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

ānandamaya. This is the Supreme Brahman described in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad in
the passage begining with the words tasmād vā etasmāt. Because the Supreme
Brahman is the object of attainment for the individual spirit soul, and because the
object of attainment and the attainer must be two distinct entities, and they cannot
be identical, therefore the Supreme Brahman and the individual living entities
must be distinct persons, and therefore the word ānandamaya refers only to the
Supreme Personality of Godhead and not to the individual living entites.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: If the Supreme
Brahman described in the Vedic mantras were different from the individual living
entity, then the individual living enitites could not be the ānandamaya person
described in the scriptures. The actual fact is that the Supreme Brahman and the
individual living entities are identical. The Vedic mantras state that when the
individual spirit soul is free from ignorance and liberated from material bondage,
then he become identical with the Supreme Brahman.
To answer this objection, Śrīla Vyāsadeva speaks the following sūtra.
Sūtra 16
netaro 'nupapatteḥ
na—not; itaraḥ—the other; upapatteḥ—because it is illogical.
The other person (individual living entity) is not described (in the mantra
"satyaṁ jñānam anantam brahma"), because such an interpretation of the mantra
is illogical.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The itara (other person) mentioned in this sūtra is the individual living entity.
This sūtra, therefore, states that the individual spirit soul, even in the liberated
condition, cannot be the Supremem Person described in the mantra, satyam
jñānam anantam brahma. This is confirmed by the following statement of Vedic
literature:
so 'śnute sarvān kāmān saha brahmaṇā vipaścitā
"The liberated soul enjoys the fulfillment of all his desires in the company of
the omniscient Supreme Brahman."

॥ श्रीब्रह्मसूत्रम् — आनन्दमयाधिकरणम् ॥
पूर्वप्रसङ्गः (सूत्र १६ शेष — श्रीगोविन्दभाष्यम्):
तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदि (२।१।१) "सोऽश्नुते सर्वान् कामान् सह ब्रह्मणा विपश्चिता" इत्यत्र मुक्तजीवस्य परब्रह्मणा सहभावश्रवणात् तयोर्भेदः स्पष्टः।
'विपश्चित्' शब्दस्य व्युत्पत्तिः—विविधं पश्यतीति विपश्चित्; पाणिनिसूत्रेण "पृषोदरादीनि यथोपदिष्टम्" (६।३।१०९) इति रूपसिद्धिः।
अनेन विविधदिव्यानन्दानुभवचतुरेण परब्रह्मणा सह मुक्तजीवः स्वकामान् समश्नुते।
'अश्नुते' इति पदे 'अश भोजने' इत्यस्मात् धातोः परस्मैपदित्वेऽपि "व्यत्ययो बहुलम्" (पाणिनि ३।१।८५) इति छान्दसादात्मनेपदप्रयोगः।
परब्रह्म परमेश्वरः स्वतः परमभोक्ता, जीवश्च तदधीनभोक्ता; तथापि भगवान् स्वभक्तानां माहात्म्यं ख्यापयन् आह—
स्मृति-प्रमाणम् (श्रीमद्भागवतम् ९।४।६३):
वशे कुर्वन्ति मां भक्ताः सत्स्त्रियः सत्पतिं यथा ॥
(यथा साध्व्यः स्त्रियः स्वपतिं वशीकुर्वन्ति, तथा अनन्यभक्ता मां वशीकुर्वन्ति।)
॥ सूत्रम् १७ ॥
भेदव्यपदेशाच्च ॥ १।१।१७ ॥
पदच्छेदः — भेद-व्यपदेशात्, च।
अन्वयः — (जीवात् ब्रह्मणः) भेदव्यपदेशात् च (अयमानन्दमयो न जीवः, अपि तु परं ब्रह्मैव)।
पदविभागार्थः — भेद (जीव-ब्रह्मणोः भेदस्य), व्यपदेशात् (श्रुतिषु प्रतिपादनात्, कथनात्), च (अपि च)।
सूत्रार्थः — श्रुतौ जीव-ब्रह्मणोः परस्परं भेदकथनाद् अपि आनन्दमयः जीवो न भवति, किन्तु ब्रह्मैव।
श्रील-बलदेवविद्याभूषण-विरचितं श्रीगोविन्दभाष्यम्:
तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदि (२।७।१) श्रूयते —
"रसो वै सः। रसं ह्येवायं लब्ध्वानन्दी भवति ॥" इति।
पूर्वपक्षः — विकारप्रवाहे पठितत्वात् आनन्दप्रचुरः संसारी जीव एव आनन्दमयपदेन ग्राह्यः।
सिद्धान्तः — नायं जीवः, कुतः? भेदव्यपदेशात्। अत्र लब्धव्यस्य रसस्वरूपस्य ब्रह्मणः, लब्धुश्च जीवस्य भेदः स्पष्टतया व्यपदिश्यते।
भाष्य-विवरणम् — 'अयम्' इति प्रत्यगात्मा जीवः, 'रसो वै सः' इति तु परमात्मा ब्रह्म; अतः प्राप्य-प्रापकयोः लब्धव्य-लब्ध्रोश्च भेदात् आनन्दमयो ब्रह्मैव।
हिन्दी-अनुवादः:
तैत्तिरीय श्रुति के वचन "सह ब्रह्मणा विपश्चिता" में मुक्त आत्मा और परब्रह्म के मध्य का भेद वर्णित है।
'विपश्चित्' का अर्थ है जो विविध वस्तुओं का साक्षात् दर्शन करता है (पृषोदरादि गण से व्युत्पन्न)।
इस प्रकार मुक्त आत्मा विविध दिव्य आनन्द के भोक्ता भगवान् का सान्निध्य प्राप्त कर अपनी सभी इच्छाओं को पूर्ण करता है।
'अश्नुते' पद में 'अश भोजने' धातु से उपभोग अर्थ है; छान्दस नियम "व्यत्ययो बहुलम्" से यहाँ आत्मनेपद हुआ है।
यद्यपि भगवान् स्वतः परम भोक्ता हैं, फिर भी वे भक्तों के वशीभूत होकर कहते हैं: "जैसे पतिव्रता स्त्री अपने पति को वश में करती है, वैसे भक्त मुझे वश में कर लेते हैं।"
सूत्र १७ हिन्दी-भावार्थ: "भेदव्यपदेशाच्च" — वेद में जीव और ईश्वर का भेद स्पष्ट रूप से बतलाए जाने के कारण आनन्दमय जीव नहीं, बल्कि परब्रह्म है।
उपनिषद्-प्रमाण (तैत्तिरीय २।७।१): "वह परमात्मा ही रस-स्वरूप है; यह जीव उस रस को पाकर ही आनन्दित होता है।"
निष्कर्ष: प्राप्त करने योग्य रस (ब्रह्म) और उसे पाकर आनन्दित होने वाला (जीव) दोनों में भेद होने से आनन्दमय परब्रह्म ही सिद्ध होता है।

