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

॥ श्रीमद्ब्रह्मसूत्रम् - आनुमानिकाधिकरणम् ॥
[विषयः]
पूर्वसूत्रेषु प्रतिपादितं यत् परब्रह्मैव परमप्राप्यं मोक्षप्रदञ्च, यतोऽस्य जगतो जन्म-स्थिति-प्रलयाः सम्भवन्ति।
तच्च परं ब्रह्म जडजीवाभ्यां विलक्षणम्, अचिन्त्य-अनन्त-शक्तिसमन्वितम्, सर्वज्ञम्, निखिल-दोष-रहितम्, समस्त-कल्याण-गुणात्मकं च वर्तते।
साम्प्रतं कपिलतन्त्रोक्तस्य प्रधानस्य (प्रकृतेः) पुंसश्च (जीवस्य) जगत्कारणत्ववादिनां मतं विचार्यते।
तत्र केषाञ्चिच्छाखायां कठोपनिषद्वाक्यमुदाहृत्य साङ्ख्यमतमाशङ्क्यते—
[श्रुति-प्रमाणम् (कठोपनिषद् ३.१०-११)]
इन्द्रियेभ्यः परा ह्यर्था अर्थेभ्यश्च परं मनः ।
मनसस्तु परा बुद्धिर्बुद्धेरात्मा महान्परः ॥
महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुषः परः ।
पुरुषान्न परं किञ्चित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः ॥
[श्रुतेः हिन्दी-अनुवादः]
इन्द्रियों की अपेक्षा विषय (अर्थ) पर (सूक्ष्म एवं श्रेष्ठ) हैं; विषयों की अपेक्षा मन पर है;
मन से परे बुद्धि है और बुद्धि से परे महत्तत्त्व (महान् आत्मा) है।
महत्तत्त्व से परे अव्यक्त है तथा अव्यक्त से परे पुरुष (परमात्मा) है।
पुरुष से परे कुछ भी नहीं है; वही चरम सीमा (काष्ठा) है और वही परम गति है।
[संशयः]
अत्र संशयः उत्पद्यते—किमस्मिन् वाक्ये 'अव्यक्त' शब्देन साङ्ख्यस्मृत्युक्तं स्वतन्त्रं प्रधानं गृह्यते, अथवा शरीरं गृह्यते इति?
(हिन्दी: यहाँ यह संशय है कि श्रुति में प्रयुक्त 'अव्यक्त' शब्द से साङ्ख्योक्त प्रधान लिया जाए या शरीर?)
[पूर्वपक्षः]
पूर्वपक्षी मन्यते यत्—श्रुतौ महच्छब्दात् परत्वेनाव्यक्तस्य, अव्यक्ताच्च परत्वेन पुरुषस्य कीर्तनात् साङ्ख्यस्मृतिप्रसिद्धमेव प्रधानमिह अव्यक्तशब्देन ग्राह्यम्।
यतः स्मृतिसिद्धः क्रम एव इहापि प्रत्यभिज्ञायते, तस्मादव्यक्तं प्रधानमेवेति।
(हिन्दी: पूर्वपक्षी का कथन है कि श्रुति और स्मृति दोनों में महत्, अव्यक्त और पुरुष का क्रम समान होने से अव्यक्त शब्द साङ्ख्य के त्रिगुणात्मक प्रधान का ही वाचक है।)
[सिद्धान्तः]
अत्रोच्यते—'अव्यक्त' शब्देन साङ्ख्योक्तं प्रधानं न गृह्यते, किन्तु शरीरमेव गृह्यते।
एतदेव भगवता बादरायणेन अग्रिमे सूत्रे स्पष्टीक्रियते—
[ब्रह्मसूत्रम् १.४.१]
आनुमानिकमप्येकेषामिति चेन्न शरीररूपकविन्यस्तगृहीतेर्दर्शयति च ॥ १ ॥
[पदच्छेदः एवं शब्दार्थः]
आनुमानिकम् = अनुमानेन कल्पितं साङ्ख्यसिद्धं प्रधानम् (अनुमानसिद्ध प्रधान)
अपि = अपि च (भी)
एकेषाम् = शाखिनां कठशाखाप्रभृतीनाम् (शाखा-विशेष के मत में)
इति चेत् = यदि एवं मन्येत (यदि ऐसा कहें)
न = तन्न साधु (तो ऐसा नहीं है)
शरीररूपकविन्यस्तगृहीतेः = पूर्ववाक्ये रथरूपकेण निक्षिप्तस्य शरीरस्यैवात्र अव्यक्तशब्देन परिग्रहात् (शरीर के रूपक में स्थित होने के कारण उसी का ग्रहण होने से)
दर्शयति = श्रुतिः स्वयमेवैतत् स्पष्टीकरोति (श्रुति स्वयं ऐसा दिखलाती है)
च = तथा (और)
[सूत्रार्थः एवं भाष्य-निष्कर्षः]
यदि कोई कहे कि शाखा-विशेष (कठोपनिषद्) में अनुमानसिद्ध साङ्ख्य का प्रधान ही 'अव्यक्त' शब्द से कहा गया है,
तो यह कथन उचित नहीं है; क्योंकि पूर्वप्रकरण में रथरूपक की योजना करते हुए 'आत्मानं रथिनं विद्धि शरीरं रथमेव तु' इत्यादि वाक्यों द्वारा
शरीर को ही रथ के रूप में निरूपित किया गया है।
अतः परिशेषप्रमाण से यहाँ 'अव्यक्त' शब्द का अर्थ साङ्ख्यस्मृत्युक्त अचेतन प्रधान न होकर भौतिक 'शरीर' ही सिद्ध होता है,
और श्रुति आगे के प्रकरण में भी इसी भाव को प्रकट करती है।

