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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The repetition of the last word (vyākyātāḥ) here indicates the end of the chapter.
sarve vedāḥ paryavasyanti yasmin
satyānantācintya-śaktau pareśe
viśvotpatti-sthema-bhaṅgādi-līle
nityaṁ tasmin nas tu kṛṣṇe matir naḥ
On Lord Kṛṣṇa, who is the final goal taught by all the Vedas, who is the master
of unlimited and inconcievable transcendental potencies, who is the Supreme
Personality of Godhead, and who in His own pastimes creates, maintains and
destroys the material universes, may we always fix our hearts.
Chapter 2
Pada 1
Mangalacarana By Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
duryuktika-droṇaja-bāṇa-vikṣataṁ*
parīkṣitaṁ yaḥ sphuṭam uttarāśrayam
sudarśanena śruti-maulim avyathaṁ
vyadhāt sa kṛṣṇaḥ prabhur astu me gatiḥ
(Translation 1) With His sudarśana-cakra Lord Kṛṣṇa protected (the great devotee)
Parīkṣit, who within Uttarā's womb was wounded by the arrows of the wicked son
of Droṇa. Lord Kṛṣṇa may him free from all suffering and enlightened him with
the crest jewel of Vedic knowledge. I pray that Lord Kṛṣṇa may become my shelter.
(Translation 2) With the perfect logic of His scriptural analysis, Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana
Vyāsa
protected the Upaniṣads, which contain the answers to all questions, and which
were wounded by the arrows of the black crows of false logicians. Lord Vyāsa
made the Upaniṣads free from all suffering. I pray that Lord Vyāsa may become my
shelter.
Note: By carefully using certain ambiguous words Śrīla Baladeva Visyābhūṣaṇa has
composed this verse so it has two distinct meanings.
Adhikaraṇa 1
The Saṅkhya Philosophy Refuted

Introduction By Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Viṣaya---In the First Chapter was proved that the Supreme Personality of
Godhead is faultless, is the master of unlimited inconceivable potencies, has
unlimited transcendental virtues, is the Supersoul present everywhere, is different
from everything, is the creator of the material world and the ingredient of which
the creation is made, is the controller and master of everything, is the object of
Vedānta study, and is described by all the Vedas.
In the Second Chapter the arguments claiming that this Vedānta philosophy is
contradicted by the smṛti- śāstra and by logic will be refuted, the sāṅkhya theory
that pradhāna is the original cause of creation will be refuted with clear logic, and
the Vedānta explanation of creation will be proved to be the only truth. These are
the topics that will be described. In the beginning the idea that the śruti-śāstra
contradicts the Vedānta view will be refuted.
Saṁśaya---Is the view that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original
cause of everything refuted by the sāṅkhya-smṛti or not?
Pūrvapakṣa---According to Vedanta philosophy the saṅkhya-smṛti is untrue.
The saṅkhya smṛti was written by the great sage Kapila as a commentary to explain
the jñāna-kāṇḍa portion of the Vedas. He hoped in this way to teach the path of
liberation. Kapila firmly approved of the agnihotra-yajñas and other rituals
described in the karma-kāṇḍa portion of the Vedas. The śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad
(5.2) glorifies him in the words ṛṣiṁ prasūtaṁ kapilaṁ (the great sage Kapila). In
his Kapila-smṛti, which contains statements like atha tri-vidha-duḥkhātyanta-
nivṛttir atyanta-puruṣārthaḥ (the complete cessation of the threefold miseries of
the material world is the ultimate goal of human life) and na dṛṣṭārtha-siddhir
nivṛtter apy anuvṛtti-darśanāt (The threefold miseries cannot be completely
stopped by any method seen in this world, for whenever they are stopped it is seen
that they always return) he explained in the words vimukta-mokṣārthaṁ svārthaṁ
vā pradhānasya (the pradhāna creates the material world either to fulfill the living
entities' material desires or grant them liberation), the words acetanatve 'pi
kṣīravac ceṣṭitaṁ pradhānasya (although it is lifeless and unconscious, the
pradhāna creates this world just as milk spontaneously creates cheese), and other
statements of his writings, the truth that insentient pradhāna is the independent
creator of the material universes. If the idea that the Supreme Personality of
Godhead is the original cause of everything is accepted, then the statements of the
Kapila-smṛti must be held to be useless. This is especially so because the Kapila-
smṛti is a book of philosophy with the understanding of the ultimate truth as its
sole objective. For this reason the Vedānta texts must be interpreted in such a way
that they do not contradict the great Kapila-smṛti. This interpretation, even if it
contradicts the Manu-smṛti and other smṛti- śāstras would not make these
scriptures useless. Because these scriptures explain the karma-kāṇḍa portion of the
Vedas, and because they explain the path of dharma (and not theoretical
philosophy), they would not be made useless by contradicting their philosophical

basis.
