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

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

potencies are supremely subtle and fine. That is the proper understanding of the
word asat in this context.
The Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.4.7) explains:
tad vaidaṁ tarhy avyākṛtam āsīt tan-nāma-rūpābhyāṁ vyākriyata
"In the beginning was the avyākṛta. From it all the names and forms have
come."
The word avyākṛta should be understood to mean Brahman. In the words sa eṣa
iha praviṣṭaḥ (Then He entered within) that immediately follow it becomes clear
that the avyākṛta that becomes manifested by name and form is the powerful
Supreme Brahman who appears by His own wish. Any conclusion other than this
would oppose the clear teachings of Vedānta-sūtra and the general conclusions of
all the śruti-śāstras. For these reasons it is therefore confirmed that the Supreme
Brahman is the actual cause of the material universes.
Adhikaraṇa 5
The "Puruṣa" of the Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad Is Brahman
Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In the next passage the author of the sūtras) again refutes the saṅkhya theory.
In the Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad 4.18 Bālākī Vipra promises “I shall tell you about
Brahman," and proceeds to describe 16 puruṣas, beginning with the sun-god, as
Brahman. King Ajātaśatru then rejects these instructions and says: “O Bālākī, the
person who is the creator of these 16 puruṣas, the person engaged in this karma is
the actual Brahman."
Saṁśaya: At this point the doubt may be raised: "Is the superintendent of
matter, the enjoyer described in the sankhya texts, or is the Supreme Personality of
Godhead, Lord Viṣṇu, to be understood as the Brahman mentioned here?
Pūrvapakṣa: Someone may object: Because the use of the word karma here
identifies this Brahman with the experiencing the results of good and bad work,
because it the next passage this Brahman is described as sometimes sleeping (tau
ha suptaṁ puruṣam ājagmatuḥ, and because in the passage after that this Brahman
is described as an enjoyer (tad yathā śreṣṭhī svair bhuṅkte), it should be
understood that the Brahman here is the jīva (individual spirit soul) described in
the tantras. The use of the word prāṇa (life-breath) here also confirms that the
Brahman described here is the living individual soul. This Brahman (the jīva),
which is different from matter, should thus be understood as the original cause of
the many enjoyerpuruṣas and the original cause of their sinless activities as well. In
this way it has been proven that the Brahman described in this passage is the
individual spirit soul (jīva). The theory that there is a Supreme Personality of

Godhead is separate from the individual spirit soul (jīva) is thus completely
untenable. The text (sa aikṣata) that explains that the creator thinks is thus very
appropriate if it is understood that the original cause, the controller of the material
energy that creates this world, is in fact the individual soul (jīva).
Siddhānta: In response to this:
Sūtra 16
jagad-vācitvāt
jagat-the world; vācitvāt-because of the word.
(The word Brahman here means the Supreme Personality of Godhead, because
the word "karma" here should be understood) to mean "jagat" (creation).
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word Brahman here does not mean the kṣetrajña (individual spiritual soul)
described in the tantras, but rather it means the Supreme Personality of Godhead,
who is known by study of Vedānta. Why? Because of the use of the word jagat.
Because it is accompanied by the word jagat, the word karma in this passage means
"the material world composed of a mixture of matter and spirit." Because He is the
original creator, this karma (material world) may be understood to be His property
(yasya karma). The truth is this: the word karma, which is derived from the verb
kṛ (to do, create) here means “creation". When this interpretation is accepted the
actual meaning of the word here is understood. This interpretation refutes the
mistaken idea that the individual spirit soul (jīva) is the original creator. Even the
Kapila-tantra does not accept the individual living entity as the original creator.
One also cannot say that by adhyāsa (association) the individual living entity may
be considered the creator of the material world, for all the scriptures maintain that
the spirit soul is always aloof from matter. For these reasons it is the Supreme
Personality of Godhead who is the original creator of the material world. It cannot
be that King Ajātaśatru speaks lies in this passage. Rejecting Bālāki's teaching that
the sixteen puruṣas (persons) are Brahman, Ajātaśatru promises, "I will tell you
about Brahman." If Ajātaśatru then teaches that the jīvas (individual spirit souls)
are Brahman then his teaching is no different than Bālākī's, and he is dishonest to
reject Bālāki's instruction as untrue, and then teach the same instruction as the
truth. In this way the meaning of this passage is understood. "You have described
these puruṣas (persons) as Brahman, but I will tell you of someone who is the
creator of all of them," is the gist of Ajātaśatru's statement. In this way it should be
understood that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original cause and the
entire material world is His creation.