If some assume (that the word "avyakta" in this passage of the Kaṭha Upaniṣad
refers to the pradhāna), then I say "No." The fact that this passage is part of a
metaphor referring to the body clearly shows (that the word “avyakta" here means
śarīra).
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The Kāṭhakas (ekeṣām) consider (anumānikam) that the word avyakta here
refers to the pradhāna. The opponent may object: The etymology of the word
avyakta is "That which is not (a) manifested" (vyakta). If this is so, then the word
avyakta cannot mean anything except the pradhāna (unmanifested material
nature).
What is the answer to this objection? The answer is given in this sūtra in the
phrase beginning with the word śarīra. Because it is employed in a passage where
the body is compared to a chariot, the word avyakta here refers to the śarīra
(body). The passage preceding this mention of avyakta, which is a metaphor where
the material body is considered to be a chariot, clearly shows this. The preceding
passage is given here.
ātmānaṁ rathinaṁ viddhi
śarīraṁ ratham eva ca
buddhiṁ tu sārathiṁ viddhi
manaḥ pragraham eva ca
indriyāṇi hayān āhur
viṣayāṁs teṣu gocarān
ātmendriya-mano-yuktaṁ
bhoktety āhur manīṣiṇaḥ
yas tv avijñānavān bhavaty
ayuktena manasā sadā
tasyendriyāṇy avaśyāni
duṣṭāśvā iv sāratheḥ
yas tu vijñānavān bhavati
yuktena manasā sadā
tasyendriyāṇi vaśyāni
sad-aśvā iva sāratheḥ
yas tu vijñānavān bhavaty
amanaskaḥ sadā-śuciḥ
na sa tat-padam āpnoti
saṁsāraṁ cādhigacchati

देवनागरी-प्रतिलिपिकरणम् एवं सन्दर्भः (Devanagari Sanskrit Text & Context)

ब्रह्मसूत्रम् (वेदान्तदर्शनम् १.४.१)

आनुमानिकमप्येकेषामिति चेन्न शरीररूपकविन्यस्तगृहीतेर्दर्शयति च ॥ १.४.१ ॥

• अधिकरणम्: आनुमानिकाधिकरणम् (१.४.१–७)
• पूर्वपक्षः: काठकोपनिषदि (१.३.११) ‘महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुषः परः’ इत्यत्र ‘अव्यक्त’ शब्देन साङ्ख्योक्तं त्रिगुणात्मकं प्रधानमेव गृह्यते।
• सिद्धान्तः: अत्र ‘अव्यक्त’ शब्देन शरीरमेव गृह्यते, कुतः? ‘शरीररूपकविन्यस्तगृहीतेः’ — पूर्वस्मिन् सन्दर्भे शरीरस्य रथरूपकेण विन्यस्तत्वात्।

काठकोपनिषदः उद्धृत-मन्त्राः (कठोपनिषद् १.३.३–७)

आत्मानं रथिनं विद्धि
शरीरं रथमेव च ।
बुद्धिं तु सारथिं विद्धि
मनः प्रग्रहमेव च ॥ ३ ॥

इन्द्रियाणि हयानाहुर्-
विषयांस्तेषु गोचरान् ।
आत्मेन्द्रियमनोयुक्तं
भोक्तेत्याहुर्मनीषिणः ॥ ४ ॥

यस्त्वविज्ञानवान् भवत्य्-
अयुक्तेन मनसा सदा ।
तस्येन्द्रियाण्यवश्यानि
दुष्टाश्वा इव सारथेः ॥ ५ ॥

यस्तु विज्ञानवान् भवति
युक्तेन मनसा सदा ।
तस्येन्द्रियाणि वश्यानि
सदश्वा इव सारथेः ॥ ६ ॥

