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

places simultaneously."
If this is said, he (Vyāsa) speaks the following words:
Sūtra 27
virodhaḥ karmaṇīti cen nāneka-pratipatter darśanāt
virodhaḥ-contradiction; karmaṇi-in activities; iti-thus; cet-if; na-not; aneka-
many; pratipatteḥ-because of the acceptance; darśanāt-because of seeing.
If it is objected that this idea is refuted by the very activities of the devas, then I
say no, because it is seen that the devas have the power to manifest many forms
simultaneously.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
There is no contradiction here if it accepted that the devas are embodied souls
with material bodies. Why? The sūtra says aneka-pratipatter darśanāt (because it is
seen that the devas have the power to manifest many forms simultaneously). This
is so because many powerful beings, such as Saubhari Muni and others, are able to
manifest many forms simultaneously.
The objector may say: It may be that in the description of the devas' activities
there is no contradiction for they who say that the devas have bodies. There
remains, however, a contradiction in the description of the words of the Vedas.
Before the birth and after the death of each demigod a period would exist when the
name of that demigod would not have any meaning. At that time the words of the
Vedas would become meaningless, like the statement "the son of a barren woman."
In this way this idea is refuted. The Mīmāṁsā-sūtra says: autpattikas tu
śabdenārthasya sambandhaḥ (In the Vedas the relation between name and the
object named is eternal). This idea (that the devas are embodied souls) would then
contradict the eternality of the names in the Vedas.
If this objection is raised, then he (Vyāsa) replies:
Sūtra 28
śabda iti cen nātaḥ prabhavāt pratyakṣānumānābhyām
śabdaḥ-the words of the Vedas; iti-thus; cet-if; na-no; ataḥ-from this; prabhavāt-

because of creation; pratyakṣa-because of śruti; anumānābhyām-and smṛti.
If someone objects that this idea is inconsistent with the eternal nature of the
words in the Vedas, then I say no because of the description of the creation of the
world and also because of the evidence given in śruti and smṛti.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The idea stated here (that the devas have bodies) is not inconsistent with the
nature of the words in the Vedas. Why? The sūtra says prabhavāt
pratyakṣānumānābhyām (because of the description of the creation of the world
and also because of the evidence given in śruti and smṛti. The creation of the
material bodies (of the devas and other beings in the universe) is done (by Lord
Brahmā) remembering their eternal, archetypal forms recorded in the statements of
the Vedas. These archetypal forms are eternal, and existed before any of the bodies
of the living entities were manifested. These archetypal forms are described by
Viśvakarmā in his own scripture for drawing forms in the words yamaṁ daṇḍa-
pāṇiṁ likhanti varuṇaṁ tu pāśa-hastam (They draw the demigod Yama with a
mace in his hand, and the demigod Varuṇa with a noose in his hand). The Vedic
words describing the devas and other kinds of living entities are names of certain
classes of living entity, just as the word "cow" is the name of a certain kind of
living entity. The names of the devas are not names of specific persons, as for
example, the name Caitra. Because the words of the Vedas are eternal in this way
the Vedas are genuine sources of knowledge. This explanation is not at all
inconsistent with the previously quoted explanation from the Mīmāṁsā-sūtra.
Why is this? The sūtra says pratyakṣānumānābhyām, which means "because of
the evidence given in śruti and smṛti." The śruti (Pañca-vaiṁśati Brāhmaṇa
(6.9,13,22) discussing the creation of the world, which was preceded by the
(eternal) words (of the Vedas), gives the following description: eta iti ha vai
prajāpatir devān asṛjat asṛgram iti manuṣyān indava iti pitṝṁs tiraḥ-pavitram iti
grahān āsuva iti stotraṁ viśvānīti mantraṁ abhisaubhagety anyāḥ prajāḥ (Reciting
the word ete from the Vedas, Lord Brahmā created the devas. Reciting the word
asṛgram, he created the human beings. Reciting the word indava, he created the
pitās. Reciting the word tiraḥ-pavitram, he created the planets. Reciting the word
asuva, he created songs. Reciting the word viśvāni, he created mantras. Reciting
the word abhisaubhaga, he created the other creatures).
The smṛti also confirms this in the following words (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 1.5.64):
nāma rūpaṁ ca bhūtānāṁ
kṛtyānāṁ ca prapañcanam
veda-śabdebhya evādau
devādīnāṁ cakāra saḥ
"By reciting the words of the Vedas in the beginning, Lord Brahmā created the

names and forms of the material elements, the rituals, the devas, and all other
living entities."
Sūtra 29
ata eva ca nityatvam
ataḥ eva-therefore; ca-and; nityatvam-eternity.
And for this very reason the eternity (of the Veda is proved).
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The eternity of the Vedas is proved by the fact that the creator (Brahmā) creates
(the world) by (reciting the Vedic) words (describing the) eternal forms and by
remembering (the previous creation). Kāṭhaka Muni and the (other sages) should
be understood to be merely the speakers (and not the authors of the Vedas).
The objection may be raised: So be it. The śruti explains that by remembering
the words of the Vedas Lord Brahmā creates the forms of the devas and other
living entities. This may be in the case after the (naimittika) partial cosmic
devastation, but how can this method of creation be employed after the (prākṛta)
complete cosmic devastation, when absolutely everything is destroyed, and how
can the Vedas be eternal under the circumstances of such complete destruction?
If this is said, then he replies:
Sūtra 30
samāna-nāma-rūpatvāc cāvṛttāv apy avirodho darśanāt smṛteś ca
samāna-same; nāma-because of the names; rūpatvāt-and forms; ca-also; avṛttāu-
in the repetition; api-also; avirodhaḥ-not a contradiction; darśanāt #because of the
śruti$ smṛteś-because of the smṛti; ca-indeed.
Because the names and forms remain the same even at the beginning of a new
creation, there is no contradiction. This is proved by śruti and smṛti.

Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word ca (indeed) is used here to dispel doubt. That after a complete cosmic
devastation there must be a new creation does not at all disprove the eternalness of
the words of the Vedas. Why? The sūtra says samāna-nāma-rūpatvāc cāvṛttāv apy
avirodho darśanāt smṛteś ca (Because the names and forms remain the same even
at the beginning of a new creation, there is no contradiction. This is proved by
śruti and smṛti). The meaning here is "because the previously spoken names and
forms remain the same." At the time of the great cosmic devastation the eternal
Vedas and the eternal archetypal forms described by the Vedas enter Lord Hari, the
master of transcendental potencies, and rest within Him, becoming one with Him.
At the time of the next creation they again become manifested from the Lord. Lord
Hari and the four-faced demigod Brahmā both precede their acts of creation with
recitation of Vedic mantras, which recitation leads to meditation on the archetypal
forms. At the time of a new creation the creator remembers what He created in the
previous creation and He again creates as He had created before. This is like a
potter who, by saying the word "pot" remembers the forms of pots he previously
fashioned, and goes on to make another pot. Just as the process of creation is
performed in this way after the partial cosmic devastation, in the same way the
process of creation is also performed after the complete cosmic devastation.
How is all this known? The sūtra says darśanāt smṛteś ca (because this is
proved by śruti and smṛti. The śruti says:
ātmā vā idam eka evāgra āsīt sa aikṣata lokān utsṛjāḥ
"In the beginning was only the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He thought: I
shall create many worlds).
Aitareya Upaniṣad 1.1
yo brahmāṇaṁ vidadhāti pūrvaṁ yo vai vedāṁś ca prahiṇoti tasmi tam
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead created the Vedas and taught them to
the demigod Brahmā).
Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.18
sūryā-candramasau dhātā yathā-pūrvam akalpat
"Brahmā created the sun and moon as he had done before."
Ṛg Veda
The smṛti says
nyagrodhaḥ su-mahān alpe
yathā bīje vyavasthitaḥ

samyame viśvaṁ akhilaṁ
bija-bhūte yathā tvayi
"O Lord, just as a great banyan tree rests within a tiny seed, in the same way at
the time of cosmic devastation the entire universe rests within You, the seed from
which it originally sprouted."
Viṣṇu Purāṇa
nārāyaṇaḥ paro devas
tasmāj jātaś caturmukhaḥ
"Nārāyaṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. From him the demigod
Brahmā was born."
Varāha Purāṇa
tene brahma hṛdā ya ādi-kavaye
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto
the heart of Brahmājī, the original living being."*
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.1.1
A summary of this gist of this explanation follows: The Supreme Personality of
Godhead, at the end of the period of cosmic devastation, meditating on the
material universe at it had been before, desiring in His heart "I shall become
many," differentiating again the jīvas and material elements that had become
merged within Him, creating again, as it had been before, the material universe
extending from the mahat-tattva to the demigod Brahmā, manifesting the Vedas
exactly as they had been before, teaching the Vedas to the demigod Brahmā within
the heart, engaging the demigod Brahmā in the creation of the forms of the devas
and other living entities as they had been before, and personally entered the
universe and controlling it from within. Omniscient by the mercy of the Supreme
Personality of Godhead, the demigod Brahmā, meditating on the archetypal forms
described in the Vedas, creates the devas and other creatures as they had been
before. In this way the relationship between the names of the devas headed by
Indra and their archetypal forms described in the Vedas is explained. In this way
the opponent's argument of the Vedic words does not at all refute (this
explanation of the nature of the devas). In this way it is proved that the devas and
other superior beings have the ability to meditate on the Supreme Personality of
Godhead. The Supreme Personality of Godhead's form the size of a thumb is not at
all contradicted by this description of the ability of the devas to meditate on Him.
This is so because the form of the Lord is the size of a deva's thumb in this case.
Now will be considered the question of whether the devas are eligible or not to
engage in those meditations where they themselves are the object of meditation. In
the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (3.1.1) is the statement asau vā ādityo deva-madhu tasya
dyaur eva tiraścīna-vaṁśaḥ (The sun is honey for the devas. The heavenly planets
are the crossbeam, the sky is the beehive, and the rays of sunlight are the
children). The sun is here the honey of the devas and the rays of sunlight are the
openings (for drinking the honey). Five classes of devas, the vasus, rudras, ādityas,

maruts, and sādhyas, all headed by their leaders, gaze at the honey of the sun and
become happy. That is said here. The sun is here called honey because it is the
abode of a certain sweetness one becomes eligible for by performing certain
religious works described in the Rg Veda and one attains by entering through the
doorway of the sun's rays. In other places in the scriptures it is said that the devas
can perform these meditations. In this matter he now explains the opinions of
others.
Sūtra 31
madhv-ādiṣv asambhavād anadhikāraṁ jaiminiḥ
madhu-ādiṣu-in madhu-vidyā and other Vedic meditations; asambhavāt-
because of impossibility; anadhikāram-qualification; jaiminiḥ-Jaimini.
Jaimini says the devas do not engage in madhu-vidyā and other forms of Vedic
meditation because it is not possible for them to do so.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Jaimini Muni thinks that the devas are not qualified to engage in madhu-vidyā
and other forms of Vedic meditation. Why? The sūtra says asambhavāt (because it
is not possible for them to do so). The object of worship cannot also be the
worshiper. It is not possible for one person to be both. Furthermore, because the
devas do not aspire to attain the result of madhu-vidyā meditation, namely to
become vasus or exalted devas, because they already are vasus and devas.
Sūtra 32
jyotiṣi bhāvāc ca
jyotiṣi-in the splendor; bhāvāt-because of existence; ca-and.
And because the devas do meditate on the effulgent Supreme Personality of
Godhead.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (४.४.१६) प्रमाण एवं पूर्वपक्ष उपसंहार:
बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (४.४.१६) में कहा गया है—
«तद् देवा ज्योतिषां ज्योतिरायुर्होपासतेऽमृतम्»
अर्थात् समस्त देवता परमेश्वर की, जो ज्योतियों की भी परम ज्योति हैं, उपासना करते हैं।
इस श्रुति-वचन के अनुसार देवता केवल परम तेजोमय परब्रह्म की ही उपासना करते हैं,
अतः वे स्वाभाविक रूप से मधुविद्या आदि गौण अथवा आनुषंगिक उपासनाओं में प्रवृत्त नहीं होते।
यह व्याख्या प्रतिपादित करती है कि मनुष्य की भाँति देवता भी केवल परब्रह्म के ध्यान में ही स्वाभाविक रुचि रखते हैं,
तथा वे अन्य किसी प्रकार की सीमित उपासना से सर्वथा विरक्त रहते हैं।
इस प्रकार पूर्वपक्ष का निरूपण करने के उपरान्त, अब भगवान् व्यासदेव (सूत्रकार) अपना सिद्धान्त मत व्यक्त करते हैं—

मध्वाद्यधिकरणम्

सूत्र ३३:
भावं तु बादरायणोऽस्ति हि ॥ ३३ ॥
पदच्छेद एवं शब्दार्थ:

• भावम् = (उपासना के अधिकार का) सद्भाव अथवा अस्तित्व;
• तु = किन्तु (पूर्वपक्ष के संशय के निवारणार्थ);
• बादरायणः = भगवान् बादरायण व्यास;
• अस्ति = मानते हैं (अधिकार है);
• हि = क्योंकि (श्रुति-प्रमाण विद्यमान है)।
  सूत्रार्थ:
  किन्तु भगवान् बादरायण व्यास का मत है कि देवताओं का मधुविद्या आदि उपासनाओं में अधिकार (भाव) विद्यमान है;
  क्योंकि इसके साधक प्रमाण और हेतु उपलब्ध हैं।
  श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचित गोविन्दभाष्य — तात्पर्य:
  सूत्र में प्रयुक्त 'तु' शब्द पूर्वपक्ष द्वारा उठाए गए संशय का निरसन करने के लिए है।
  श्रील व्यासदेव का सुदृढ़ मत है कि देवता भी मधुविद्या तथा अन्य वैदिक उपासनाओं का अनुष्ठान करने में पूर्णतः समर्थ और अधिकारी हैं।
  सूत्र में 'हि' (क्योंकि) शब्द यह स्पष्ट करता है कि भावी कल्पों में पुनः देवत्व एवं आदित्य-पद प्राप्त करने की अभिलाषा से,
  वे मूल आदिरूप देवाधिदेव तथा आदित्यान्तर्यामी परब्रह्म की ही उपासना करते हैं।
  इस उपासना के प्रभाव से उनके भीतर परब्रह्म परमात्मा के नित्य सामीप्य की तीव्र अभीप्सा जाग्रत होती है।
  इस रीति से देवताओं के लिए मधुविद्या आदि समस्त वैदिक उपासनाओं में प्रवृत्त होना सर्वथा संगत और सम्भव है;
  क्योंकि शास्त्र यह सिद्ध करते हैं कि परमेश्वर की उपासना ही साध्य (परम प्राप्य) भी है और साधन भी।
  वर्तमान कल्प में जो वसु, आदित्य आदि पद पर आसीन देवता हैं,
  वे परमेश्वर को ही वसु तथा आदित्य आदि के मूल-स्वरूप के रूप में ध्यान करते हैं।
  कल्प के अन्त में वे पुनः वसु एवं आदित्य पदों को प्राप्त करते हैं,
  तथा अपने हृदयों में अन्तर्यामी रूप से स्थित परमात्मा की उपासना में संलग्न रहते हैं,
  जो उनके पुनः वसु एवं आदित्य बनने के मूल कारण हैं।
  तदनन्तर इस भगवत्-उपासना के फलस्वरूप वे अन्ततः मोक्ष (परम पद) को प्राप्त होते हैं।
  'आदित्य', 'वसु' तथा अन्य देवताओं के समस्त नाम मूलतः परमात्मा (परब्रह्म) के ही अभिधान हैं।
  इसकी पुष्टि उपनिषद् के अन्त में आए इस वाक्य से होती है—
  «य एतं एवं ब्रह्मोपनिषदं वेद»
  अर्थात् जो पुरुष परब्रह्म के निरूपक इस उपनिषद्-रहस्य को इस प्रकार जानता है, वह परब्रह्म को ही प्राप्त करता है।

॥ श्रीगोविन्दभाष्यम् — देवतानां ब्रह्मविद्याधिकारसमाप्तिः ॥
न च देवानां पूर्वमेव प्राप्तपदत्वाद् देवत्वप्राप्त्यर्थं मधुविद्यादावप्रवृत्तिरिति वाच्यम्;
अस्मिंल्लोके लब्धपुत्राणामपि जन्मान्तरे पुनः पुत्रलिप्सुवद् उपपत्तेः।
किञ्च, मधुविद्यादीनां वस्तुतः परब्रह्मोपासनात्मकत्वात् तदुपासनं श्रूयते बृहदारण्यके (४।४।१६)—
‘तद्देवा ज्योतिषां ज्योतिरायुर्होपासतेऽमृतम्’ इति।
तथा च श्रुतिः—
‘प्रजापतिरकामयत प्रजायेयेति स एतदग्निहोत्रं मिथुनमपश्यत्। तदुदिते सूर्येऽजुहोत्।’
‘देवा वै सत्रमासत’ इत्याद्याः श्रुतयः।
एतेन देवानां कर्मसु अधिकारो न विरुध्यते, लोकसंरक्षणार्थं परमेश्वराज्ञया तेषां प्रवृत्तेः।
[पूर्वपक्षः]
ननु मधुविद्यादिनिष्ठानां बहुकल्पविलम्बेन मुक्तिरनिष्टा, मोक्षार्थिनां विलम्बासहत्वाद्
ब्रह्मलोकादिभोगानामपि हेयत्वाच्च?
[सिद्धान्तः]
उच्यते—सत्यम्, तथापि केषाञ्चिद् अनादिप्रारब्धविशेषेण लोकसंरक्षणार्थम्
ऐश्वर्याधिकारस्वीकारेऽपि तदन्ते मुक्तिरविरुद्धैव।
देवानां यद्येवं वैदिकेषु कर्मसु विद्यासु चाधिकारः, तर्हि मनुष्याणां सुतरामेवाधिकार इति सिद्धम्।
॥ अथ अष्टमम् अपशूद्राधिकरणम् (८) ॥
(शूद्राणां ब्रह्मविद्यायाम् अनधिकारः)
[श्रील बलदेवविद्याभूषणकृतं भाष्यम् — पीठिका]
पूर्वस्मिन्नधिकरणे मनुष्याणां देवादीनां चोत्तमानां ब्रह्मविद्यायामधिकार उक्तः।
स च ब्रह्मविद्याधिकारः वेदान्ताध्ययनं विना न सम्भवति;
‘तं त्वौपनिषदं पुरुषं पृच्छामि’ (बृ. उ. ३।९।२६) इति श्रुतेः।
ततश्चायं विचारः प्रसज्यते—किं शूद्रस्याप्यस्त्यधिकारो न वेति।
[विषयः]
छान्दोग्योपनिषदि चतुर्थप्रपाठके (४।१।१–५) श्रूयते—
‘जानश्रुतिर्ह पौत्रायणः श्रद्धादेयो बहुदायी बहुपाक्य आस...’ इत्यारभ्य,
हंसवचनानन्तरं जानश्रुतिः रैक्वमुपेत्य बह्वीर्गोः, निष्कं, रथमित्यादिकमुपायनं प्रादात्।
तच्छ्रुत्वा रैक्वः प्रत्युवाच—
‘अह हारेत्वा शूद्र तवैव सह गोभिरस्तु...’ इति।