Siddhānta---To this argument he replies---
Sūtra 1
smṛty-anavakāśa-doṣa-prasaṅga iti cen nānya-smṛty- anavakāśa-doṣa-prasaṅgāt
If someone objects that the Vedānta philosophy should not be accepted because it
contradicts the Kapila-smṛti, then I say: No. The Kapila-smṛti should not be
accepted because it contradicts the other smṛti-śāstras.
Purport By Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word anavakāśa in this sūtra means "without any proper place." This
means "useless and irrelevant." the sūtra says: If someone says "When interpreted
literally, the Vedānta texts seem to denounce the Saṅkhya-smṛti as untrue. This is
a great mistake. For this reason the Vedānta texts should be interpreted
metaphorically (so not to contradict the saṅkhya- smṛti)," then I say no. Why?
The sūtra says: anya-smṛty- anavakāśa-doṣa-prasaṅgāt (The Kapila-smṛti should
not be accepted because it contradicts the other smṛti-śāstras). To reject the Manu-
smṛti and the other smṛtis that follow the Vedānta philosophy and declare the
Supreme Personality of Godhead to be the sole original cause of all causes is a
great mistake. In these scriptures the Supreme Personality of Godhead is proved to
be the original cause of the creation, maintenance, and destruction of the material
universes. These scriptures do not accept Kapila's conclusions.
In this question the Manu-smṛti (1.5-9) says:
āsīd idaṁ tamo-bhūtam*
aprajñātam alakṣaṇam
apratarkyam avijñeyaṁ
prasuptam iva sarvataḥ
"The material universe was dark, unconscious, amorphous, inconceivable, and
unknowable. It was as if completely asleep.
tataḥ svayambhūr bhagavān*
avyakto vyañjayann idam
mahā-bhūtādi-vṛttaujāḥ
prādurāsīt tamonudaḥ
"The self-manifested Supreme Personality of Godhead, who had been
unmanifested, then manifested within this world. He manifested the material
elements and dispelled the darkness.
yo 'sāv atīndriya-grāhyaḥ*
sūkṣmo 'vyaktaḥ sanātanaḥ

sarva-bhūtamayo 'cintyaḥ
sa eṣa svayam udbabhau
"He who is beyond the reach of the material senses, who is subtle, unmanifested,
eternal, inconceivable, and within whom everything rests, then personally
appeared i this world.
so 'bhidhyāya śarīrāt svāt*
sisṛkṣur vividhāḥ prajāḥ
apa eva sasarjādau
tāsu bījam avāsṛjat
"Desiring to create the many living beings from His own body, He meditated and
then created the waters. In the waters He placed a seed.
tad aṇḍam abhavad dhaimam*
sahasrāṁśu-sama-prabham
tasmin jajñe svayaṁ brahmā
sarva-loka-pitāmahaḥ
"That seed became a golden egg as splendid as the sun. In that egg was born the
demigod Brahmā, the grandfather of all living beings."
Parāśara Muni (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 1.1.31-32) also says:
viṣṇoḥ sakāśād udbhūtaṁ*
jagat tatraiva ca sthitam
sthiti-saṁyama-kartāsau
jagato 'sya jagac ca saḥ
"From Lord Viṣṇu this material was manifested. In Him it rests. He controls it.
This material world is His property, and He is this material world.
yathorṇanābho hṛdayād*
ūrṇāṁ santatya vaktrataḥ
tayā vihṛtya bhūyas tāṁ
grasaty evaṁ janārdanaḥ
"As a spider creates a web within its chest and then manifests it from its mouth, so
does Lord Viṣṇu manifest this world and then swallow it again."