यस्त्वविज्ञानवान् भवत्य्- (मूलपाठे: यस्त्वविज्ञानवान्; ग्रन्थे मुद्रितप्रमादवशात्: 'यस्तु विज्ञानवान्')
अमनस्कः सदाऽशुचिः ।
न स तत्पदमाप्नोति
संसारं चाधिगच्छति ॥ ७ ॥

yas tu vijñānavān bhavati
sa-manaskaḥ sadā śuciḥ
sa tu tat-padam āpnoti
yasmād bhūyo na jāyate
vijñāna-sārathir yas tu
manaḥ pragrahavān naraḥ
so 'dhvanaḥ pāram āpnoti
tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padam
indriyebhyaḥ parā hy arthā
arthebhyaś ca paraṁ manaḥ
manasas tu parā buddhir
buddher ātmā mahān paraḥ
mahataḥ param avyaktam
avyaktāt puruṣaḥ paraḥ
puruṣān na paraṁ kiñcit
sā kāṣṭhā sā parā gatiḥ
"The individual is the passenger in the car of the material body, and the
intelligence is the driver. Mind is the driving instrument, and the senses are the
horses. The self is thus the enjoyer or sufferer in the association of the mind and
senses. So it is understood by great thinkers.
"For a fool who does not control his mind, the senses are wild horses drawing
the charioteer. For the wise man who controls his mind the senses are good horses
obedient to the charioteer.
"An impious fool who does not control his mind does not attain the spiritual
world. He attains the world of repeated birth and death. A pious wise man who
controls his mind attains the spiritual world. He never again takes birth.
"A person who has transcendental knowledge as a charioteer, and who tightly
holds the reins of the mind, attains the path's final destination: the supreme abode
of Lord Viṣṇu.
"The sense-objects are higher than the senses. The mind is higher than the
sense-objects. Intelligence is higher than the mind. The mahat (material nature) is
higher than the intelligence. The avyakta (the unmanifested) is higher than the
mahat. The puruṣa (person) is higher than the unmanifested. Nothing is higher
than the person. The person is the highest."
Here the devotee who desires to attain the abode of Lord Viṣṇu is described as
the passenger in a chariot. His body and other possessions are described as a
chariot with its various parts. The traveller who keeps the chariot and its parts
under control attains the supreme abode of Lord Viṣṇu. After this is explained, the
verses beginning indriyebhyaḥ parā hy arthāḥ explain how in the control of the
body and its various adjuncts, which are metaphorically considered a chariot and
its adjuncts, the various members is more or less difficult to control. In this

metaphor of the chariot the senses and other adjuncts of the body are described as
horses or other adjuncts of the chariot. The indriyebhyaḥ verses continue this
discussion. Of the things mentioned in the previous verses only the body itself is
not listed in the indriyebhyaḥ verses, and therefore the single ambiguous item
(avyakta) must refer to the śarīra (body) by default. The pradhāna interpretation of
this word is also disproved because the content of the indriyebhyaḥ verses
disagrees with the tenants of saṅkhya philosophy.
Now the following objection may be raised. The body is clearly manifest. How
is it that it is here described as unmanifest? To answer this doubt the author says:
Sūtra 2
sūkṣmaṁ tu tad-arhatvāt
sūkṣmaṁ -subtle; tu -certainly; tad-arhatvāt-because of appropriateness.
The word "śarīra" (body) here certainly means the sutble body (sūkṣma-śarīra)
because that is appropriate in this context.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word tu (certainly) is used here to dispel doubt. The word śarīra here
means sūkṣma-śarīra (the subtle body). Why? Because that meaning is
appropriate. Because it is appropriate to describe the sūkṣma-śarīra as avyakta
(unmanifest). The quote from Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.4.7) "tad dhedaṁ tarhy
avyākṛtam āsīt (Then there was the unmanifested)" shows that before the gross
material universe was manifested the living force was present. This shows that the
word "unmanifested" is appropriate to describe the subtle body.
The objection may be raised: If the original cause is subtle, then why should
that subtle cause not be described as the pradhāna (unmanifested material nature)
of the saṅkhya theory.
To answer this doubt he says:
Sūtra 3
tad-adhīnatvād arthavat
tad-on Him; adhīnatvād -because of dependence; arthavat-possessing the
meaning.

This meaning should be accepted because the pradhāna (unmanifested material
nature) is ultimately dependent on Him (the Supreme Brahman).
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The meaning here is that because pradhāna is ultimately dependent on the
Supreme Brahman, which is the original cause of all causes, the creative actions of
pradhāna are not the original cause, but are themselves caused by the Supreme
Brahman. Because pradhāna is naturally inactive, it only acts when inspired by the
glance of Brahman. This is described in the following statements of Vedic
literature.
māyāṁ tu prakṛtiṁ vidyān
māyinaṁ tu maheśvaram
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is a magician, and the material world is
His magical show."
Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (4.10)
asmān māyī sṛjate viśvam etat
"The master of Māyā creates this world."
Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (4.9).
ya eka varṇo bahudhā śakti-yogād
varṇān anekān nihitārtho dadhāti
"He who has no rival creates the varieties of this world, using His own
potencies according to His own wish."
Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (4.1).
sa eva bhūyo nija-vīrya-coditṁ
sva-jīva-māyāṁ prakṛtiṁ sisṛkṣatīm