॥ हिन्दी-अनुवादः ॥
[L1–L9]: ऐसा नहीं है कि देवताओं ने पहले से ही उच्च पद प्राप्त कर लिया है, इसलिए उन्हें देवत्व की इच्छा नहीं है और वैदिक उपासना में उनकी रुचि नहीं है। इस संसार में देखा जाता है कि इस जन्म में पुत्रवान होते हुए भी लोग अगले जन्म में पुनः पुत्र की कामना करते हैं। इसके अतिरिक्त, मधु-विद्या आदि उपासनाएँ वास्तव में परब्रह्म की ही उपासनाएँ हैं, जैसा कि बृहदारण्यक उपनिषद् (४।४।१६) में कहा गया है—'देवगण उस ज्योतियों की परम ज्योति (परमेश्वर) की उपासना करते हैं।' श्रुति यह भी कहती है—'प्रजापति ने कामना की कि मैं प्रजा उत्पन्न करूँ, उन्होंने इस अग्निहोत्र-युगल को देखा और सूर्योदय होने पर हवन किया।' तथा 'देवताओं ने सत्र (यज्ञ) का अनुष्ठान किया।' ये श्रुतियाँ सिद्ध करती हैं कि देवताओं द्वारा यज्ञ-उपासना करना शास्त्र-विरुद्ध नहीं है; वे भगवान् की आज्ञा से जगत्-रक्षा हेतु यह सब करते हैं।
[L11–L18]: पूर्वपक्ष: जो मधु-विद्या आदि का अनुष्ठान करते हैं, उन्हें मुक्ति के लिए कई कल्पों तक प्रतीक्षा करनी पड़ती है। मोक्षार्थी इतना विलम्ब कैसे सह सकते हैं? मुमुक्षु जन ब्रह्मलोक के सुख की भी इच्छा नहीं करते। सिद्धान्त: यह सत्य है, फिर भी कुछ जीव प्रारब्धवश जगत् के शासन का भार सँभालने के लिए स्वेच्छा से अपनी मुक्ति को कुछ समय के लिए स्थगित कर देते हैं। इस अधिकरण से यह सिद्ध हुआ कि जब देवता भी वैदिक कर्तव्यों का पालन करते हैं, तब मनुष्यों को तो अवश्य ही करना चाहिए।
[L20–L28]: अधिकरण ८ — शूद्रों का ब्रह्मविद्या में अनधिकार। श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण द्वारा भूमिका: यह कहा गया कि मनुष्य, देवता और अन्य उच्च योनि के जीव परब्रह्म की उपासना के अधिकारी हैं। उपनिषदों के अध्ययन के बिना यह सम्भव नहीं है, क्योंकि श्रुति कहती है—'औपनिषदः पुरुषः' (परम पुरुष केवल उपनिषदों द्वारा ज्ञेय हैं)। अतः यह प्रसंग उठता है कि शूद्र का इसमें अधिकार है या नहीं।
[L29–L35]: विषय: छान्दोग्य उपनिषद् (४।१।१-५) में कथा आती है जो 'जानश्रुतिर्ह पौत्रायणः' से आरम्भ होती है। हंसों की बात सुनकर जानश्रुति राजा रैक्व मुनि के पास अनेक गौएँ, हार और रथ लेकर पहुँचे। तब रैक्व ने कहा—'अरे शूद्र! यह रथ और हार गौओं सहित तुम्हारे पास ही रहे...'।

॥ ब्रह्मसूत्र गोविन्दभाष्यम् ॥
॥ प्रथमाध्याये तृतीयः पादः ॥
॥ अपशूद्राधिकरणम् (९) ॥
(छान्दोग्योपनिषदि—जानश्रुतेः पौत्रायणस्य आख्यायिकायां रैक्वसंवादः)
श्रुति-सन्दर्भः— तमु ह परः प्रत्युवाच— अह हारेत्वा शूद्र तवैव सह गोभिस्तु मह्यम् (तमाजहारेमाः शूद्रानेनैव मुखेनालापयिष्यथाः) इति।
हिन्दी अनुवाद: और रथ इत्यादि सहित जानश्रुति के पुनः आने पर तथा गाय, हार, रथ और अपनी कन्या समर्पित करने पर रैक्व ने कहा—"अरे शूद्र! यह सब तेरे पास ही रहे, इस मुख (गौ आदि उपहार या कन्या) द्वारा ही तू मुझे बोलने के लिए प्रेरित करेगा।" इसके पश्चात् रैक्व ने जानश्रुति को संवर्ग-विद्या का उपदेश दिया।
संशयः— किं शूद्रस्य ब्रह्मविद्यायाम् (वेदाध्ययने) अधिकारोऽस्ति न वा?
संशय (हिन्दी): क्या शूद्र का ब्रह्मविद्या अथवा वैदिक ज्ञान के अध्ययन में अधिकार है अथवा नहीं?
पूर्वपक्षः— शूद्रस्याप्यधिकारोऽस्ति; कुतः?
१. 'मनुष्याणामधिकारः' इति सामान्यवचनात् सर्वेषां सम्भवात्,
२. शूद्रस्यापि विद्याध्ययने सामर्थ्यस्य विद्यमानत्वात्,
३. संवर्गविद्यायां जानश्रुतिं प्रति 'शूद्र' इति श्रुत्या सम्बोधनात् शूद्रस्याप्यध्ययनाधिकारस्य सूचकत्वात्,
४. पुराणादिषु च विदुर-धर्मव्याधप्रभृतीनां शूद्राणां ब्रह्मज्ञानित्वेन प्रसिद्धत्वाच्च शूद्रस्याधिकारोऽस्ति।
सिद्धान्तः— अत्रोच्यते—
सूत्रम् ३४:
शुगस्य तदनादरश्रवणात् तदाद्रवणात् सूच्यते हि ॥ ३४ ॥
पदच्छेदः एवं पदार्थः—
शुक् — शोकः (दुःखम्);
अस्य — अस्य जानश्रुतेः;
तदनादरश्रवणात् — तस्मात् हंसानां सकाशात् आत्मनोऽनादरवचनस्य श्रवणात्;
तदाद्रवणात् — तदा (तस्मिन्नेव काले) रैक्वम् प्रति आद्रवणात् (गमनात्);
सूच्यते — 'शूद्र' शब्देन गम्यते (लक्ष्यते);
हि — यस्मात् (हेतौ)।
सूत्रार्थ (हिन्दी):
हंसों के अनादरसूचक वचन सुनने से जानश्रुति को शोक उत्पन्न हुआ और उस शोक के कारण वह रैक्व के समीप दौड़ा (गया), इसी बात को सूचित करने के लिए रैक्व ऋषि ने उसे 'शूद्र' (शुचा आद्रवतीति शूद्रः) कहकर सम्बोधित किया; जात्या शूद्र होने के कारण नहीं।
श्रील बलदेवविद्याभूषणविरचितं गोविन्दभाष्यम् एवं व्याख्या—
पूर्वसूत्रात् (२८ सूत्रात्) 'न' इत्यनुवर्तते। शूद्रस्य ब्रह्मविद्यायां नाधिकार इति प्रतिज्ञायते।
कस्माद्धेतोः? 'हि' यस्मात् कारणात्।
ब्रह्मज्ञानेनाऽसम्पन्नः जानश्रुतिः पौत्रायणः हंसानाम् अनादरसूचकं वाक्यं—
"कमु वरमेनमेतत् सन्तं सयुग्वानमिव रैक्वमात्थ" (छान्दोग्य ४।१।३)
(अर्थात् इस जानश्रुति को उस महान् सयुग्वा रैक्व के समान श्रेष्ठ कैसे कह रहे हो?) इति श्रुत्वा शोकाविष्टो जातः।
'शुक्' (शोकः) अस्य सञ्जाता, 'द्रु' (द्रवति—तदभिमुखं धावति) इति व्युत्पत्त्या असौ शोकेन द्रुतवान्, अत एव रैक्वर्षिः स्वस्य सर्वज्ञत्वं प्रदर्शयन् तं 'शूद्र' इति शब्देन सम्बोधितवान्।
अतः अत्र 'शूद्र' शब्दः चतुर्थवर्णस्य वाचकः न भवति, अपि तु शोकाकुलस्य गन्तुः वाचकः।
अवतरणिका (अग्रिमसूत्राय):
ननु यदि जानश्रुतिः जात्या शूद्रो न भवति, तर्हि कस्य वर्णस्य सः? इत्यस्याः शङ्कायाः समाधानायोच्यते—
सूत्रम् ३५:
क्षत्रियत्वगतेश्चोत्तरत्र चैत्ररथेन लिङ्गात् ॥ ३५ ॥

kṣatriyatvāvagates cottaratra caitrarathena liṅgāt
kṣatriyatva-status of being a kṣatriya; avagateś-from the understanding; ca-also;
uttaratra-in a later passage; caitrarathena-with Caitraratha; liṅgāt-because of the
sign.
That he is a kṣatriya is understood from the clue related to the caitraratha.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Jānaśruti is understood to be a kṣatriya. He possesses religious faith and a host
of other virtues. He is very charitable. He gives charity generously. He is the ruler
of the people. For these reasons it is said that he is a kṣatriya. Because he sent (a
messenger to search for Raiṅka) and because he gave cows, necklaces, chariots, his
daughter, and many other things in charity, it is said that he is a kṣatriya. It is not
possible for anyone but a kṣatriya to possess these qualities. Because he thus
displays the qualities of a king, Jānaśruti should be understood to be a kṣatriya. At
the end of the story it is also understood that he is a kṣatriya. At the end of the
story, where the description of saṁvarga-vidyā is concluded, there is mention of
the kṣatriya status of a person named Abhipratārī Caitraratha. In the concluding
passage a brahmacārī begged alms from Śaunaka Kāpeya and Abhipratārī
Kākṣaseni when these two were serving food to others.
If someone objects: "In this passage the status of Abhipratārī as either a kṣatriya
or caitraratha is not proved in any way," then the sūtra answers: liṅgāt (because of
a clue). The clue that Śaunaka Kāpeya and Abhipratārī Kākṣaseni were friends
proves it. The Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa (20.12.5) says: caitena caitrarathaṁ kāpeyo
ayājayan (The members of the Kāpeya family made Caitraratha perform a
sacrifice). In this way the śruti maintains that because of his relationship with the
Kāpeyas, Abhipratārī must have been a Caitraratha.
That the Caitraratha family were kṣatriyas is confirmed by the words tasmāc
caitrarathir nāma kṣatra-patir ajāyata (From him was born another kṣatriya of the
Caitraratha family). In this way his kṣatriya status is clearly proved.
Therefore Śaunaka Kāpeya and Abhipratārī Caitraratha, who were both learned
in saṁvarga-vidyā, were a brāhmaṇa and a kṣatriya respectively, and in the subject
of saṁvarga-vidyā they were also guru and disciple respectively. Raiṅka and
Jānaśruti had the same relationship, and therefore Jānaśruti must have been a
kṣatriya. In this way it is proved that a śūdra is not qualified to study the Vedas.
Referring to the śruti, he again establishes this point.
Sūtra 36

saṁskāra-parāmarśāt tad-abhāvābhilāpāc ca
saṁskāra-of the purificatory rituals; parāmarśāt-because of the reference; tad-of
them; abhāva-of the non-existence; abhilāpāt-because of the explanation; ca-also.
This is also so because the scriptures state both the necessity of undergoing the
saṁskāras (rituals of purification) and the exclusion of the śūdras from these
rituals.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In the śruti-śāstra is the passage aṣṭa-varṣaṁ brāhmaṇaṁ upanīyata tam
adhyāpayed ekādeśe kṣatriyaṁ dvādaśe vaiśyam (One should perform the
saṁskāra and teach a brāhmaṇa boy when he is eight years old a kṣatriya boy when
he is eleven years old, and a vaiśya boy when he is twelve years old). This shows
that brāhmaṇas are eligible to study the Vedas because they are also eligible for the
saṁskāras. The scriptures also say nāgnir na yajño na kriyā na saṁskāro na vratāni
śūdrasya (A śudra is not allowed to light the sacred fire, perform a fire-sacrifice,
perform religious rituals, undergo the saṁskāras, or follow vows of penance). In
this way it is established that because a śūdra is not allowed to undergo the
saṁskāras he is also not allowed to study the Vedas.
Now he confirms the view that the śūdras are not eligible for the saṁskāras.
Sūtra 37
tad-abhāva-nirdhāraṇe ca pravṛtteḥ
tat-of that; abhāva-of the non-existence; nirdhāraṇe-in ascertaining; ca-also;
pravṛtteḥ-because of endeavor.
(This is so) also because care is taken to determine that (a student) is not (a
śūdra).
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa

छान्दोग्योपनिषद् (४.४.४-५) में (जब उनके गोत्र व जाति के विषय में पूछा गया, तब जाबालि ने कहा)—
"नाहमेतद् वेदे भो यद्गोत्रोऽहमस्मि" (हे भगवन्! मैं यह नहीं जानता कि मैं किस गोत्र अथवा जाति में उत्पन्न हुआ हूँ)।
इन सत्यपूर्ण वचनों ने महर्षि गौतम को यह विश्वास दिला दिया कि जाबाल शूद्र नहीं हैं।
तदनन्तर गौतम ऋषि ने कहा— "नैतदब्राह्मणो विवक्तुमर्हति समिधं सोम्याहरोप त्वा नेष्ये न सत्यादगाः"
(अर्थात्: कोई अब्राह्मण ऐसा सत्य बोलने में समर्थ नहीं हो सकता। हे सौम्य! समिधा ले आओ, मैं तुम्हारा उपनयन-संस्कार करूँगा; क्योंकि तुम सत्य से विचलित नहीं हुए)।
गुरु गौतम का यह आचरण प्रमाणित करता है कि केवल ब्राह्मण, क्षत्रिय और वैश्य ही संस्कारों के अधिकारी हैं; शूद्र इसके अधिकारी नहीं हैं।
॥ सूत्र ३८ ॥
श्रवणाध्ययनार्थप्रतिषेधात् स्मृतेश्च ॥ ३८ ॥
पदच्छेद एवं शब्दार्थ:
श्रवण-अध्ययन-अर्थ-प्रतिषेधात् — (शूद्रों के लिए वेदों के) श्रवण, अध्ययन और उसके अर्थ-ज्ञान का निषेध होने के कारण,
स्मृतेः — स्मृतियों में (प्रतिपादित होने से),
च — और भी।
सूत्रार्थ:
स्मृतियों में शूद्रों के लिए वेदों के श्रवण, अध्ययन तथा उनके अर्थ-ज्ञान का स्पष्ट प्रतिषेध किया गया है, अतः शूद्रों को ब्रह्मविद्या/वेदाधिकार प्राप्त नहीं है।
श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचित भाष्य/तात्पर्य:
स्मृति-शास्त्र का कथन है— "पद्वु ह वा एतच्छ्मशानं यच्छूद्रस्तस्माच्छूद्रसमीपे नाध्येतव्यम्"
(अर्थात् शूद्र साक्षात् पादचारी श्मशान के समान है, अतः शूद्र के समीप वेद का अध्ययन नहीं करना चाहिए)।
स्मृति में यह भी कहा गया है— "तस्माच्छूद्रो बहुपशुरयज्ञीयः"
(अर्थात् शूद्र पशु-तुल्य है और वह वैदिक यज्ञों का अनुष्ठान करने के अयोग्य है)।
इन निषेधों के कारण शूद्र वेदों के श्रवण का अधिकारी नहीं है।
जब उसे वेद-श्रवण का ही अधिकार नहीं है, तो उसके लिए वेदों का अध्ययन, उनके अर्थ का अवबोध, अथवा वेदोक्त यज्ञों एवं तपस्याओं का अनुष्ठान करना सर्वथा असम्भव है।
ये सभी कार्य उसके लिए निषिद्ध हैं।
स्मृति-शास्त्र कहता है— "नाग्निर्न यज्ञः शूद्रस्य तथैवाध्ययनं कुतः। केवलैव तु शुश्रूषा त्रैवर्णिकानां विधीयते॥"
(अर्थात् शूद्र के लिए न तो आधान-योग्य वैदिक अग्नि है और न ही यज्ञ का अधिकार; फिर स्वाध्याय तो सम्भव ही कहाँ है? उसका एकमात्र कर्तव्य तीनों उच्च वर्णों की निष्कपट सेवा करना विहित है)।
स्मृति का अन्य वचन भी है— "वेदाक्षरविचारणे शूद्रः पतति तत्क्षणात्"
(अर्थात् वेदों के अक्षरों का विचार या अध्ययन करने पर शूद्र तत्काल पतित हो जाता है)।
यद्यपि विदुर आदि कतिपय महानुभाव शूद्र-योनि में उत्पन्न हुए, तथापि वे पूर्वजन्मों के पुण्यों के प्रभाव से परिपूर्ण दिव्य तत्त्वज्ञान को प्राप्त कर परम पद को प्राप्त हुए।
पुराणों एवं अन्य सात्त्विक इतिहास-ग्रन्थों के श्रवण एवं अवबोधन से शूद्र तथा अन्य सभी जीव भी मुक्त हो सकते हैं।
मानवों में उच्चता अथवा नीचता का वास्तविक निर्धारण उनके जीवन के अन्तिम आध्यात्मिक फल और भगवत्प्राप्ति से ही होता है।