The other smṛtis also present the same view. They are not merely explanations of
karma-kāṇḍa duties. They teach karma-kāṇḍa duites as a means to purify the heart
so knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead may arise there. In this way
they may be understood as explanations of the jñāna-kāṇḍa portion of the Vedas.
This effort to purify the heart is seen in the following statement of the Bṛhad-
āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.5.4.22): tam etaṁ vedānuvacanena (By studying the Vedas
and performing spiritual activities, the brāhmaṇas understand the Supreme
Personality of Godhead). Although in some places they grant results such as the

attainment of rain, sons, or residence in Svargaloka, these results are intended to
bring faith in the words of the Vedas. This is confirmed by the Kaṭha Upaniṣad
(1.3.15) in the words sarve vedāḥ yat-padam āmananti (All the Vedas aspire to
attain the feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead) and the śrīmad-
Bhāgavatam (2.5.15) in the words nārāyaṇa-parā vedāḥ (The Vedic literatures are
made by and are meant for the Supreme Lord). Because it contradicts the
conclusions of the Vedas, the Sāṅkhya-smṛti cannot properly explain the meanings
of the Vedas. A text that agrees with the conclusions of the Vedas may properly
explain the Vedas. The Sāṅkhya-smṛti does not even agree with the conclusion of
the Vedas. The Sāṅkhya-smṛti invented by Kapila contradicts the Vedas. It is not a
genuine scripture. Because it is thus worthless we do not fear to reject it. Even if it
was written by a famous author, a book that contradicts the Vedas should not be
accepted. There are many smṛtis presenting many different philosophies that are
all worthless because they contradict the truths of the Vedas. Smṛti that
contradicts the Vedas should be rejected, and smṛti that follows the teachings of
the Vedas should be accepted.
Using evidence from the smṛtis that support the Vedas, we shall refute the
smṛtis that reject the Vedas. In this way we shall proclaim those smṛtis to be in
error because they contradict the other smṛtis.
The quotation from śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (5.2) ṛṣiṁ prasūtaṁ kapilaṁ yas tam
agre jñānair bibharti (The great sage Kapila is full of knowledge) does not give
authority to the Sāṅkhya-smṛti. Because the Upaniṣads would not glorify a sage
who opposed the Vedic conclusion, the Kapila here must be a person different
from the author of the Sāṅkhya-smṛti. The Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, however,
considers Manu (the author of Manu- smṛti) an exalted authority in these words:
yad vai kiñcana manur avadat tad bheṣajam (Whatever Manu has said is certainly
the cure for the ills of this world). In the same way the smṛti says that by the
mercy of Pulastya Muni and Vasiṣṭha Muni, the sage Parāśara (the author of the
Viṣṇu Purāṇa) attained transcendental knowledge of the Supreme Personality of
Godhead. However, the Kapila who wrote a book contradicting the Vedas, and
who was born in the family of Agni, was an ordinary jīva bewildered by the
illusory potency māyā. He was not the same Kapila who was born as the son of
Kardama Muni and who was an incarnation of the Supreme Personality of
Godhead, Lord Vāsudeva. This is so because the Padma Purāṇa says:
kapilo vāsudevākhyaḥ*
sāṅkhyaṁ tattvaṁ jagāda ha
brahmādibhyaś ca devebhyo
bhṛgv-ādibhyas tathaiva ca
tathaivāsuraye sarvaṁ
vedārthair upabṛṁhitam
sarva-veda-viruddhaṁ ca
kapilo 'nyo jagāda ha