anāma-rūpātmani rūpa-nāmanī
vidhitsamāno 'nusasāra śāstra-kṛt
"The Personality of Godhead, again desiring to give names and forms to His
parts and parcels, the living entities, placed them under the guidance of material
nature. By His own potency, material nature is empowered to re-create."
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.10.22
pradhānaṁ puruṣaṁ cāpi
praviśyātmecchayā hariḥ
kṣobhayām āsa samprāpte
sarga-kāle vyayāvyayau
"At the time of creation Lord Hari enters the changing pradhāna and the
unchanging living souls, and agitates them according to His wish."
Viṣṇu Purāṇa
mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ
sūyate sa-carācaram
hetunānena kaunteya
jagad viparivartate
"The material nature, which is one of my energies, is working under my
direction, O son of Kuntī, producing all moving and non-moving beings. Under its
rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again."
Bhagavad-gītā 9.10
We do not accept the saṅkhya theory because it considers pradhāna the
original, independent cause of all causes.
Sūtra 4
jñeyatvāvacanātvāc ca
jñeyatva-the state of being the object of knowledge; avacanātvāt-because of
non-description; ca-and.

The "avyakta" of this passage is not described as the object of knowledge. This
another reason for not interpreting this "avyakta" to be pradhāna.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Claiming that liberation is obtained by understanding the difference between
the the spiritual living entity, or soul and the modes of material nature, the
saṅkhya theorists affirm that one should know the real nature of pradhāna in order
to obtain certain powers. Because this passage from the Kaṭha Upaniṣad in no way
describes any of this, the word avyakta here cannot refer to the pradhāna of the
Saṅkhyites.
Sūtra 5
vadatīti cen na prājño hi prakaraṇāt
vadati-says; iti -thus; cet -if; na -no; prājño -the omniscient Paramātmā; hi -
indeed; prakaraṇāt-because of reference.
If someone says "This passage does describe pradhāna in this way" then I say
"No. That statement refers to the omniscient Personality of Godhead."
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Someone may object: "Your contention that the word avyakta in this passage of
Kaṭha Upaniṣad cannot refer to pradhāna because the avyakta here is not described
as the object of knowledge has in no way been proved. Pradhāna is described in
this way in the very next verse (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.15):
aśabdam asparśam arūpam avyayaṁ
tathā-rasaṁ nityam agandhavac ca yat
anādy anantaṁ mahataḥ paraṁ dhruvaṁ
nicāyya taṁ mṛtyu-mukhāt pramucyate
"By meditating on the soundless, touchless, formless, unchanging, tasteless,
eternal, fragranceless, beginningless, endless, Supreme Great, one becomes free
from the mouth of death."

Someone may object: If these words do not describe pradhāna as the ultimate
object of knowledge, then what do they describe?
To this objection I reply: These words describe the omniscient Personality of
Godhead. These words are an appropriate description of the Supreme Personality
of Godhead, about whom the following words are said:
puruṣān na paraṁ kiñcit
sā kāṣṭhā sā parā gatiḥ
"Nothing is higher than the Supreme Person. The Supreme Person is the
highest."
Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.11
eṣa sarveṣu bhūteṣu
gūḍhātmā na prakāśate
"Hiding in the hearts of all beings, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not
openly manifest."
Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.12
To further explain that the word in question does not refer to pradhāna he says:
Sūtra 6
trayāṇām eva caivam upanyāsaḥ praśnaś ca
trayāṇām -of the three;eva -indeed; ca-certainly; evam -in this way; upanyāsaḥ -
mention; praśnaś -question; ca-and.
In this context three questions certainly are mentioned.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word ca (certainly) here is meant to remove doubt. In this passage of Kaṭha
Upaniṣad only three questions are asked. They are: 1. Naciketa's request that his
father be kind to him, 2. his request for celestial fire, and 3. his desire to know the
true nature of the self. Nothing else is asked. There is no mention of pradhāna.

Sūtra 7
mahadvac ca
mahat-the mahat; vat -like; ca-also.
This usage is like the usage of the word "mahat".
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Because the word mahān in the phrase buddher ātmā mahān paraḥ (The Great
Self is higher than the intelligence.) is never taken to mean the mahat-tattva
(material nature) of the saṅkhya theory, in the same way the avyakta
(unmanifested) mentioned here to be higher than this mahat should not be taken
to mean the pradhāna of saṅkhya.
Adhikaraṇa 2
The "Ajā" of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.5 Does Not Mean Pradhāna
Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Now another smārta theory is refuted. The following is quoted from the
Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (4.5):
ajām ekāṁ lohita-śukla-kṛṣṇāṁ
bahvīḥ prajāḥ sṛjamānāṁ sarūpāḥ
ajo hy eko juṣamāṇo 'nuśete
jahaty enāṁ bhukta-bhogām ajo 'nyaḥ
"A certain unborn male serves the red, white, and black unborn female that
creates the many living entities and their forms, while another another unborn
male abandons her as she enjoys pleasures."