"When one understands the Personality of God, the reservoir of pleasure,
Kṛṣṇa, he actually becomes transcendentally blissful."*
This passage clearly shows the difference between the liberated individual spirit
soul and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whom the Vedic mantras describe
as ānandamaya, and who is the transcendental nectar attained by the individual
spirit soul. This difference is also described in the following statement of Bṛhad-
āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (4.4.6):
brahmaiva san brahmāpnoti
"After becoming Brahman, the individual spirit soul attains Brahman."
This statement does not mean that after liberation the individual spirit soul
becomes non-different from the Supreme Brahman, but rather the liberated soul
becomes similar to Brahman and in this condition meets Brahman and attains His
association. This is confirmed by the folllowing statementof Māṇḍukya Upaniṣad
(3.1.31):
nirañjanaḥ paramaṁ sāmyam upaiti
"This liberated soul becomes like the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
Also, in the Bhagavad-gita (14.2), the Supreme Personality of Godhead declares:
idaṁ jñānam upāśritya
mama sādharmyam āgatāḥ
"By becoming fixed in this knowledge, one can attain to the transcendental
nature, which is like My own nature."*
In this way the Vedic literatures teach us that the liberated souls become like
the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that the
pradhāna feature of the mode of material goodness (sattva-guṇa) is the actual
origin of the ānandamaya person?
Śrīla Vyāsadeva answers this objection in the following sūtra.
Sūtra 18

सूत्रम्: कामाच्च नानुमानापेक्षा ॥ १८ ॥
पदविभागः एवं शब्दार्थ: कामात् — (परमात्मा की) इच्छा (संकल्प) होने से; च — और; न — नहीं; अनुमान — आनुमानिक (सांख्य-कल्पित प्रधान/प्रकृति) की; अपेक्षा — सम्बन्ध अथवा अपेक्षा।
सूत्रार्थ: आनन्दमय पुरुष प्रकृति या सत्त्वगुण का विकार (प्रधान) नहीं हो सकता; क्योंकि प्रधान अचेतन और इच्छारहित है, जबकि आनन्दमय परमेश्वर संकल्प अथवा कामना से युक्त है।
श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषणकृत गोविन्दभाष्य-तात्पर्य:
तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद् में कहा गया है —
श्रुति-वाक्य: «सोऽकामयत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति»
हिन्दी अनुवाद: "उस परम पुरुष (आनन्दमय) ने संकल्प (इच्छा) किया — 'मैं बहुत हो जाऊँ, मैं विविध रूपों में उत्पन्न होऊँ'।"
इस प्रकार श्रुति-शास्त्र यह प्रतिपादित करता है कि इस विश्व-ब्रह्माण्ड की सृष्टि आनन्दमय परम पुरुष की इच्छा से हुई है।
चूंकि वह आनन्दमय पुरुष इस प्रकार संकल्प-इच्छा से पूर्ण है, अतः जड़, अचेतन तथा इच्छारहित 'प्रधान' (प्रकृति का सत्त्वगुण) वह आनन्दमय पुरुष कदापि नहीं हो सकता।
सूत्र १९: अस्मिन्नस्य च तद्योगं शास्ति ॥ १९ ॥
पदविभागः एवं शब्दार्थ: अस्मिन् — इस आनन्दमय पुरुष (परमात्मा) में; अस्य — इस (जीवात्मा) का; च — भी; तत्-योगम् — उस (अभय/आनन्द) के सम्बन्ध (योग) को; शास्ति — श्रुति-शास्त्र उपदेश देता है।
सूत्रार्थ एवं व्याख्या: आनन्दमय पुरुष प्रधान अथवा प्रकृति से सम्भूत नहीं हो सकता; क्योंकि श्रुति-शास्त्र यह उपदेश करता है कि इस आनन्दमय परमात्मा के साथ सम्बद्ध (युक्त) होने पर ही जीवात्मा को अभय (और आनन्द) की प्राप्ति होती है।

Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The śruti-śāstra teaches that by taking shelter of the ānandamaya person, the
individual spirit soul attains fearlessness, and by declining to take shelter of Him,
the soul becomes plagued with fears. This confirmed by the Taittirīya Upaniṣad
(2.7.2) in the passage beginning with the words yadā hy eva.
On the other hand, contact with the material nature brings fear to the
individual spirit souls. The material nature does not bring a condition of
fearlessness to the living entities, and for this reason it is not possible that the
pradhāna mode of material goodness is the ānandamaya person. Therefore, the
ānandamaya person is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Hari. The ānandamaya
person is not the individual spirit soul or the material nature.
Adhikaraṇa 7
The Nature of the Person Within

1. Viṣaya (Statement): The Chāndogya Upaniṣad explains:
   atha yā so 'ntar ādityo hiraṇmayaḥ puruṣo dṛśyate hiraṇya-śmaśrur hiraṇya-keśa
   aprāṇakhāt sarva eva suvarṇas tasya yathā kapyāsaṁ puṇḍarīkam evam ak\śiṇi
   tasyodeti nāma sa eṣa sarvebhyaḥ pāpmābhyaḥ udita udeti hā vai sarvebhyaḥ
   pāpmābhyo ya evaṁ veda tasya ṛk sāma ca gesnau tasmād udīgīthas tasmāt tv
   evodgataitasya hi gāthā sa eṣa ye cāmuṣmat parañco lokas teṣāṁ ceṣṭe deva-kāmānāṁ
   cety adhidaivatam. . . athādhyātmam atha ya eṣo 'ntar-ak\śiṇi puruṣo dṛśyate saiva ṛk
   tat sāma tad ukthaṁ tad yajus tad brahma tasyaitasya tad eva rūpaṁ yad amuṣya
   rūpam. yāv amuṣya gesnau tau gesnau yan nāma tan nāma.
   "Within the sun-globe is a golden person, with golden hair, a golden beard, and
   a body golden from His fingernails to all His limbs. His eyes are like lotus flowers.
   He is above all sin. One who understands Him also becomes situated above all sin.
   The Ṛg and Sāma Vedas sing His glories. From Him the highest spiritual planets,
   where the demigods desire to go, have become manifested. This is the golden
   person present among the demigods. . . Now I shall describe the person within the
   human mind and heart. Within the eyes a wonderful person may be seen. The Ṛg,
   Sāma, and Yajur Vedas glorify Him. He is identical with the golden person who
   resides in the sun."
2. Saṁśaya (doubt): "Is this an individual spirit soul who by great piety and
   spiritual knowledge has attained this exalted position, or is this the Supreme
   Personality of Godhead, who appears as the all-pervading Supersoul?"
3. Pūrvapakṣa (the opposing argument): Because this person has a form and
   various humanlike features, He must be a pious spirit soul. By his piety and

spiritual knowledge he has become able to become the great controller of
demigods and human beings, who fulfills their desires, and grants them the results
of thier actions.
4. Siddhānta (Conclusion): Śrīla Vyāsadeva addresses these views in the
following sūtra.
Sūtra 20
antas tad-dharmopadeśāt
antaḥ—within; tat—of Him; dharma—nature; upadeśāt' because of the instruction.
The person within (the sun and the eye is the Supreme Personality of Godhead),
because the Vedic literatures explain that His nature fits the description of the Lord.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The person within the sun and the eye is the Supreme Personality of Godhead,
who is present everywhere as the Supersoul. This person is not the individual
spirit soul. Why? Because the Vedic literatures describe Him as being sinless and
possessing all the qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. For example,
He is free from all sin and all karma. The slightest fragrance of karma cannot touch
Him. This is not possible for the individual spirit souls, who remain subject to the
laws of karma. In many other ways also the individual spirit soul does not fit the
description of this perosn within the sun and the eye. For example: the individual
spirit soul is not the fulfiller of the desires of the living entities, nor is he the
awarder of the fruits of action, nor is he the object of the worship of the living
entities.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: Because the person
within the sun and the eye is described as having a body, therefore He must be an
individual spirit soul, for the Supreme Brahman has no body.
To this objection I reply: This is not necessarily so. The puruṣa-sūkta prayers
(Ṛg Veda 10.90) and many other Vedic verses describe the transcendental body of
the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad also describes the
Supreme Lord's transcendental body in the following words:
vedhāham etaṁ puruṣaṁ mahāntam
āditya-varṇaṁ tamasaḥ parastāt

"I know that Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose form is transcendental to
all material conceptions of darkness."*
Sūtra 21
bheda-vyapadeśāc cānyaḥ
bheda—difference; vyapadeśāt—because of the statement; ca—also; anyaḥ—
another.
The Supreme Personality of Godhead is different from the individual spirit soul
because this doctrine is taught in all Vedic literatures.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The golden person within the sun is not the individual spirit soul who is the
solar diety and who thinks the sun-planet is his own body, but rather that golden
person is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Supersoul who is present in
every atom. This is confirmed by the following statement of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka
Upaniṣad:
ya āditye tiṣṭhann ādityād antaro yam ādityo
na veda yasyādityaḥ śarīraṁ ya ādityam antaro
yamayaty eṣa ta ātmāntaryāmy amṛtaḥ
"That person situated within the sun, who is not the sun-god, whom the sun-
god does not know, who manifests the sun-planet as His own body, who controls
the sun-planet from within, that person is the immortal Supreme Personality of
Godhead, who is present within the heart of every living entity as the Supersoul."
From this description we may understand that the golden person within the
sun is not the individual spirit soul who is the sun-god, but the Supreme
Personality of Godhead. Both this passage and the previous quoted passage from
the Chāndogya Upaniṣad agree on this point.
Adhikarana 8
The Word "Ākāśa" Refers to Brahman

1. Viṣaya (Statement): The Chāndogya Upaniṣad states:
   asya lokasya kā gatir iti ākāśa iti hovāca
   sarvāṇi ha vā imāni bhūtāny ākāśād eva
   samutpadyante. ākāśaṁ pratyastaṁ yānty ākāśaḥ
   parāyaṇam iti.
   "He asked: What is the ultimate destination of all living entities? He replied:
   Ākāśa is the ultimate destination. All living entities and all material elements have
   emanated from ākāśa, and they will again enter into ākāśa."
2. Saṁśaya (doubt): What is the meaning of the word ākāśa here? Does it mean
   the element ether, or does it mean the Supreme Brahman?
3. Pūrvapakṣa (the opposing argument): The word ākāśa here means "the
   element ether", because air and the other elements evolve from it. Indeed, ether is
   the origin of all the other elements.
4. Siddhānta (Conclusion): Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes this argument in the
   following sūtra.
   Sūtra 22
   ākāśas tal-liṅgāt
   ākāśaḥ—the word ākāśa; tat—of Him; liṅgāt—because of the qualities.
   The word "ākāśa" in the Vedic literature refers to the Supreme Brahman, for the
   description of "ākāśa" aptly fits the description of the qualities of Brahman.
   Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
   The word ākāśa here refers to Brahman and not the material element ether.
   Why? Because the ākāśa described here has alll the characteristics of Brahman.
   The ākāśa described here is the source from which the material elements emanate,
   the maintainer who sustains them, and the ultimate refuge into which they enter at
   the time of comsic annihilation. That is Brahman. The scriptures explain: sarvāṇi
   ha vā imāni bhūtāni (All material elements have emanated from ākāśa). Because
   ether is one of the material elements, it is included in the word sarvāṇi (all the
   elements). It is not the independent origin of the causal chain, but merely one of

the links. For this reason it cannot be the ākāśa that is the source of all the
elements (including ether). The use of the word eva (certainly) in this context
reinforces the interpretation that ākāśa refers to Brahman because eva implies
"there is no other cause". For this reason ākāśa cannot refer to the material
element ether. For example, clay is the origin from which clay pots are produced,
and other material substances are the origins of other objects, but all these
"origins" are not primal origins, but merely intermediate steps in a great causal
chain. By using the word eva (the sole cause) the text clearly refers to the primal,
uncaused cause, Brahman, and not ether or any other particular intermediate stage
in the causal chain. The Vedic literatures describe Brahman as the master of all
potencies and the source of all forms, and therefore, because the ākāśa is described
(eva) as the "sole cause", it can refer only to the primal cause Brahman and not the
material element ether. Although the word ākāśa generally means "ether" in
ordinary usage, in this context the secondary meaning "Brahman" is far more
appropriate.
Adhikaraṇa 9
The Word "Prāṇa" Refers to Brahman

1. Viṣaya (Statement): The Chāndogya Upaniṣad explains:
   katama sa devateti. prāṇa iti hovāca. sarvāṇi hā vai imāni bhūtāni prāṇam
   evābhisamviśanti prāṇam abhyujjīhate.
   "They asked: Who is this deity of whom you speak? He replied: It is prāṇa.
   From prāṇa all the material elements have emanated, and into prāṇa they enter at
   the end."
2. Saṁśaya (doubt): Does the word prāṇahere refer to the breath that travels in
   and out of the mouth, or does it refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead?
3. Pūrvapakṣa (opposing argument): The ordinary meaning of the word prāṇa is
   "the breath that travels in and out the mouth." That meaning is intended here.
4. Siddhānta (Conclusion): Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes this view by speaking the
   following sūtra.
   Sūtra 23
   ata eva prāṇaḥ
   ataḥ eva—therefore; prāṇaḥ—the word prāṇa.

The word "prāṇa" in the Vedic literatures refers to the Supreme Brahman, for
the same reasons expressed in the previous sūtra.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word prāṇa in this passage from Chāndogya Upaniṣad refers to the Supreme
Personality of Godhead, and not to the transformations of air. Why? Because this
text describes prāṇa as the original cause from which the material elements have
emanated, and into which they enter at the end. These are the characteristics of the
Supreme Brahman, and not the material element air.
Adhikarana 10
The Word "Jyotis" Refers to Brahman
Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The Chāndogya Upaniṣad (3.13.7) states:
atha yad ataḥ paro divo jyotir dīpyate viśvataḥ pṛṣṭheṣu sarvataḥ pṛṣṭheṣv
anuttameṣūttameṣu lokeṣu idaṁ vāva tad yad idam asminn antaḥ puruṣe jyotiḥ
"Jyotis shines in the spiritual world, above all the material planets. Jyotis forms
the background on which all material universes and all material planets, from
lowest to highest, rest. This jyotis is present in the heart of every living being."
2. Saṁśaya (doubt): What is the jyotis described here? Is it the light of the sun
and other luminous objects, or is it the Supreme Brahman?
3.Pūrvapakṣa (the opposing argument): Because there is no mention of
Brahman in this passage, the word jyotis in this text must refer to the light of the
sun and other luminous objects.
4. Siddhānta (Conclusion): Śrīla Vyāsadeva replies in the following sūtra.
Sūtra 24
jyotiś-caraṇābhidhānāt

jyotiḥ—of the jyotiḥ; caraṇa—of the feet; abhidhānāt' because of the mention.
Because the "jyotis" in this text is described as having feet, (it must refer to the
Supreme Brahman).
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word jyotis here should be understood to mean "the Supreme Brahman".
Why? Because this jyotis is described as having feet. The Chāndogya Upaniṣad
(3.12.6) states:
etāvan asya mahimato jyāyāṁs" ca puruṣaḥ. pado 'sya sarva-bhūtāni tri-pad
asyāmṛtaṁ divi
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of glory and opulence. His one
foot is all material elements and all living entities, and His three feet are the eternal
spiritual world."
In the previously quoted text of Chāndogya Upaniṣad (3.13.7), as well as in this
text from Chāndogya Upaniṣad (3.12.6), (where Brahman is described as having
four feet), the spiritual world is mentioned. Although both texts are separated by a
little distance, they are brought together by joint mention of the spiritual world, as
well as by use of the relative and co-relative pronouns yat and tat. For these
reasons it should be understood that both texts describe the all-powerful Supreme
Personality of Godhead. For these reasons the jyotis described in this text is the
all-powerful Supreme Personality of Godhead, and not the light of the sun and
other luminous objects.
Sūtra 25
chando-'bhidhānān neti cen na tathā ceto 'rpaṇa-nigādāt tathā hi darśanam
chandaḥ—of a meter; abhidhānāt—because of being the description; na—not;
tathā—in that way; cetaḥ—the mind; arpaṇa—placing; nigādāt—because of the
instruction; tathā hi' furthermore; darśanam—logical.
If someone were to claim: “The word {.sy 1682}jyotis" here does not

refer to Brahman, but to the Gāyatrī meter," then I would reply: This is not true.
The Gāyatrī meter is taught to assist meditation on Brahman. For this reason it is
logical and appropriate to interpret the word jyotis to mean "Brahman".
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
At this point someone may raise the following objection:Is it not true that the
Vedic literatures state:
gāyatrī vā idaṁ sarvaṁ bhūtaṁ yad idaṁ kiñcit
"Gāyatrī is everything that exists."
tam eva bhūta-vāk-pṛthivī-śarīra-hṛdaya-prabhedaiḥ
"Gāyatrī is everything. Gāyatrī is speech, earth, body, and mind."
caiṣa catuṣ-padā ṣaḍ-vidhā gāyatrī tad etad ṛcābhyuktam
"The Gāyatrī meter, of which there are four feet and six varieties, is extensively
employed in the mantras of the Vedas."
etāvan asya mahimā
"Gāyatrī is glorious."
For these reasons it should be understood that the word jyotis in the Vedic
literatures refers to the Gāyatrī mantra. Why, without any good reason, do you
insist that the word jyotis refers to Brahman?
To this objection I reply: Gāyatrī is a meter, and therefore it is not sensible to
claim that it is everything, and everything has emanated from it. For this reason it
is only reasonable to assume that the word jyotis in this context refers to Brahman
and not Gāyatrī. Why? Because in this sūtra Śrīla Vyāsadeva states: tathā hi
darśanam (that the word jyotis refers to Brahman is only logical and consistent.
Any other interpretation is illogical).
The truth is that the Supreme Brahman has incarnated in this world in the form
of the Gāyatrī mantra to enable the living entities to meditate on Him. This fact is

confirmed by the statements of Vedic literature. If we accept that Gāyatrī is an
incarnation of Brahman, then the scriptural statement "Gāyatrī is everything" is
perfectly sensible. Otherwise, the interpretation we concoct is illogical and forced.
In this way we have demonstrated that the Gāyatrī mantra is an incarnation of
Brahman.
Sūtra 26
bhūtādi-pāda-vyapadeśopapatteś caivam
bhūta—the living entities; ādi—beginning with; pada—feet; vyapadeśa—of the
statement; upapatteḥ—for the reason; ca—also; evam—in this way.
Because the Vedic literatures state that the living entities, (their speech, bodies,
and minds are the four) feet (of Gāyatrī), it should be understood (that Gāyatrī is
an incarnation of Brahman).
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Gāyatrī should be considered the same as Brahman. Why? Because Gāyatrī is
described in the words:
tam eva bhūta-vāk-pṛthivī-śarīra-hṛdaya-bhedaiḥ
"Gāyatrī is everything. The four feet of Gāyatrī are speech, earth, body, and
mind."
Without Gāyatrī being an incarnation of Brahman, it is not possible for these
four things to be Gāyatrī's feet. For this reason, as previously explained, it is only
natural to interpret the word "Gāyatrī" to mean "Brahman". In the two quotations
from Vedic literature that have formed the basis of our discussion, the word dyu
(the spiritual world) has occurred. This appearance of the word dyu in both
passages further confirms that the ambiguous words in these two passages refer to
Brahman, and not to something else.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: The word dyu
appearing in these two passages refers to different things.
To answer this objection, Śrīla Vyāsadeva speaks the following sūtra.

Sūtra 27
upadeśa-bhedān neti cen nobhayasminn apy avirodhāt
upadeśa—of instruction; bhedāt—because of the difference; na—not; iti—thus;
cet—if; na—not; ubhayasmin—in both places; api—also; avirodhāt—because of non-
contradicition.
The objection that because the two scriptural passages employ the word "dyu"
in two different cases (locative and ablative), therefore they describe two different
objects, which cannot both be Brahman, is not a valid objection. The use of the
two different causes does not mean that the two passages must describe two
different things.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that two
contradictory descriptions of Brahman are found in the scriptures? In one place
the scriptures state:
tri-padasyāmṛtaṁ divi
"The eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead resides in the spiritual world,
which constitutes three-quarters of all existence."
In another place the scriptures state:
paro divaḥ
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead resides on top of the spiritual world."
In the first quotation the spiritual world was placed in the locative case. Since
this is so, both passages contradict each other, They describe two different objects,
one within the spiritual world, and the other above it.
To this objection I reply: Why do you say this? Both passages refer to the same
object. The uses of the locative and ablative cases in these quotations does not
present a contradiction. for example, in the material world a parrot may be said to
be "in" a tree or "on" it. There is no real difference in the two statements. In the

same way the Supreme Personality of Godhead may be said to be "in" the spiritual
world or "on" it. There is no real difference.
Adhikaraṇa 11
The Word "Prāṇa" Refers to Brahman

1. Viṣaya (Statement): In the Kauṣītakī Brāhmaṇa, Pratardana, the son of
   Mahārāja Divodasa, was able, by virtue of His chivalry and heroism, to enter the
   favorite residence of Mahārāja Indra. When Indra granted Pratardana a
   benediction, and Pratardana requested Indra choose the benediction he was to
   give, Indra instructed Pratardana in the following words:
   prāṇo 'smi prajñātmā taṁ mām āyur-amṛtam upasasva
   "I am prāṇa. An intelligent person will worship me as the great immortal
   person."
2. Saṁśaya (doubt): Who is this person named prāṇa? Is he an individual spirit
   soul, or is He the Supreme Personality of Godhead who resides in everyone's heart
   as the Supersoul?
3. Pūrvapakṣa (the opposing argument): The words "indra" and prāṇa here refer
   to a specific individual spirit soul. When pratardana inquired, Indra replied by
   saying the worship of Indra was the most beneficial activity for the living entities.
4. Siddhānta (conclusion): Śrīla Vyāsadeva responds to this argument in the
   following sūtra.
   Sūtra 28
   prāṇas tathānugamāt
   prāṇaḥ—the word prāṇa; tathā—in the same way; anugamāt—because of the
   context.
   The word "prāṇa" (should be understood to refer to Brahman) because of the
   context of it's use.
   Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa

The prāṇa here must refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is
present in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. Prāṇa here cannot refer to the
individual spirit soul. Why? Śrīla Vyāsadeva explains: tathānugamāt (because of
the context). The prāṇa described here is intelligence, the self, and transcendental
bliss. He is free from old-age and death. These attributes clearly indicate that the
word prāṇa here refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not true that to
interpret the word prāṇa here is mean Brahman is very inappropriate? Mahārāja
Indra is speaking, and he says prāṇo 'smi (I am prāṇa). The speaker is Mahārāja
Indra, and he clearly refers to himself. He then proceeds to further identify
himself, saying: tri-śīrṣāṇaṁ tvaṣṭram ahanam aruṇmukhān ṛṣīn śalāvṛkebhyaḥ
prayacchan (I killed Vṛtrāsura, the three-headed son of Tvaṣṭā, and I gave the
Aruṇmukha sages to the śalāvṛkas). All this shows that the Indra described here is
an individual spirit soul who advises the living entities to worship him. Even
though at the end of this passage prāṇa is described as ānanda (transcendental
bliss), this also is not inconsistent, because the transcendental glories of the
individual spirit souls are also described in the Vedic literatures. In fact, when
Indra says he is prāṇa and everyone should worship him, he refers to himself, the
individual spirit soul Indra. Indra's statement may be compared to the advice of
the Vedic literature: vācaṁ dhenum upāsīta (One should worship the goddess of
speech just as one worships the cow). Because Mahārāja Indra is the strongest of
living entities, and because strength is identified with the living-force (prāṇa), he
identifies himself with that prāṇa. This is perfectly in accord with the statement of
Vedic literature: prāṇo vai balam (the living-force is strength). In this way it should
be understood that the words prāṇa and indra here refer to a specific individual
spirit soul.
Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes this argument in the next sūtra.
Sūtra 29
na vaktur ātmopadeśād iti ced adhyātma-sambandha-bhūma hy asmin
na—not; vaktuḥ—of the speaker; ātma—of the self; upadeśāt—because of the
instruction; iti—thus; cet—if; adhyātma—to the Supreme Personality of Godhead;
sambandha' references; bhūma—abundance; hi—indeed; asmin—in this Upaniṣad.
If it is said that the speaker here refers to himself, I say that is not true. In this
passage there are many references to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa

In this sūtra the word adhyātma-sambandha means "with reference to the
Supreme Personality of Godhead", and the word bhuma means "abundance". In
this chapter of Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad the word prāṇa repeatedly appears in various
contexts where it must unavoidably be interpreted to mean "the Supreme
Personality of Godhead."
For example:

1. When Pratardana asked for the most beneficial gift, or in other words
   liberation, Indra replied replied by saying "Worship me as prāṇa." In this context
   prāṇa must mean "the Supreme Personality of Godhead", for only He can grant
   liberation.
2. The Upaniṣad explains:
   eṣa eva sādhu karma kārayati
   "Prāṇa bestows upon the living entity the power to act wonderfully."
   This must refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the supreme controller,
   and not to the tiny demigod Indra.
3. The Upaniṣad also explains:
   tad yathā rathasyāreṣu nemir arpitā nābhavara arpita evam evaita bhūta-mātraḥ.
   prajñā-mātrāsv arpitaḥ. prajñā-mātrāḥ prāṇe 'rpitāḥ.
   "Just as in a chariot wheel the rim rests on the spokes, and the spokes on the
   hub, in the same way the material elements rest on prajñā (intelligence), and
   prajñā rests on prāṇa."
   This quote states that everything sentient and insentient is maintained by
   prāṇa.
4. The Upaniṣad also explains:
   sa eṣa prāṇa eva prajñātmānando 'jaro 'mṛtaḥ. eṣa lokādhipatir eṣa sarveśvaraḥ
   "Prāṇa is the Supersoul present in all living entites. Prāṇa is the transcendental
   bliss. Prāṇa remains eternally untouched by old-age and death. Prāṇa is the master

of all living entities and all planets. Prāṇa is the Supreme Controller."
Because prāṇa is transcendental bliss and has the various qualitites described
here, the word prāṇa in this context can refer only to the Supreme Brahman, the
Personality of Godhead, who is present in the hearts of all living entities as the
Supersoul. The word prāṇa here cannot possibly refer to anyone else.
At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that Indra
directly describes himself as prāṇa. Why does he do this if your interpretation that
prāṇa means "Supreme Brahman" is correct?
Śrīla Vyāsadeva answers this objection in the following sūtra.
Sūtra 30
śāstra-dṛṣṭyā tūpadeśo vāmadevavat
śāstra—of scripture; dṛṣṭyā—from the viewpoint; tu—but; upadeśaḥ—instruction;
vāmadeva—Vāmadeva; vat—like.
Indra speaks in this way (identifying himself with Brahman) in accordance with
the teaching of Vedic literature. He does this just as the sage Vāmadeva also did.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word tu (but) is used here to remove doubt. Even though Indra was
perfectly aware that he was an individual spirit soul and not the Supreme
Brahman, he still said, "Worship me, knowing me to be Brahman", and this
statement is actually perfectly correct according to the philosophy of Vedic
literature. It is not untrue. For example, the Chāndogya Upaniṣad states:
na vai vāco na cakṣūmṣi na śrotrāṇi na manāmṣīty ācakṣate prāṇa ity evācakṣate
prāṇo hy evaitāni sarvāṇi bhavanti
"The senses are not properly called voices', eyes', ears', and minds'. The
proper name for them all is prāṇa. Everything that is exists is prāṇa."
Because prāṇa maintains their activities, the senses are identified as prāṇa. The
learned, self-realized speaker, Indra, wishing to teach his humble, well-behaved
student, instructed him: "I am that prāṇa." This means that Indra is dependent on
prāṇa, or Brahman, not that he is identical with Brahman in all respects.

The example of Vāmadeva is found in the following passage of Bṛhad-āraṇyaka
Upaniṣad (1.4.10):
tad vaitat paśyan nṛṣir vāmadevaḥ pratipade ahaṁ manur abhavaṁ sūryaś ca
"Seeing this, the sage Vāmadeva repeated at every moment:`I was Manu. I was
the sun-god.'"
Here Vāmadeva identifies himself with Manu and the sun-god because the
Supreme Brahman is the controller who grants powers to Vāmadeva, Manu, and
the sun-god. Because they all obtain their powers from the Supreme Brahman, in
one sense, they are all one. The Supreme Brahman is all-pervading. He is, in one
sense, one with everything that is pervaded by Him. This confirmed by the
following statements of smṛti-śāstra:
yo 'yaṁ tavāgato deva-samīpaṁ devatā-gaṇaḥ sa tvam eva jagat-sraṣṭā yataḥ
sarva-gato bhavān
"Whoever comes before You, be he a demigod, is created by You, O Supreme
Personality of Godhead."*
—Viṣṇu Purāṇa 1.9.69
sarvaṁ samāpnoṣi tato 'si sarvam
"You are all-pervading, and thus you are everything."*
—Bhagavad-gītā 11.40
In ordinary usage also, when there is a great assembly in a certain place, people
call that oneness, because there is unity of place, and also when there is agreement
of opinion, that is also called oneness. For example, it is said: "In the evening the
scattered cows assemble in one place and thus attain oneness," and "The disputing
monarchs finally agreed and became one in their opinion."
At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not so that
although there are many passages indicating that the word prāṇa in this passage
refers to Brahman, still there are many other passages that demonstrate that it is
not possible for the word prāṇa to refer Brahman. Some examples are:
na vācaṁ vijijñāsītā vaktāraṁ vidyāt
"Do not try to understand the meaning of a statement without first

understanding who has spoken it."
—Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad (3.8)
tri-śīrṣāṇaṁ tvaṣṭram ahanam
"I am the Indra who killed Vṛtrāsura, the three-headed son of Tvaṣṭā."
These two quotations clearly identify that the speaker of the passage in
question was the demigod Indra, who is an individual spirit soul.
That the word prāṇa refers to the life-force, or breath within the body, is
confirmed by the following scriptural statements:
yāvad asmin śarīre prāṇo vasati tāvad āyur atha khalu prāṇa eva prajñātma idaṁ
śarīraṁ parigṛhyotthāpayati
"As long as prāṇa remains within it, the body is alive. Prāṇa is the conscious
spirit soul. Prāṇa grasps this material body, and makes it rise up and move about."
—Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad (2.2-3)
yo vai prāṇaḥ sa prajñā yā prajñā sa prāṇaḥ. sa hā hy etāv asmin śarīre vasataḥ.
sahotkramate.
"Prāṇa is the same as prajñā (consciousness). Prajñā is the same as prāṇa.
Together they reside in the material body. At the last moment they both leave the
body together."
—Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad
These quotations clearly show that it is not impossible to interpret the word
prāṇa in this context to mean "the individual spirit soul" or "living force". The
scriptures teach us that both are actually identical, the living force being the active
expression of the inactive spirit-soul.
In this way it is valid to interpret the word prāṇa in three ways: 1. the
individual spirit soul; 2. the living-force; and 3. the Supreme Brahman. The word
prāṇa here refers to all three. All three are worshipable for the living entities.
Śrīla Vyāsadeva refutes this argument in the following sūtra.
Sūtra 31