. . .sāṅkhyam āsuraye 'nyasmai
kutarka-paribṛṁhitam

॥ श्रीवेदान्तदर्शनम् — द्वितीयाध्याये प्रथमः पादः (स्मृतिपादः) ॥
(स्मृत्यनवकाशाधिकरणशेषः — साङ्ख्यस्मृतिनिरासः)
पूर्वपक्ष-सङ्गति-परिहारः —
एको हि साक्षाद् भगवदवतारो वासुदेवाख्यो महर्षिः कपिलो यः स्वायम्भुवाय ब्रह्मणे देवेभ्य आसुरये भृग्वादये च श्रुत्यनुकूलं साङ्ख्यं प्रोवाच।
अपरस्तु तत्समाननामा कश्चिद् निरीश्वरसाङ्ख्यप्रणेता कपिलः श्रुतिविरुद्धं कुतर्कमूलकं मतमासुरीसंज्ञकाय कस्मैचिदुपादिक्षत्।
अतो वैदिकसिद्धान्तविरोधाद् अनाप्तप्रणीतत्वाच्च निरीश्वरसाङ्ख्यस्मृतेरप्रामाण्ये न कोऽपि दोषः।
सूत्रम् २:
इतरेषां चानुपलब्धेः ॥ २.१.२ ॥
पदच्छेदः —
इतरेषाम्, च, अनुपलब्धेः।
अन्वयः —
इतरेषां (साङ्ख्योक्तानां तत्त्वानां) च (वेदेषु) अनुपलब्धेः (साङ्ख्यस्मृतिरप्रमाणम्)।
गोविन्दभाष्यम् (श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचितम्) —
इतरेषां च कापिलपरिकल्पितानां तत्त्वानां वेदेष्वनुपलब्धेर्नास्ति साङ्ख्यस्मृतेः प्रामाण्यम्।
सा हि स्मृतिर्जीवानां विभुत्वं सर्वगतत्वं चाभ्युपगच्छति।
प्रकृतेरेव बन्धमोक्षाविति वदति।
बन्धमोक्षौ प्रकृतेर्धर्मविशेषौ न तु पुरुषस्येति तस्या मतम्।
सर्वेश्वरः सर्वप्रशासिता पुरुषोत्तमश्च नास्तीत्यपि सा प्रतिपादयति।
कालस्यापि वस्तुसत्तां न स्वीकरोति, पञ्च प्राणांश्च करणसामान्यवृत्तिमात्रत्वेन गणयति।
एतेषामितरेषां च सिद्धान्तानां वेदे कुत्राप्यनुपलब्धेः साङ्ख्यस्मृतिरवैदिकी हेया चेति सिद्धम्।
सूत्रार्थ एवं हिन्दी-अनुवाद —
(सूत्रार्थ) साङ्ख्य द्वारा कल्पित अन्य तत्त्वों की वेदों में उपलब्धि (वर्णन) न होने से भी साङ्ख्यस्मृति अमान्य है।
(भाष्यभाव) वेदों में साङ्ख्यस्मृति के अनेक सिद्धान्त नहीं पाए जाते, अतः वह प्रमाण नहीं है। यथा—जीवों को सर्वव्यापी मानना, प्रकृति के ही बन्धन और मोक्ष मानना, सर्वेश्वर पुरुषोत्तम भगवान् के अस्तित्व को अस्वीकार करना, काल को काल्पनिक मानना तथा पञ्चप्राणों को केवल ज्ञानेन्द्रियों की सामान्य वृत्ति मानना—ये सभी वैदिक सिद्धान्तों से सर्वथा विपरीत हैं।
॥ अथ द्वितीयमधिकरणम् — योगप्रत्युक्त्यधिकरणम् ॥
अधिकरण-परिचयः —
योगस्मृतिनिरासः (योगस्मृतेरवैदिकत्वात् तत्प्रतिषेधः)।
अवतरणिका एवं पूर्वपक्षः (श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचित गोविन्दभाष्यम्) —
ननु साङ्ख्यस्मृतिर्मा भूद् वेदान्तव्याख्याने समर्था, श्रुतिविरोधात्।
योगस्मृतिस्तु वेदान्तसमर्थिका भवितुमर्हति, तस्या वेदसम्मतत्वात्।
तथाहि वेदेषु योगस्य बहुशः श्रवणं दृश्यते।
कठोपनिषदि योगस्वरूपं निरूपितम् —
"तां योगमिति मन्यन्ते स्थिरामिन्द्रियधारणाम्।" (कठोपनिषद् २.३.११)
पुनश्च तत्रैव फलकथनम् —
"विद्यामेतां योगविधिं च कृत्स्नम्।" (कठोपनिषद् २.३.१८)
श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषद्यपि योगासनं ध्यानविधिं च दर्शयति —
"त्रिरुन्नतं स्थाप्य समं शरीरं हृदीन्द्रियाणि मनसा सन्निवेश्य।" (श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषद् २.८)
एवं श्रुतिसिद्धत्वात् परमर्षिणा भगवता पतञ्जलिना प्रणीता योगस्मृतिः प्रमाणभूता वेदान्तार्थनिर्णायिका भवेदिति पूर्वपक्षः।
हिन्दी-अनुवाद (पूर्वपक्ष) —
शङ्का: भले ही साङ्ख्यस्मृति श्रुतिविरुद्ध होने से वेदान्त-व्याख्यान के योग्य न हो, किन्तु योगस्मृति तो वेदान्त के अनुकूल ही है; क्योंकि योग का विधान स्वयं वेदों में पाया जाता है।
कठोपनिषद् (२.३.११) में कहा गया है: "इन्द्रियों की स्थिर धारणा को ही विद्वान् लोग योग मानते हैं।"
उसी उपनिषद् (२.३.१८) में कहा गया है: "उसने इस ब्रह्मविद्या को और सम्पूर्ण योगविधि को प्राप्त किया।"
श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषद् (२.८) में भी योगासन का निर्देश है: "वक्ष, ग्रीवा और मस्तक—इन तीनों अंगों को सीधा और सम रखकर मन द्वारा इन्द्रियों को हृदय में स्थापित करे।"
अतः महर्षि पतञ्जलि-प्रणीत योगस्मृति वेदान्त-सिद्धान्त के अनुकूल होने से अवश्य मान्य होनी चाहिए।

how to overcome the disadvantaged position of living in the material world. In the
first two sūtras of the Yoga-smṛti he says atha yogānuśāsanam (Now yoga will be
taught) and yogaś citta-vṛtti- nirodhaḥ (Yoga stops the activities of the mind).
When the Vedas are interpreted literally the yoga- smṛti may not be always in
harmony with them because the yoga-smṛti teaches about yoga exclusively. The
Manu-smṛti and other dharma-śāstras, however, because they only teach the
performance of religious duties, are always in harmony with the Vedas. Therefore
the Vedas should not be interpreted in a literal sense. They should be interpreted
in the light of the Yoga- smṛti.
Siddhānta---The conclusion follows.
Sūtra 3
etena yoga-prayuktaḥ
By the preceding refutation of saṅkhya, yoga is also refuted.
Purport By Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
By the preceding refutation of the Saṅkhya-smṛti, the Yoga-smṛti is understood
to be also refuted. This is so because the Yoga-smṛti also contradicts the Vedānta
philosophy. When the Vedānta is interpreted according to the Yoga-smṛti, the the
Manu-smṛti and the other smṛtis that follow the Vedas, all become meaningless.
For this reason the Vedānta should not be interpreted according to the Yoga-smṛti.
It cannot be said that the Yoga-smṛti does not contradict Vedānta. In the Yoga-
smṛti the pradhāna is held to be the original independent cause of all causes. Both
the Supreme Personality of Godhead and all jīvas are held to be all- pervading
consciousness only. Liberation, obtained only by yoga, is described as merely the
cessation of pain. Because it contradicts the Vedānta on these points, the Yoga-
smṛti should not be accepted. Also because its views on sensory perception and
other sources of knowledge, its views on mental activities, and many other of its
views

Liberation is not attained by following the path of yoga, nor is it attained by the
knowledge of saṅkhya, where the soul is distinguished from matter. The
śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (3.8) says tam eva viditvāti mṛtyum eti (One can overcome
the path of birth and death only by understanding the Supreme Personality of
Godhead). The Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (4.4.21) says vijñāya prajñāṁ kurvīta
(One should meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead). The scriptures
also say etad yo dhyāyati rasati bhajati so 'mṛto bhavati (He who meditates on the
Supreme Personality of Godhead, finds his happiness in Him, and worships Him,
attains liberation).
We are not opposed to those portions of the saṅkhya and yoga philosophies
that do not contradict the Vedas. However, we completely reject those portions
that contradict the Vedas.
Although the Yoga-smṛti teaches faith in the Supreme Personality of Godhead,
as in the passages īśvara- paridhānād vā (Yoga may be attained by devotion to the
Supreme Personality of Godhead) and kleśa-karma- vipākāśayair aparākṛṣṭaḥ
puruṣa-viśeṣa īśvaraḥ (God is a single specific person who is untouched by
suffering or the fruits of action), still many people reject these sūtras and say that
their author was bewildered when he spoke them. Actually it is Gautama Muni
and other atheists who are bewildered, for they propound theories that defy the
Vedas. (The author of Vedānta) will refute these theories (in future sūtras). Even
though they were very learned and intelligent, still they were bewildered. In the
opinion of some they had become very proud, thinking themselves omniscient,
and in the opinion of others they were bewildered by the illusory potency of Lord
Hari, who had His own purpose in making them speak these theories.
