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

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

jīva-mukhya-prāṇa-liṅgān neti cen nopāsya-traividhyād āśritatvād iha tad-yogāt
jīva—of the individual spirit soul; mukhya—the primary; prāṇa—living force;
liṅgāt—the signs; na—not; iti—thus; cet' if; na—not; upāsya—worshipable;
taividhyāt—because of being there; āśritatvāt—because of taking shelter; iha—here;
tat-yogāt—because of appropriateness.
If someone says the word "prāṇa" also refers to the individual spirit soul and
the primary living-force in addition to referring to Brahman, then I reply that such
an interpretation is not correct. If the word "prāṇa" referred to all three, then all
three would be worshipable. This view is not correct, because neither logic nor the
authority of scripture support it.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Someone may say that the natural features of the individual spirit soul and the
living-force are such that they are proper objects of worship. To this I reply: This
is not true. Why? For then there would be three objects of worship. When Indra
says, "Worship me as prāṇa," he uses only one sentence. The rules of rhetoric
demand that a sentence have only one correct interpretation, and therefore if we
say that the word prāṇa here refers to three different objects, we shall break that
rule. This is the true meaning: There are three possible ways to interpret the
meaning of prāṇa in this context: 1. Take all these passages, including what
directly mentions Brahman, as referring to the individual spirit soul and living-
force; 2. Take these passages as referring some to the individual soul and living-
force, and some to Brahman. and 3. Take these passages as all referring to
Brahman. The first possibility has already been clearly refuted, The second
possiblity is not very acceptable, for it recommends that there are three distinct
objects of worship. Śrīla Vyāsadeva says the third possibility is actually logical
because āśritatvāt (this view is supported by the statements of Vedic literature).
We may see that many passages in Vedic literature that seem to refer to the
individual spirit soul or the living force, in fact refer to Brahman.
If at this point someone were to object: Is it not true that in this passage the
natural sense of the words supports the interpretations of the individual spirit
soul and the living force?" I would reply by saying: In this passage the worship of
prāṇa is described as the most beneficial activity for the living entities. For this
reason the interpretation of the Supreme Brahman is logical. For this reason Śrīla
Vyāsadeva states in the sūtra, tad-yogāt (because this is logical).
Someone may then object: Is it not true that the scriptures explain that the
prāṇa and prajñā both reside within the body of the individual spirit soul, and also
leave that body together at the time of death? How is this possible if you say that
prāṇa means "Brahman"?
To this objection I reply: Brahman is present in the body of the individual spirit
soul in two ways: as kriyā-śakti (the potency of action), which is also known as

prāṇa, and as jñāna-śakti (the potency of knowledge), which is also known as
prajñā. Both are manifested from Brahman. These two potencies remain within the
body of the individual spirit soul, and also leave it together at the time of death.
Another objection may be raised in the following words: Is it not true that
prāṇa and the other words you claim are names of the Supreme Brahman are all
actually adjectives, and therefore cannot function as names?
To this objection I reply: This not true. These words are simultaneously
adjectives and nouns. When Indra says prāṇo 'smi prajñātmā (I am prāṇa, prajñā,
and ātmā), he uses these words as nouns. For these reasons prāṇa, prajñā, and
other words used by Indra should be understood to refer to Brahman.
At this point a further objection may be raised: Is it not true that in the
beginning you adequately demonstrated that the word prāṇa refers to Brahman?
Most of your arguments are redundant.
To this objection I reply: This is not true. In the beginning I dispelled the
doubts that may have arisen in regard to the single word prāṇa taken by itself.
After that I discussed the word prāṇa in relation to a specific quotation, where it
was related with other words, such as ānanda, and in this discussion I
demonstrated that the word prāṇa was used there in such a way that it could only
be understood to mean Brahman, and not the individual spirit soul, or anything
else. For this reason I have discussed this specific passage of Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad
separately.
Pada 2
Adhikaraṇa 1
The Word "Manomaya" Refers to Brahman
Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
manomayādibhiḥ śabdaiḥ
svarūpaṁ yasya kīrtyate
hṛdaye sphuratu śrīmān
mamāsau śyāmasundaraḥ
In the First Pada of this chapter it was said that one should inquire about the
Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the creator of all
universes. Certain words used in Vedic literature were also clearly shown to refer
to that Supreme Brahman. In the Second and Third Padas it will be demonstrated
that certain other words, although less clearly related to Brahman, also describe
Him.
In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, Śāṇḍilya-vidyā (3.14.1) the following explanation is
given:

sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma taj jalān iti śānta upāsīta. atha khalu kratumayaḥ
puruṣaḥ. yathā kratur asmin loke puruṣo bhavati tathetaḥ pretya bhavati. sa kratuṁ
kurvīta. manomayaḥ prāṇa-śarīro bhā-rūpaḥ satya-saṅkalpa ākāśātmā sarva-karmā
sarva-kāmaḥ sarva-gandhaḥ sarva-rasaḥ sarvam idaṁ abhyāto avākyān ādaraḥ.
"Everything is Brahman. From Him everything has come. The peaceful sage
should worship Brahman with this idea. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is
the activities of devotional service. When devotional service is performed in this
world the Supreme Personality of Godhead is present. As one performs devotional
service in this life he will attain an appropriate body after death. The Supreme
Personality of Godhead is known by those whose minds are pure. He is the
controller of all life. He is effulgent and glorious. His every desire is automatically
fulfilled. He is all-pervading. He is the original creator of everything. He fulfills all
desires. He possesses all pleasant fragrances. He is all sweetness. He is present
everywhere. He cannot be described in words. He cannot be known."
Saṁśaya: Do the adjectives (beginning with manomaya) in this passage describe
the jīva or the Paramātmā?
Pūrvapakṣa: The words manaḥ and prāṇa here appropriately describe the jīva.
The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (2.1.2) explains: aprāṇo hy amanāḥ śubhraḥ (The splendid
Supreme Person has neither breath nor mind). Because this passage from the
Chāndogya Upaniṣad contradicts the description of the Supreme Lord in this way,
it should be understood to refer to the jīva. The opening words sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ
brahma (Everything is Brahman) do not necessarily mean that the entire passage
following them are about Brahman, but are merely spoken so that the worshiper
may become peaceful. The teaching there is that because Brahman is everything
one should become peaceful. The rest of the passage should then be understood to
refer to the jīva and the word brahma at the end of the passage should also be
understood to refer to the jīva.
Siddhānta: The proper conclusion is:
Sūtra 1
sarvatra prasiddhopadeśāt
sarvatra—everywhere; prasiddha—celebrated; upadeśāt—because of the teaching.
(The word "manomaya" here refers to the Paramātmā) because (in this passage)
the famous (attributes of the Paramātmā as are taught) everywhere (in Vedānta
literature are) described.