संशयः — क्या यहाँ 'अजा' शब्द का अर्थ सांख्य का 'प्रधान' है, अथवा
इस उपनिषद् में वर्णित ब्रह्म की शक्ति है?
पूर्वपक्षः — किसी भी बाह्य सहायता के बिना अजन्मा प्रकृति ही
असंख्य जीवों की सृष्टि करती है।
सिद्धान्तः — इस विषय में, सांख्यों के सृष्टि-सम्बन्धी मत के निवारणार्थ वे (सूत्रकार)
कहते हैं —
सूत्र ८
चमसवदविशेषात् ॥ ८ ॥
पदच्छेदः — चमस-वत् (चमस अर्थात् पात्र के सदृश); अविशेषात् (विशेष लक्षण न होने के कारण)।
(श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषद् ४.५ में प्रयुक्त 'अजा' शब्द सांख्योक्त
प्रकृति का वाचक नहीं है) क्योंकि यहाँ किसी विशेष का निरूपण नहीं है। यह
बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् २.२.३ के 'चमस' शब्द के दृष्टान्त के समान है।
श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचित तात्पर्य / गोविन्दभाष्य
इस सूत्र में पूर्वसूत्र १.४.५ से 'न' (नहीं) शब्द की अनुवृत्ति करनी चाहिए। यहाँ
प्रतिपादित अजा को सांख्य-स्मृति में वर्णित प्रकृति नहीं कहा जा सकता।
क्यों? क्योंकि इस प्रसंग में प्रकृति का कोई विशेष लक्षण निर्दिष्ट नहीं किया गया है।
विशेष लक्षण का अभाव होने से, केवल 'न जायते' (जो उत्पन्न नहीं होती) इस व्युत्पत्ति
के आधार पर 'अजा' शब्द से अजन्मा होना मात्र सूचित होता है। यह चमस के दृष्टान्त
के समान ही है। बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (२.२.३) में कहा गया है —
"अर्वाग्बिलश्चमस ऊर्ध्वबुध्नः"
"अधोमुख छिद्र (बिल) वाला और ऊपर पेंदे (बुध्न) वाला एक चमस (पात्र) है।"
यहाँ 'चम्' (आस्वादन करना/पीना) धातु से व्युत्पन्न 'चमस' शब्द को इस मन्त्र में
केवल यज्ञ में प्रयुक्त साधारण सोमपान-पात्र रूप से ग्रहण करना सम्भव नहीं है।
व्युत्पत्ति के सन्दर्भ के बिना किसी शब्द के तात्त्विक अर्थ का निर्धारण नहीं हो सकता।
अतः इस मन्त्र में प्रयुक्त शब्द को सांख्य-स्मृति-वर्णित प्रकृति के रूप में
व्याख्यायित करना सर्वथा असम्भव है। यह इसलिए भी सम्भव नहीं है क्योंकि सांख्य-स्मृति
यह मानती है कि प्रकृति स्वतंत्र रूप से जीवों की सृष्टि करती है।
यहाँ 'अजा' शब्द वस्तुतः वेदों में वर्णित परम पुरुष भगवान् की अचिन्त्य शक्ति है।
इस अर्थ को स्वीकार करने का विशेष हेतु बताते हुए, वे आगे कहते हैं —

Sūtra 9
jyotir upakramā tu tathā hy adhīyate eke
jyotiḥ-light; upakramā-beginning with; tu-indeed; tathā-in that way; hi-indeed;
adhīyate-iread; eke-some.
Light is its origin. Also, other passages confirm it.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word tu (but) is used in the sense of certainty. The word light is used to
mean the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this way He is celebrated in the
śruti-śāstra (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 10.4.16):
tad devā jyotiṣāṁ jyotiḥ
"The demigods meditate on Him, the light of lights."
The word upakrama should be understood here in the sense of "cause". Because
this aja (unborn) has Brahman as its cause, its being unborn is metaphorical only,
just as the "cup" in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.2.3.
In that passage it is said:
arvāg-bilaś camasa ūrdhva-budhna
"There is a cup with its mouth down and its bottom up."
As the "cup" here is actually the skull, in the same way the ajā (unborn) here is
not actually unborn, but is the potency born from Brahman, as is described in the
first and fourth chapters of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad.
The first quote is (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 1.3):
te dhyāna-yogānugatā apaśyan
devātma-śaktiṁ sva-guṇair nigūḍhām

"The dhyāna-yogīs saw the Supreme Lord's potency, which was hidden by its
own qualities."
The second quote is (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.1):
ya eka-varṇo bahudhā śakti-yogāt
"He (the Lord) who is one has become many by the touch of His potency."
Then the author gives another reason in the sūtra's words tathā hi. Hi in this
context means "reason". The reason is the evidence given in other passages
(adhīyate eke). That the material nature is born from the Supreme Personality of
Godhead is also explained in the following passage (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.9):
tasmād etad brahma nāma rūpam annaṁ ca jāyate
"From Him (the Lord), pradhāna, names, forms, and food, are all born."
The word brahma here means pradhāna, which is situated in the three modes of
nature, and which is also called brahma in Bhagavad-gītā (14.3):
mama yonir mahad brahma
"The total material substance, called Brahman, is the source of birth."*
Now our opponent may ask: How, then, is the material nature unborn? Then, if
it is unborn, how can it be born from light?
Fearing that these questions may be raised, he says:
Sūtra 10
kalpanopadeśāc ca madhv-ādi-vad avirodhaḥ
kalpana-creation; upadeśāt-from the instruction; ca-certainly; madhv-honey;
ādi-beginning with; vad -like; avirodhaḥ-not a contradiction.
Because it is said to be created by the Supreme it is not a contradiction to say

that pradhāna is both created and uncreated. In this way its is like honey and some
other things that are both created and uncreated.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
This doubt is dispelled by the word ca (certainly). It is possible for pradhāna to
be both created and uncreated. How is that? That is explained by the word
kalpana. Kalpana here means “creation”. It should be understood in that way
because it was used with that sense in the Ṛṅ Veda's statement, yathā-pūrvam
akalpayat (In the beginning the Supreme Personality of Godhead created thew
world). The meaning of this is that the pradhāna is manifested from the Supreme
Brahman, who is the master of the potencies of darkness. That is the truth in this
matter. The Lord has an eternal and very subtle potency named tamas (darkness),
which is described in the following statement (Rg Veda 10.1.29.3):
tama āsīt tamasā gūḍham agre praketaṁ yadā tamas tan na divā na rātriḥ
"In the beginning was darkness. Darkness covered everything. When the
darkness was manifested there was neither day nor night."
Tamas is also described in the Culika Upaniṣad:
gaur anādavatī
"Matter has no power to speak."
At the time of cosmic annihilation pradhāna attains oneness with Brahman, but
does not merge into Brahman. In the passage from śruti-śāstra beginning with the
words pṛthivy apsu pralīyate it is said that the material elements, beginning from
earth and culminating in ether, all merge into tamas (darkness), but there is no
mention of tamas merging into another substance because tamas is already one
with the Supreme. Because tamas is very subtle there is no possibility of it being
separate from the Supreme, and therefore it is one with Him. It is not otherwise.
This does not mean that tamas is identical with the Supreme. If it meant identity
with the Supreme the use of the pratyaya cvi in ekī-bhavati, would not be
appropriate.
When the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of the tamas potency,
desires to create, from Him arises the unmanifested (avyakta) three modes of
material nature. The śruti-śāstra explains:
mahān avyakte līyate avyaktaṁ akṣare akṣaraṁ tamasi
"The mahat merges into the avyakta, the avyakta merges into the akṣara, and
the akṣara merges into tamas."
The Mahābhārata explains,

तस्मादव्यक्तमुत्पन्नं त्रिगुणं द्विजसत्तम ॥
"हे द्विजश्रेष्ठ! उस (परमेश्वर) से ही यह त्रिगुणात्मक अव्यक्त (प्रकृति) उत्पन्न हुआ है,
जो परमपुरुष भगवान् से ही प्रादुर्भूत हुआ।"
शास्त्र के ये वचन प्रधान तथा अन्य तत्त्वों की सृष्टि का स्पष्ट रूप से प्रतिपादन करते हैं।
इस प्रकार
शास्त्र यह शिक्षा देते हैं कि प्रधान सृष्ट होता है और वह एक ही साथ
कारण तथा कार्य दोनों रूप है। श्रीविष्णुपुराण में इसे इस प्रकार समझाया गया है:
प्रधानपुंसोरजयोः
कारणं कार्यभूतयोः ।
"भगवान् विष्णु ही अजन्मा प्रधान तथा पुरुष के भी कारण हैं।"
सृष्टि के समय प्रधान में प्रकृति के तीन गुण उद्भूत होते हैं और
प्रधान विविध नामों से अभिव्यक्त होता है, जैसे 'प्रधान-अव्यक्त', तथा
रक्त आदि विविध वर्णों के रूपों में प्रकट होता है। उस समय यह कहा जाता है कि प्रधान
परंज्योति से उत्पन्न हुआ है (ज्योतिरुपन्ना)।
अनन्तर वे (सूत्रकार) एक दृष्टान्त देते हैं: "मध्वादि के समान (मध्वादिवत्)।"
सूर्य कारण रूप में रहते हुए एक ही रहता है, और
जब वह कार्य रूप होता है, तब वह अन्य वस्तुओं के रूप में परिणत होता है, जैसे वसुओं द्वारा
उपभोग किया जाने वाला मधु। इस प्रकार सूर्य एक ही साथ कारण और कार्य दोनों है। इसमें कोई
विरोध नहीं है।
अधिकरण ३
बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् ४.४.१७ में प्रयुक्त "पञ्च-पञ्च-जनाः" पद
सांख्य-प्रतिपादित पञ्चविंशति तत्त्वों का वाचक नहीं है
विषय: बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् ४.४.१७ में कहा गया है:
यस्मिन् पञ्च पञ्चजना
आकाशश्च प्रतिष्ठितः । तमेव मन्य आत्मानं विद्वान् ब्रह्मामृतोऽमृतम् ॥
"जिस (परब्रह्म) में पञ्च-पञ्च-जन और आकाश प्रतिष्ठित हैं,
उसी अमृतस्वरूप आत्मा को ब्रह्म जानकर मैं अमृतमय हो गया हूँ।"
संशय: क्या 'पञ्च-पञ्च-जनाः' पद कपिल-तन्त्र (सांख्य) में वर्णित पचीस तत्त्वों का वाचक है,
अथवा किन्हीं अन्य पाँच पदार्थों का?
पूर्वपक्ष: क्योंकि 'पञ्च-पञ्च' एक बहुव्रीहि-समास है और 'पञ्च-पञ्च-जनाः'
एक कर्मधारय-समास है, अतः 'पञ्च-पञ्च-जनाः' पद कपिल-प्रतिपादित पचीस तत्त्वों
को ही लक्षित करता है। आत्मा और आकाश ये दो तत्त्व यहाँ किसी प्रकार इस सूची में
अतिरिक्त जोड़ दिए गए हैं। यहाँ 'जन' शब्द का अर्थ तत्त्व है।
सिद्धान्त: सूत्रकार कहते हैं:

Sūtra 11
na saṅkhyopasaṅgrahād api nānā-bhāvād atirekāc ca
na -not; saṅkhya-of numbers; upasaṅgrahāt -because of enumeration; api -even;
nānā-various; bhāvāt-states; atirekāt-because of going beyond; ca-and.
Even though they give the same numbers as the saṅkhya theory, these words do
not refer to the saṅkhya theory because the the numbers here actually exceed
saṅkhya's numbers and because the elements of saṅkhya are variegated (and not
grouped into five groups of five).
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word api (even) here is used in the sense of "even if we consider for a
moment this view." By noting that the number here is the same number as the
saṅkhya elements does not prove that pañca-pañca-jana refers to the saṅkhya
elements. Why? The answer is given in the words beginning nānā-bhāvāt. Because
the variegated saṅkhya elements are not divided into five groups of five, it is not
possible to accept the 5 X 5 here as referring to the 25 saṅkhya elements. Also, the
addition of atmā and ākāśa brings the number up to 27. Simply by hearing the
word pañca five) twice one should not be bewildered into thinking these two fives
refer to the 25 elements of the saṅkhya theory. "What is your interpretation of
pañca-pañca-jana?" someone may ask. The word pañca-jana is the name of a group
just as the word saptaṛṣi (the seven sages) is the name of a group. This is explained
by Pāṇini (Aṣṭādhyāyī 2.1.50) in the words dik-saṅkhye saṁjñāyām (Words
indicating direction or number may be compounded with another word in the
same case). As each of the saptaṛṣis may be called saptaṛṣi, in the same way there
may be five pañca-janas, each of whom may be called a pañca-jana, and all the
pañca-janas together may be called the five pañca-janas. In this way the meaning of
the word pañca-jana is very clear.
Who are these pañca-janas? To answer this question he says:
Sūtra 12
prāṇādayo vākya-śeṣāt
prāṇa-breath; ādayaḥ -beginning with; vākya-of the statement; śeṣāt-from the
remainder.

The pañca-janas here are five things beginning with prāṇa (breath), as is clear
from the words immediately following the mention of pañca-jana.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The five things beginning with prāṇa are described in the following words
(Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.18):
prāṇasya prāṇam uta cakṣuṣaś cakṣur uta śrotrasya śrotram annasyānnaṁ manaso
ye mano viduḥ
"They know the breath of breath, the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, the food
of food, the mind of the mind."
The objection may be raised: The word annam (food) here is included in the
Mādhyandina recension of the Upaniṣad but not in the Kāṇva recension. In the
Kāṇva recension, then, there are only four items and not five.
To answer this doubt he says:
Sūtra 13
jyotiṣaikeṣām asaty anne
jyotiṣā-by light; ekeṣām -of some; asaty -in the absence; anne-of food.
In some versions (the Kāṇva recension) the word "jyotiḥ" (light) replaces the
word "anna" (food).
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In the version of some (the Kāṇvas), even though the word anna is missing, the
addition of the word jyotiḥ brings the number up to five. This word jyotiḥ is found
in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.6 in the words tad devā jyotiṣāṁ jyotiḥ (The
demigods worship Him, the light of lights). The word jyotiḥ appears here in both
recensions and it should be counted among the five or not as is appropriate.