Because the yoga philosophy accepts the existence of God, there may be some
reluctance to reject it. Therefore in order to refute the yoga philosophy the
argument from the previous Adhikaraṇa is repeated here. Even though it was
authored by the demigod Brahmā himself, the yoga-smṛti is rejected here.
Adhikaraṇa 3
The Vedas Are Eternal and Infalliable
Introduction By Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Some followers of saṅkhya and yoga may argue: "You may reject the saṅkhya-
smṛti and yoga- smṛti because they contradict the Vedas, but we reject the Vedas
because they contradict saṅkhya and yoga." The following is a refutation of this
argument.
Saṁśaya---Are the Vedas are reliable source of knowledge or not?
Pūrvapakṣa---the Vedas say kārīryā yajate vṛṣṭi-kāmaḥ (He who desires rain
should perform a kārīrī-yajña). If one thus performs a kārīrī-yajña or other Vedic
ritual, he may not necessarily attain the promised result. For this reason the Vedas
are an unreliable source of knowledge.
Siddhānta---The conclusion follows.

Sūtra 4
na vilakṣaṇatvād asya tathātvaṁ ca śabdāt
Because they have a fundamentally different nature, and because their own
words are evidence for them, the Vedas are not an unreliable source of knowledge.
Purport By Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The Vedas are not an unreliable source of knowledge, as the sāṅkhya-smṛti and
yoga- smṛti are. Why? The sūtra says vilakṣaṇāt (Because they have a
fundamentally different nature). This means that because they were written by
jīvas, the saṅkhya-smṛti and yoga- smṛti are subject to the four defects of being
prone to mistakes, illusions, cheating, and defective perception. the Vedas,
however, because they are eternal, are free from these defects. The śruti says vācā
virūpa nityayā (O Virūpa, the Vedas are eternal) and the smṛti says:
anādi-nidhanā nityā*
vāg utsṛṣṭā svayambhuvā
ādau vedamayī divyā
yataḥ sarvāḥ pravṛttayaḥ
"In the beginning of creation the Supreme Personality of Godhead spoke and from
His words the eternal, beginningless, endless, transcendental Vedas were
manifested. From the Vedas all other scriptures have come."
The Manu-smṛti and the other smṛtis authoritative because they have emanated
from the Vedas. In a previous sūtra (1.3.29) the eternity of the Vedas was proved
by logic, and in this sūtra it is proved by the Vedas themsleves. That is the
difference between these two sūtras.
An opponent may object: "In the Puruṣa-sūkta (Ṛṅ Veda 10.90.9) are the
words:
tasmād yajñāt sarva-huta*
ṛcaḥ sāmāni jajñire
chandāṁsi jajñire tasmād
yajus tasmād ajāyata
'From that sacrifice all fire-sacrifices, the ṛg Veda and the Sāma Veda were born.
From it the Vedic hymns were born. From it the Yajur Veda was born.' This
passage proves that the Vedas were born and, because they were born, must also
perish in the end. For this reason the Vedas are not eternal."
To this opponent I say: No. It is not so. The word "born" here means
"manifested" (not born in the ordinary sense). For this reason the scriptures say:

do not occur. This so because the promised" -> it's "it do not occur."

Everything is clear. Formatting with , ... up to .svayambhūr eṣa bhagavān*
vedo gītas tvayā purā
śivādyā ṛṣi-paryantāḥ
smartāro 'sya na kārakāḥ
"O Lord, You first recited the self-manifested, transcendental Vedas. Zīva, the
demigods, and the sages, are not the authors, but are only reciters of the Vedas."
The Vedas do not cease to be a source of genuine knowledge because
sometimes the results promised by it do not occur. This so because the promised
results always occur when the Vedic rituals are performed by properly qualified
persons. When sometimes the promised results do not occur, this means that the
performer of the rituals was not properly qualified. Therefore, because they
contradict the Vedas the saṅkhya- smṛti and yoga-smṛti are not genuine sources of
knowledge.
Adhikaraṇa 4
The Words "Fire" and "Earth" Refer to the