अधिकरण ९ : कम्पनाधिकरणम्
विषय : कठोपनिषद् (२.३.२) में वर्णित 'वज्र' शब्द परमब्रह्म (परमेश्वर) का वाचक है।
श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचित गोविन्दभाष्य - भूमिका :
इस प्रकार प्रासङ्गिक विचार (अवान्तर विषय) की समाप्ति के अनन्तर सूत्रकार पुनः प्रस्तुत (मूल) प्रकृत विषय का विचार करते हैं।
विषयवाक्य (कठोपनिषद् २.३.२) :
यदिदं किञ्च जगत्सर्वं प्राण एजति निःसृतम् ।
महद्भयं वज्रमुद्यतं य एतद्विदुरमृतास्ते भवन्ति ॥
श्रुत्यर्थ (हिन्दी अनुवाद) :
"यह सम्पूर्ण जगत् जो कुछ भी विद्यमान है, उस परम प्राणस्वरूप (परमेश्वर) से निःसृत होकर उसी के भय से कम्पित (चेष्टारत) होता है। वह उद्यत (उठाए हुए) वज्र के समान महाभयस्वरूप है; जो इस प्रकार उसे जानते हैं, वे अमर (मुक्त) हो जाते हैं।"
संशय : यहाँ 'वज्र' शब्द इन्द्र के आयुध प्रसिद्ध वज्र का वाचक है अथवा परमपुरुषोत्तम भगवान् (परब्रह्म) का?
पूर्वपक्ष : यहाँ 'वज्र' शब्द से जगत् में कम्पन (भय) का कारण वर्णित है, तथा इस वज्र के ज्ञान से जो मुक्ति (अमृतत्व) की प्राप्ति कही गई है, वह केवल औपचारिक या गौण अर्थवाद मात्र है; अतः 'वज्र' शब्द का अर्थ प्रसिद्ध आयुध विशेष ही स्वीकार करना चाहिए। इसके अतिरिक्त यहाँ 'प्राण' शब्द का अर्थ वायु (श्वास) न होकर 'रक्षक' भी नहीं माना जा सकता, इसलिए इस सन्दर्भ में 'वज्र' शब्द परमेश्वर का वाचक नहीं हो सकता। 'उद्यतं वज्रम्' (उठाया हुआ वज्र) यह पद भी परमेश्वर-परक अर्थ का बाधक है, अतः यहाँ 'वज्र' का अर्थ अशनि (इन्द्र का वज्र) ही है।
सिद्धान्त : इस पूर्वपक्ष के निराकरण में सूत्रकार निम्नलिखित सिद्धान्त प्रतिपादित करते हैं—
ब्रह्मसूत्र १.३.३९ :
कम्पनात् ॥ ३९ ॥
पदच्छेद : कम्पनात् (हेतौ पञ्चमी)।
सूत्रार्थ : सम्पूर्ण जगत् का कम्पन (परमेश्वर के भय से चेष्टा करना) वर्णित होने के कारण यहाँ 'वज्र' और 'प्राण' शब्द से परब्रह्म परमेश्वर का ही ग्रहण होता है।
भाष्य (हिन्दी व्याख्या) :
चूँकि सम्पूर्ण चराचर जगत् उस परम तत्त्व के ही अनुशासन व भय से कम्पित होकर अपने-अपने कार्यों में प्रवृत्त होता है, अतः यहाँ 'वज्र' शब्द परमात्मा का ही वाचक है, किसी भौतिक अस्त्र का नहीं।

Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Because it makes the entire universe tremble, this vajra must be the Supreme
Personality of Godhead. This is so also because of the following statement of
Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa:
cakraṁ caṅkramaṇād eṣa
vajanād vajram ucyate
khaṇḍanāt khaḍga evaiṣa
heti-nāmā hariḥ svayam
"Because He goes (caṅkramaṇa) everywhere He is called "Cakra" (moving in a
circle). Because He moves about (vajana He is called "Vajra" (thunderbold).
Because He cuts apart (khaṇḍana) the demons He is called "Khaḍga" (sword).
These are names of Lord Hari."
Also, because the word prāṇa (breath) and the word bhaya (fear) are used, the
passage must refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In these ways it is
established that the word vajra here refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Sūtra 40
jyotir-darśanāt
jyotiḥ-effulgence; darśanāt-because of seeing.
It is so because the vajra is described as jyotiḥ (splendor).
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Before the passage discussed is the following statement (Kaṭha Upaniṣad
2.2.15): na tatra sūryo bhāti na candra-tārake (When He does not shine, then
neither sun, moon, nor stars show their splendor). After the passage discussed is
the statement (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.3.3) bhayād asyāgnis tapati (Out of fear of Him
fire glows). In both these passages the Supreme Personality of Godhead is
described as transcendental splendor, and therefore the passage describing the
vajra (thunderbolt) between these two passages, must refer to the efulgent
Supreme Personality of Godhead.

॥ अथ दशमम् आकाशाधिकरणम् ॥
(विषयः—छान्दोग्योपनिषदः ८.१४.१ मन्त्रे 'आकाश' शब्दः परब्रह्मपरः)
श्रील-बलदेव-विद्याभूषण-विरचित-गोविन्दभाष्यस्य भूमिका—
[श्रुति-विषयवाक्यम्]
छान्दोग्योपनिषदि (८।१४।१) श्रूयते—
"आकाशो ह वै नामरूपयोर्निर्वहिता ते यदन्तरा तद्ब्रह्म तदमृतं स आत्मा" इति।
(अर्थात्—आकाश ही निश्चयपूर्वक नाम और रूप का निर्वहन करने वाला है। वे दोनों जिसके मध्य में हैं, वह ब्रह्म है, वह अमृत है, वही आत्मा है।)
[संशयः]
संशयः—किमिहाकाश-शब्देन संसार-बन्ध-विमुक्तो जीवोऽभिधीयते, उत परब्रह्म पुरुषोत्तम इति?
(संशय—क्या यहाँ 'आकाश' शब्द से जन्म-मृत्यु रूप बन्धन से मुक्त जीव का ग्रहण है, अथवा परमपुरुषोत्तम भगवान् का?)
[पूर्वपक्षः]
पूर्वपक्षः—"अश्व इव रोमाणि विधूय पापम्" इति पूर्ववाक्ये पापनिवृत्तिपूर्वकं मुक्तजीवस्यैव प्रकृतत्वात्,
'आकाश' शब्देनापि मुक्तजीव एव ग्राह्यः।
"ते यदन्तरा" इति वाक्येन नाम-रूपास्पृष्टत्वं प्रतिपाद्यते, यत्तु मुक्तजीवे सम्यक् संगच्छते।
तथा च "नामरूपयोर्निर्वहिता" इति पूर्वतन-संसार्यवस्थायामपि जीवस्य संभवति।
'आकाश' शब्दश्चात्र दीप्ति-प्रकाश-वाचित्वेन मुक्तस्यैव द्योतकः।
"तद्ब्रह्म तदमृतम्" इत्यादयश्च गुणाः मुक्तजीवेनैव प्राप्यन्ते।
तस्माद् अत्र 'आकाश' शब्देन मुक्तजीव एव ग्राह्य इति पूर्वपक्षे प्राप्ते—
[सिद्धान्तः]
सिद्धान्तः—अत्रोच्यते समाधानम्—
॥ ब्रह्मसूत्रम् ४१ ॥
आकाशोऽर्थान्तरत्वादिव्यपदेशात् ॥ १।३।४१ ॥
[पदच्छेदः]
आकाशः (प्रथमान्तम्), अर्थान्तरत्वादि-व्यपदेशात् (पञ्चम्यन्तम्)।
[पदार्थः]
आकाशः = 'आकाश' शब्दवाच्यः परमेश्वरः (परब्रह्म)।
अर्थान्तरत्वादि-व्यपदेशात् = अर्थान्तरत्वम् (मुक्तजीवाद् भिन्नत्वम्), आदिशब्दात् नामरूपनिर्वोढृत्वम्—तयोः व्यपदेशात् (शास्त्रात् प्रतिपादनात्)।
[सूत्रार्थः / हिन्दी-अनुवादः]
यहाँ 'आकाश' शब्द परब्रह्म पुरुषोत्तम का ही वाचक है, क्योंकि उसका मुक्त जीव से भिन्न (अर्थान्तर) रूप में तथा नाम-रूप के निर्वाहक आदि के रूप में स्पष्ट व्यपदेश (प्रतिपादन) किया गया है।
[श्रील-बलदेव-विद्याभूषण-विरचित-गोविन्दभाष्य-तात्पर्यम्]
न ह्यत्र मुक्तजीवस्याकाश-शब्देन ग्रहणं संभवति; यतो हि परमात्मा मुक्तजीवादर्थान्तरत्वेन (सर्वथा भिन्नत्वेन) व्यपदिश्यते।
नाम-रूपयोर्निर्वहणं तु केवलं जगत्कर्तुः परब्रह्मण एव सामर्थ्यम्, न तु जीवस्य।
"तद्ब्रह्म तदमृतं स आत्मा" इति च मुख्यया वृत्त्या परब्रह्मणि श्रीहरौ एवोपपद्यते।
अतः छान्दोग्योपनिषदः अस्मिन् वाक्ये 'आकाश' शब्दः परब्रह्म परमात्मा ही सिद्ध होता है।

अत्र "आकाश" शब्दः परमपुरुषः परमात्मा एव, न तु मुक्तजीवः।
कुतः? यतः सूत्रं वदति—"अर्थान्तरत्वादिव्यपदेशात्" (ब्रह्मसूत्र १.३.४१)।
(अर्थात् अत्र वर्णितः "आकाशः" मुक्तजीवाद् भिन्नतयोक्तः, अन्यानि च कारणानि सन्ति)।
अस्यार्थः अयम्—मुक्तजीवः नाम-रूपयोः कर्ता भवितुं न शक्नोति,
अतः अत्र "आकाशः" जीवाद् भिन्नः कश्चिद् एव भवितुमर्हति।
यदा जीवः संसारे बद्धः भवति, तदा स स्वपूर्वकर्माधीनो भूत्वा विविधानि नामानि रूपाणि च प्राप्नोति।
स्वयमेव तु स एतानि नाम-रूपाणि स्रष्टुं समर्थः न भवति।
यदा च जीवः मुक्तः भवति, तदापि स जगद्व्यापारे न प्रभवति,
यथा अग्रे सूत्रे (४.४.१७) "जगद्व्यापारवर्जम्" इति वक्ष्यते।
परमेश्वरस्तु श्रुतिषु जगत्स्रष्टृत्वेनैव प्रसिद्धः अस्ति।
छान्दोग्योपनिषदि (६.३.२) अतः एवोक्तम्—"अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरवाणि"
(जीवेन सह प्रविश्य अहं नाम-रूपयोः व्याकरणं करिष्यामि इति)।
एतेभ्यः सर्वेभ्यः हेतुभ्यः अत्र "आकाश" शब्देन परमपुरुषः परमात्मा एव विज्ञेयः।
सूत्रे "आदि" शब्दः उपनिषद्वाक्ये "ब्रह्म" (बृहत्त्वानन्तत्वगुणविशिष्टम्) इति पदं निर्दिशति।
एतत् पदं मुक्तजीवं न निर्देष्टुं शक्नोति, यद्यपि परमेश्वरस्य कृते इदं स्वाभाविकमेव वर्तते।
अतः अत्र "आकाश" शब्दः सर्वव्यापकं परमात्मानमेव बोधयति।
यस्माद् एतादृशं लक्षणं केवलं परमेश्वरे एव सङ्गच्छते,
तस्मात् सिद्धम् यद् अत्र "आकाश" शब्दवाच्यः परमेश्वरः एव।
अधिकरणम् ११ : सुषुप्त्युत्क्रान्त्यधिकरणम्
सुषुप्तिकाले उत्क्रान्तिकालयोश्च बद्ध-मुक्तजीवाद् परमेश्वरस्य भेदप्रतिपादनम्
श्रीमद्-बलदेव-विद्याभूषण-विरचितम् भाष्यम् (गोविन्दभाष्यम्)
पूर्वपक्षः—अस्तु नाम। तथापि मुक्तजीवस्य परमेश्वराद् भेदः नाङ्गीकर्तुं शक्यते।
यतो हि श्रुतौ अभेदस्यैव प्रबलानि प्रमाणानि दृश्यन्ते।
तथाहि बृहदारण्यकोपनिषदि (४.३.७) पठ्यते—
कतम आत्मेति योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु हृद्यन्तर्ज्योतिः पुरुषः स समानः सन्नुभौ लोकावनुसञ्चरति
"कतमः आत्मा? यः अयं प्राणेषु मध्ये विज्ञानमयः,
हृदये अन्तर्ज्योतिःस्वरूपः पुरुषः।
स सर्वदा एकरूपः समानः सन्नेव उभयोः लोकयोः अनुसञ्चरति।"

