a lump of
clay that may be shaped in different ways. The word pariṇāmāt (because of
transformation) in this sūtra clearly refutes the theory that declares the material
world a vivarta (illusion) that has no reality. The statement that the material world
is an illusion superimposed on Brahman just as the existence of silver is an illusion
superimposed on an oyster shell with a silvery sheen cannot be accepted because
the oyster shell is an object that can be placed before the viewer, but Brahman,
because it is all-pervading cannot be placed before the viewer and therefore an
illusion cannot be superimposed on it. One may object that although the sky is all-
pervading illusions may be superimposed on it. However, Brahman is not like the
sky in the sense that the sky may be approached by the material observer but
Brahman remains beyond the reach of the material senses and therefore an illusion
cannot be superimposed on it. Furthermore, the existence of an illusion implies
the existence of something different from the thing on which the illusion is
superimposed. Without the existence of something separate there is no possibility
of an illusion. In the end, therefore, the vivarta theory postulates the existence of
something different from Brahman. This is the fault in their theory. When the
scriptures state that the material world is an illusion it should be understood these
words are are a device intended to create renunciation. This is the opinion of they
who know the truth. The material world, however, displays a complicated
structure of different elements grouped in categories of higher and lower, and in
this way it is very much unlike an illusion, where nothing is very stable and one
things is continually changing into another. In this way it may be understood that
the vivarta theory (that the material world isd an illusion) is untrue and the
pariṇāma theory (that the material world is a transformation of Brahman) is the
truth taught in the Vedic scriptures.
Sūtra 27
yoniś ca hi gīyate
yoniḥ-the place of birth; ca -also; hi -indeed; gīyate-is declared.
(The scriptures) declare that (Brahman is the) womb (from which the material
world was born).

Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The śruti-śāstra explains:
yad bhūta-yoniṁ paripaśyanti dhīrāḥ
"The wise see that Brahman is the womb from which everything was born."
Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.6
kartāraṁ īśaṁ puruṣaṁ brahma-yonim
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original creator, the womb from
which everything was born."
Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.6
In these verses the word yonim (womb) describes Brahman as the ingredient of
creation and the words kartāraṁ puruṣam (the Supreme Personality of Godhead,
the original creator) describe Brahman as the creator. In this way Brahman is
described as both the creator and the ingredient of which the creation is made. The
word yoni (womb) means "the ingredient of which the creation is made." This is
confirmed in the words:
pṛthivī yonir oṣadhi-vanaspatīnām
"The earth is the womb from which the trees and plants are born."
In both common sense and Vedic revelation the creator and the ingredients
from which the creation is made are considered are always considered different
and it is not possible to say that the creator and the ingredient of which his
creation is made are identical. However, the previously quoted passages from the
śruti clearly explain that in this case Brahman is both the creator and the
ingredient of which His creation is made.
Adhikaraṇa 8
All Names Are Names of Lord Viṣṇu
Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Someone may object: Many passages in the scriptures do not support your
conclusion at all.
This adhikaraṇa is written to dispel this doubt. The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad

explains:
kṣaraṁ pradhānam amṛtākṣaraḥ haraḥ
"Material nature is in constant flux and the Supreme, Lord Hara is eternal and
unchanging." (1.10)
eko rudro na dvitīyāya tasthuḥ
"Lord Rudra is the Supreme. He has no rival." (3.2)
yo devānāṁ prabhavaś codbhavaś ca
viśvādhiko rudraḥ śivo maharṣiḥ
"Lord Śiva, who is known as Rudra, is the omniscient ruler of the universe. He
is the father of all the demigods. He gives the demigods all their powers and
opulences." (3.4)
yadā tamas tan na divā na rātrir
na san na cāsac chiva eva kevalaḥ
"When the final darkness comes and there is no longer day or night, when
there is no longer being and non-being, then only Lord Śiva exists." (4.18)
The scriptures also explain:
pradhānād idam utpannam
pradhānam adhigacchati
pradhāne layam abhyeti
na hy anyat kāraṇaṁ matam
"From pradhāna this material world was born. This world knows only
pradhāna. This world merges into pradhāna at the time of annihilation. Nothing
else is the cause of this world."
jīvād bhavanti bhūtāni
jīve tiṣṭhanty acañcalāḥ
jīve ca layam icchanti
na jīvāt kāraṇaṁ param
"From the jīva all the elements of this world have come. In the jīva they rest
without moving, and they finally merge into the jīva. Nothing else is the cause of
this world."
Saṁśaya: Should Hara and the other names given in these quotes be
understood in their ordinary senses, as names of Lord Śiva, pradhāna, and jīva, or
should they all be understood to be names of the Supreme Brahman?
Pūrvapakṣa: The names should all be understood in their ordinary senses, as

names of Lord Śiva, pradhāna, and jīva.
Siddhānta: The conclusion follows.
Sūtra 28
etena sarve vyākhyātā vyākhyātāḥ
etena -in this way; sarve -all; vyākhyātāḥ -explained; vyākhyātāḥ-explained.
All (words in the scriptures) should be interpreted to agree with the
explanation (that the Supreme Brahman is the original cause).
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In this sūtra the word etena means "according to the explanations already
given," sarve means "Hara and the other names," and vyākhyātāḥ means "should
be understood to be names of the Supreme Brahman because all names are
originally names of the Supreme Brahman."
The Bhālvaveya-śruti explains:
nāmāni viśvāni na santi loke
yad āvirāsīt puruṣasya sarvam
nāmāni sarvāṇi yam āviśanti
taṁ vai viṣṇuṁ paramam udāharanti
"The names of this world are not different from Him. All names in this world
are names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All names refer to Him, Lord
Viṣṇu, whom the wise declare is the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
Vaiśampāyana Muni explains that all these names are names of Lord Kṛṣṇa. The
Skanda Purāṇa also explains:
śrī-nārāyaṇādīni nāmāni vinānyāni rudrādibhyo harir dattavān
"Except for Nārāyaṇa and some other names, Lord Hari gave away His names to
Lord Śiva and the other demigods."
This is the rule that should be followed: When the ordinary sense of these
names does not contradict the essential teaching of the Vedas, the ordinary
meaning should be accepted. When the ordinary sense of these names does
contradict the teaching of the Vedas, these names should be understood to be
names of Lord Viṣṇu.