॥ श्रीमद्ब्रह्मसूत्रम् — प्रथमाध्याये द्वितीयः पादः ॥
॥ सर्वत्रप्रसिद्ध्यधिकरणम् (सूत्रम् १) ॥
सूत्रम्: सर्वत्र प्रसिद्धोपदेशात् ॥ १।२।१ ॥
विषयवाक्यम् (छान्दोग्योपनिषद् ३।१४।१-२):
"सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म तज्जलानिति शान्त उपासीत... मनोमयः प्राणशरीरो भारूपः..."
श्रील बलदेवविद्याभूषण-कृत-गोविन्दभाष्य-तात्पर्यम् (हिन्दी-अनुवादसहितम्):
[तात्पर्यम्]: यह प्रसंग परमात्मा का ही निरूपण करता है, जीवात्मा का नहीं।
ऐसा क्यों? क्योंकि जो गुण केवल परमात्मा में ही संभव हैं—जैसे सम्पूर्ण जगत् का स्रष्टा होना—
तथा जिनका वर्णन वेदान्त-शास्त्रों में सर्वत्र (सर्वत्र प्रसिद्ध) मिलता है,
वे सभी गुण इस प्रसंग में 'तज्जलान्' इत्यादि पदों द्वारा स्पष्टतः कहे गए हैं।
यद्यपि इस प्रसंग का प्रारम्भिक वाक्य "सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म" साक्षात् ब्रह्म-निरूपण के लिए नहीं,
अपितु चित्त के उपशम (शान्ति) के विधान के लिए प्रयुक्त हुआ है,
तथापि आगे आने वाला 'मनोमयः' शब्द निश्चित रूप से परब्रह्म परमात्मा का ही प्रतिपादन करता है।
यहाँ 'क्रतु' शब्द का अर्थ 'उपासना/भक्ति' है तथा 'मनोमय' का अर्थ है—'विशुद्ध मन द्वारा ग्राह्य'।
जैसा कि बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (४।४।१९) में कहा गया है:
"मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्"
(अर्थात् परमात्मा को केवल विशुद्ध अन्तःकरण द्वारा ही साक्षात्कृत किया जा सकता है)।
तैत्तिरीय-श्रुति का यह वचन कि:
"यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह"
(जहाँ से वाणी और मन परमात्मा को पूर्णतया प्राप्त किए बिना लौट आते हैं),
इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि अज्ञानी जन परमात्मा के वास्तविक स्वरूप को नहीं जान सकते,
तथा परम ज्ञानी एवं मुनिजन भी उनके अनन्त गुणों की पूर्ण सीमा को मन-वाणी से नहीं नाप सकते।
'प्राणशरीर' शब्द का अर्थ है—"जो समस्त प्राणों एवं जीवन का नियन्ता (प्रेरक) है।"
कुछ आचार्यों के अनुसार इसका अर्थ यह भी है—"जिनका दिव्य अप्राकृत स्वरूप प्राणों से भी अधिक प्रिय है।"
श्रुति में जो "अप्राणो ह्यमनाः" (मुण्डक २।१।२) कहा गया है,
उसका अर्थ यह है कि परमात्मा परम स्वतन्त्र हैं, उन्हें प्राकृत प्राण अथवा भौतिक मन की अपेक्षा नहीं है;
अथवा इसका अभिप्राय यह है कि वे प्राकृत (भौतिक) प्राण और मन से रहित हैं, न कि दिव्य स्वरूप से।
श्रुति-शास्त्र अन्यत्र भी परमात्मा को 'मनोवान्' (दिव्य मन से सम्पन्न) तथा
"आनीदवातम्" (प्राकृत वायु के बिना ही नित्य प्राणवन्त) कहकर निरूपित करता है।
अन्य शास्त्रों में भी परमात्मा को 'मनोमय' शब्द से सम्बोधित किया गया है, जैसे:
श्रुति-प्रमाण १ (मुण्डकोपनिषद् २।२।७):
"मनोमयः प्राणशरीरनेता"
(अर्थात्: वे विशुद्ध मन द्वारा ज्ञेय हैं तथा प्राण और स्थूल शरीर के नियन्ता एवं पथप्रदर्शक हैं।)
श्रुति-प्रमाण २ (तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद् १।६।१):
"स एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशस्तस्मिन्नयं पुरुषो मनोमयोऽमृतमयो हिरण्मयः"
(अर्थात्: हृदय-गुहा के भीतर जो दहराकाश है, उसमें यह अमृतमय, ज्योतिर्मय एवं विशुद्ध मन द्वारा ग्राह्य पुरुष विद्यमान है।)
श्रुति-प्रमाण ३ (कठोपनिषद् ६।९):
"हृदा मनीषा मनसाभिक्लृप्तो य एतद्विदुरमृतास्ते भवन्ति"
(अर्थात्: जो साधक हृदय, बुद्धि और विशुद्ध मन की एकाग्रता द्वारा उन परमेश्वर को जान लेते हैं, वे अमर हो जाते हैं।)
श्रुति-प्रमाण ४ (केनोपनिषद् / बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् ४।४।१८):
"प्राणस्य प्राणः"
(अर्थात्: वे समस्त प्राणों के भी मूल प्राण हैं।)

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the life of all life."
—Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.18
Sūtra 2
vivakṣita-guṇopapatteś ca
vivakṣita—wished to be said; guṇa—qualities; upapatteḥ—because of being
appropriate; ca—and.
The word "manomaya" here must refer to Brahman) because the qualities
(given here) most appropriately describe Brahman.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Manomaya (knowable by the pure mind), prāṇa-śarīra (the controller of life),
bhā-rūpa (effulgent and glorious) and the other qualities mentioned here are
appropriate for the Supreme Personality of Godhead but not at all for the jīva.
Sūtra 3
anupapattes tu na śārīraḥ
anupapatteḥ—because of inappropriateness; tu—indeed; na—not; śārīraḥ—the
jīva.
(The word "manomaya" here) cannot refer to the jīva because the qualities
(described in this passage) cannot be attributed to him.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The manomaya her cannot refer to the jīva because it is not possible that the
qualities described here refer to the tiny, glowworm-like jīva.

Sūtra 4
karma-kartṛ-vyapadeśāc ca
karma—object; kartṛ—agent; vyapadeśāt—because of the statement; ca—also.
And because the distinction is drawn here between the agent and the object.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
With the words (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.14.4) etam itaḥ
pretyābhisambhavitāsmi (After death I will attain Him) at the end the manomaya is
clearly designated as the object of the sentence and the jīva, with the words
abhisambhavitāsmi (I will attain) is clearly identified as the agent. Therefore the
manomaya, being the object, must be different from the jīva, which is the agent.
The manomaya must therefore be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The word
abhisambhavitāsmi here describes meeting. The jīva meets the Supreme Lord as a
great river meets the ocean.
Sūtra 5
śabda-viśeṣāt
śabda—words; viśeṣāt—because of the difference.
(The word "manomaya" here cannot refer to the jīva because the words are in
different cases.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The text says (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.3) eṣa ma ātmāntar-hṛdaye (He is
within my heart). In these words the devotee jīva is placed in the genitive case and
the object of his worship is placed in the nominative case. Because the jīva and the
object of his worship are in different cases they must be two distinct persons.

अतः यहाँ 'मनोमय' अवश्य ही परम पूज्य परमेश्वर ही हैं,
जो कि उपासक जीव से सर्वथा भिन्न हैं।
सूत्र ६
स्मृतेश्च ॥ १.२.६ ॥
स्मृतेः — स्मृति-शास्त्र के प्रमाण से; च — भी।
और स्मृति-शास्त्र के वचन से भी (यही सिद्ध होता है)।
श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण विरचित गोविन्द-भाष्य
परमेश्वर जीव से भिन्न हैं, इस सिद्धान्त की पुष्टि
भगवद्गीता (१८.६१) के निम्नलिखित वचन से भी होती है:
ईश्वरः सर्वभूतानां
हृद्देशेऽर्जुन तिष्ठति ।
भ्रामयन् सर्वभूतानि
यन्त्रारूढानि मायया ॥
"हे अर्जुन! परमेश्वर समस्त जीवों के हृदय-देश में स्थित हैं और
भौतिक प्रकृति रूपी यन्त्र पर आरूढ़ सभी जीवों को
अपनी माया से परिभ्रमण करा रहे हैं।"
पूर्वपक्ष (शङ्का): छान्दोग्योपनिषद् (३.१४.३) में
मनोमय का वर्णन इन शब्दों में मिलता है: "एष म आत्मान्तर्हृदयेऽणीयान्व्रीहेर्वा यवाद्वा"
(हृदय के भीतर स्थित यह आत्मा धान अथवा जौ के दाने से भी अधिक सूक्ष्म है)। इस श्रुति से स्पष्ट होता है कि
अत्यन्त सूक्ष्म परिमाण होने के कारण मनोमय अवश्य ही 'जीव' होना चाहिए,
परमेश्वर नहीं।
सूत्र ७
अर्भकौकस्त्वात्तद्व्यपदेशाच्च नेति चेन्न निचाय्यत्वादेवं व्योमवच्च ॥ १.२.७ ॥
अर्भक — अल्प/सूक्ष्म; ओकस्त्वात् — स्थान/आश्रय होने से; तत् — उसका; व्यपदेशात् — निर्देश/वर्णन होने से;
च — और; न — नहीं; इति — ऐसा; चेत् — यदि कहें तो; न — ऐसा नहीं है; निचाय्यत्वात् — ध्यान/उपासना के प्रयोजन से;
एवम् — इस प्रकार; व्योमवत् — आकाश के समान; च — भी।