Describing the conditioned jīva in this way, the text continues:
sa vā ayam ātmā brahma vijñānamayaḥ
"This Self is the omniscient Brahman."
In this way it says that the jīva is Brahman. It further says:
athākāmayamānaḥ
"He becomes free from all desires."
This described the liberated jīva's condition. Then it says:
brahmaiva san brahmāpyeti
"Being Brahman, he attains Brahman."
In this way it is conclusively stated that he is identical with Brahman. Then, at
the end it says:
abhayaṁ vai brahma bhavati ya eva veda
"He who knows this becomes the fearless Brahman."
The result of hearing the passage is given here.
The statement, in some passages, that the jīva and Brahman are different are
like the sky within a pot and the great sky beyond it. When he is liberated, the jīva
becomes the Supreme just as when the pot is broken the sky in the pot becomes
the same as the great sky beyond. Because the jīva is thus the Supreme Personality
of Godhead, he is the creator of the universes and everything else that the Supreme
is. In this way there is no difference bewteen the libreated jiva and the Supreme
Brahman.
Siddhānta: To refute this, he says:

Sūtra 42
suṣupty-utkrāntyor bhedena
suṣupti-in dreamless sleep; utkrāntyor-and in death; bhedena-because of the
difference.
Because the difference is present in both death and dreamless sleep.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word vyapadeśāt (because of the description), which was used in the
previous sūtra, should be understood in this sūtra also. In the previously quoted
passages it is not possible to dreaw the understanding that the liberated jīva is
actually Brahman. Why? Because it is clearly explained that in the states of
dreamless sleep and death the jīva and Brahman are different. The difference in
dreamless sleep is described in these words (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.12):
prājñenātmanā sampariṣvakto na bāhyaṁ kiñcana veda nāntaram
"Embraced by the omniscient Self, he knows nothing else, either without or
within."
The difference in death is described in these words from the same passage:
prājñenātmanā anvārūḍha utsarjan yāti
"Mounted by the omniscient Self, and groaning, he leaves."
The word utsarjan here means groaning. It is not possible that the jīva, who
knows hardly anything, can be the omniscient Self by whom he is mounted.
Because the jīva is not omniscient it is also not possible that the omniscient Slef
here is another jīva.
If it is said "Because in these conditions the jīva is still influenced by material
designations, your point is not proved," then the author replies:

Sūtra 43
paty-ādi-śabdebhyaḥ
pati-Lord; ādi-beginning with; śabdebhyaḥ-because of the words.
Because of the use of Pati (Lord) and other words.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In the same Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, a little afterwards, the word "pati" and
other similar words are used in these words (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.22):
sa vā ayam ātmā sarvasya vaśī sarvasyeṣāṇaḥ sarvasyādhipatiḥ sarvam idam
praśāsti yad idaṁ kiñca sa na sādhunā karmaṇā bhūyān nātra vāsādhunā kanīyān
eṣa bhūtādhipatir eṣa lokeśvara eṣa loka-pālaḥ sa setur vidharaṇa eṣāṁ lokānām
asambhedāya
"He is the Self, the dominator over all, the controller of all, the king of all. He
rules over all. He is not made greater by pious work, nor lesser by impious work.
He is the king of all that is. He is the master of the worlds. He is the protector of
the worlds. He is the boundary so the worlds will not break apart."
From this is may be understood that Brahman, or the Supreme Personality of
Godhead, is different from the liberated jīva. Because it cannot be said that the
liberated jīva has dominion over all or control over all, and because sūtra 4.4.17
will say jagad-vyāpāra-varjyam (The liberated jīva has not the power to create the
universes), the idea the Brahman and the liberated jīva are identical is refuted.
This idea is also refuted by the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, where it is said of Brahman:
antaḥ praviṣṭaḥ śastā janānām
"He is the controller in the living entities hearts."
Neither can it be said that the difference between them is only because of the
jīva's identification with a material body, because the śruti-śāstra explains that the
difference between them is present even after the jīva is liberated. In the
aṁśādhikaraṇa of this book (2.3.41) I will refute the identification of jīva and
Brahman in more detail.

The statement ayam ātmā brahma (the self is Brahman) simply means that the
jīva has a small portion of Brahman's qualities. The phrase brahmaiva san
brahmāpyeti (Becoming Brahman, he attains Brahman) should be understood to
mean that the jīva, by attaining a portion of eight of Brahman's qualities, becomes
like Brahman. Because the śruti-śāstra says paramaṁ sāmyam upaiti (He becomes
like Brahman), and because of the previous explanation of brahmaiva san
brahmāpyeti, therefore the nature of Brahman is different from that of the liberated
jīva.
In this proof that Brahman is different form the jīva in either conditioned or
liberated states of existence, that the "sky" from which all names and forms have
come is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and not the liberated jīva, is also
proved. Any doubt that may have remained in spite of the statements of the sūtras
netaro 'nupapatteḥ (1.1.16) and bheda-vyapadeśāc ca (1.1.17) is dispelled by this
proof that even at the time of liberation the jīva remains different from Brahman.
Therefore there is no fault in the explanations given for these two (1.1.16 and
1.1.17) sūtras.
Pāda 4
Adhikaraṇa 1
The Word "Avyakta" in Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.11 Refers to the Subtle Body and
Not to Pradhāna
Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Invocation
tamaḥ saṅkhya-ghanodīrṇa-
vidīrṇaṁ yasya go-gaṇaiḥ
taṁ saṁvid-bhūṣaṇaṁ kṛṣṇa-
pūṣaṇaṁ samupāsmahe
Let us offer our respectful obeisances to the Kṛṣṇa-sun, which is decorated with
transcendental knowledge, and which with its effulgence dispels the deep darkness
of Saṅkhya.