Adhikaraṇa 4
Brahman Is The Only Original Cause
The saṅkhya theorist raises another doubt: "It cannot be said that the Vedānta
describes Brahman as the sole cause of the universe, for the Vedānta philosophy
does not describe a single original cause of creation. In Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1
ātma (self) is revealed as the source of creation in the following words:
tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśaḥ sambhūtaḥ
"From ātmā the sky was born."
Another passage (Tatittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7.1) describes asat (non-existence) as
the original cause in the following words:
asad vā idam agra āsīt tato vā sad ajāyata tad ātmānaṁ svayam akuruta
"In the beginning was non-existence. From non-existence existence was born.
Existence created the self."
Another passage (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 1.9.1) affirms that ākāśa (sky) is the
original cause:
asya lokasya kā gatir ity ākāśa iti hovāca
"What is the origin of this world? Sky is the origin, he said."
Another passage (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 1.11.5) affirms that breath is the
original cause in the following words:
sarvāṇi ha vā imāni bhūtāni prāṇam evābhisaṁviśanti
"Everything was born from breath and ultimately enters into breath again."
Another passage again proclaims asat (non-existence) as the original cause in
the following words:
asad evedam agra āsīt tat samabhavat
"In the beginning was non-existence. From non-existence this world was
manifested."
Another passage (Chāndogya Upaniṣād 6.2.1) proclaims Brahman the original
cause in the following words:
sad eva saumyedam agra āsīt

"O saintly one, in the beginning was Brahman."
Another passage (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.7) proclaims avyākṛta (the
unmanifested) as the original cause in the following words:
tad vaidaṁ tarhy avyākṛtam āsīt tan-nāma-rūpābhyāṁ vyākriyata
" In the beginning was the unmanifested. From it all the names and forms have
come."
Many other passages could also be quoted to show the different theories of
creation. Because in these passages of the Vedas many different things have been
described as the sole original cause of creation, it cannot be said that Brahman is
the sole cause of the creation of the world. However, it is possible to say that
pradhāna is the sole cause of creation, as we find in the passage (beginning with
the word tarhi already quoted from the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad. If this view is
accepted, then the contradiction of seeing one thing sometimes as the original
cause and sometimes as a product of the original cause becomes at once resolved.
Because it is all-pervading the pradhāna can appropriately be called ātmā, ākāśa,
and brahma, because it is the resting-place of all transformations and because it is
eternal it may appropriately be called asat, and because it is the origin of all
breathing it may metaphorically be called breath. When the scriptures state that
the original cause performed activities, such as thinking (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad
1.2.5 explains sa aikṣata: The original cause thought.) these may also be
considered metaphors. All this evidence clearly demonstrates that pradhāna is the
original cause of creation of the world as described in the Vedānta literature. In the
context of this argument:
Sūtra 14
kāraṇatvena cākāśādiṣu yathā vyapadiṣṭokteḥ
kāraṇatvena -as the cause; ca-certainly; ākāśa-sky; ādiṣu -beginning with; yathā
-as; vyapadiṣṭa-described; ukteḥ-from the statement.
The Upaniṣads state that Brahman is the cause of sky and the other elements.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word ca (certainly) is used here to dispel doubt. It may be said that
Brahman is the only cause of the world. Why? Because "the Upaniṣads state that
Brahman is the cause of sky and the other elements." The words yathā
vyapadiṣṭam (as described) mean “Brahman who in the lakṣaṇa-sūtra ofVedānta

(1.1.2) and in other places in Vedic literature is described as all-knowing, all-
powerful, and full of all other powers and virtues." This is true because in all
Vedānta literatures Brahman is described as the original cause of sky and all the
elements. That Brahman is all-knowing and full of a host of transcendental
qualities: is described in the following words (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 1.2.2):
satyaṁ jñānam anantam
"Brahman is eternal, limitless, and full of knowledge."
That Brahman is the original cause of all causes is described in these words
(Taittirīya Upaniṣad 1.2.3):
tasmād vā etasmāt
"From Brahman sky is manifested."
The qualities of Brahman are described in the following words (Chāndogya
Upaniṣad 6.2.1):
sad eva saumyedam
"O gentle one, in the beginning was the eternal Brahman."
Also, in these words (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.3):
tad aikṣata bah syām
"He thought: I shall become many."
The truth of Brahman is also described in the following words (Taittirīya
Upaniṣad 6.2.3):
tat tejo 'sṛjata
" Then He created light."
The relationship between cause and effect in regard to Brahman we will
describe later on. The words atmā, ākāśa, prāṇa, sat, and Brahman mean “all-
pervading", "all-effulgent," "all-powerful," "the supreme existence," and "the
greatest," respectively. These words are very appropriate as names for Brahman. In
the same way the statement sa aikṣata (He thought.) is very appropriate for
Brahman.
Now, describing the meaning of the words asat (non-existence) and avyākṛta
(unmanifested), he says:

Sūtra 15
samākarṣāt
samākarṣāt-from appropriateness.
The words "asat" (non-existence) and "avyākṛta" (unmanifested) also refer to
Brahman, for that interpretation is appropriate in this context.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Because it is preceded by the words so 'kāmayata (He desired.) the word asat in
the Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7.1 passage asad vā idam agra āsīt (In the beginning was
asat) must refer to the Supreme Brahman, and because it is preceded by the words
ādityo brahma (splendid Brahman) the word asat in the passage asad evedam (In
the beginning was asat) must also refer to the Supreme Brahman. Because before
the creation of the material world the Supreme Brahman's names and forms had
not existed in the material world, the Supreme Brahman is sometimes known as
asat (non-existence).
The idea that asat and not the Supreme Brahman is the original cause of
creation