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

In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.87.30) it is said:
aparimitā dhruvās tanu-bhṛto yadi sarva-gatās
tarhi na śāsyateti niyamo dhruva netarathā
"O Lord, although the living entities who have accepted material bodies are
spiritual and unlimited in number, if they were all-pervading there would be no
question of their being under Your control."*
However, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, although all-pervading, can
travel from place to place. This is possible because He possesses inconceivable
powers.
Here someone may object: The individual spirit soul can be all-pervading and
unmoving, and still, because he mistakenly identifies with the external material
body, imagine that he goes and comes. He is like the ruler of a village who never
really leaves his realm.
To this the reply is given: Because it is said that he both departs and returns it
is not possible that the soul is actually stationary and unmoving. The author of the
sūtras confirms this in the following words.
Sūtra 19
svātmanaś cottarayoḥ
sva—own; ātmanaḥ—of the soul; ca—and; uttarayoḥ—of the latter two.
Also because the last two refer to the soul.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word "ca" (also) is used here for emphasis. Here the word "uttarayoḥ" (the
last two) means "of the coming and going". The coming and going here definitely
occurs to the individual spirit soul. This is so because the coming and going in the
pervious sūtra clearly refer to an agent, to the performer of the action. The coming
and going here are understood to be coming and going from a material body. This
is clearly seen in the first Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (4.4.2) passage quoted in the
previous purport. It is also seen in the following words of Bhagavad-gītā (15.4):
śarīraṁ yad avāpnoti
yac cāpy utkrāmatīśvaraḥ

gṛhītvaitāni samyāti
vāyur gandhān ivāśayāt
"The living entity in the material world carries his different conceptions of life
from one body to another as the air carries aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body
and again quits it to take another."*
If someone says that the soul actually never goes anywhere, although it seems
to go places because of the misidentification of the external material body as the
self, then I say this is a foolish idea. In the following words the Kauśītakī Upaniṣad
refutes this idea:
sa yadāsmāt śarīrāt samutkrāmati sahaivaitaiḥ sarvair utkrāmati
"At the time of death the soul, accompanied by all his powers, leaves the
material body."
The word "saha" (accompanied by) is used when the more important is
accompanied by another of lesser importance. An example is the sentence:
"Accompanied by (saha) his son, the father took his meal." Another example is in
Bhagavad-gītā (15.4), which declares that the soul carries his different conceptions
of life from one body to another as the air carries aromas. In this way the foolish
example pushed forward by the impersonalists, the example of the air in the jar
and in the sky, is clearly refuted.
Sūtra 20
nāṇur atac chruter iti cen netarādhikārāt
na—not; aṇuḥ—atom; atat—not that; śruteḥ—from the scriptures; iti—thus;
cet—is; na—not; itara—other; adhikārāt—because of being appropriate.
If it is claimed that the Śruti-śāstra denies the idea that the soul is atomic, then
I reply that it is not so, because those descriptions apply to someone else.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Here someone may object: Is it not so that that the individual spirit soul is not
atomic? After all, the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (4.4.22) affirms:

sa vā eṣa mahā-jana ātmā
"The soul is very great."
After all, to be great in size is the very opposite of being atomic.
If someone claims this, then the sūtra replies: "No. It is not so." Why not? The
sūtra explains: "itara" (because these descriptions apply to someone else). These
words are descriptions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the all-pervading
Supersoul. In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (4.3.7) it is said:
yo 'yam vijñānamayaḥ prāṇeṣu
"He is full of knowledge. He stays among the life-airs."
Although this passage begins by describing the individual spirit soul, it
proceeds with a description of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as is seen in a
following passage (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.13):
yasyānuvittaḥ pratibuddha ātmā
"He is the self who knows everything."
These words clearly describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead and not the
individual spirit soul.
Sūtra 21
sva-śabdonmānābhyāṁ ca
sva—own; śabda—word; unmānābhyām—with measure; ca—and.
Because of its word and measurement.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa

The word "sva-śabda" (the word describing it) here means that the word
atomic is used to describe the individual spirit soul. An example of this is in
Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (2.1.9):
eṣo 'ṇur ātmā
"The soul is atomic in size."
The word "unmāna" here means "Its measurement is atomic in size". The
precise measurement of the individual spirit soul is given in the Śvetāśvatara
Upaniṣad (4.9):
bālāgra-śata-bhāgasya
śatadhā kalpitasya ca
bhāgo jīvaḥ sa vijñeyaḥ
sa cāntantyāya kalpate
"When the upper point of a hair is divided into one hundred parts and again
each of these parts is further divided into one hundred parts, each such part is the
measurement of the dimension of the spirit soul."*
In these two ways the atomic size of the soul is proved. the word ānantya" here
means "liberation". "Anta" means "death", and "an" means "without". Therefore
the word "ānantya" means "the condition of being free from death".
Here someone may object: Is it not so that if it is atomic in size and situated in
a specific place in the material body, the soul could not perceive sensations in all
other parts of the body, where the soul is not actually present?
If this is said, then the author of the sūtras replies in the following words.
Sūtra 22
avirodhaś candana-vat
avirodhaḥ—not contradicting; candana—sandal; vat—like
It does not contradict. It is like sandal paste.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa

यथा हि शरीरस्यैकदेशे निहितं चन्दनबिन्दुः समग्रं शरीरं सुखयति,
तथा एकदेशस्थितोऽपि जीवात्मा सर्वं देहं चेतयते इति न कश्चिद् विरोधः।
तथा च ब्रह्माण्डपुराणे पठ्यते—
अणुमात्रोऽप्ययं जीवः स्वदेहं व्याप्य तिष्ठति।
यथा व्याप्य शरीराणि हरिचन्दनविप्रुषः॥
(अर्थात्—यथा चन्दनस्य बिन्दुः स्वस्पर्शसुखेन समग्रं शरीरं व्याप्नोति, तथैवायम् अणुरपि जीवः समग्रं देहं व्याप्य वर्तते।)
॥ ब्रह्मसूत्रम् २.३.२३ ॥
अवस्थितिवैशेष्यादिति चेन्नाभ्युपगमाद्धृदि हि॥ २३ ॥
पदच्छेदः—
अवस्थिति-वैशेष्यात्, इति, चेत्, न, अभ्युपगमात्, हृदि, हि।
पदविभागः तथा शब्दार्थः—
अवस्थिति-वैशेष्यात् = अवस्थानस्य विशेषभावात् (चन्दनस्यैकदेशे प्रत्यक्षमुपलब्धेः);
इति चेत् = यदि एवमुच्येत;
न = तन्न साधु;
अभ्युपगमात् = श्रुतिषु अङ्गीकृतत्वात्;
हृदि = हृदयदेशे;
हि = यतः।
सूत्रार्थः—
यदि कोऽपि ब्रूयात् यच्चन्दनस्य तु शरीरस्य कस्मिंश्चिदेकदेशे प्रत्यक्षं स्थानविशेषोपलब्धिर्भवति,
परं जीवस्य तादृशावस्थानविशेषो नोपलभ्यते, अतः स दृष्टान्तो न युक्तः इति चेत्;
तन्न, यतो हि श्रुतिषु जीवस्य हृदयप्रदेशे अवस्थानमभ्युपगतम्।
॥ श्रीगोविन्दभाष्यम् (श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचितम्) ॥
पूर्वपक्षः—
ननु चन्दनबिन्दोः शरीरे कस्मिंश्चिदेकस्मिन् प्रदेशे प्रत्यक्षत एवावस्थितिर्विशेषेणोपलभ्यते,
जीवस्य तु देहे तथा कश्चिदेकदेशीयो विशेषसम्बन्धो नोपलभ्यते।
अतः आकाशवत् सर्वत्रैव देहे तस्य व्यापकत्वं किमिति नाभ्युपेयते?
तस्मात् चन्दनदृष्टान्तोऽत्र विषमोऽसमञ्जसश्चेति।
सिद्धान्तः—
इति चेत्, तन्न; कुतः? अभ्युपगमात्।
यतो हि श्रुतौ जीवस्य हृद्येवावस्थानं प्रतिपादितम्।
तथा च प्रश्नोपनिषदि (३.६) श्रूयते—
"हृदि ह्येष आत्मा" इति।
॥ हिन्दी-अनुवाद एवं व्याख्या ॥
[पूर्वसन्दर्भ:] जिस प्रकार शरीर के किसी एक अंग पर लगाया गया चन्दन का एक बिन्दु (बूँद) समस्त शरीर को आह्लादित कर देता है,
उसी प्रकार एक ही स्थान पर स्थित रहता हुआ भी यह जीवात्मा सम्पूर्ण शरीर का अनुभव कर लेता है; अतः कोई विरोध नहीं है।
ब्रह्माण्डपुराण में भी ऐसा कहा गया है—
"यद्यपि यह जीवात्मा अणुस्वरूप है, तथापि यह सम्पूर्ण देह को व्याप्त करके स्थित रहता है;
ठीक उसी प्रकार जैसे हरिचन्दन की एक नन्हीं बूँद सम्पूर्ण शरीर को अपने प्रभाव से व्याप्त कर लेती है।"
॥ सूत्र २३ की व्याख्या ॥
[आक्षेप:] यदि कोई यह शङ्का करे कि चन्दन के बिन्दु की तो शरीर के किसी एक भाग में प्रत्यक्ष स्थिति देखी जाती है,
किन्तु जीवात्मा का शरीर में ऐसा कोई निश्चित स्थान प्रत्यक्ष ज्ञात नहीं होता,
वह तो आकाश की भाँति सम्पूर्ण देह में ही व्याप्त प्रतीत होता है, अतः चन्दन का दृष्टान्त विषम (अनुपयुक्त) है;
[समाधान:] तो यह शङ्का ठीक नहीं है; क्योंकि श्रुति-शास्त्रों में जीवात्मा की स्थिति विशेष रूप से हृदय में स्वीकार की गई है।
[श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण भाष्य-सार:]
श्रुति स्पष्ट रूप से प्रतिपादित करती है कि जीवात्मा का वास्तविक निवास-स्थान भौतिक शरीर का हृदय-कमल ही है।
जैसा कि प्रश्नोपनिषद् (३.६) के प्रमाण से सिद्ध होता है—"यह आत्मा निश्चय ही हृदय में स्थित है।"

hṛdi hy eṣa ātmā
"The soul resides in the heart."
In the final conclusion the spirit soul, although atomic in size, is, in one sense,
all-pervading throughout the entire material body. This is explained in the
following sūtra.
Sūtra 24
guṇād vālokavat
guṇāt—by quality; vā—or; āloka—light; vat—like.
By quality or like light.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Although the soul is atomic in size, it pervades the body by the quality of
consciousness. Like light it pervades the entire body. As the sun, although situated
in one place, fills the universe with light, so the soul fills the body with
consciousness. The Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself declares this in
Bhagavad-gītā (13.34):
yathā prakāśayaty ekaḥ
kṛtsnaṁ lokam imaṁ raviḥ
kṣetraṁ kṣetrī tathā kṛtsnaṁ
prakāśayati bhārata
"O son of Bharata, as the sun alone illuminates all this universe, so does the
living entity, one within the body, illuminate the entire body by consciousness."*
When the sun emanates sunlight it does not lose any atoms from its mass, nor
does it become diminished in any way. Rubies and other jewels also emanate light
without losing atoms from their mass or becoming diminished in any way. It is not
possible to say that when light is emanated from them these things become
diminished in size. The light they emanate is their quality, not their mass.
The quality can function in a plane apart from the substance that possesses it.
The author of the sūtras explains this in the following example.

Sūtra 25
vyatireko gandhavat tathā hi darśayati
vyatirekaḥ—difference; gandha—fragrance; vat—like; tathā—so; hi—indeed;
darśayati—shows.
As a fragrance is in a different place, so it is also in a different place. This the
scripture shows.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
As the fragrance of flowers or other objects may travel to a place far from its
source, so the consciousness that emanates from the soul may travel from the heart
and enter the head, feet, or other parts of the body. The Kauśītaki Upaniṣad (3.6)
explains:
prajñayā śarīraṁ samāruhya
"By consciousness the soul is all-pervading in the material body."
Even though the fragrance may travel very far it is never actually separated
from its source, just as the light of a jewel is also not separated from its source. In
the Smṛti-śāstra it is said:
upalabhyāpsu ced gandhaṁ
kecid brūyur anaipuṇāḥ
pṛthivyām eva tam vidyād
apo vāyuṁ ca saṁśritam
"They who do not understand may sometimes say that fragrance is present in
water. Earth is the natural home of fragrance, although it may sometimes take
shelter of water or air."
In the Praśna Upaniṣad (4.9) it is said:

एष हि द्रष्टा
"आत्मा ही वह पुरुष (चेतन सत्ता) है जो देखता है।"
संशय: क्या आत्मा में विद्यमान चेतना नित्य है अथवा अनित्य?
पूर्वपक्ष: आत्मा स्वभावतः अचेतन (जड़) है। वह पाषाण के
समान है। चेतना तभी उत्पन्न होती है जब आत्मा का मन से संयोग होता है।
यह शास्त्रों के इस कथन में देखा जाता है: "मैं सुखपूर्वक सोया। मुझे किसी भी वस्तु का
भान नहीं था।" यह कथन सिद्ध करता है कि चेतना आत्मा का स्वाभाविक गुण
नहीं है, अपितु अन्य वस्तु (मन) के सम्पर्क से उत्पन्न होती है। यह लोहे और
अग्नि के सदृश है। अग्नि में रखने पर लोहे की छड़ धीरे-धीरे अग्नि के गुणों को ग्रहण कर लेती है। यदि चेतना
आत्मा का स्वाभाविक गुण होती, तो प्रगाढ़ निद्रा (सुषुप्ति) में इसका लोप
नहीं होता।
सिद्धान्त: आगामी शब्दों में सूत्रकार (श्रीव्यासदेव)
अपना सिद्धान्त प्रस्तुत करते हैं।
सूत्र २६
पृथगुपदेशात्
पृथक् — पृथक् (भिन्न रूप से); उपदेशात् — उपदेश (कथन) होने के कारण।
क्योंकि (ज्ञान और ज्ञाता का) पृथक् उपदेश किया गया है।
श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण कृत तात्पर्य / भाष्य
आत्मा नित्य रूप से चेतन है। यह किस प्रकार जाना जाता है? सूत्र स्पष्ट करता है:
"क्योंकि पृथक् उपदेश है।" उस उपदेश के कुछ उदाहरण प्रस्तुत हैं।
प्रश्नोपनिषद् (४.९) में कहा गया है:
एष हि द्रष्टा
"आत्मा नित्य देखता है (नित्य द्रष्टा है)।"
बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (४.५.१४) में कहा गया है:

avināśī vā are ayam ātmānucitti-dharmā
"The soul's consciousness is never destroyed."
The soul does not become conscious merely by contact with the mind, for soul
and mind are both indivisible and cannot interact. Turning away from the
Supreme Personality of Godhead, the soul obscures its natural spiritual
knowledge. Turning towards the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the soul revives
its natural spiritual consciousness. This is described in the Smṛti-śāstra:
yathā na kriyate jyotsnā
mala-prakṣālanān maṇeḥ
doṣa-prahāṇān na jñānam
ātmanaḥ kriyate tathā
"As by washing away the dirt that covered a jewel, the jewel's splendor is not
created but merely uncovered, so by removing the dirt of materialism that covered
the soul, the soul's splendor is not created, but merely uncovered.
yathodapāna-khananāt
kriyate na jalāntaram
sad eva nīyate vyaktim
asataḥ sambhavaḥ kutaḥ
"As by digging a well, water is brought forth but not created, so by spiritual
activities the nature of the soul is brought forth but not created. How would it be
possible to create the the soul's qualities from nothing?
tathā heya-guṇa-dhvaṁsād
avarodhādayo guṇāḥ
prakāśyante na jānyante
nitya evātmano hi te
"When material faults are destroyed, the soul's qualities become revealed. The
soul's qualities are eternal. they are never created."
Here someone may object: These quotes from scripture merely show that the
soul is synonymous with consciousness. They do not prove that the soul itself is
conscious.

To this objection the author of the sūtras replies in the following words.
Sūtra 27
tad-guṇa-sāratvāt tad vyapadeśaḥ prājña-vat
tat—of that; guṇa—quality; sāratvāt—because of being the essence; tat—that;
vyapadeśaḥ—designation; prājña—intelligent; vat—like.
It is called that because that is its essential nature, just as He who is intelligent.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Because the soul is consciousness itself, therefore it is conscious. Why is that?
The sūtra explains: "It is called that because that is its essential nature."
In this sūtra the word "guṇa" (quality) refers to the soul's quality of
consciousness. The word "sāra" means "the essential nature of the thing, the
absence of which makes the thing non-existent." The word "prājña-vat" means
"Like Lord Viṣṇu, who is known as “prājña" (all-knowing) because He is all
knowledge. Because He is all-knowledge personified, Lord Viṣṇu is said to know
everything. In the same way, because the soul is consciousness personified,
therefore the soul is conscious. That the statements "the soul is consciousness
personified" and "the soul is conscious" mean the same thing is also confirmed in
the next sūtra.
Sūtra 28
yāvad ātma-bhāvitvāc ca na doṣas tad-darśanāt
yāvat—as long as; ātma—of the soul; bhāvitvāt—because of existence; ca—and;
na—not; doṣaḥ—fault; tat—of that; darśanāt—because of the sight.
It exists as long as the soul exists. There is no fault in this, because it is clearly
seen.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa

There is no fault in saying that the two sentences “the soul is consciousness"
and "the soul is conscious" mean the same thing. That is the meaning here. Why is
that? The sūtra explains: "It exists as long as the soul exists. There is no fault in
this, because it is clearly seen." The soul's consciousness exists for as long as the
soul exists. As long as the soul exists, the soul's consciousness will not be
destroyed. The soul exists eternally, without a beginning or end in time, and the
soul's consciousness also exists eternally. The sun may be given here as an
example. The sun is both light and the bringer of light. As long as the sun exists it
will have these two features, which are actually not different. In the same way the
soul is both consciousness and conscious.
Here someone may object: Is it not true that consciousness is born from the
modes of material nature? Is it not true that, because it does not exist in the state
of dreamless sleep, consciousness is not eternal? Is it not true that even when the
living entity is fully awake his consciousness is in fact created by a barrage of
various sense-objects?
If these objections are raised, the author of the sūtras replies in the following
words.
Sūtra 29
puṁstvādi-vat tv asya sato 'bhivyakti-yogāt
puṁstva—virility; ādi—beginning with; vat—like; tu—but; asya—of him;
sataḥ—of the existing; abhivyakti-yogāt—because of manifestation.
But like virility and other things it exists and then is manifest.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word "tu" (but) is used here to dispel doubt. The word "na" (It is not like
that) is understood in this sūtra. It is not true than consciousness is non-existent
in dreamless sleep and only exists in the waking state. Why is that? the sūtra
explains: "But like virility and other things it exists and then is manifest." In the
state of dreamless sleep the soul's consciousness exists in a dormant state, and in
the state of wakefulness that dormant consciousness becomes fully manifested.
Here the sūtra gives the example of virility. In childhood virility and other
qualities associated with it exist in a dormant state. Then, at the beginning of
adulthood, they become manifested. In the same way consciousness is dormant in
dreamless sleep and fully manifested in the waking state. This is described in the

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (४.३.३०) के निम्नलिखित वचन —
यद्वै तन्न विजानाति विजानन्वै तद्विज्ञेयं न विजानाति न हि विज्ञातुर्विज्ञानात्
विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान्न तु तद् द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यद्
विजानीयात् ॥
"सुषुप्ति की अवस्था में आत्मा चेतन और अचेतन दोनों प्रतीत होती है।
आत्मा सर्वदा चेतन है, और चेतना इससे कभी पृथक् नहीं हो सकती,
क्योंकि आत्मा और उसकी चेतना का कभी विनाश नहीं हो सकता। फिर भी, सुषुप्ति की
अवस्था में आत्मा के सम्मुख कोई ऐसा विषय उपस्थित नहीं रहता जिसका वह भान करे।"
जब चेतना के ग्रहण करने हेतु कोई बाह्य विषय नहीं होता, तब चेतना
सुप्त (अव्यक्त) रहती है। अतः सुषुप्ति में चेतना सुप्त रहती है। जब इन्द्रियों का
विषयों के साथ सम्पर्क होता है, तब चेतना अभिव्यक्त हो जाती है। यदि यह
सुषुप्ति के समय सुप्तावस्था में विद्यमान न होती, तो जाग्रत् अवस्था में
चेतना स्वयं अभिव्यक्त नहीं हो सकती थी, जैसे जन्म से नपुंसक व्यक्ति
युवावस्था के आरम्भ में पौरुष की अभिव्यक्ति नहीं कर सकता। इस प्रकार यह सिद्ध होता है कि
जीवात्मा अणु-परिमाण, ज्ञानस्वरूप और नित्य ज्ञाता (चेतन) है।
अब सूत्रकार सांख्य मतावलम्बियों के सिद्धान्त का निराकरण करते हैं।
संशय : क्या जीवात्मा केवल ज्ञानस्वरूप ही है और कुछ नहीं?
क्या जीवात्मा सर्वव्यापी (विभु) है?
पूर्वपक्ष : जीवात्मा सर्वव्यापी है।
ऐसा इसलिए है क्योंकि इसके कर्मों का फल सर्वत्र दृष्टिगोचर होता है। यदि यह
अणु-परिमाण होता, तो आत्मा शरीर के भिन्न-भिन्न अङ्गों में उत्पन्न
सुख-दुःख की अनुभूति करने में असमर्थ रहता। यदि यह मध्यम परिमाण वाला होता, तो
नित्य न होता। अतः जीवात्मा को सर्वव्यापी ही मानना चाहिए।
सिद्धान्त : अधोलिखित शब्दों में सूत्रकार
यथार्थ सिद्धान्त प्रतिपादित करते हैं —
सूत्र ३०
नित्योपलब्ध्यनुपलब्धिप्रसङ्गोऽन्यतरनियमो वाऽन्यथा ॥ ३० ॥
नित्य — नित्य, सदा; उपलब्धि — प्रतीति (ज्ञान); अनुपलब्धि — अप्रतीति (अज्ञान);
प्रसङ्गः — प्रसङ्ग, आपत्ति; अन्यतर — दोनों में से किसी एक का; नियमः — नियम, प्रतिबन्ध; वा — अथवा; अन्यथा —
अन्यथा (अन्य प्रकार मानने पर)।
अन्यथा (आत्मा को विभु मानने पर) नित्य उपलब्धि, नित्य अनुपलब्धि, अथवा

॥ श्रीगोविन्दभाष्यम् (श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचितम्) ॥
[ पूर्वपक्ष-निरासः — जीवस्याणुत्व-सिद्धान्तः ]
भाष्य-सार (संस्कृत):
यदि जीवात्मा केवलं चिद्रूपः सर्वगतश्चाभ्युपगम्येत, तर्हि सर्वदा चैतन्यं वा स्यात्, सर्वथाऽचैतन्यं वा, अन्यतरस्यैव वा परिमितः सद्भावः प्रसज्येत।
लोके हि चैतन्याचैतन्ययोर्द्वयोरप्युपलब्धिः सर्वसिद्धा वर्तते।
यदि चिन्मात्रः सर्वव्यापी चैक एवात्मा सर्वस्य हेतुरिष्यते, तर्हि युगपत् सर्वत्र सर्वैः चैतन्यमचैतन्यं चोपलभ्येत।
केवलचैतन्यहेतुत्वे कस्यापि कदापि सुषुप्त्यादिषु अचैतन्यं न स्यात्; केवलाचैतन्यहेतुत्वे च कस्यापि कदापि चैतन्यं नोपपद्येत।
इन्द्रियसंयोगादौ सति चैतन्यं तदभावे चाचैतन्यमिति चेत्, तन्न; सर्वगतस्यात्मनः सर्वैरिन्द्रियैः सह नित्यसंयोगाविशेषात्।
किञ्च, जीवस्य विभुत्वे सर्वजीवगत-सुखदुःखादीनां सांकर्यं स्यात्, भोगनियमः, कर्मफलव्यवस्था, बन्धमोक्षव्यवस्था च विनश्येत्।
अतः प्रतिशरीरं भिन्नः, अणुपरिमाणश्चायं जीवात्मा इति सिद्धान्तः सुदृढो भवति।
अणुरपि सन् स्वगुणभूतेन ज्ञानेन सकलशरीरं व्याप्य सुखदुःखाद्युपलब्धिं करोति यथा प्रदीपः प्रभारूपेण सर्वं गृहं प्रकाशयति।
हिन्दी-अनुवाद:
यदि जीवात्मा केवल चैतन्य-स्वरूप और सर्वव्यापी (विभु) होता, तो वह सर्वदा चैतन्ययुक्त रहता अथवा सर्वदा अचेतन ही रहता।
अथवा उन दोनों में से किसी एक का सीमित अस्तित्व ही सम्भव हो पाता।
इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि संसार में चेतनता और अचेतनता (सुषुप्ति, मूर्च्छा आदि) दोनों की प्रत्यक्ष अनुभूति सभी को होती है।
यदि इसका कारण केवल चिन्मात्र और सर्वव्यापक आत्मा होता, तो सम्पूर्ण विश्व में प्रत्येक क्षण चेतनता और अचेतनता की अनुभूति एक साथ होनी चाहिए थी।
यदि वह सर्वव्यापी आत्मा केवल चेतनता का कारण होता, तो कोई कभी अचेतन नहीं होता; और यदि केवल अचेतनता का कारण होता, तो कोई कभी चेतन नहीं होता।
यह भी नहीं कहा जा सकता कि इन्द्रियों के सम्पर्क से चैतन्य और असम्पर्क से अचैतन्य होता है, क्योंकि सर्वव्यापक होने पर इन्द्रियों से नित्य संयोग रहेगा।
इसके अतिरिक्त, यदि जीवात्मा विभु होता, तो एक के सुख-दुःख का अनुभव सभी को एक साथ होने लगता।
ऐसी स्थिति में व्यक्तिगत कर्म, व्यक्तिगत भोग और व्यक्तिगत अदृष्ट की व्यवस्था ही छिन्न-भिन्न हो जाती।
अतः जीवात्मा सर्वव्यापी नहीं है, अपितु प्रति-शरीर भिन्न और अणु-परिमाण (सूक्ष्म) है।
अणु होने पर भी आत्मा अपने धर्मभूत ज्ञान के द्वारा सम्पूर्ण देह में व्याप्त होकर सभी सुख-दुःखादि संवेदनों को ग्रहण करता है।

॥ अथ चतुर्दशं कर्त्राधिकरणम् (१४) ॥

अधिकरण-विषय: जीवात्मनः कर्तृत्व-विचारः (जीवात्मा कर्ता है या नहीं?)
श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण-कृत अवतरणिका (भूमिका):
अथेदानीं सूत्रकारो जीवात्मनः कर्तृत्वं विचारयति।
तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदि (२।५।१) श्रूयते—
श्रुति-प्रमाणम्:
"विज्ञानं यज्ञं तनुते । कर्माणि तनुतेऽपि च ॥"
(तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद् २।५।१)
श्रुत्यर्थ एवं हिन्दी-व्याख्या:
'विज्ञानम्' अर्थात् विज्ञानमयः चेतनः जीवात्मा, यज्ञं तनुते (यज्ञादि वैदिक कर्मों का विस्तार/अनुष्ठान करता है) तथा लौकिक कर्माणि अपि तनुते (लौकिक कर्मों का भी सम्पादन करता है)।
संशय:
किमिदं कर्तृत्वं प्रकृतेः (बुद्धेः) वा, उत चेतनस्य जीवात्मन एव?
पूर्वपक्ष:
सांख्य-मतानुसारिणः प्राहुः—प्रकृतेर्गुणानामेव कर्तृत्वं न तु पुरुषस्य, पुरुषस्तु केवलम् अकर्ता साक्षी निर्लेपश्चेति।
सिद्धान्त-सूत्रम्:
॥ कर्ता शास्त्रार्थवत्त्वात् ॥ २।३।३३ ॥
सूत्रार्थ:
जीवात्मा ही वास्तविक कर्ता है, क्योंकि ऐसा मानने पर ही विधि-निषेधात्मक शास्त्रों की सार्थकता (शास्त्रार्थवत्त्व) सिद्ध होती है।
यदि जड़ा प्रकृति या बुद्धि कर्ता होती, तो चेतन जीव के लिए उपदिष्ट 'यजेत', 'उपासीत' आदि शास्त्र-वचन व्यर्थ हो जाते।

"Consciousness performs yajñas. Consciousness performs actions."
Saṁśaya (doubt): Does the individual soul, indicated in this passage by the
word "consciousness", perform actions or not?
Pūrvapakṣa (the opponent speaks): In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad (2.18) it is said:
hantā cen manyate hantuṁ
hataś cen manyate hatam
ubhau tau na vijānītau
nāyaṁ hanti na hanyate
"Neither he who thinks the living entity the slayer nor he who thinks it slain is
in knowledge, for the self slays not nor is slain."*
These words clearly declare that the individual spirit soul never performs
actions. In the Bhagavad-gītā (3.27) it is said:
prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni
guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ
ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā
kartāham iti manyate
"The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false-ego thinks himself the doer
of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material
nature."*
In the Bhagavad-gītā (13.21) it is also said:
kārya-kāraṇa-kartṛtve
hetuḥ prakṛtir ucyate
puruṣaḥ sukha-duḥkhānāṁ
bhoktṛtve hetur ucyate
"Nature is said to be the cause of all material causes and effects, whereas the
living entity is the cause of the various sufferings and enjoyments in this world."*
Therefore the individual spirit soul does not perform actions. When a person
understands the truth he understands that all actions are actually performed by the
material energy and the individual spirit soul is merely the person who
experiences the fruits of action.

Siddhānta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sūtras gives
the proper conclusion.
Sūtra 31
kartā śāstrārthavat-tvāt
kartā—the doer; śāstra—of the scriptures; ārtha—meaning; vat—possessing;
tvāt—because of having the nature.
He performs actions. This is so because the scriptures are meaningful.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
It is the individual spirit soul who performs actions, not the modes of material
nature. Why is that? The sūtra explains: "Because the scriptures are meaningful."
In the scriptures it is said:
svarga-kāmo yajeta
"A person who desires Svargaloka should perform yajñas."
and
ātmānam eva lokam upāsīta
"One should worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
These statements have meaning only if the individual spirit soul does actually
perform actions. If all actions are performed by the modes of nature and the
individual spirit soul never does anything, these statements of the scriptures are
meaningless. These statements of scripture are intended to motivate the individual
spirit soul to act in a certain way so he can enjoy the results of his actions. It is not
even possible in this way to try to motivate the inert material modes to act in any
way at all.
That the individual spirit soul does actually perform actions is also confirmed
in the next sūtra.

Sūtra 32
vihāropadeśāt
vihāra—of pastimes; upadeśāt—because of the teaching.
Because of the teaching about pastimes.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The Chāndogya Upaniṣad (8.12.3) describes the activities of the liberated souls:
sa tatra paryeti jakṣan krīḍan ramamānaḥ
"In the spiritual world the individual spirit soul eats, plays, and enjoys."
Therefore action by itself does not brings pain and unhappiness to the soul,
rather it is the bondage of the three modes of nature that brings unhappiness. This
is so because the three modes of nature obscure the reality of the soul's spiritual
nature.
Sūtra 33
upādānāt
upādānāt—because of taking.
Because of taking.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (2.1.18) it is said:

sa yathā mahā-rājaḥ . . . evam evaiṣa etān prāṇān gṛhītvā sve śarīre yathā-kāmaṁ
parivartate
"In the dreaming state the individual spirit soul acts like a king. The soul grasps
the life-airs and does as it wishes."
In the Bhagavad-gītā (15.8) it is also said:
gṛhītvaitāni saṁyāti
vāyur gandhān ivāśayāt
"The living entity in the material world carries his different conceptions of life
from one body to another as the air carries aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body
and again quits it to take another."*
In these passages it is seen that the individual spirit soul does perform actions,
for the soul moves the life-airs as a magnet moves iron. The life-airs may move
many things, but it is the individual spirit soul who moves the life-airs. Nothing
else moves them.
In the following words the author of the sūtras now gives another reason.
Sūtra 34
vyapadeśāc ca kriyāyāṁ na cen nirdeśa-viparyayaḥ
vyapadeśāt—because of designation; ca—and; kriyāyām—in action; na—not;
cet—if; nirdeśa—grammatical construction; viparyayaḥ—different.
Also because of the name in the action. If this were not so the grammatical
structure would be different.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.5.1) it is said:
vijñānaṁ yajñaṁ tanute. karmāṇi tanute 'pi ca.

"Consciousness performs yajñas. Consciousness performs actions."
These words clearly show that the individual spirit soul is the primary
performer of Vedic and ordinary actions. If the word "vijñānam" is interpreted to
mean not the individual spirit soul, but the intelligence, then the grammatical
structure of the sentence would be different. Then the word “vijñāna" would be in
the instrumental case, for the intelligence would be the instrument by which the
action is performed. However, the word is not in the instrumental case. If the
intelligence were the performer of the action here, then another word must be
given in the instrumental case to show with what instrument the intelligence
performs the action, for there must be an instrument in every action. However, if
the individual spirit soul is the performer of the action there is not need for
another word in the instrumental case to show the instrument used, for in that
situation the individual spirit soul is both the performer of the action and the
instrument employed.
Here someone may object: Is it not so that the individual spirit soul, being
independent and able to act as he likes, will naturally act for his own welfare and
will not perform actions that bring him harm?
To this I reply: No. It is not like that. The individual spirit soul desires to
benefit himself, but because his past karma acts against him, he sometimes creates
his own misfortune.
For these reasons it is clear that the individual spirit soul certainly performs
actions. When the scriptures sometimes say that the individual spirit soul does not
perform actions, the meaning is that the soul is not independent and free to do
exactly everything he wishes.
Here someone may object: It is not possible that the individual spirit soul is the
performer of actions, for it is clearly seen that these actions often bring him
suffering.
To this I reply: No. It is not so. If the individual spirit soul is not the
performer of actions, then the scriptural descriptions of the darśa, paurṇamassa,
and other yajñas would not make any sense.
In the following words the author of the sūtras refutes the idea that material
nature is the real performer of actions.
Sūtra 35
uplabdhi-vad aniyamaḥ
uplabdhi—consciousness; vat—like; aniyamaḥ—uncertainty.
As in the situation of consciousness, it would be indefinite.

Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In previous sūtras it was shown that if the individual spirit soul were all-
pervading, then consciousness would be vague and indefinite. In the same way if
all-pervading material nature were the sole performer of all actions, then all
actions would bring the same result to all spirit souls simultaneously. Clearly this
is not so. Also, it could not be said that the individual spirit soul would need to be
near the place where a certain action was performed in order to experience the
result of that action. The saṅkhya philosophers cannot say this, for in their theory
each individual spirit soul is all-pervading and is thus already near the places
where all actions are performed.
Sūtra 36
śakti-viparyayāt
śakti—of power; viparyayāt—because of difference.
Because the power is changed.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
If the material nature is the performer of actions, then material nature must also
experience the good and bad results of those actions. However, the Śvetāśvatara
Upaniṣad (1.8) affirms:
bhoktṛ-bhāvāt
"The individual spirit soul enjoys the good and bad results of actions."
In this way the idea that the material nature is the performer of actions is
refuted. Because the individual spirit soul enjoys the good and bad results of
actions, the individual spirit soul must also be the performer of those actions.
Sūtra 37

samādhy-abhāvāc ca
samādhi—of liberation; abhāvāt—because of the non-existence; ca—also.
Also because there is no liberation.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Actions are meant to bring one to liberation from the material world. Because it
is not possible for the material nature to act in such a way and attain such a goal,
the idea that the material nature is the performer of actions cannot be entertained.
Liberation means understanding the truth "I am different from matter". Because it
is unconscious, and also because it really is matter, it is not possible for the
material nature to come to this understanding. In this way it is proved that the
individual spirit soul is the performer of actions.
Adhikaraṇa 15
Activity Is the Soul's Nature
Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In the following words the author of the sūtras gives an example to show that
the individual spirit soul performs actions, using other its own potency, or some
other instrument to perform them.
Sūtra 38
yathā ca takṣobhayathā
yathā—as; ca—and; takṣa—carpenter; ubhayathā—in both ways.
In both ways like a carpenter.