॥ श्रीहरिः ॥
वेदान्तदर्शनम् — ब्रह्मसूत्रम् (प्रथमाध्यायः, चतुर्थः पादः)
अधिकरणम् — जगद्वाचित्वाधिकरणम् (सूत्रम् १७)
पूर्वपक्षः —
यदि कश्चिदाक्षिपेत्—अत्र प्रकरणे 'मुख्यप्राण'स्य लिङ्गानि श्रूयन्ते, तथा च प्राणशब्दाभिधेयो जीव एव भवितुमर्हति, न तु परं ब्रह्म।
अत एवास्य प्रतिषेधाय सूत्रकार आह—
सूत्रम् १७ —
जीवमुख्यप्राणलिङ्गान्नेति चेत्तद्व्याख्यातम् ॥ १।४।१७ ॥
पदच्छेदः —
जीव-मुख्य-प्राण-लिङ्गात्, न, इति, चेत्, तत्, व्याख्यातम्।
पदार्थविवरणम् —
जीवमुख्यप्राणलिङ्गात् — जीवस्य मुख्यप्राणस्य च चिह्नानां (धर्मविशेषाणां) दर्शनात्,
न — (जगत्कारणत्वेन जगत्कर्ता) परं ब्रह्म न भवति,
इति चेत् — यदि एवं शङ्क्येत,
तत् — तस्य परिहारः,
व्याख्यातम् — पूर्वमेव (प्रतर्दनाधिकरणे १।१।३१ सूत्रे) कृतव्याख्यानः।
सूत्रार्थः (हिन्दी-अनुवादः) —
यदि यह आपत्ति की जाए कि इस प्रकरण में जीव तथा मुख्य प्राण के लक्षण उपलब्ध होते हैं, अतः ब्रह्म ग्राह्य नहीं है;
तो इसका उत्तर यह है कि इसका समाधान पूर्व में ही (प्रतर्दनाधिकरण १।१।३१ में) विस्तारपूर्वक किया जा चुका है।
श्रीमद्बलदेवविद्याभूषणविरचितं गोविन्दभाष्यम् (भाष्यसारः) —
'प्रतर्दनाधिकरणे' (ब्रह्मसूत्र १।१।३१) इन्द्रप्रतर्दनसंवादे अयमर्थः सुनिर्णीतः।
यत्र ह्युपक्रमोपसंहारयोः स्पष्टमेव ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टं भवति, तत्र मध्ये यदि कतिपयलिङ्गानि जीवसम्बन्धीनि मुख्यप्राणसम्बन्धीनि वा प्रतिभासन्ते,
तथापि तेषां समन्वयो ब्रह्मैकपरत्वेनैव कर्तव्यः, न तु तानि जीवप्राणमात्रपराणि मन्तव्यानि।
श्रुतिप्रमाणम् (कौषीतकि-ब्राह्मणोपनिषद् ४।१) —
अत्र कौषीतक्युपनिषदि उपक्रमे स्पष्टमुक्तम्—«ब्रह्म ते ब्रवाणि» (अहं ते ब्रह्म प्रवक्ष्यामि)।
तथोपसंहारेऽपि श्रूयते—
«सर्वान् पाप्मनोऽपहत्य सर्वेषां भूतानां श्रेष्ठ्यं स्वाराज्यमाधिपत्यं पर्येति य एवं वेद» इति।
(यो हि इमं वेद स सर्वान् पाप्मनो विधूय सर्वेषां भूतानामाधिपत्यं प्राप्नोति)।
सिद्धान्तविचारः —
उपक्रमस्थेन 'ब्रह्म'शब्देन, उपसंहारस्थेन च सर्वपापप्रहाणपूर्वकसर्वैश्वर्यफलश्रवणेन चेदं प्रतीयते यदत्र प्रतिपाद्यं वस्तु परब्रह्मैव।
अतो «यस्य वैतत्कर्म स वै वेदितव्यः» इत्यत्र 'कर्म'शब्देन जगदेव ग्राह्यम्, न तु जीवगतं पुण्यापुण्यात्मकं कर्म।
तस्मात् कौषीतकिवाक्ये जगत्कर्ता परमपुरुषः श्रीभगवान् ब्रह्मैव, न तु जीवो नापि मुख्यप्राणः।
संशय-विमर्शः (पूर्वपक्षविस्तारः) —
ननु 'कर्म'शब्दस्य 'प्राण'शब्दस्य च ब्रह्मण्यन्वयः कथञ्चित् क्रियेत चेदपि, अत्र प्रकरणे जीवस्य प्रत्यक्षलिङ्गानि सन्ति।
यतः सुप्तपुरुषबोधनप्रसङ्गे यष्टिघातेनाप्रबुद्धस्य पश्चात् प्राणनाम्ना सम्बोधनेन प्रबोधनं दृश्यते।
तथा च शयानस्य जीवस्य विश्रान्तिस्थानं नाड्यः, सुषुप्तौ प्राणात्मना स्थितिः, पुनर्प्रबोधश्चेत्यादयः सर्वे धर्मा जीवस्यैव संभवन्ति।
एतेन सर्वमिदं सन्दर्भजातं जीवपरमेवेति निश्चीयते चेत्—
तत्रोच्यते—सुषुप्तौ जीवेन यत्र लीयते, यतश्च पुनरागच्छति, स सर्वाधारः परमात्मा परं ब्रह्मैव।
अत एव जीवमुख्यप्राणलिङ्गानां ब्रह्मणि समन्वयः पूर्ववदेव सिद्ध इति न काचिदनुपपत्तिः॥ १७ ॥

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: