Click here to load whole tree
NITAAI-Veda.nyf > All Scriptures By Acharyas > Baladeva Vidyabhushana > Vedanta Sutra > Chp 2

Chapter 2

 

 

Pada 1

 

 

Mangalacarana By Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

duryuktika-dronaja-bana-vikshatam*

parikshitam yah sphutam uttarashrayam

sudarshanena shruti-maulim avyatham

vyadhat sa krishnah prabhur astu me gatih

 

 

 

(Translation 1) With His sudarshana-cakra Lord Krishna protected (the great devotee) Parikshit, who within Uttara's womb was wounded by the arrows of the wicked son of Drona. Lord Krishna may him free from all suffering and enlightened him with the crest jewel of Vedic knowledge. I pray that Lord Krishna may become my shelter.

 

(Translation 2) With the perfect logic of His scriptural analysis, Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa

protected the Upanishads, which contain the answers to all questions, and which were wounded by the arrows of the black crows of false logicians. Lord Vyasa made the Upanishads free from all suffering. I pray that Lord Vyasa may become my shelter. 

Note: By carefully using certain ambiguous words Shriila Baladeva Visyabhushana has composed this verse so it has two distinct meanings.

 

Adhikarana 1

The Sankhya Philosophy Refuted

 

 

Introduction By Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Vishaya---In the First Chapter was proved that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is faultless, is the master of unlimited inconceivable potencies, has unlimited transcendental virtues, is the Supersoul present everywhere, is different from everything, is the creator of the material world and the ingredient of which the creation is made, is the controller and master of everything, is the object of Vedanta study, and is described by all the Vedas.

     In the Second Chapter the arguments claiming that this Vedanta philosophy is contradicted by the smriti- shastra and by logic will be refuted, the sankhya theory that pradhana is the original cause of creation will be refuted with clear logic, and the Vedanta explanation of creation will be proved to be the only truth. These are the topics that will be described. In the beginning the idea that the shruti-shastra contradicts the Vedanta view will be refuted.     

 

     Samshaya---Is the view that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original cause of everything refuted by the sankhya-smriti or not?

     Purvapaksha---According to Vedanta philosophy the sankhya-smriti is untrue. The sankhya smriti was written by the great sage Kapila as a commentary to explain the jnana-kanda portion of the Vedas. He hoped in this way to teach the path of liberation. Kapila firmly approved of the agnihotra-yajnas and other rituals described in the karma-kanda portion of the Vedas. The shvetashvatara Upanishad (5.2) glorifies him in the words rishim prasutam kapilam (the great sage Kapila). In his Kapila-smriti, which contains statements like atha tri-vidha-duhkhatyanta- nivrittir atyanta-purusharthah (the complete cessation of the threefold miseries of the material world is the ultimate goal of human life) and na drishtartha-siddhir nivritter apy anuvritti-darshanat (The threefold miseries cannot be completely stopped by any method seen in this world, for whenever they are stopped it is seen that they always return) he explained in the words vimukta-mokshartham svartham va pradhanasya (the pradhana creates the material world either to fulfill the living entities' material desires or grant them liberation), the words acetanatve 'pi kshiravac ceshtitam pradhanasya (although it is lifeless and unconscious, the pradhana creates this world just as milk spontaneously creates cheese), and other statements of his writings, the truth that insentient pradhana is the independent creator of the material universes. If the idea that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original cause of everything is accepted, then the statements of the Kapila-smriti must be held to be useless. This is especially so because the Kapila-smriti is a book of philosophy with the understanding of the ultimate truth as its sole objective. For this reason the Vedanta texts must be interpreted in such a way that they do not contradict the great Kapila-smriti. This interpretation, even if it contradicts the Manu-smriti and other smriti- shastras would not make these scriptures useless. Because these scriptures explain the karma-kanda portion of the Vedas, and because they explain the path of dharma (and not theoretical philosophy), they would not be made useless by contradicting their philosophical basis. 

     Siddhanta---To this argument he replies---

 

Sutra 1

 

smrity-anavakasha-dosha-prasanga iti cen nanya-smrity- anavakasha-dosha-prasangat

 

If someone objects that the Vedanta philosophy should not be accepted because it contradicts the Kapila-smriti, then I say: No. The Kapila-smriti should not be accepted because it contradicts the other smriti-shastras.

 

Purport By Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     The word anavakasha in this sutra means "without any proper place." This means "useless and irrelevant." the sutra says: If someone says "When interpreted literally, the Vedanta texts seem to denounce the Sankhya-smriti as untrue. This is a great mistake. For this reason the Vedanta texts should be interpreted metaphorically (so not to contradict the sankhya- smriti)," then I say no. Why? The sutra says: anya-smrity- anavakasha-dosha-prasangat (The Kapila-smriti should not be accepted because it contradicts the other smriti-shastras). To reject the Manu-smriti and the other smritis that follow the Vedanta philosophy and declare the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be the sole original cause of all causes is a great mistake. In these scriptures the Supreme Personality of Godhead is proved to be the original cause of the creation, maintenance, and destruction of the material universes. These scriptures do not accept Kapila's conclusions.

     In this question the Manu-smriti (1.5-9) says:

 

asid idam tamo-bhutam*

aprajnatam alakshanam

apratarkyam avijneyam

prasuptam iva sarvatah 

 

"The material universe was dark, unconscious, amorphous, inconceivable, and unknowable. It was as if completely asleep.     

 

tatah svayambhur bhagavan*

avyakto vyanjayann idam

maha-bhutadi-vrittaujah

pradurasit tamonudah      

 

"The self-manifested Supreme Personality of Godhead, who had been unmanifested, then manifested within this world. He manifested the material elements and dispelled the darkness.

 

yo 'sav atindriya-grahyah*

sukshmo 'vyaktah sanatanah

sarva-bhutamayo 'cintyah

sa esha svayam udbabhau

 

"He who is beyond the reach of the material senses, who is subtle, unmanifested, eternal, inconceivable, and within whom everything rests, then personally appeared i this world.

 

so 'bhidhyaya sharirat svat*

sishrikshur vividhah prajah

apa eva sasarjadau

tasu bijam avashrijat

 

"Desiring to create the many living beings from His own body, He meditated and then created the waters. In the waters He placed a seed. 

tad andam abhavad dhaimam*

sahasramshu-sama-prabham

tasmin jajne svayam brahma

sarva-loka-pitamahah

 

"That seed became a golden egg as splendid as the sun. In that egg was born the demigod Brahma, the grandfather of all living beings."

 

     Parashara Muni (Vishnu Purana 1.1.31-32) also says:

 

vishnoh sakashad udbhutam*

jagat tatraiva ca sthitam

sthiti-samyama-kartasau

jagato 'sya jagac ca sah

 

"From Lord Vishnu this material was manifested. In Him it rests. He controls it. This material world is His property, and He is this material world.

 

yathornanabho hridayad*

urnam santatya vaktratah

taya vihritya bhuyas tam

grasaty evam janardanah

 

"As a spider creates a web within its chest and then manifests it from its mouth, so does Lord Vishnu manifest this world and then swallow it again."

 

The other smritis also present the same view. They are not merely explanations of karma-kanda duties. They teach karma-kanda duites as a means to purify the heart so knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead may arise there. In this way they may be understood as explanations of the jnana-kanda portion of the Vedas. This effort to purify the heart is seen in the following statement of the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.5.4.22): tam etam vedanuvacanena (By studying the Vedas and performing spiritual activities, the brahmanas understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead). Although in some places they grant results such as the attainment of rain, sons, or residence in Svargaloka, these results are intended to bring faith in the words of the Vedas. This is confirmed by the Katha Upanishad (1.3.15) in the words sarve vedah yat-padam amananti (All the Vedas aspire to attain the feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead) and the shrimad- Bhagavatam (2.5.15) in the words narayana-para vedah (The Vedic literatures are made by and are meant for the Supreme Lord). Because it contradicts the conclusions of the Vedas, the Sankhya-smriti cannot properly explain the meanings of the Vedas. A text that agrees with the conclusions of the Vedas may properly explain the Vedas. The Sankhya-smriti does not even agree with the conclusion of the Vedas. The Sankhya-smriti invented by Kapila contradicts the Vedas. It is not a genuine scripture. Because it is thus worthless we do not fear to reject it. Even if it was written by a famous author, a book that contradicts the Vedas should not be accepted. There are many smritis presenting many different philosophies that are all worthless because they contradict the truths of the Vedas. Smriti that contradicts the Vedas should be rejected, and smriti that follows the teachings of the Vedas should be accepted.

      Using evidence from the smritis that support the Vedas, we shall refute the smritis that reject the Vedas. In this way we shall proclaim those smritis to be in error because they contradict the other smritis.

     The quotation from shvetashvatara Upanishad (5.2) rshim prasutam kapilam yas tam agre jnanair bibharti (The great sage Kapila is full of knowledge) does not give authority to the Sankhya-smriti. Because the Upanishads would not glorify a sage who opposed the Vedic conclusion, the Kapila here must be a person different from the author of the Sankhya-smriti. The Taittiriya Brahmana, however, considers Manu (the author of Manu- smriti) an exalted authority in these words: yad vai kincana manur avadat tad bheshajam (Whatever Manu has said is certainly the cure for the ills of this world). In the same way the smriti says that by the mercy of Pulastya Muni and Vasishtha Muni, the sage Parashara (the author of the Vishnu Purana) attained transcendental knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. However, the Kapila who wrote a book contradicting the Vedas, and who was born in the family of Agni, was an ordinary jiva bewildered by the illusory potency maya. He was not the same Kapila who was born as the son of Kardama Muni and who was an incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Vasudeva. This is so because the Padma Purana says:

 

kapilo vasudevakhyah*

sankhyam tattvam jagada ha

brahmadibhyash ca devebhyo

bhrigv-adibhyas tathaiva ca

 

tathaivasuraye sarvam

vedarthair upabrimhitam

sarva-veda-viruddham ca

kapilo 'nyo jagada ha

. . .sankhyam asuraye 'nyasmai

 

kutarka-paribrimhitam

 

"One Kapila Muni, who was named Vasudeva, spoke to Brahma and the other demigods, asuri Muni, Bhrigu Muni, and the other sages, a sankhya philosophy in perfect harmony with the Vedas. Another person, also named Kapila, spoke a different sankhya philosophy contradicting the teachings of all the Vedas. . .He spoke his illogical theories to a different asuri Muni."

 

Therefore, because it contradicts the Vedas, and because its author is not a genuine spiritual authority, there is no fault in rejecting the sankhya-smriti.

 

Sutra  2

 

itaresham canupalabdheh

 

(The Sankhya-smriti should be rejected also) because many of its other doctrines are not seen (in the Vedas).

 

Purport By Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     Because many of its other doctrines are not seen in the Vedas, the Sankhya-smriti is not an authentic scripture. Thus it teaches that the living entities are all- pervading spirit-souls and that the material energy creates the liberated and conditioned states of these souls. It teaches that both bondage and liberation are both different aspects of the material energy. It teaches that there is no one distinct person who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Lord of all. It teaches that time is not real. It teaches that the five pranas (life-airs) are identical with the five senses. These and other similar doctrines may be seen in the Sankhya-smriti.

 

Adhikarana 2

Yoga Refuted

 

Introduction By Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     An opponent may say: "The Vedanta texts should not be interpreted in the terms of the Sankhya-smriti because it is opposed to the conclusion of Vedanta. Howver, the Vedanta may be explained by the Yoga-smriti, for it is said that the Yoga-smriti is based on Vedanta. Indeed, yoga is part of the Vedas. This may be seen from the following descriptions. The Katha Upanishad (2.3.11) says tam yogam iti manyante sthiram indriya-dharanam (The sages consider yoga to be firm restraint of the senses). the Katha Upanishad (2.3.18) again says vidyam etam yoga- vidhim ca kritsnam (He understood everything about the philosophy and practice of yoga). This may also be seen from the following description of the yoga postures in the shvetashvatara Upanishad (2.8): trir unnatam sthapya samam shariram (One should practice yoga, holding the body straight and the head, neck, and chest erect). The great authority Lord Patanjali composed the Yoga-smriti (to teach) men how to overcome the disadvantaged position of living in the material world. In the first two sutras of the Yoga-smriti he says atha yoganushasanam (Now yoga will be taught) and yogash citta-vritti- nirodhah (Yoga stops the activities of the mind). When the Vedas are interpreted literally the yoga- smriti may not be always in harmony with them because the yoga-smriti teaches about yoga exclusively. The Manu-smriti and other dharma-shastras, however, because they only teach the performance of religious duties, are always in harmony with the Vedas. Therefore the Vedas should not be interpreted in a literal sense. They should be interpreted in the light of the Yoga- smriti.

     Siddhanta---The conclusion follows.

 

Sutra 3

 

etena yoga-prayuktah

 

By the preceding refutation of sankhya, yoga is also refuted.

 

Purport By Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     By the preceding refutation of the Sankhya-smriti, the Yoga-smriti is understood to be also refuted. This is so because the Yoga-smriti also contradicts the Vedanta philosophy. When the Vedanta is interpreted according to the Yoga-smriti, the the Manu-smriti and the other smritis that follow the Vedas, all become meaningless. For this reason the Vedanta should not be interpreted according to the Yoga-smriti. It cannot be said that the Yoga-smriti does not contradict Vedanta. In the Yoga-smriti  the pradhana is held to be the original independent cause of all causes. Both the Supreme Personality of Godhead and all jivas are held to be all- pervading consciousness only. Liberation, obtained only by yoga, is described as merely the cessation of pain. Because it contradicts the Vedanta on these points, the Yoga-smriti should not be accepted. Also because its views on sensory perception and other sources of knowledge,  its views on mental activities, and many other of its views, are outside of the Vedanta conclusions, the Yoga-smriti should not be accepted. These views are found only in the Yoga-smriti. Because it is opposed to Vedanta its conclusions are all worthless. For this reason we do not fear to reject it. We reject it just as we rejected sankhya previously. The truth about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the jivas, liberation, and the method to attain liberation, which are all revealed in the Vedanta philosophy, will be shown, one by one, in the later portions of this book. This being so, in the two quotations from shvetashvatara Upanishad (2.8 and 6.13), trir unnatam sthapya samam shariram (One should practice yoga, holding the body straight and the head, neck, and chest erect), which describes the yoga-asanas, and tat-karanam sankhya-yogadhigamyam (The original cause of all causes, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, may be known by either sankhya or yoga), the word sankhya is used merely to mean "knowledge," and in the same way the word yoga is used merely to mean "meditation." The two philosophies that go by the names yoga and sankhya should be understood to be philosophies different from the conclusions of Vedanta.

     Liberation is not attained by following the path of yoga, nor is it attained by the knowledge of sankhya, where the soul is distinguished from matter. The shvetashvatara Upanishad (3.8) says tam eva viditvati mrityum eti (One can overcome the path of birth and death only by understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead). The Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.21) says vijnaya prajnam kurvita (One should meditate on the Supreme Personality of Godhead). The scriptures also say etad yo dhyayati rasati bhajati so 'mrito bhavati (He who meditates on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, finds his happiness in Him, and worships Him, attains liberation).

     We are not opposed to those portions of the sankhya and yoga philosophies that do not contradict the Vedas. However, we completely reject those portions that contradict the Vedas. 

     Although the Yoga-smriti teaches faith in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as in the passages ishvara- paridhanad va (Yoga may be attained by devotion to the Supreme Personality of Godhead) and klesha-karma- vipakashayair aparakrishtah purusha-vishesha ishvarah (God is a single specific person who is untouched by suffering or the fruits of action), still many people reject these sutras and say that their author was bewildered when he spoke them. Actually it is Gautama Muni and other atheists who are bewildered, for they propound theories that defy the Vedas. (The author of Vedanta) will refute these theories (in future sutras). Even though they were very learned and intelligent, still they were bewildered. In the opinion of some they had become very proud, thinking themselves omniscient, and in the opinion of others they were bewildered by the illusory potency of Lord Hari, who had His own purpose in making them speak these theories.

     Because the yoga philosophy accepts the existence of God, there may be some reluctance to reject it. Therefore in order to refute the yoga philosophy the argument from the previous Adhikarana is repeated here. Even though it was authored by the demigod Brahma himself, the yoga-smriti is rejected here. 

 

Adhikarana 3

The Vedas Are Eternal and Infalliable

 

Introduction By Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     Some followers of sankhya and yoga may argue: "You may reject the sankhya-smriti and yoga- smriti because they contradict the Vedas, but we reject the Vedas because they contradict sankhya and yoga." The following is a refutation of this argument.

     Samshaya---Are the Vedas are reliable source of knowledge or not?

     Purvapaksha---the Vedas say karirya yajate vrishti-kamah (He who desires rain should perform a kariri-yajna). If one thus performs a kariri-yajna or other Vedic ritual, he may not necessarily attain the promised result. For this reason the Vedas are an unreliable source of knowledge.

     Siddhanta---The conclusion follows.

 

Sutra 4

 

na vilakshanatvad asya tathatvam ca shabdat

 

 

     Because they have a fundamentally different nature, and because their own words are evidence for them, the Vedas are not an unreliable source of knowledge.   

 

Purport By Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     The Vedas are not an unreliable source of knowledge, as the sankhya-smriti and yoga- smriti are. Why? The sutra says vilakshanat (Because they have a fundamentally different nature). This means that because they were written by jivas, the sankhya-smriti and yoga- smriti are subject to the four defects of being prone to mistakes, illusions, cheating, and defective perception. the Vedas, however, because they are eternal, are free from these defects. The shruti says vaca virupa nityaya (O Virupa, the Vedas are eternal) and the smriti says:

 

anadi-nidhana nitya*

vag utshrishta svayambhuva

adau vedamayi divya

yatah sarvah pravrittayah

 

"In the beginning of creation the Supreme Personality of Godhead spoke and from His words the eternal, beginningless, endless, transcendental Vedas were manifested. From the Vedas all other scriptures have come."

 

The Manu-smriti and the other smritis authoritative because they have emanated from the Vedas. In a previous sutra (1.3.29) the eternity of the Vedas was proved by logic, and in this sutra it is proved by the Vedas themsleves. That is the difference between these two sutras.

     An opponent may object: "In the Purusha-sukta (Rn Veda 10.90.9) are the words:

 

tasmad yajnat sarva-huta*

ricah samani jajnire

chandamsi jajnire tasmad

yajus tasmad ajayata    

 

'From that sacrifice all fire-sacrifices, the rig Veda and the Sama Veda were born. From it the Vedic hymns were born. From it the Yajur Veda was born.' This passage proves that the Vedas were born and, because they were born, must also perish in the end. For this reason the Vedas are not eternal."

     To this opponent I say: No. It is not so. The word "born" here means "manifested" (not born in the ordinary sense). For this reason the scriptures say:

 

svayambhur esha bhagavan*

vedo gitas tvaya pura

shivadya rishi-paryantah

smartaro 'sya na karakah

 

"O Lord, You first recited the self-manifested, transcendental Vedas. Ziva, the demigods, and the sages, are not the authors, but are only reciters of the Vedas." 

 

     The Vedas do not cease to be a source of genuine knowledge because sometimes the results promised by it do not occur. This so because the promised results always occur when the Vedic rituals are performed by properly qualified persons. When sometimes the promised results do not occur, this means that the performer of the rituals was not properly qualified. Therefore, because they contradict the Vedas the sankhya- smriti and yoga-smriti are not genuine sources of knowledge.

 

Adhikarana 4

The Words "Fire" and "Earth" Refer to the Devas

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     Someone may say: "In the Chandogya Upanishad is the following passage: tat teja aikshata bahu syam. ta apa aikshanta bahvyah syamah (Fire thought: 'Let me become many,' and the waters thought: 'Let us become many'), and in the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad is this passage: te heme prana aham rireyase vivadamana brahma jagmuh ko no viriishtah (The breaths quarrelled over who was the best among themselves. They went to the demigod Brahma and asked: 'Who is the best amongst us?') These impossible statements are as plausible as saying 'The barren woman's son is very splendid.' For this reason the Vedas are not a genuine source of knowledge. Because in this way one portion of the Vedas is found to be not authoritative, the other portions of the Vedas are also not authoritative, and therefore the Vedas' claim that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original creator of the material world is not true. If this objection is raised, then he answers in the following words---

 

Sutra5

 

abhimani-vyapaderias tu virieshanugatibhyam

 

Because the elements are called demigods, and because there is a description of the demigods entering the elements, the words here refer to the presiding deities of the elements (and not the elements themselves).

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     The word tu (but) is used here to dispel doubt. The passage (Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.3) tat teja aikshata (the fire thought) refers to the conscious, thinking fire-god, and not to the inanimate fire element. Why? The sutra says virieshanugatibhyam (because the elements are called demigods, and because there is a description of the demigods entering the elements). The previously quoted passage of the Chandogya Upanishad continues by affirming (6.3.2) that the fire, water, and food previously mentioned in the passage are demigods: hantaham imas tisro devata (I am these three demigods). The Kaushitaki Upanishad (2.14) says sarva ha vai devata aham rireyase vivadamanah. . .te deva prane nihrireyasam viditva (All the demigods argued, each saying "I am the best.". . .The demigods finally understood that among them breath is the best). The breath and each of the other senses in this passages are described as "demigods." For this reason it may be understood that the names of the senses and elements here refer to the demigods that control them. The Aitareya aranyaka (2.4) says agnir vag bhutva mukham praviriat. . . adityari cakshur bhutvakshini praviriat (The fire-god became speech and entered the mouth. . .The sun-god became sight and entered the eyes). Because this passage explains how the fire-god enters speech and the other demigods enter the other senses, (it may again be understood that the names of the senses and elements here refer to the demigods that control them). The Bhavishya Purana says:

 

prithivyady-abhimaninyo*

devatah prathitaujasah

acintyah riaktayas tasam

dririyante munibhiri ca tah

 

"The sages know that the word 'earth' and the names of the other elements are names of the powerful demigods, whose potencies are beyond conception."

 

     The passage gravanah plavante (the stones float) praises the demigods, who were able, in a certain way, to enter even the stones. This happened when Lord Rama began to build the bridge (of stones). In this way nothing in the Vedas is incorrect, and the Vedic statement that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the sole creator of the material universes is clearly proved.

 

Adhikarana 5

That The Supreme Personality of Godhead Is The Original Creator Is Proved By Logic

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     Taking shelter this time of logic, the sankhya philosopher again tries to refute the idea that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ingredient of which the material universe is made. Although in the words (Sankhya-smriti 6.35) riruti-virodhan na kutarkapasadasyatma-labhah (Self-realization is not attained by mere logic, for logic contradicts the Vedas) it rejects mere logic, the sankhya philosophy (hypocritically) does so only to defeat its opponents.

     Samshaya---Is or is not the Supreme Personality of Godhead the ingredient of which the material universe is made?

     Purvapaksha---Is the Supreme Personality of Godhead the ingredient of which the material universe is made? No, because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is completely different from this world of matter. It is generally accepted that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is all-knowing, all- powerful, completely pure, and full of all transcendental bliss. The material universe, on the other hand, is directly seen to be full of ignorance, weakness, impurity, and misery. Therefore there is no debate about whether the two of them have differing natures. That a substance and the ingredient of which it is made must have the same nature is clearly seen. For example clay, gold, and thread are the ingredients of which poettery, crowns, and cloth are made. However, because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is different in nature from the material universe, another ingredient should be sought. That ingredient is pradhana because pradhana possesses the same nature as this material universe filled with material happinesses, material sufferings, and various illusions. In order to prove that the Supreme Personality of Godhead has the same nature as the material universe, someone may say: "Within the Supreme Personality of Godhead are two very subtle potencies: a conscious spiritual potency, and an inert material potency. In this way the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ingredient of which the material universe is made." Because it states that a very subtle potency is the ingredient of which the very gross material world is made, even this argument does not resolve the great difference between the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the material universe. Other differences between the two may also be seen. In this way the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not the ingredient of which the material universe is made. Although logic must be subordinate to scripture, still, in order to understand the truth scripture must sometimes be subordinate to logic. This is the statement of the Purvapaksha.

     Siddhanta---He now refutes this argument.    

 

Sutra 6

 

drishyate tu

 

But this is (not) seen by direct perception.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     The word tu (but) is used here to dispel doubt. The word na (not), taken from the previous sutra, should be understood in this sutra also. Someone may say: "Because He is different in nature, the Supreme Personality of Godhead cannot be the ingredient from which the material universe is made." The answer is given: "Because it is many times seen that there is a difference between things and the ingredients of which they are made, it cannot be said that the Supreme Personality of Godhead cannot be the ingredient of which the material universe is made." The material universe is made from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, just as many things are manifested from sources very different in nature, just as worms come from honey, as elephants, horses, and other animals come from the kalpa-drumatree, and as gold and other things come from the cintamani jewel. The atharvanikas give the following example (Mundaka Upanishad 1.1.7):

 

yathornanabhih shrijate grinate ca*

yatha prithivyam oshadhayah sambhavanti

yatha satah purushat keria-lomani

tathaksharat sambhavatiha virivam

 

 

"As a spider expands and withdraws its web, as innumerable plants sprout from the soil, and as hairs grow on a person's body, so is the material universe manifested from the imperishable Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

Adhikarana 6

Nothingness Is Not The First Cause

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     Someone may object: "If the material world is different from its ingredient, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then before the world was manifested, it was not already existent within the Supreme. Before it was manifested it did not exist. Because the Supreme Personality of Godhead alone existed then, in the beginning the material world did not exist. However this view cannot be held by they who affirm that the the material world is real because it is created by the Supreme Reality." If this objection is raised, he replies is the following words.

 

Sutra7

 

If someone maintains the material world to be unreal, then I say no. The world is not unreal merely because it is in nature different from the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     There is no fault in this. Why? The sutra says pratishedha-matratvat (The world is not unreal merely because it is in nature different from the Supreme Personality of Godhead). The previous sutra denied that a substance and its ingredient must have the same nature. It is not that a thing and its ingredient are different in substance. This is so because the Supreme Personality of Godhead becomes transformed, becoming the body of the material world, which is by nature different from Him. This is the meaning: Is it because 1. His nature is different from the nature of the world, or because 2. none of His qualities are present in the world that you reject the idea that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ingredient of the material world? The first is not a good reason because (difference) is naturally present in the relation between ingredient and product. For example a clay pot or other piece of pottery is, because it is not an amorphous lump, unlike the ball of clay that is its ingredient. In this way they are different. The second argument is, because existence (sat) and many other qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are present in the material world, not a valid argument either.

     If the objection is raised: "The qualities of the ingredient that differentiate it from other things should be transferred from the ingredient to the substance it creates. The qualities that distinguish gold from thread are also seen to distinguish golden bracelets and other ornaments from cloth made of thread," then the following answer may be given: "Because insects come from honey, many other things are also created from ingredients very unlike the final product, and even articles of gold often present a nature very different from the original substance, this argument is not valid. Just as gold is not different from the cintamani jewel that created it and a bracelet is not different from the gold that created it, in the same way the material world, because it is created from the Supreme Reality, is not different from Him, and is therefore not unreal.

 

Sutra 8

 

apitau tadvat prasangad asama/vjasam

 

(Someone may object: "If the Supreme Personality of Godhead were the ingredient of which the material world is made, then) at the time when the material world is destroyed, (the Supreme Personality of Godhead would be destroyed). Because this view is untenable (the Supreme Personality of Godhead cannot be the ingredient of the material world)." 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

      If the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of all subtle spiritual potencies, is the ingredient from which the material world, which consists of both matter and spirit, and which thwarts the spiritual aspirations of the living entities,  then at the time of cosmic devastation, (when the material universes enter the Lord's body), the Lord must become like the material world (infected with all its faults). In the sutra's word tadvat the word tad is in the genitive case and the word vat means "like."

 

 

 

( CHAPTER II   Pada 1 - Sutras 9 onwards and the complete Pada 2 missing!)

 

 

 

 

Pada 3

 

Adhikarana 1

Ether Is Created

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

vyomadi-vishayam gobhir

     bibharti vijaghana yah

sa tam mad-vishayam bhasvan

     krishnah pranihanishyati

 

 

     May the brilliant sun of Lord Krishna, who with rays of logic destroys a host of misconceptions about ether and the other elements, destroy the misconceptions in my heart.

 

     In the Second Pada were revealed the fallacies present in the theories of they who say pradhana is the the first cause and they who claim something other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the first cause. In the Third Pada will be shown the truth that the various elements of the material world are manifested from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, that they merge into Him at the end, that the individual spirit souls always existed, there not being a point in time when they were created, that the individual spirit souls have spiritual bodies full of knowledge, that the individual spirit souls are atomic in size although by their consciousness they are all-pervading within the material body, that the individual spirit souls are part-and-parcel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, that Matsya-avatara and the other avataras are directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and that the variety of situations into which the conditioned souls are placed is caused by the previous karma. These will all be proved by refuting the ideas of they who claim that these statements are not true.

     The various aspects of the material world are created in the following sequence: 1. pradhana, 2. mahat-tattva, 3. false-ego, 4. the tan-matras, 5. the senses, and 6. the gross elements, beginning with ether. This sequence is given in the Subala-shruti and other scriptures. The sequence found in the Taittiriya Upanishad and other scriptures will also be discussed in order to show that sequence does not contradict what has already been said.

     Chandogya Upanishad (6.2.1) explains:

 

 

sad eva saumyedyam agra asit

 

 

     "O gentle one, in the beginning the Supreme Personality of Godhead alone existed."

 

     Chandogya Upanishad (6.2.3-4) continues:

 

tad aikshata bahu syam prajayeyeti tat tejo 'shrijata. tat teja aikshata bahu syam prajayeyeti tad apo 'shrijata . . . ta apa aikshanta bahvayah syama prajayemahiti ta annam ashrijanta.

 

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead thought: `I shall become many. I shall father children.' Then He created fire. Then fire thought: `I shall become many. I shall father children.' Then fire created water. . . . Then water thought: `I shall become many. I shall father children.' Then water created grains."

 

     In this way it is clearly shown that fire, water, and grains were created. In this, however, there is a doubt.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Was ether ever created or not?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): Because the Shruti-shastra does not mention any creation of ether, therefore ether was never created, but was always existing.

 

     This idea is expressed in the following sutra.

 

 

Sutra 1

 

 

     na viyad ashruteh

 

     na—not; viyat—ether; ashruteh—because of not being described in the Shruti-shastra.

 

 

     Not so for ether, because that is not described in the Shruti-shastra.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Ether is eternal and was never created. Why is that? The sutra explains: "Because that is not described in the Shruti-shastra." The relevant passage of Chandogya Upanishad mentions the creation of the other elements, but it does not mention the creation of ether. In the previously quoted passage of Chandogya Upanishad the creation of fire, water, and grains is mentioned. However there is no mention of the creation of ether. For this reason ether must not have been created. That is the meaning.

     This idea is refuted in the following sutra:

 

 

Sutra 2

 

 

     asti tu

 

     asti—is; tu—indeed.

 

 

     Indeed it is so.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     The word "tu" (indeed) is used here to remove doubt. The word "asti" (it is so) means, "It is so that ether was created." Although the creation of ether is not described in the Chandogya Upanishad, it is described in the Taittiriya Upanishad in the following words:

 

 

tasmad va etasmad atmana akashah sambhutah akashad vayur vayor agnir agner apo abhyo mahati prithivi

 

 

     "From the Supreme Personality of Godhead, ether was manifested. From ether, air was manifested. From air, fire was manifested. From fire, water was manifested. From water, earth was manifested."

 

     Another doubt is expressed in the next sutra.

 

 

Sutra 3

 

 

     gauny asambhavac chabdac ca

 

     gauni—figure of speech; asambhavat—because of being impossible; shabdat—because of scripture; ca—also.

 

 

     Because of scripture, and because it is impossible, it must be a mere figure of speech.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     It is not possible that ether was created. This is confirmed by Kanada Muni and other great philosophers. The Taittiriya Upanishad's description of the creation of ether is a mere figure of speech, as when, in ordinary speech one says, "Please make some space" or "Some space has been made". For what other reasons is it not possible that ether is created? Because it is impossible to create ether. It is not possible to create ether because ether is formless and all-pervading, because it is not included in the chain of causes, and because scripture proclaims that ether is not created. Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (2.3.2-3) proclaims:

 

 

vayus cantariksham caitad amritam

 

 

     "Air and ether are both eternal."

 

     This proves that ether was never created.

 

     However, if the passage from the Taittiriya Upanishad used the word "sambhuta" (created) only once to refer to the list of elements beginning with fire, how is it possible to claim that this word is used literally for all the elements and figuratively for ether alone?

     The opponent of Vedanta replies in the next sutra.

 

 

Sutra 4

 

     syac caikasya brahma-shabda-vat

 

     syat—may be; ca—and; ekasya—of one; brahma—Brahma; shabda—the word; vat—like.

 

 

     It may be for one, as in the word "Brahman".

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Taittiriya Upanishad (3.2) it is said:

 

 

tapasa brahma vijijnasasva tapo brahma

 

 

     "By performing austerities strive to understand Brahman, for austerities are Brahman."

 

     In this passage the word Brahman is used in two ways. Used to describe the object of knowledge attained by performing austerities, Brahman is used in its literal sense. Then, equated with austerities, it is used figuratively to mean, "the way to know Brahman". In the same way the word "sambhuta" in the previously discussed passage can be use literally and figuratively simultaneously. In this way the fact that the passage of the Chandogya Upanishad makes no mention of it refutes the description in other Upanishads that ether was created.

     The author of the sutras refutes this idea in the following words.

 

 

Sutra 5

 

 

     pratijnahanir avyatirekac cabdebhyah

 

     pratijna—statement of intent; ahanih—non-abandonment; avyatirekat—because of non-difference; shabdebhyah—from the statements of scripture.

 

 

     It is affirmed because it is not different and because of the statements of scripture.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The Chandogya Upanishad (6.1.3) affirms:

 

 

yenashrutam shrutam bhavati

 

 

     "Now I will teach how to hear what cannot be heard."

 

     In these words the intention to teach about Brahman is expressed. If this intention is not broken, then all that follows must be about Brahman and it must be affirmed that nothing is different from Brahman. The idea that something is different from Brahman is to be rejected. If everything is not-different from Brahman, then Brahman is clearly the ingredient of which everything is made. Thus, simply by knowing Brahman one knows ¨everything. If this is accepted then it is also accepted that ether was created.

 

     The Chandogya Upanishad (6.2.1) again affirms:

 

 

sad eva saumyedam agra asid ekam evadvitiyam aitad-atmyam idam sarvam

 

 

     "O gentle one, in the beginning the Supreme Personality of Godhead alone existed. He was alone. There was no one else. Everything has Him as its ingredient."

 

     These words affirm that in the beginning everything was manifested from Him, and after the creation was manifested everything had Him as its ingredient. This should be accepted.

 

     Here someone may object: There is no clear statement in that Upanishad that ether was created. How can you talk like that?

 

     In the following words the author of the sutras replies to this objection.

 

 

Sutra 6

 

 

     yavad vikaram tu vibhago loka-vat

 

     yavat—to what extent; vikaram—creation; tu—indeed; vibhagah—creator; loka—the world; vat—like.

 

 

     Indeed, if there is a creation there must be a creator, as we see in the world.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "tu" (indeed) is used here to remove doubt. The Chandogya Upanishad explains:

 

 

aitad-atmyam idam sarvam

 

 

     "Everything has Him as its ingredient."

 

     This statement shows that there is both a creator and a creation. When the Subala Upanishad and other scriptures explain that the pradhana, mahat-tattva, and other things are created, they imply that everything that exists was created. That is the meaning.

     The following example from the material world may be given. A person may say, "All these are the sons of Caitra." In this way he affirms that they were all born from a man named Caitra. In the same way, when the Upanishad affirms that, “Everything has the Supreme Personality of Godhead as its ingredient," it is clear that pradhana, mahat-tattva, and everything else has come from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Thus when the Upanishad states that fire, water, and grains come from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, it means to say that ¨everything comes from Him. In this way it is understand that ether also was created.

     The word "vibhagah" in this sutra means “creation". Sutra 3 affirmed that it is not possible for ether to have been created. However, the Shruti-shastra affirms that the Supreme Personality of Godhead has inconceivable powers. Even though it may be inconceivable, He can do anything without restriction. In some passages it is said that ether is immortal, which means that it is neither created nor destroyed. These statements may be taken as figures of speech because we can find other passages describing the creation and destruction of ether.

     Because ether is counted among the elements it must be created and also destroyed. Because ether has temporary material qualities, as fire and the other elements do, it must also be temporary, as the other elements are.

     Whatever is not matter is spirit. Ether is not like spirit. It is different. In this way the idea that ether was not created is disproved. Modern philosophers that state the contrary are wrong. It must be accepted that ether was created.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 2

Air Is Created

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     To show that the same arguments may also show the creation of air, the author of the sutras gives the following explanation.

 

 

Sutra 7

 

 

     etena matarishva vyakhyatah

 

     etena—by this; matarishva—air; vyakhyatah—is explained.

 

 

     This also refers to air.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     This proof that ether was created clearly shows that air, which exists within ether, must also have been created. That is the meaning. This is so because the limbs of something must have the same qualities as the whole of which they are parts.

     Our opponent may object: Because it was never described in the Chandogya Upanishad, it is clear that air was never created.

     To this I reply: The Taittiriya Upanishad explains that air was created from ether.

     Then our opponent may say: That description of the creation of air must have been a figure of speech, because the Shruti-shastra explains that air is eternal.

     To this I reply: The Chandogya Upanishad affirms in a pratijna statement (aitad-atmyam idam sarvam) that everything was created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this way the creation of air is proved. When it is said that air is eternal the intention is that it is so only relative to some other things. Air was discussed in a separate sutra and not discussed together with ether. This was done to facilitate the argument of Sutra 9.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 3

The Eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead Is Not Created

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The Chandogya Upanishad (6.2.1) affirms:

 

 

sad eva saumyedam

 

 

     "O gentle one, in the beginning the Supreme Personality of Godhead alone existed."

 

     A doubt may arise about this statement. Was the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead created or not? Pradhana, mahat-tattva, and many other things that are causes or creators of other things were created, so perhaps the Supreme Personality of Godhead was also created at some point. This may be so because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not really different from these other causes.

     In the following words the author of the sutras addresses this doubt.

 

 

Sutra 8

 

 

     asambhavas tu sato 'nupapatteh

 

     asambhavah—the state of not being created; tu—indeed; satah—of the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead; anupapatteh—because of impossibility

 

 

     Indeed, the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead was never created, for such a creation is impossible.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "tu" (indeed) is used here either to remove doubt or affirm the truth of this statement. The eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead was never created. Why not? The sutra explains: "anupapatteh" (because that is impossible). There is no creator of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, because it is illogical and inappropriate to assume the existence of such a creator. That is the meaning here.

     Shvetashvatara Upanishad (6.9) explains:

 

 

sa karanam karanadhipadhipo

     na casya kashcij janita na cadhipah

 

 

     "the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the cause of all causes. He is the king of all other causes. No one is His creator. No one is His king."

 

     It is not possible to say that because all other causes are created by something else therefore the Supreme Personality of Godhead must have been created by someone else, for such a statement contradicts these words of the Shruti-shastra. A root cause of everything must be accepted, for if it is not then there is an unending chain of causes. By definition the root cause of everything does not have another cause, a root from which it has sprung. This is described in the Sankhya-sutra (1.67) in these words:

 

 

mule mulabhavat

 

 

     "This is so because the root cause of everything is not caused by another root cause."

 

     In this way the doubt that perhaps the Supreme Personality of Godhead is created by someone else is clearly refuted. Because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the first cause of all causes, by definition He is not caused by someone else. However, the secondary causes, such as the avyakta and the mahat-tattva are all created by another cause. The sutras explaining that ether and the other material elements were all created were given as examples of this general truth.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 4

Fire Is Manifested From Air

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     After concluding this discussion, we will consider what seems to be a contradiction in the Shruti-shastra's description of fire. Chandogya Upanishad (6.2.3) explains:

 

 

tat tejo 'shrijata

 

 

     "Then the Supreme Personality of Godhead created fire."

 

     In this way it is explained that the Supreme Personality of Godhead created fire.

 

     However, the Taittiriya Upanishad (2.1.3) explains:

 

 

vayor agnih

 

 

     "From air, fire is manifested."

 

     These words explain that air created fire. Someone may say that in this second quote the word "vayoh" is in the ablative case (meaning "after fire"), and in this way there is no contradiction because both elements were created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and fire was created after air was created.

     Considering that someone may say this, the author of the sutras speaks the following words.

 

 

Sutra 9

 

 

     tejo 'tas tatha hy aha

 

     tejah—fire; atah—from that; tatha—so; hy—indeed; aha—said.

 

 

     Fire comes from it. Indeed, it said that.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     From air comes fire. This is confirmed in the Shruti-shastra, which explains:

 

 

vayor agnih

 

 

 

     "From air comes fire."

 

     The word "sambhuta" is used here. The use of that ¨word shows that the meaning is that from air fire is created. Also, the primary meaning of the ablative-case is "from". If the primary meaning of a word makes sense, then the primary meaning should be accepted. In that circumstance the secondary meaning should not be accepted. As will be explained later, this statement does not contradict the statement that everything is created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 5

Water Is Manifested From Fire

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Now the author describes the origin of water. In some places the scriptures affirm that water is manifested from fire, and in other places the scriptures do not agree with this idea. In this way a doubt arises. To remove this doubt, the author of the sutras gives the following explanation.

 

 

Sutra 10

 

 

apah

 

     apah—water.

 

 

     Water.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     To this sutra should be added the previous sutra's phrase "atas tatha hy aha" (Water comes from it. Indeed it said that.) This means that water is manifested from fire. This is so because the Shruti-shastra declares it. Chandogya Upanishad (6.2.3) explains:

 

 

tad apo 'shrijata

 

 

     "Fire created water."

 

     Taittiriya Upanishad (2.1) also explains:

 

 

agner apah

 

 

     "From fire water was manifested."

 

     These two quotes are clear and need no elaborate explanation. Why water comes from fire is explained in the following words of Chandogya Upanishad:

 

 

tasmad yatra kva ca shocati svedate va purushas tejasa eva tad adhy apo jayante

 

 

     "Heat makes a person produce water. This is so when a person perspires or weeps."

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 6

Earth Is Manifested From Water, and the Word "Anna" in the Chandogya Upanishad Means "Earth"

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Chandogya Upanishad it is said:

 

 

ta apa aikshanta bahvayah syama prajayemahiti ta annam ashrijanta

 

 

     "Water thought: `I shall become many. I shall father many children.' Then water created anna."

 

     What is the meaning of the word "anna" here? Does it mean "barley and other food", or does it mean “earth"?

 

     In the Chandogya Upanishad it is said:

 

 

tasmad yatra kvacana varshati tad eva bhuyishtham annam bhavaty adbhya eva tad adhy annadyam jayate

 

 

     "Therefore, whenever it rains there is abundant anna. In this way anna is produced by water."

 

     This passage seems, therefore, to support the idea that the word "anna" here means barely and other food". To explain the proper meaning here, the author of the sutras speaks the following words.

 

 

Sutra 11

 

 

prithivy-adhikara-rupa-shabdantarebhyah

 

     prithivi—earth; adhikara—context; rupa—color; shabda—quotes from the Shruti-shastra; antarebhyah—because of other.

 

 

     "Because its color, its context, and other quotes from the Shruti-shastra, all confirm that earth is the proper meaning.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Here the meaning "earth" should be accepted. Why? Because of the context and other reasons. It should be accepted because the context (adhikara) of the passage is a description of the creation of the five material elements. It is also so, because the "anna" here is described as being black in color (rupa), in the words:

 

 

yat krishnam tad annasya

 

     "That anna is black in color."

 

     It is also so because in other scriptures (shastrantarebhyah) it is said (in the Taittiriya Upanishad):

 

 

adbhyah prithivi

 

 

     "From water, earth is manifested."

 

     The passage: "Therefore, whenever it rains there is abundant anna. In this way anna is produced by water," clearly uses the word "anna" to mean "food". However, because this passage is in the context of a description of the five material elements being manifested one from the other, the "food" here is a metaphor for "earth". Thus the two meanings "food" and "earth" combine in the word "anna" in this passage.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 7

The Elements Are Manifested From the Supreme Personality of Godhead

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

  

 

     The description here, that the material elements are manifested in a particular sequence, beginning with ether, is given to remove controversy in regard to the sequence in which the elements are manifested. The fact that the pradhana, mahat-tattva, and all the elements are created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead has already been proved in sutra 1.1.2 (janmady asya yatah). Now the author of the sutras begins a more detailed description of that creation. In the Subala Upanishad it is said:

 

 

tad ahuh kim tad asit tasmai sa hovaca na san nasan na sad asad iti tasmat tamah sanjayate tamaso bhutadir bhutader akasham akashad vayur vayor agnir agner apo 'dbhyah prithivi tad andam abhavat

 

 

     "They said: What was in the beginning? He replied: In the beginning was neither existence nor non-existence. Nothing existed and nothing did not exist. In the beginning there was darkness. From the darkness the origin of the material elements was born. From the origin of the material elements, ether was born. From ether, air was born. From air, fire was born. From fire, water was born. From water, earth was born. In this way the egg of the material universe was created."

 

     Here it should be understood that akshara, avyakta, mahat-tattva, tan-matras, and material senses should also be placed, in this sequence, between darkness and ether. This should be done to complement the following statement of Agnimalaya:

 

 

sandagdhva sarvani bhutani prithivy apsu praliyate. apas tejasi praliyante. tejo vayau praliyate. vayur akashe praliyate. akasham indriyeshv indriyani tan-matreshu tan-matrani bhutadau viliyante. bhutadir mahati viliyate. mahan avyakte viliyate. avyaktam akshare viliyate. aksharam tamasi viliyate. tama eki-bhavati parasmin. parasman na san nasan na sad asat.

 

 

     "When the all the elements are burned up, earth merges into water, water merges into fire, fire merges into air, air merges into ether, ether merges into the senses, the senses merge into the tan-matras, the tan-matras merge into the origin of the material elements, the origin of the material elements merges into the mahat-tattva, the mahat-tattva merges into the avyakta, the avyakta merges into the akshara, and the akshara merges into the great darkness. Then the great darkness becomes ¨one with the Supreme. In the Supreme is neither existence nor non-existence. Nothing exists and nothing does not exist."

 

     The word "origin of the material elements" here means "the false-ego". False-ego is of three kinds. From false-ego in the mode of goodness, the mind and the demigods are manifested. From false-ego in the mode of passion, the material senses are manifested. From false-ego in the mode of ignorance are manifested the tan-matras, from which are manifested the ether and the other elements. In this way these different explanations all corroborate each other.

     In the Gopala-tapani Upanishad it is said:

 

 

purvam hy ekam evadvitiyam brahmasit. tasmad avkyatam vyaktam evaksharam tasmad aksharan mahan mahato va ahankaras tasmad ahankarat panca-tan-matrani tebhyo bhutani tair avritam aksharam bhavati.

 

 

     "Before the material world was manifest, only the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is one without a second, existed. From Him came the avyakta. From the avyakta came the akshara. From the akshara came the mahat-tattva. From the mahat-tattva came false-ego. From false-ego came the five tan-matras. From them came the material elements. The akshara is filled with all these."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Do the pradhana and other parts of this sequence arise one from the other or do they all arise directly from the Supreme Personality of Godhead?

 

     Purvapaksha: They arise from each other, for that is the statement of the texts.

 

     Siddhanta (the conclusion): The author of the sutras gives His conclusion in the following words.

 

 

Sutra 12

 

 

tad abhidhyanad eva tu tal lingat sah

 

     tat—that; abhidhyanat—because of meditation; eva—indeed; tu—indeed; tat—that; lingat—because of the body; sah—He.

 

 

     Because of meditation and because of the body, it is indeed He.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "tu" (indeed) is used to dispel doubt. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of all potencies, including the potency of great darkness, the potency that begins the material creation. He is the direct cause, and the pradhana, earth, and other features of the material creation are effects created by Him. Why is that? The sutra explains: "Because of meditation and because of the body."

     The Shruti-shastra explains:

 

 

so 'kamayata bahu syam prajayeya

 

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead desired: Let Me become many. Let me create the material world."

 

     Thus, it is by the desire of the all-powerful Supreme Personality of Godhead that the pradhana and other features of the material world are created. That is how He is the cause of the material world. Also, the material world is the body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Supreme Personality of Godhead enters the great darkness of the material world and transforms it into pradhana and the others aspects of matter. In this sense the material world is His body. This is confirmed by the Antaryami-brahmana of the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad, and also by the Subala Upanishad, which explains:

 

 

yasya prithivi shariram

 

 

     "The world is the body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 8

The Supreme Personality of Godhead Is the Cause of Matter's Transformations

 

 

Sutra 13

 

 

viparyayena tu kramo 'ta upapadyate ca

 

     viparyayena—by the reverse; tu—indeed; kramah—sequence; atah—from this; upapadyate—is manifested; ca—and.

 

 

     Indeed, this sequence is also reversed.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "tu" (indeed) is used here for emphasis. In the Mundaka Upanishad (2.1.3) it is said:

 

 

etasmaj jayate prano manah sarvendriyani ca. kham vayur jyotir apah prithivi vishvasya dharini

 

 

     "From Him are born life, mind, all the senses, ether, air, fire, water, and earth, the support of the world."

 

     In the Subala Upanishad, the sequence is reversed, with pradhana and mahat-tattva coming first. Everything actually comes from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is present within everything, beginning with the life-air and ending with earth, and when one feature of creation comes from another, the second feature actually comes from the all-powerful Supreme Personality of Godhead present within the first feature. If this were not so, then these two different versions would contradict each other. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the origin of all and the creator of all. By knowing Him everything becomes known. The pradhana and other features of matter, being inert and unconscious, cannot by themselves create changes in the material world. That is why the word "ca" (also) is used here. Therefore the Supreme Personality of Godhead is in every case the real cause of these transformations in the material world.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 9

The Supreme Personality of Godhead Is the Creator of Mind and Intelligence

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Now the author of the sutras removes a specific doubt.

 

 

Sutra 14

 

 

antara vijnana-manasi-kramena tal-lingad iti cen navisheshat

 

     antarah—in the middle; vijnana—knowledge; manasi—and mind; kramena—with the sequence; tat—of that; lingat—because of the sign; iti—thus; cet—if; na—not; avisheshat—because of not being different.

 

 

     If it is said that the sequence of mind and intelligence appears in this way, then I reply: No. Because they are not different.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "vijnana" here means "the material senses of the conditioned soul".

     Here someone may object: It is not proper to assume that this quotation from Mundaka Upanishad (text 2.1.3 quoted in the previous purport) supports the idea that all the features of the material world are directly created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. The list given in that verse merely gives the sequence in which those material features were manifested. It says that first come the material senses and then comes the mind. This does not mean that everything comes directly from the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

     If this objection is raised, then I reply: No. It is not so. Why not? The sutra explains: "na visheshat" (because they are not different). This means that the material senses and the mind are not different from the life-force, the element earth, or any of the other material features. They have all come directly from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this passage the life-force and all the other material features all come from the Supreme Personality of Godhead (etasmat=from Him). That is the meaning. The following scripture quotes also declare that the elements are all created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead:

 

 

so 'kamayata bahu syam prajayeya

 

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead desired: Let Me become many. Let me create the material world."

 

etasmaj jayate pranah

 

     "The life-force and everything else was manifested from the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

     In the Bhagavad-gita (10.8) the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself declares:

 

 

aham sarvasya prabhavo

     mattah sarvam pravartate

 

 

     "I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from me."*

 

     In the Vamana Purana it is said:

 

 

tatra tatra sthito vishnus

     tat tac chaktim prabodhayet

eka eva maha-shaktih

     kurute sarvam anjasa

 

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Vishnu, enters everywhere and awakens the power dormant in everything. He is the supremely powerful one. He does everything perfectly."

 

     In this way it is shown that pradhana and all other material features all come directly from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That fact is not at all contradicted by the sequence of events presented in the Subala Upanishad and the other scriptures. This is so because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the creator of the original material darkness, the pradhana and the other features of the material world. Thus when the scripture says tat tejo 'shrijata (The Supreme Personality of Godhead created fire), it is understood that He also created darkness, a host of other potencies, pradhana, air, and other aspects of matter. When the scriptures say tasmad vai (From the Supreme Personality of Godhead everything has come), it is understood that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of material darkness and a host of other potencies, the pradhana and other features of matter were born from Him, and the material element ether was also manifested from Him.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 10

All Words Are Names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Here someone may object: Is it not so that if Lord Hari is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of all, and the all-pervading Supersoul, then the names of all that is moving and inert would also be names of Him? However, this is not so, for words are primarily the names of the various moving and inert things.

     Thinking that someone may accept this idea that words are primarily names of various things and only secondarily names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the author of the sutras gives the following explanation.

 

 

Sutra 15

 

 

caracara-vyapashrayas tu syat tad-vyapadesho 'bhaktas tad-bhava-bhavitvat

 

     cara—moving; acara—and unmoving; vyapashrayah—the abode; tu—indeed; syat—may be; tat—of that; vyapadeshah—name; abhaktah—not figurative; tat—of Him; bhava—the nature; bhavitvat—because of being in the future.

 

 

     Indeed, He resides in all that move and does not move. Therefore it will be learned that every word is one of His names.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "tu" (indeed) is used here to dispel doubt. The word "caracara-vyapashrayah" means that the Supreme Personality of Godhead resides in all moving and unmoving beings. The word "tad-vyapadeshah" means "the names of the moving and unmoving beings". The word “abhaktah" means "these names are primarily names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead". Why is that? The sutra explains: "bhava-bhavitvat" (the real meaning of names will be learned in the future). This means that by studying the scriptures one will come to understand that all words are names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Shruti-shastras explain:

 

 

so 'kamayata bahu syam

 

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead desired: Let Me become many. Let me create the material world."

 

 

sa vasudevo na yato 'nyad asti

 

 

     "He is the all-pervading Supreme Personality of ¨Godhead. Nothing is different from Him."

 

     In the Vishnu Purana (3.7.16) it is said:

 

 

kataka-mukuta-karnikadi-bhedaih

     kanakam abhedam apishyate yathaikam

sura-pashu-manujadi-kalpanabhir

     harir akhilabhir udiryate tathaikah

 

 

     "As golden bracelets, crowns, earrings, and other golden ornaments are all one because they are all made of gold, so all demigods, men, and animals are one with Lord because they are all made of Lord Hari's potencies."

 

     The meaning is this: Names of potencies are primarily the names of the master of these potencies. This is so because the master is the very self of His potencies.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 11

The Individual Spirit Souls Are Eternal and Without Beginning

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Because He is the origin of everything, the Supreme Personality of Godhead has no other origin from which He was created. This has already been described. Now we will determine the nature of the individual spirit soul. First the idea that the individual soul has an origin will be refuted.

     In the Taittiriya Aranyaka, Maha-Narayana Upanishad (1.4) it is said:

 

 

yatah prasuta jagatah prasuti

     toyena jivan vyasasarja bhumyam

 

 

     "From the Supreme Personality of Godhead the universe was born. With water He created the living entities on the earth."

 

     In the Chandogya Upanishad it is said:

 

 

san-mulah saumyemah sarvah prajah

 

 

     "O gentle one, all living entities have their roots in the Supreme."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Do the individual spirit souls have an origin or not?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): Because He is the creator of the material universe, which contains both sentient living entities and insentient matter, the Supreme Personality of Godhead must be the creator of the individual spirit souls. Any other idea would be illogical.

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): The author of the sutras gives the following conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 16

 

 

natma shruter nityatvac ca tabhyah

 

     na—not; atma—the individual spirit soul; shruteh—from the Shruti-shastra; nityatvat—because of being eternal; ca—and; tabhyah—from them.

 

 

     Because the individual spirit soul is eternal, and because of the statements of Shruti-shastra and other scriptures, this idea about the individual spirit soul is not true.

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The individual spirit soul was never created. Why not? The sutra explains: "shruteh" (because of the statements of Shruti-shastra). In Katha Upanishad (1.2.18) it is said:

 

 

na jayate mriyate va vipashcin

     nayam kutashcin na babhuva kashcit

ajo nityah shashvato 'yam purano

     na hanyate hanyamane sharire

 

 

     "O wise one, for the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain."*

 

     That the individual spirit soul was never born is also declared in the Shvetashvatara Upanishad (1.9):

 

 

jnajnau dvav ajav ishanishau

 

 

     "Neither the Supreme Personality of Godhead nor the individual spirit souls were ever born."

 

     The word "tabhyah" in the sutra means "the eternality of the individual spirit soul is described in the Shruti and Smriti -shastras". The word "ca" (and) in the sutra means that the individual spirit soul is also conscious and full of knowledge.

     In the Katha Upanishad (2.5.13) it is said:

 

 

nityo nityanam cetanash cetananam

 

 

     "Of all eternal living souls there is one who is the leader. Of all eternal souls there is one who is the leader."

 

     In the Bhagavad-gita the Supreme Lord explains:

 

 

ajo nityah shashvato 'yam puranah

 

     "The soul is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, and primeval."

 

     Therefore, when it is said, "Yajnadatta is born and again he dies," such words refer only to the external material body. The jata-karma ceremony and other ceremonies like it also refer to the external material body. The individual spirit soul is different from the external material body and resides in it like a passenger. In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.3.8) it is said:

 

 

sa va ayam purusho jayamanah shariram abhisampadyamanah sa utkraman mriyamanah

 

     "At the moment of birth the spirit soul enters a material body and at the moment of death the soul leaves the body."

 

     In the Chandogya Upanishad (6.11.3) it is said:

 

 

jivopetam vava kiledam mriyate na jivo mriyate

 

 

     "The soul resides in the material body. When the body dies the soul does not die."

 

     Here someone may object: How can this be? If this is so, then this fact disagrees with the scriptural description of the individual souls' creation.

     To this objection I reply: The individual spirit souls are said to be created because they are effects of the Supreme. The Supreme Personality of Godhead has two potencies, and these are said to be His effects. Here is what makes these two potencies different. One potency is the pradhana and other inert, unconscious, not alive potencies that are meant to be objects of enjoyment and various experiences. The other potency is the individual spirit souls, who are not inert, dull matter, but are conscious, alive beings, and who are able to enjoy and perceive various experiences. These two potencies share one common feature: that they are both the effects of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this way the scriptural description of the souls' creation is not contradicted. In this way the scriptures are correct, and in this way, also, the individual spirit souls are never born.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 12

The Individual Spirit Souls Are Both Knowledge and Knowers

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Now the author of the sutras considers the nature of the individual spirit soul. In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (3.7.22) it is said:

 

 

yo vijnane tishthan

 

 

     "The individual spirit soul is situated in knowledge."

 

     In another passage it is said:

 

 

sukham aham asvapsam na kincid avedishi

 

 

     "I slept happily. I did not know anything."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is the individual spirit soul unalloyed knowledge only, or is the soul the knower that experiences knowledge?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The individual spirit soul consists of knowledge only. This is confirmed by the statement of Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (3.7.22): "The individual spirit soul is situated in knowledge." The soul is not the knower or the perceiver of knowledge. The intelligence is the knower. Therefore statement, "I slept happily. I did not know anything." is spoken by the intelligence, not by the soul.

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): The author of the sutras gives the following conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 17

 

 

jno 'ta eva

 

     jnah—knower; atah eva—therefore.

 

 

     Therefore he is the knower.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The individual spirit soul is both knowledge and knower. In the Prashna Upanishad (4.9) it is said:

 

 

esha hi drashta sprashta shrota rasayita ghrata manta boddha karta vijnanatma purushah

 

     "The individual spirit soul is the seer, the toucher, the hearer, the taster, the smeller, the thinker, the determiner, the doer, and the knower."

 

     This truth is accepted because it is declared by scripture, not because it is understood by logic. Our acceptance of the truth of scripture is described in sutra 2.1.27:

 

 

shrutes tu shabda-mulatvat

 

 

     "The statements of Shruti-shastra are the root of real knowledge."

 

     In the Smriti-shastra it is said:

 

 

jnata jnana-svarupo 'yam

 

 

     "The individual spirit soul is both knower and knowledge."

 

     Therefore the individual spirit soul is not knowledge alone without being anything else, and this is not at all proved by the statement, "I slept happily. I did not know anything," for such an idea would contradict these scripture statements that affirm the soul to be the knower. Therefore it is concluded that the individual spirit soul is both knowledge and knower.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 13

The Individual Spirit Souls Are Atomic

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Now the author of the sutras considers the size of the individual spirit souls. In the Mundaka Upanishad (3.1.9) it is said:

 

 

esho 'nur atma cetasa veditavyo yasmin pranah pancadha samvivesha

 

 

     "When the life-breath withdraws the five activities, the mind can understand the atomic soul."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is the individual spirit soul atomic or all-pervading?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The individual spirit soul is all-pervading. Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.14) declares that the soul is "mahan" (great). The statement that the soul is atomic is merely a poetic metaphor.

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): The author of the sutras gives the conclusion in the following words.

 

 

Sutra 18

 

 

utkranti-gaty-agatinam

 

     utkranti—departure; gati—travel; agatinam—and of return

 

 

     Because of departure, travel, and return.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In this sutra the word "anuh" (the atomic soul) should be understood from the previous sutra. In this sutra the genitive case is used in the sense of the ablative. The individual spirit soul is atomic and not all-pervading. Why is that? The sutra explains: "Because of departure, travel, and return."

     In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.2) it is said:

 

 

tasya haitasya hridayasyagram pradyotate. tena pradyotenaisha atma nishkramati cakshusho va murdhno vanyebhyo va sharira-deshebhyah

 

 

     "The soul shines in the heart. At the moment of death the effulgent soul leaves through the opening of the eyes, the opening at the top of the the head, or another opening in the ¨body."

 

     In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.11) it is said:

 

 

ananda nama te loka

     andhena tamasavritah

tams te pretyabhigacchanti

     avidvamso 'budha janah

 

 

     "Sinful fools enter into planets known as the worlds of torment, full of darkness and ignorance."

 

     In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.6) it is said:

 

 

prapyantam karmanas tasya

     yat kincedam karoty ayam

tasmat lokat punar etya

     yasmai lokaya karmane

 

 

     "At the time of death the soul reaps the results of his works. He goes to the world where he deserves to go. When the results of his past deeds are exhausted, again he returns to the middle planets, the world of karma."

 

     In this way the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad describes the soul's travel from one place to another. If he were all-pervading, the soul would not be able to travel from one place to another, for he would already be everywhere.

 

     In Shrimad-Bhagavatam (10.87.30) it is said:

 

 

aparimita dhruvas tanu-bhrito yadi sarva-gatas

     tarhi na shasyateti niyamo dhruva netaratha

 

 

     "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 sutras confirms this in the following words.

 

 

Sutra 19

 

 

svatmanash cottarayoh

     sva—own; atmanah—of the soul; ca—and; uttarayoh—of the latter two.

 

 

     Also because the last two refer to the soul.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "ca" (also) is used here for emphasis. Here the word "uttarayoh" (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 sutra 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 Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.2) passage quoted in the previous purport. It is also seen in the following words of Bhagavad-gita (15.4):

 

 

shariram yad avapnoti

     yac capy utkramatishvarah

grihitvaitani samyati

     vayur gandhan ivashayat

 

 

     "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 Kaushitaki Upanishad refutes this idea:

 

 

sa yadasmat sharirat samutkramati sahaivaitaih sarvair utkramati

 

 

     "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-gita (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.

 

 

Sutra 20

 

 

nanur atac chruter iti cen netaradhikarat

 

     na—not; anuh—atom; atat—not that; shruteh—from the scriptures; iti—thus; cet—is; na—not; itara—other; adhikarat—because of being appropriate.

 

 

     If it is claimed that the Shruti-shastra 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 Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Here someone may object: Is it not so that that the individual spirit soul is not atomic? After all, the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.22) affirms:

 

 

sa va esha maha-jana atma

 

 

     "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 sutra replies: "No. It is not so." Why not? The sutra 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 Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.3.7) it is said:

 

 

yo 'yam vijnanamayah praneshu

 

 

     "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 (Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 4.3.13):

 

 

yasyanuvittah pratibuddha atma

 

 

     "He is the self who knows everything."

     These words clearly describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead and not the individual spirit soul.

 

 

Sutra 21

 

 

sva-shabdonmanabhyam ca

 

     sva—own; shabda—word; unmanabhyam—with measure; ca—and.

 

 

     Because of its word and measurement.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "sva-shabda" (the word describing it) here ¨means that the word atomic is used to describe the individual spirit soul. An example of this is in Mundaka Upanishad (2.1.9):

 

 

esho 'nur atma

 

 

     "The soul is atomic in size."

 

     The word "unmana" here means "Its measurement is atomic in size". The precise measurement of the individual spirit soul is given in the Shvetashvatara Upanishad (4.9):

 

 

balagra-shata-bhagasya

     shatadha kalpitasya ca

bhago jivah sa vijneyah

     sa cantantyaya 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 anantya" here means "liberation". "Anta" means "death", and "an" means "without". Therefore the word "anantya" 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 sutras replies in the following words.

 

 

Sutra 22

 

 

avirodhash candana-vat

 

     avirodhah—not contradicting; candana—sandal; vat—like

 

 

     It does not contradict. It is like sandal paste.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     As a drop of sandal paste placed on one part of the body brings a pleasant sensation to the body as a whole, so the soul, although situated in one place, perceives what happens in the entire body. Therefore, there is no contradiction. In the Brahmanda Purana it is said:

 

 

anu-matro 'py ayam jivah

     sva-deham vyapya tishthati

yatha vyapya sharirani

     haricandana-viprushah

 

     "As the sensation created by a drop of sandal paste pervades the entire body, so the individual spirit soul, although atomic in size, is conscious of what happens in the entire body."

 

 

Sutra 23

 

 

avasthiti-vaisheshyad iti cen nabhyupagamad dhridi hi

 

     avasthiti—abode; vaisheshyat—because of being specific; iti—thus; cet—if; na—not; abhyupagamat—because of acceptance; hridi—in the heart; hi—certainly.

 

 

     If it is denied because it has no specific abode, then I say no, because it resides in the heart.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Here someone may object: Is it not so that the drop of sandal paste has a single, clearly visible, place where it resides on the body but the soul has no such single residence in the body? There is no reason to make guesses about the location of the soul in the body. The soul is clearly present everywhere in the body, just as the element ether is present everywhere. Therefore the sandal-paste example is clumsy and wrong.

     If this objection is raised, then the author of the sutras replies: "No. It is not so." Why not? The sutra explains: "Because it resides in the heart." This means that the soul really does reside in a single place in the material body. The soul resides in the heart. This is confirmed in the following words of Prashna Upanishad (3.6):

 

 

hridi hy esha atma

 

 

     "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 sutra.

 

 

Sutra 24

 

 

gunad valokavat

 

     gunat—by quality; va—or; aloka—light; vat—like.

 

 

     By quality or like light.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     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-gita (13.34):

 

 

yatha prakashayaty ekah

     kritsnam lokam imam ravih

kshetram kshetri tatha kritsnam

     prakashayati bharata

 

 

     "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 sutras explains this in the following example.

 

 

Sutra 25

 

 

vyatireko gandhavat tatha hi darshayati

 

     vyatirekah—difference; gandha—fragrance; vat—like; tatha—so; hi—indeed; darshayati—shows.

 

 

     As a fragrance is in a different place, so it is also in a different place. This the scripture shows.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     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 Kaushitaki Upanishad (3.6) explains:

 

 

prajnaya shariram samaruhya

 

 

     "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 Smriti-shastra it is said:

 

 

upalabhyapsu ced gandham

     kecid bruyur anaipunah

prithivyam eva tam vidyad

     apo vayum ca samshritam

 

 

     "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 Prashna Upanishad (4.9) it is said:

 

 

esha hi drishta

 

 

     "The soul is the person who sees."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is the consciousness that the soul possesses eternal or not?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The soul is by nature unconscious. It is like a stone. Consciousness only arises when the soul comes in contact with the mind. This is seen in the scriptures' statement: "I slept happily. I was not conscious of anything." This statement shows that consciousness is not an inherent quality of the soul but rather is attained by contact with something else. It is like iron and fire. When placed in fire, an iron rod gradually assumes the qualities of fire. If it were an inherent quality of the soul, then consciousness would not be lost in deep sleep.

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives the conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 26

 

 

prithag-upadeshat

 

     prithak—separate; upadeshat—because of the teaching.

 

 

     Because there is a specific teaching.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The soul is conscious eternally. How is that known? The sutra explains: "Because there is a specific teaching." Some examples of that teaching follow.

 

     In the Prashna Upanishad (4.9) it is said:

 

 

esha hi drishta

 

 

     "The soul sees eternally."

 

     In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.5.14) it is said:

 

 

avinashi va are ayam atmanucitti-dharma

 

 

     "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 Smriti-shastra:

 

 

yatha na kriyate jyotsna

     mala-prakshalanan maneh

dosha-prahanan na jnanam

     atmanah kriyate tatha

 

 

     "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.

 

 

yathodapana-khananat

     kriyate na jalantaram

sad eva niyate vyaktim

     asatah sambhavah kutah

 

 

     "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?

 

 

tatha heya-guna-dhvamsad

     avarodhadayo gunah

prakashyante na janyante

     nitya evatmano 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 sutras replies in the following words.

 

 

Sutra 27

 

 

tad-guna-saratvat tad vyapadeshah prajna-vat

 

     tat—of that; guna—quality; saratvat—because of being the essence; tat—that; vyapadeshah—designation; prajna—intelligent; vat—like.

 

 

     It is called that because that is its essential nature, just as He who is intelligent.   

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Because the soul is consciousness itself, therefore it is conscious. Why is that? The sutra explains: "It is called that because that is its essential nature."

     In this sutra the word "guna" (quality) refers to the soul's quality of consciousness. The word "sara" means "the essential nature of the thing, the absence of which makes the thing non-existent." The word "prajna-vat" means "Like Lord Vishnu, who is known as “prajna" (all-knowing) because He is all knowledge. Because He is all-knowledge personified, Lord Vishnu 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 sutra.

 

 

Sutra 28

 

 

yavad atma-bhavitvac ca na doshas tad-darshanat

 

     yavat—as long as; atma—of the soul; bhavitvat—because of existence; ca—and; na—not; doshah—fault; tat—of that; darshanat—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 Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     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 sutra 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 sutras replies in the following words.

 

 

Sutra 29

 

 

pumstvadi-vat tv asya sato 'bhivyakti-yogat

 

     pumstva—virility; adi—beginning with; vat—like; tu—but; asya—of him; satah—of the existing; abhivyakti-yogat—because of manifestation.

 

 

     But like virility and other things it exists and then is manifest.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "tu" (but) is used here to dispel doubt. The word "na" (It is not like that) is understood in this sutra. It is not true than consciousness is non-existent in dreamless sleep and only exists in the waking state. Why is that? the sutra 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 sutra 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 following words of Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.3.30):

 

 

yad vai tan na vijanati vijanan vaitad vijneyam na vijanati na hi vijnatur vijnanat viparilopo vidyate avinashitvan na tu tad dvitiyam asti tato 'nyad vibhaktam yad vijaniyat

 

 

     "In the state of dreamless sleep the soul is both conscious and unconscious. The soul is always conscious, and consciousness can never be separated from it, because the soul and its consciousness can never be destroyed. Still, in the state of dreamless sleep no object is presented before the soul for it to be conscious of."

 

     When there is no object for consciousness to perceive, then consciousness is dormant. Therefore in dreamless sleep consciousness is dormant. When the senses contact the sense-objects, then consciousness becomes manifested. Had it not existed in a dormant state during dreamless sleep, consciousness could not have manifested itself in the waking state, just as a person born a eunuch cannot manifest virility at the beginning of adulthood. In this way it is proved that the individual spirit soul is atomic, is consciousness, and is conscious eternally.

 

     Now the author of the sutras refutes the theory of the sankhya philosophers.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is the individual spirit soul consciousness and nothing else? Is the individual spirit soul all-pervading?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The individual spirit soul is all-pervading. This is so because the results of its actions are seen everywhere. Had it been atomic, the soul would be unable to perceive the pains and pleasures present in different parts of the body. Had it been of a medium size, the soul would not be eternal. Therefore the individual spirit soul must be all-pervading.

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives the proper conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 30

 

 

nityopalabdhy-anupalabdhi-prasango 'nyatara-niyamo vanyatha

 

     nitya—eternal; upalabdhi—perceptionl; anupalabdhi—non-perception; prasangah—result; anyatara—otherwise; niyamah—restriction; va—or; anyatha—otherwise.

 

 

     Otherwise there would be eternal consciousness, eternal unconsciousness, or the limited existence of one or the other.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     If the soul were only consciousness and nothing else, and if it were all-pervading, then the soul would be either always conscious or always unconscious. Either that or there would be a limited existence of one or the other. This is the meaning: It is clear to the entire world that consciousness and unconsciousness both exist. If the cause of this were a soul that is consciousness only and also all-pervading, then consciousness and unconsciousness would both be perceived simultaneously at every moment by the entire world. If this all-pervading soul were the cause of consciousness only and not unconsciousness, then no one would ever be unconscious, and if this all-pervading soul were the cause of unconsciousness only and not consciousness, then no one would ever be conscious.

     It cannot be said that consciousness is created by contact with the senses and unconsciousness is created when there is no contact with the senses, because if the soul is all-pervading then it would be always in contact with the senses. Furthermore, if the individual spirit soul were all-pervading then everyone would simultaneously experience the pains and pleasures of everyone else. If this were so there would be no meaning to individual experience, individual desire, or individual destiny. This effectively refutes the theory that the individual spirit soul is all-pervading.

     However, our theory, which affirms that the spirit soul is atomic in size and different in each material body, is not refuted by these considerations. Although atomic in size, the individual spirit soul can act in any place, although it cannot act in every place simultaneously. By its quality of consciousness the individual spirit soul can pervade its material body and perceive the happiness and other sensations present in the various parts of the material body.

 

 

 

Adhikarana 14

The Individual Spirit Soul Performs Actions

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Now the author of the sutras will consider another point. In the Taittiriya Upanishad (2.5.1) it is said:

 

 

vijnanam yajnam tanute. karmani tanute 'pi ca.

 

 

     "Consciousness performs yajnas. Consciousness performs actions."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Does the individual soul, indicated in this passage by the word "consciousness", perform actions or not?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): In the Katha Upanishad (2.18) it is said:

 

 

hanta cen manyate hantum

     hatash cen manyate hatam

ubhau tau na vijanitau

     nayam 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-gita (3.27) it is said:

 

 

prakriteh kriyamanani

     gunaih karmani sarvashah

ahankara-vimudhatma

     kartaham 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-gita (13.21) it is also said:

 

 

karya-karana-kartritve

     hatuh prakritir ucyate

purushah sukha-duhkhanam

     bhoktritve 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.

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives the proper conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 31

 

 

karta shastrarthavat-tvat

 

     karta—the doer; shastra—of the scriptures; artha—meaning; vat—possessing; tvat—because of having the nature.

 

 

     He performs actions. This is so because the scriptures are meaningful.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     It is the individual spirit soul who performs actions, not the modes of material nature. Why is that? The sutra explains: "Because the scriptures are meaningful."  In the scriptures it is said:

 

 

svarga-kamo yajeta

 

 

     "A person who desires Svargaloka should perform yajnas."

 

and

 

 

atmanam eva lokam upasita

 

 

     "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 sutra.

 

 

Sutra 32

 

 

viharopadeshat

 

     vihara—of pastimes; upadeshat—because of the teaching.

 

 

     Because of the teaching about pastimes.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The Chandogya Upanishad (8.12.3) describes the activities of the liberated souls:

 

 

sa tatra paryeti jakshan kridan ramamanah

 

 

     "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.

 

 

Sutra 33

 

 

upadanat

 

     upadanat—because of taking.

 

 

     Because of taking.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (2.1.18) it is said:

 

 

sa yatha maha-rajah . . . evam evaisha etan pranan grihitva sve sharire yatha-kamam 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-gita (15.8) it is also said:

 

 

grihitvaitani samyati

     vayur gandhan ivashayat

 

 

     "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 sutras now gives another reason.

 

 

Sutra 34

 

 

vyapadeshac ca kriyayam na cen nirdesha-viparyayah

 

     vyapadeshat—because of designation; ca—and; kriyayam—in action; na—mpt; cet—if; nirdesha—grammatical construction; viparyayah—different.

 

 

     Also because of the name in the action. If this were not so the grammatical structure would be different.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Taittiriya Upanishad (2.5.1) it is said:

 

 

vijnanam yajnam tanute. karmani tanute 'pi ca.

 

 

     "Consciousness performs yajnas. Consciousness performs actions."

 

     These words clearly show that the individual spirit soul is the primary performer of Vedic and ordinary actions. If the word "vijnanam" 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 “vijnana" 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 darsha, paurnamassa, and other yajnas would not make any sense.

 

     In the following words the author of the sutras refutes the idea that material nature is the real performer of actions.

 

 

Sutra 35

 

 

uplabdhi-vad aniyamah

 

     uplabdhi—consciousness; vat—like; aniyamah—uncertainty.

 

 

     As in the situation of consciousness, it would be indefinite.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In previous sutras 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 sankhya 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.

 

 

Sutra 36

 

 

shakti-viparyayat

 

     shakti—of power; viparyayat—because of difference.

 

 

     Because the power is changed.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     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 Shvetashvatara Upanishad (1.8) affirms:

 

 

bhoktri-bhavat

 

 

     "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.

 

 

Sutra 37

 

samadhy-abhavac ca

 

     samadhi—of liberation; abhavat—because of the non-existence; ca—also.

 

 

     Also because there is no liberation.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     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.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 15

Activity Is the Soul's Nature

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the following words the author of the sutras gives an example to show that the individual spirit soul performs actions, using other its own potency, or some other instrument to perform them.

 

 

Sutra 38

 

 

yatha ca takshobhayatha

 

     yatha—as; ca—and; taksha—carpenter; ubhayatha—in both ways.

 

 

     In both ways like a carpenter.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     As a carpenter performs actions, employing both his own power and a host of tools, so does the individual spirit soul, employing both his own power and the various life-airs. Thus the soul employs the material body and other instruments also, to perform actions. It is the pure spirit soul who thus uses the modes of material nature to perform actions. That is why the scriptures sometimes say that the modes of material nature are the performer of actions.

 

     That the individual spirit soul is indeed the performer of actions is confirmed in Bhagavad-gita (13.22), where it is said:

 

 

karanam guna-sango 'sya

     sad-asad-yoni-janmasu

 

 

     "The living entity in material nature thus follows the ways of life, enjoying the three modes of nature. Thus he meets with good and evil among the various species."*

 

     These words explain the scripture passages that declare the modes of nature to be the performers of action. It is foolish for a person to think himself the sole performer of action and ignore the five factors of action. Of course it is not that the individual spirit soul never performs any action. The idea that the soul never does anything is clearly refuted by the many scriptural statements urging the soul to act such a way that he may attain liberation. When in the Bhagavad-gita (2.19) the Lord says:

 

 

nayam hanti na hanyate

 

     "The self slays not nor is slain."

 

that does not mean that the individual spirit soul never performs any action, but rather that the eternal spirit soul can never be cut or slain. The meaning of the statement that the soul never acts has thus already been explained.

     In both this life and the next the devotees perform various actions of devotional service to the Lord. Because these actions are free from the touch of the modes of nature, because they are under the jurisdiction of the Lord's spiritual potency and because they lead to liberation, these actions are said not to be  action, for they are not material actions. This is explained by the Supreme Lord Himself in these words:

 

 

sattvikah karako 'sangi

     ragandho rajasah smritah

tamasah smriti-vibhrashto

     nirguno mad-apashrayah

 

 

     "One who acts without attachment is in the mode of goodness. One who is blinded with desire is in the mode of passion. One whose intelligence is broken is in the mode of ignorance. One who takes shelter of Me is free from the grip of the modes of nature."

      That the pure spirit soul experiences the results of his actions is described in Bhagavad-gita (13.21):

 

 

purushah sukha-duhkhanam

     bhoktritve hetur ucyate

 

 

     "The living entity is the cause of the various sufferings and enjoyments in this world."*

 

     Because it is by nature conscious it is the soul that experiences the results of actions, the modes of nature do not experience them. This refutes the idea that the modes are active and the soul is not. In this way it is proved that it is the conscious soul who experiences happiness and other sensations. In this way the individual spirit soul brings knowledge to itself and others. Both kinds of action exist for the soul. In the Prashna Upanishad (4.9) it is said:

 

 

esha hi drashta sprashta shrota

 

 

     "It is the soul who sees, touches, and hears."

 

     Thus, by this example of the carpenter, the idea that the individual spirit soul is the only factor in action, and there are no others, is clearly refuted.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 16

The Individual Spirit Soul is Dependent on the Supreme Personality of Godhead

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Now another doubt is considered.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is the individual spirit soul independent in his actions, or does he depend on another?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The scriptures say:

 

 

svarga-kamo yajeta

 

 

     "One who desires Svargaloka should perform yajnas."

 

and

 

 

tasmad brahmanah suram na pibet papmanotsamshrija

 

 

     "A brahmana should not drink liquor and should not commit sins."

 

     That the scriptures give orders and prohibitions for the soul to follow is proof that the soul is independent, for independence means to have the power to do one thing and to refrain from doing another.

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives his conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 39

 

 

parat tu tac-chruteh

 

     parat—from the Supreme; tu—but; tat—of that; shruteh—from the scriptures.

 

 

     But from the Supreme, because of the scriptures.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "tu" (but) is used to remove doubt. The Supreme Personality of Godhead inspires the individual spirit soul to act. How is that known? The sutra explains: "tac-chruteh" (It is known from the scriptures). The scriptures give the following explanations:

 

 

antah pravishtah shasta jananam

 

     "Entering their hearts, the Supreme Personality of Godhead controls all living entities."

 

 

ya atmani tishthann atmanam antaro yamayati

 

 

     "Entering their hearts, the Supreme Personality of Godhead controls all living entities."

 

 

esha eva sadhu karma karayati

 

 

     "The Lord engages the living entity in pious activities so he may be elevated."*

 

     Here someone may object: So be it. However, if the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the actual performer of actions, then the orders and prohibitions of the scriptures are all meaningless. The scriptures can give orders and prohibitions only if the individual spirit soul is independent and thus has the power to make choices.

 

     If this is said, then the author of the sutras gives the following reply.

 

Sutra 40

 

 

krita-prayatnapekshas tu vihita-pratishiddhavaiyarthyadibhyah

 

     krita—done; prayatna—effort; apekshah—relation; tu—but; vihita—ordered; pratishiddha—forbidden; a—not; vaiyarthya—meaninglessness; adibhyah—beginning.

 

 

     But it is by effort because then orders and prohibitions are not without meaning.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "tu" (but) is used here to dispel doubt. The individual spirit soul performs pious and impious deeds. Taking into consideration the individual soul's efforts, the Supreme Personality of Godhead gives him facility to act in a certain way. Therefore the previously stated objection is not valid.

     The pious and impious deeds of the individual spirit soul are like different seeds that sprout into different kinds of plants. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is like the rain that falls on these seeds and makes them grow. Therefore in this situation is the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the instrument by which these seeds of karma bear fruit. The seeds of various trees, vines, and other plants are the specific cause of these plants, and the rain that makes them grow is the general cause. If no raincloud brings water there will not be any variety of sweet flowers or other plants. If there is no seed there will not any flowers or plants either. In this way the Supreme Personality of Godhead gives the results of the pious and impious deeds performed by the individual spirit soul. Even though ¨dispatched by another, a person is still the performer of the actions he does. Therefore it cannot be said that the individual spirit soul does not perform actions.

     Why is that? The sutra explains: "Because then orders and prohibitions are not without meaning." The word “adi" (beginning with) in this sutra means that the Supreme Personality of Godhead gives mercy and punishment according to the pious and impious actions of the individual spirit souls. If that interpretation is accepted, then the orders and prohibitions of the scriptures are not without meaning. If the Supreme Personality of Godhead actually forces the individual spirit soul to act piously or impiously, and the soul is like a rock or a log and has no independence, then the orders of the scripture to perform pious deeds and avoid impious deeds are all worthless and should be rejected.

     The scriptures say that when He is merciful the Supreme Personality of Godhead engages the individual spirit soul in pious activities so he may be elevated, and when He withdraws His mercy the Supreme Personality of Godhead engages the individual spirit soul in impious activities so he may go to hell. If this means that the individual living entity has no choice, and pious and impious deeds are forced on him by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then the Supreme Personality of Godhead is cruel and unjust, a monster. Therefore it must be concluded that the individual spirit soul does have free will, and is responsible for his actions, although he does not have the power to transfer his desire and will into concrete action unless the Supreme Personality of Godhead permits. In this way everything is explained.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 17

The Individual Spirit Soul Is Part and Parcel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Next, to corroborate the previous explanation the author of the sutras explains that the individual spirit soul is part and parcel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the mundaka Upanishad (3.1.1) it is said:

 

 

dva suparna

 

 

     "The soul and the Supersoul within the body are compared to two friendly birds sitting together."*

 

     The first bird here is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the second is the individual spirit soul.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is the individual spirit soul in truth the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only seeming to be different because of the illusion of maya, or is the the individual spirit soul part and parcel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, different from the Lord, but related to Him as a ray of sunlight is related to the sun?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): What is the truth? The truth is the individual spirit soul covered by the illusion of maya is in truth the same as the Supreme Personality of Godhead? The Brahma-bindu Upanishad (13) explains:

 

 

ghata-samvritam akasham

     niyamane ghate yatha

gato liyeta nakasham

     tadvaj jivo nabhopamah

 

 

     "The space within a jar is not moved when the jar is moved, nor is it destroyed when the jar is broken. The spirit soul is like that unbreakable space."

 

     The Chandogya Upanishad also (6.8.7) affirms:

 

 

tat tvam asi

 

 

     "You are that."

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives his conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 41

 

 

amsho nana vyapadeshad anyatha capi dasa-kitavaditvam adhiyate eke

 

     amshah—part; nana—many; vyapadeshat—because of the teaching; anyatha—otherwise; ca—and; api—also; dasa—servant; kitava—gambler; adi—beginning with; tvam—the state of being; adhiyate—is read; eke—some.

 

 

     He is a part because of the description of being many, and also because some scriptures describe him as a servant, as a gambler, or as something else.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The individual spirit soul is a part and parcel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead as a ray of sunlight is part and parcel of the sun. The individual spirit soul is different from the Lord, dependent on the Lord, and related to the Lord. That is the meaning. Why is that? The sutra explains: "Because of the description of being many." The Subala Upanishad explains:

 

 

udbhavah sambhavo divyo deva eko narayano mata pita bhrata nivasah sharanam suhrid gatir narayanah

 

 

     "Narayana is the transcendental Supreme Personality of Godhead. Narayana is the creator, destroyer, mother, father, brother, home, shelter, friend, and goal."

 

     In Bhagavad-gita (9.18) Lord Krishna declares:

 

 

gatir bharta prabhuh sakshi

     nivasah sharanam suhrit

 

 

     "I am the goal, the sustainer, the master, the witness, the abode, the refuge, and the most dear friend. I am the creation and the annihilation, the basis of everything, the resting place, and the eternal seed."*

 

     The words "nana vyapadeshad" in this sutra describe the many relationships that exist between the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the individual spirit soul, relationships like that between the creator and created, controller and controlled, shelter and person who takes shelter, master and servant, friend and friend, and goal and seeker. Some passages in the Atharva Veda declare that because the Supreme is all-pervading, the individual spirit souls and the Supreme are identical. The Atharva Veda declares:

 

 

brahma dasa brahma dasha brahma kitavah

 

 

     "These servants are the Supreme. These fishermen are the Supreme. These gamblers are the Supreme."

 

     It is not possible that this passage intends to say that the individual spirit soul is actually not different from the Supreme. It is not possible that the Supreme is simultaneously ¨both the creator and created, the pervader and pervaded, nor is it possible that supremely intelligent Lord becomes a servant or other lowly being. If it were true that the individual spirit souls are identical with the Supreme, then the scriptures' advice to renounce the world would become meaningless. Nor is it possible that the Supreme has become covered by the influence of illusion, for illusion has no power to bewilder the Lord. Nor is it possible that the individual spirit souls are parts of the Supreme like fragments cut with a chisel from a great stone, for that would contradict the scriptures' statements that the Supreme can neither be broken nor changed. Therefore the individual spirit soul is different from the Supreme, but related to Him as created to creator, and in other ways also. The individual spirit soul is thus a part and parcel of the Supreme. The truth is that the individual spirit soul is a potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is described in Vishnu Purana (6.7.61):

 

 

vishnu-shaktih para prokta

     kshetrajnakhya tatha para

 

 

     "Originally, Krishna's energy is spiritual, and the energy known as the living entity is also spiritual."*

 

     When it is said that the individual spirit soul is a part of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the word "part" is used in the same way as in the sentence, "The circle of Venus is a one-hundredth part of the moon's circle," or the same way as in the definition, "A part, although situated in a smaller area than the whole, is identical with the whole in substance." The use of the word "part" here is not different from that definition. Thus the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of all potencies, and the individual spirit soul is a part of the Lord's spiritual potency. This, by being a localized manifestation of one of the Lord's potencies, the individual spirit soul is a part of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is their relationship.

     The example of the pot means that when the mistaken identification of the soul for the body is broken, the individual soul meets the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Chandogya Upanishad's statement "tat tvam asi" (You are that) therefore means "You are dependent on the Supreme." The context of that passage supports this view. It does not support any other interpretation. Therefore the individual spirit soul and the Supreme Personality of Godhead are separate and different. One is the controller, the other the controlled. One is all-pervading, the other atomic in size. This is directly seen in the scriptures. It is not possible to prove otherwise. In the next sutra the author continues his explanation.

 

 

Sutra 42

 

 

mantra-varnat

 

     mantra—of the mantras; varnat—from the description.

 

     Because of the description in the Vedic mantras.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Rig Veda (10.90.3) it is said:

 

 

pado 'sya sarva bhutani

 

 

     "All living entities are part and parcel of the Supreme."

 

     In this way the Vedic mantras declare that the individual spirit souls are part and parcel of the Supreme. The word “pada" here means "part". No other meaning makes sense in this context. The word "sarva bhutani" (all living entities) here is in the plural, whereas the word "amshah" (part) in sutra 41 is in the singular. The singular here is used in a generic sense to denote all spirit souls. This kind of usage is also seen in many other places.

 

 

Sutra 43

 

 

api smaryate

 

     api—also; smaryate—in the Smriti-shastra.

 

 

     Also in the Smriti-shastra.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Bhagavad-gita (15.7) Lord Krishna explains:

 

 

mamaivamsho jiva-loke

     jiva-bhutah sanatanah

 

 

     "The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts."*

 

     By using the word "sanatana" (eternal), the Lord refutes the idea that the living entities referred to here are the temporary external bodies in which the eternal souls reside. In this way it is seen that the individual spirit souls are part and parcel of the Supreme and have an relationship with Him. the Supreme is the creator and dominant in other ways also, and the individual spirit souls are dependent on Him. The nature of the individual spirit souls is described in the following passage of Padma Purana:

 

 

jnanashrayo jnana-gunash

     cetanah prakriteh parah

na jato nirvikarash ca

     eka-rupah svarupa-bhak

 

 

     "The individual spirit soul is the shelter of ¨knowledge, has knowledge as one if his qualities, is consciousness, is beyond the world of matter, is never born, never changes, and has one form, a spiritual form.

 

 

anur nityo vyapti-shilash

     cid-anandatmakas tatha

aham artho 'vyayah sakshi

     bhinna-rupah sanatanah

 

 

     "The soul is atomic, eternal, is present by consciousness everywhere in the material body, is by nature full of spiritual bliss and knowledge, has a sense of individual identity, is unchanging, is a witness within the body, is eternal, and is different from the Supreme.

 

 

adahyo 'cchedyo 'kledyo

     'shoshyo 'kshara eva ca

evam-adi-gunair yuktah

     shesha-bhutah parasya vai

 

 

     "The soul can never be burned, cut, moistened, withered, or killed. It has these and many more qualities. It is part and parcel of the Supreme.

 

 

 

ma-karenocyate jivah

     kshetra-jnah paravan sada

dasa-bhuto harer eva

     nanyasyaiva kadacana

 

 

     "Thus the word `ma' refers to the individual spirit soul. The soul is the knower of the field of activities. The soul is spiritual. The soul is an eternal servant of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The soul is never the servant of anyone else.

 

     The phrase "evam-adi-gunaih" (with these and many more qualities) refers to the soul's other qualities, such as his ability to perform actions, to experience sensations, to attain enlightenment, and to enlighten others. The word “enlightenment" here has two features. In the first feature the soul itself attains enlightenment. In the second feature the soul brings enlightenment to others. That is the nature of the soul. A lamp sheds light on itself and on other objects also. A jar or similar object has no power to bring light. Although a lamp may shine, because it is inanimate matter it cannot benefit from its own light. The individual soul, however, can benefit from the light it brings. Because the soul can thus become illuminated, it is said that the soul is spiritual and full of knowledge.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 18

The Lord's Incarnations Are Not Part and Parcel of the Lord, For They Are the Lord Himself

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

     Digressing, for the moment, from the main topic, the author of the sutras next considers the nature of the Lord's incarnations. In the Gopala-tapani Upanishad it is said:

 

 

eko vashi sarva-gah krishna idya

     eko 'pi san bahudha yo 'vabhati

 

 

     "Lord Krishna is the worshipable, all-pervading supreme controller, and although He is one, He manifests in many forms."

 

 

     In the Vishnu Purana (1.2.3) it is said:

 

 

ekaneka-svarupaya

 

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is one, although He has many forms."

 

     Here it is said that the Lord is one because He remains one person, even though He appears in many forms, and He is also called many because of the great variety of these forms. That is the meaning.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Are the incarnations of the Lord, such as the incarnation Matsya, part and parcel of the Lord in the same way the individual spirit souls are, or are They different from the individual spirit souls?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): There is no difference between the individual spirit souls and the incarnations of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives His conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 44

 

 

prakashadi-van naivam parah

 

     prakasha—light; adi—beginning with; vat—like; na—not; evam—thus; parah—the Supreme.

 

 

     The Supreme is not like light or other things.

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Although the Lord's incarnations, such as Lord Matsya, are called "parts" of the Supreme, They are not like the individual spirit souls. Here the author of the sutras gives and example: "The Supreme is not like light or other things." As the sun and a firefly may both be called "light", but are in truth very different, and as nectar and wine may both be called "liquid", but in truth are very different, so the individual spirit souls and the incarnations of the Lord do not have a similar nature, but are very different.

 

 

Sutra 45

 

 

smaranti ca

 

     smaranti—the Smriti-shastras say; ca—and.

 

 

     The Smriti-shastras also say it.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Varaha Purana it is said:

 

 

svamshash catha vibhinnamsha

     iti dvedhamsha ishyate

amshino yat tu samarthyam

     yat-svarupam yatha sthitih

 

 

     "It is said that there are two kinds of parts and parcels of the Supreme: direct parts and separated parts. Direct parts have exactly the same nature as the Lord.

 

 

tad eva nanumatro 'pi

     bhedah svamshamshino kvacit

vibhinnamsho 'lpa-shaktih syat

     kincit samarthya-matra-yuk

 

 

     "Separated parts are different from the Lord. They are atomic in size and have very slight powers.

 

 

sarve sarva-gunaih purnah

     sarva-dosha-vivarjitah

 

 

     "All direct parts of the Lord are filled with all virtues and glories and free of all vices and defects."

 

     In Shrimad-Bhagavatam (1.3.28) it is said:

 

 

ete camsha-kalah pumsah

     krishnas tu bhagavan svayam

 

 

     "All the above mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, ¨but Lord Shri Krishna is the original Personality of Godhead."*

 

     Thus Lord Krishna is the original Supreme Personality of Godhead and the various incarnations, such as Lord Matsya, are parts of Him, but they are not different from Lord Krishna, as the individual spirit souls are. Lord Krishna is like a vaidurya stone, which manifests different colors from moment to moment. In this way Lord Krishna appears in different forms.

     In His various incarnations Lord Krishna may display all or only some of His powers. That is the description of the scriptures. Lord Krishna, the source of all incarnations, displays all of His six transcendental opulences in full. When the Lord does not display all His opulences in full, He appears as an amsha incarnation, and when He displays even fewer of His opulences, He appears as a kala incarnation. In this circumstance He is like a great teacher, learned in the six sciences, who in certain circumstances teaches only a small portion of what he actually knows.

     In the Purusha-bodhini Upanishad it is said that Lord Krishna appears with all His transcendental potencies, headed by Goddess Radha. In the Tenth Canto of Shrimad-Bhagavatam it is said that various transcendental qualities, such as being supreme over all, being filled with great love, being accompanied by loving associates, filling with wonder Brahma, Shiva, and all the demigods, sages, and wise devotees, manifesting many pastimes, such as sweetly playing the flute, that fill everyone with wonder, displaying a great sweetness of transcendental handsomeness, and being very kind and merciful, are eternally manifested in Yashoda's infant Krishna. Lord Matsya and the other incarnations manifest some but not all of these qualities. Still, the incarnations of the Lord are not like the individual spirit souls, for the incarnations actually are the Lord Himself.

     Now the author of the sutras presents another argument.

 

 

Sutra 46

 

 

anujna-pariharau deha-sambandhat jyotir-adi-vat

 

     anujna—permission to act; pariharau—cessation from action; deha—of the body; sambandhat—from the contact; jyotih—eye; adi—beginning with; vat—like.

 

 

     Bondage and liberation come from contact with the material body, like the eye and other things.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Even though they are parts and parcels of the Supreme, the individual spirit souls, because beginningless ignorance, and also because of contact with material bodies, are subject to material bondage and liberation. The incarnations of the Lord, such as Lord Matsya, however, are not subject to such things. This is the description of the Shruti-shastra. In the Shruti-shastra it is also said that the incarnations of the Lord do not have material bodies, but are directly the Lord Himself. That is the ¨great difference between the individual spirit souls and the incarnations of the Lord.

     The word "anujna" here means "permission". It is by the Lord's permission that the individual spirit souls can perform pious and impious deeds, as the Kaushitaki Upanishad (3.8) explains:

 

 

esha eva sadhu karma karayati

 

 

     "The Lord engages the living entity in pious activities so he may be elevated."*

 

     The word "parihara" means "liberation". This is described in the Shruti-shastra:

 

 

tam eva viditvati mrityum eti

 

 

     By understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead one is able to cross beyond this world of death."

 

     Next, speaking the words "jyotir-adi-vat" (like the eye), the author of the sutras gives an example to explain this. The eyes of the living entities are like small portions of the sun. However, the eyes depend on the sun for the power of sight, and if the sun does not give permission, in the form of the sunlight, the eyes cannot see. In this way the eyes are dependent on the sun. The sunlight on the sun-planet, however, is identical with the sun itself, and thus it makes no sense to say they are dependent on the sun. The difference between the individual spirit souls and the incarnations of the Lord is like that, the incarnations being like the sunlight and the souls being like the eyes.

 

 

Sutra 47

 

 

asantatesh cavyatikarah

 

     asantateh—because of imperfection; ca—not; avyatikarah—without bewilderment.

 

 

     Because it is imperfect there can be no mistake.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Because he is imperfect, the individual spirit soul cannot be mistaken for an incarnation of the Lord. The individual spirit souls are therefore not the same as or equal to the incarnations of the Lord, beginning with Lord Matsya, who are all perfect. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad (5.9), the individual spirit soul is described in the following words:

 

 

balagra-shata-bagasya

 

 

     "If we divide the tip of a hair into one hundred parts and then take one part and divide this into another one ¨hundred parts, that ten-thousandth part is the dimension of the living entity."*

 

     Instead of being atomic and limited, as the individual spirit souls are, the Lord's incarnations, beginning with Lord Matsya, are perfect and complete in every way, as the Isha Upanishad explains:

 

 

purnam adah purnam idam

 

 

     "The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete."*

 

     In the following words the author of the sutras shows the great fault in thinking the individual soul identical with the Supreme.

 

 

Sutra 48

 

 

abhasa eva ca

 

     abhasah—fallacy; eva—indeed; ca—also.

 

 

     It is also a fallacy.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In this sutra is refuted the idea that because they are both called "amshas", or parts of the Lord, therefore the individual spirit souls and the incarnations of the Lord are identical. This idea is based on the logical fallacy of sat-pratipaksha (undistributed middle). Because of its imperfect reasoning, this idea is wrong.

     The word "ca" (also) here hints that some examples may be given to show this. One example is that of earth and sky. Earth and sky are both substances, but that does not mean that they are identical. Existence and non-existence are both categories, but that does not mean they are equal. In the same way the individual spirit souls and the incarnations of the Supreme Personality of Godhead may both be parts of the Supreme, but that does not mean that they are equal.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 19

The Individual Spirit Souls Are Not All Alike

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Concluding this digression, the author of the sutras now returns to His original topic. In the Katha Upanishad (2.5.13) it is said:

 

 

nityo nityanam cetanash cetananam

     eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman

 

 

     "The Supreme Lord is eternal and the living beings are eternal. The Supreme Lord is cognizant and the living beings are cognizant. The difference is that the Supreme Lord is supplying all the necessities of life for the many other living entities."*

 

     Samshaya (doubt): In this way it is said that the individual spirit souls are eternal and cognizant. Are the individual spirit souls all alike or are they not?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The individual spirit souls are not different. They are all exactly alike.

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives His conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 49

 

 

adrishtaniyamat

 

     adrishta—of fate; aniyamat—because of difference.

 

 

     Because of different fates.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     As a frog jumps a long distance, the word "na" (not) should be inserted from sutra 44. In this way this sutra means "the individual spirit souls are not all alike. Why is that? The sutra explains: "Even though the individual spirit souls have the same nature, they have different fates." Their fates are beginningless.

     Here someone may object: Are the different fates not created because the individual spirit souls have different desires and different aversions?

     The author of the sutras says, "No it is not so," and gives the following explanation.

 

 

Sutra 50

 

abhisandhy-adishv api caivam

 

     abhisandhy—inclinations; adishu—beginning with; api—also; ca—and; evam—thus.

 

 

     In this way there are different desires and other things.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The different natures of the individual spirit souls are to be explained in a different way. These differences exist because of different fates. The word "ca" (and) hints that these differences exist at every moment.

 

     Here someone may object: Is it not so that these differences are created by differing environments, such as the environment of Svargaloka, the earth, or other places?

 

     To this the author of the sutras replies, "No. It is not so." He gives the following explanation.

 

 

Sutra 51

 

 

pradeshad iti cen nantar-bhavat

 

     pradeshat—from the environment; iti—thus; cet—if; na—not; antar-bhavat—because of being understood.

 

 

     If it is said that this is because of environment, then the answer is: No, because there is another reason.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The other reason mentioned here is the differing fates of the individual spirit souls. The differences here cannot be attributed to different environments, for souls in the same environment often manifest great differences.

 

 

 

 

 

Pada 4

 

 

Invocation

 

 

tvaj-jatah kalitotpatah

     mat-pranah santy amitra-bhit

etan shadhi tatha deva

     yatha sat-patha-gaminah

 

 

     O Supreme Personality of Godhead, O destroyer of enemies, my life-breaths, which are born from You, have left the path of virtue. O Lord, please bring them under control and push them on the path that is right.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 1

The Pranas Are Manifested From the Supreme Personality of Godhead

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     In the Third Pada contradictory scriptural passages describing the elements were harmonized. In the Fourth Pada contradictory passages describing the pranas (life-force and senses) will be harmonized. The pranas are of two kinds: primary and secondary. The secondary pranas are the eleven senses, beginning with the eyes. The primary pranas are the five life-airs, beginning with apana. First the secondary pranas will be examined. In the Mundaka Upanishad (2.1.3) it is said:

 

 

etasmaj jayate prano manah sarvendriyani ca

 

 

     "From this are born prana, mind, and all the senses."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is this description of the creation of the senses metaphorical, like the description of the creation of the individual souls, or literal, like the description of the creation of ether and the other elements?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): This is explained in the following words of the Shruti-shastra:

 

 

asad va idam agra asit tad ahuh kim tad asid iti rishayo vava te asad asit tad ahuh ke te rishaya iti prana vava rishayah.

 

 

     "He said: In the beginning was non-being. They said: What was that non-being? He said: The non-being was many sages. They said: Who were those sages? He said: Those sages were the pranas."

 

     This passage from the Shruti-shastra clearly shows that the the senses, which are here called pranas or sages, existed before the creation of the material world. Therefore the senses are like the individual spirit souls (and the scriptures' descriptions of the creation of the senses are only allegories.)

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives His conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 1

 

 

tatha pranah

 

     tatha—so; pranah—the pranas.

 

 

     The pranas are like that.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     As ether and the other elements were manifested from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, so the pranas and the senses were also manifested from Him. That is the meaning here. In the beginning of creation the ingredients of the material world were merged together into one. Then the different ingredients were manifested. This is described in Mundaka Upanishad (2.1.3):

 

 

etasmaj jayate prano manah sarvendriyani ca

 

 

     "From this are born prana, mind, and all the senses."

 

     The creation of the material senses is not like the creation of the conscious individual spirit souls, because the souls are free from the six transformations that are always present in matter. When they describe the creation of the individual spirit souls, the words of the scriptures are all allegories, but when they describe the creation of the senses, the words of the scriptures are literal descriptions. This is so because the senses are by nature material. This being so, the words prana and rishi (sages) in this passage refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is so because both these words are names of the all-knowing Supreme Person.

 

     Here someone may object: Is it not so that because the words "pranah" and "rishayah" (sages) are both in the plural it is not possible that they can here be names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead?

 

     In the following words the author of the sutras answers this objection.

 

 

Sutra 2

 

 

gauny asambhavat

 

     gauni—secondary meaning; asambhavat—because of impossibility.

 

 

     This must be a secondary use of the word, because the primary use is impossible.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The use of the plural in this passage from the Shruti-shastra must be a secondary usage of the plural. Why is that? Because there are not many Gods, there is only one God, the plural cannot be used to describe Him. Still, the plural may be applied to Him to refer to His many different manifestations. Although the Supreme Lord is one, He appears in His many incarnations like an actor assuming different roles or a vaidurya jewel displaying ¨different colors. In this secondary sense the plural is appropriate in relation to Him. This is confirmed by the following words of the Shruti-shastra:

 

 

ekam santam bahudha drishyamanam

 

 

     "Although He is one, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is seen to be many."

 

     The Smriti-shastra also explains:

 

 

ekaneka-svarupaya

 

 

     "Although He is one, the Supreme Personality of Godhead appears in many forms."

 

 

Sutra 3

 

 

tat prak shrutesh ca

 

     tat—that; prak—before; shruteh—from the Shruti-shastra; ca—and.

 

 

     Because the Shruti-shastra declares that He existed before the creation.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Because in the beginning of creation the varieties of material nature were not yet manifested, and thus the material world was all one, it is also not proper to accept the use of the plural here in a literal sense. This is so because the Shruti-shastras declare that in the beginning of material creation only the Supreme Personality of Godhead existed. Therefore the plural here must be used in a secondary sense.

 

     In the following words the author of the sutras gives another reason why the word "prana" should be interpreted as a name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

 

Sutra 4

 

 

tat-purvakatvad vacah

 

     tat—that; purvakatvat—because of being before; vacah—speech.

 

 

     Because speech existed before the material creation.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "vacah" (speech) here means "the names of things other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of many spiritual potencies". This speech existed before the pradhana, the mahat-tattva, and the other features of the material world were created. Because the names and forms of ¨the various material features were not yet created, and because the material senses also were not yet created at that time in the beginning of creation, the word "prana" here must be used as a name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.4.7) explains:

 

 

tad dhedam tarhi

 

 

     "In the beginning they were not manifested. Only later were the material forms and names manifested."

 

     This explains that in the beginning of the material creation the material names and forms were not yet manifested. Thus at that time the material senses as well as the elements beginning with ether, were not yet manifested.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 2

The Senses Are Eleven

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     After refuting this false idea about the senses, an idea that contradicts the descriptions in Shruti-shastra, the author of the sutras refutes a false idea about how many senses there are. In the Mundaka Upanishad (2.1.8) it is said:

 

 

sapta pranah prabhavanti tasmat

     saptarcishah samadhih sapta-homah

sapteme loka yeshu sancaranti

     prana guhashaya nihita sapta sapta

 

 

     "From Him come the seven pranas, the seven arcis, the seven homas, and the seven lokas. These seven are placed in every heart."

 

     However, in the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (3.9.4) it is said:

 

 

dasheme purushe prana atmaikadasha

 

 

     "In the living entity there are ten pranas. The soul is the eleventh."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Are the pranas seven or eleven?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The purvapaksha speaks the following sutra.

 

 

Sutra 5

 

 

sapta-gater visheshitvac ca

 

     sapta—of seven; gateh—because of going; visheshitvat—because of the specific description; ca—also.

 

 

     Because of the departure of seven and also because of a specific description.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The pranas are seven. Why is that? Because that is the opinion of scripture. In the Shruti-shastra it is said:

 

 

saptanam eva jivena saha sancara-rupaya gateh

 

 

     "Accompanied by the seven pranas, the soul leaves the body."

 

     In the Katha Upanishad (6.10) it is said:

 

yada pancavatishthante

     jnanani manasa saha

buddhish ca na viceshteta

     tam ahuh paramam gatim

 

 

     "The sages say that the supreme goal is attained when the five knowers are at peace and the mind and intelligence are no longer active."

 

     This passage describes the condition of the senses in the state of yogic trance. This passage describes five senses, which begin with the ears. To them are added the mind and intelligence. In this way the living entity has seven senses. The Shruti-shastra also describes five working instruments, beginning with the voice and hands, but these cannot be called senses in the primary meaning of the word because these instruments do not accompany the soul when he leaves the material body and also because these instruments are less useful to the soul than the seven primary senses.

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): If this is said, the author of the sutras replies with the following conclusion.

 

Sutra 6

 

 

hastadayas tu sthite 'to naivam

 

     hasta—the hands; adayah—beginning with; tu—but; sthite—situated; atah—therefore; na—not; evam—like that.

 

 

     But when he is situated in that way, the hands and other instruments are also present. Therefore it is not like that.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "tu" (but) is used here to begin the refutation of the Purvapaksha's objection. Although they are not included among the seven, the instruments beginning with the hands are to be considered among the pranas. Why is that? Because as long as the soul is situated in the material body these instruments help in experiencing various things and in performing various tasks. In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad it is said:

 

 

hastau vai grahah sarva-karmanabhigrahena grihitah hastabhyam karma karoti.

 

 

     "The hands are a sense, for with the hands one grasps things and performs actions."

 

     In this way there are more than seven senses. There are five knowledge-acquiring senses, five working senses, and the mind. In this way there are eleven senses. In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (3.9.4) it is said:

 

atmaikadasha

 

 

     "The atma is the eleventh sense."

 

     The word "atma" here means "the mind". In this way it should be understood.

     There are five objects of perception: sound, touch, form, taste, and smell. To perceive these objects there are five knowledge-acquiring senses: ears, skin, eyes, tongue, and nose. There are five kinds of action: speech, grasping, moving, excretion, and reproduction. To perform these actions there are five working senses: voice, hands, feet, anus, and genital.

     To co-ordinate the actions of all these and to take consideration of the three phases of time (past, present, and future), there is the mind. Sometimes the mind is considered to have four aspects. In this way the actions of the mind are: desiring, coming to conclusions, understanding one's identity, and thinking. To perform these actions the mind is divided into the heart (manah), intelligence (buddhi), false-ego (ahankara), and thinking (citta). In this way there are eleven senses.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 3

The Senses Are Atomic in Size

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Next the author of the sutras considers the question of the nature and size of the senses.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Are the senses all-pervading or are they atomic?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The senses must be all-pervading, for things can be seen or heard from far away.

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives his conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 7

 

 

anavash ca

 

     anavah—atoms; ca—and.

 

 

     They are also atoms.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "ca" (also) is used here to indicate certainty. The eleven senses are atomic in size. This is so because the Shruti-shastra declares that the senses leave the material body. Things can be heard from far away and in other ways be perceived from far away because the quality, or power, of the senses extend beyond the senses themselves. As the individual spirit soul is all-pervading within the material body, from the head to the feet, so the senses can also act at a distance. In this way the theory of sankhya philosophers, that the senses are all-pervading, is refuted.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 4

The Principal Prana (the Life-Force) Has an Origin

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Mundaka Upanishad (2.1.3) it is said:

 

 

etasmaj jayate pranah

 

 

     "From Him the prana (life-force) is born."

 

     Here the word "prana" means "the principal prana".

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is the principal prana (life-force) created in the same way the individual spirit soul is "created" or is this prana created in the same way ether and the other elements are created?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The Shruti-shastra declares:

 

 

naisha prana udeti nastam eti

 

 

     "This prana is never born and never dies."

 

     The Smriti-shastra also declares:

 

 

yat-praptir yat-parityaga

     utpattir maranam tatha

tasyotpattir mritish caiva

     katham pranasya yujyate

 

 

     "Birth and death come and go. How can birth and death affect the prana?"

 

     Therefore it is concluded that the principal prana is “created" in the same way the individual spirit soul is “created".

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives His conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 8

 

 

shreshthash ca

 

     shreshthash—the principal one; ca—also.

 

 

     The principal one also.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     The principal prana (life-force) is created in the same way ether and the other elements are created. This is confirmed in the words of the Mundaka Upanishad (2.1.3):

 

 

jayate pranah

 

 

     "The prana was created."

 

     In its pratijna statement the Mundaka Upanishad declares:

 

 

sa idam sarvam ashrijata

 

 

     "He created everything."

 

     To avoid contradicting these words it must be accepted that the principal prana was also created. For this reason the scriptural passages stating that the prana was never created should be understood allegorically and not literally. One prana is called the principal prana because it maintains the material body. So its meaning can be carried into the next sutra, this sutra is given separately and not joined to the previous sutra.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 5

The Principal Prana (Life-Force) Is Not Air

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

    

     Now the nature of the principal prana (life-force) will be examined.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): is the principal prana air alone, the vibration of air, the activities of air, or a condition of air when it goes to another place? Which is it?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): It is the external element of air. This is confirmed in the following statement of Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (3.1.5):

 

 

yo 'yam pranah sa vayuh

 

 

     "The prana is air."

 

     Or, perhaps the principal prana is the activities of air, the inhalation and exhalation of breath. In this way it is proved that the principal prana is air.

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives His conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 9

 

 

na vayu-kriye prithag upadeshat

 

     na—not; vayu—air; kriye—action; prithak—different; upadeshat—because of the teaching.

 

 

     It is neither air nor the activities of air, because the teaching is that it is different.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The principal prana (life-force) is neither air nor the movements of air. Why is that? The sutra explains: "Because the teaching is that it is different". The previously quoted passage of the Mundaka Upanishad (2.1.3) said that both air and prana are born from the Supreme. In this way it should be understood that air and prana are different, for they are mentioned separately. If air and prana were identical, then there would be no need to mention them separately in this passage. If prana were the movement of air then there would also be no need to mention them both in this way. It is seen that the movements of fire and the other elements are not separately mentioned in this passage. The statement of the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad, that "Prana is ¨air" means that prana is a specific kind of air, and that prana is not a separate element, like fire and the other elements. That is the meaning here.

     In the Kapila-sutra (2.31) it is said:

 

 

samanya-karana-vrittih pranadya vayavah panca

 

 

     "The five airs, beginning with prana, perform that actions of the senses in general."

 

     Thus the sankhya philosophers claim that prana performs the actions of all the senses. This cannot be, for it is not possible for the single prana to perform all the actions of all the senses.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 6

The Principal Prana (Life-Force) Is An Instrument Used By the Soul

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad it is said:

 

 

supteshu vag-adishu prana eko jagarti. prana eko mrityunanaptah. pranah samvargo vag-adin samvrinkte. prana itaran pranan rakshati mateva putran.

 

 

     "When speech and the other senses sleep, prana alone remains awake. Prana alone is untouched by death. Prana controls speech and the other senses. As a mother protects her children, so one prana protects the other pranas."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is this principal prana identical with the independent spirit soul residing in the material body or is this principal prana an instrument that assists the spirit soul?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): Because the Shruti-shastra describes this prana as having many powers and glories, therefore this principal prana is the independent spirit soul.

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives His conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 10

 

 

cakshur-adi-vat tu tat saha shishthyadibhyah

 

     cakshuh—the eyes; adi—beginning with; vat—like; tu—indeed; tat—that; saha—with; shishthya—teaching; adibhyah—because of beginning with.

 

 

     Indeed, it is like the eyes and other senses, because it is taught along with the senses.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Here the word "tu" (indeed) is used to dispel doubt. The prana (life-force) is an instrument used by the individual spirit soul. It is like the eyes or the other senses. Why is that? The sutra explains: "Because it is taught along with the senses." The prana is described along with the eyes and senses. Things of a like nature are generally described together. as example of that is the Brihadratha meters, which are described together. This is also confirmed by the use of the word “adi" (beginning with) in the sutra.

     That the prana is here grouped with the senses is seen in the following passage:

 

yatra vayam mukhyah pranah sa evayam madhyamah pranah

 

 

     "There is a principle prana and there is a secondary prana."

 

     In this way the idea that the prana is the independent spirit soul is refuted.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 7

The Principal Prana (Life-Force) is the Primary Instrument of the Soul

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Here someone may object: Is it not so that if it is to be counted among the senses, the principal prana must have a function to perform where it assists the soul? The principal prana has no such function. Also, if the principal prana is one of the senses, then the senses, beginning with the eyes, would be twelve in number.

 

     In the following words the author of the sutras answers this objection.

 

 

Sutra 11

 

 

akaranatvac ca na doshas tatha hi darshayati

 

     akaranatvat—because of not having a sepcific function; ca—and; na—no; doshah—fault; tatha—so; hi—indeed; darshayati—shows.

 

 

     Also, there is no fault in not having a function, for the scriptures show it.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "ca" (also) is used to answer the previous objection. The word "karana" here means “activity". It is not a defect on the part of the prana that is has no specific function to assist the soul, for it does have an important function in that it is the support and the resting place of the physical senses. That is the meaning here. In the following passage, the Chandogya Upanishad (5.1.1) shows this:

 

 

atha ha prana aham shreyasi vyudire. . . .

 

 

     "The senses argued among themselves. Each one said: `I am the best.' They then approached their father, Lord Brahma, and asked him, `O lord, who among us is the best?' Brahma replied, `He whose departure causes the greatest calamity for the body is the best.

     "Then the voice departed from the body and stayed away for an entire year. When he returned, he asked: `How is it that you were able to live without me?' Although it could not speak, still the body could breathe with the prana, see with the eyes, hear with the ears, and think with the mind. Then the voice again entered the body.

     "Then the eyes departed from the body and stayed away for an entire year. When they returned, they asked: `How is it that you were able to live without me?' Although it could not ¨see, the body could breathe with the prana, speak with the voice, hear with the ears, and think with the mind. Then the voice again entered the body.

     "Then the ears departed from the body and stayed away for an entire year. When they returned, they asked: `How is it that you were able to live without us?' Although it could not hear, still the body could breathe with the prana, see with the eyes, speak with the voice, and think with the mind. Then the ears again entered the body.   

     "Then the mind departed from the body and stayed away for an entire year. When he returned, he asked: `How is it that you were able to live without me?' Although it could not think, still the body could breathe with the prana, see with the eyes, speak with the voice, and hear with the ears. Then the mind again entered the body.

     "When the prana was about to depart it began to uproot all the senses. It became like a spirited horse uprooting the posts to which it is tethered. Then the other senses appealed to the prana, "Please do not go. Please stay with us. You are the best of all of us."

 

     In this way it is seen that the principal prana has an important function to perform in relation to the spirit soul. The soul is the enjoyer and the performer of actions. The soul is like a king, the senses his royal attendants, and the principal prana his prime minister, who helps attain the king's objectives. In this way the prana is the most important of the soul's instruments. However, the prana is still not independent of the soul itself.

 

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 8

The Principal Prana Has Five Functions

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.5.3) it is said:

 

 

sa esha vayuh panca-vidhah prano 'pano vyana udanah samanah

 

 

     "The prana is air. There are five pranas: prana, apana, vyana, udana, and samana."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Are these five, beginning with apana, different from prana, or are they merely different functions of prana?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): Because they have different names and functions, therefore they are different.

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives his conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 12

 

 

panca-vrittir mano-vad vyapadishyate

 

     panca—five; vrittih—functions; manah—the mind; vat—like; vyapadishyate—is said.

 

 

     Like the mind, it is said to have five functions.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The prana is one, although it assumes five different functions when present in the different places, such as the heart, of the body. In this way the prana is described. In this way these are different functions of prana and not different pranas themselves. Because these functions are different, therefore different names are employed. Still, there is no difference in their natures. In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.5.3) it is said:

 

 

prano 'pano vyana udanah samana iti. etat sarvam prana eva.

 

 

     "There are five pranas: prana, apana, vyana, udana, and samana. These five are all one prana."

 

     In this way prana is like the mind. In the Brihad-aranyaka ¨Upanishad (1.5.3) it is said:

 

 

kamah sankalpo vikalpo vicikitsa shraddha dhritir adhritir hrir dhir bhir ity etat sarvam mana eva.

 

 

     "The mind's functions are: desire, determination, doubt, error, faith, steadfastness, unsteadiness, shame, intelligence, and fear. All these are mind."

 

     All these have different functions and different names, but they are not different from mind itself. They are the various functions of the mind. In the yoga-shastra, also, it is said that the mind has five functions. This is the meaning of the scriptures, either hinted at or explicitly shown in the texts.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 9

The Principal Prana Is Atomic

 

 

     Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Samshaya (doubt) Is the principal Prana atomic or all-pervading?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.3.22) it is said:

 

 

sama ebhis tribhir lokaih

 

 

     "Prana is equal to the three worlds."

 

     This and other passages of Shruti-shastra declare that prana is all-pervading.

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives his conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 13

 

 

anush ca

 

     anuh—atomic; ca—also.

 

 

     It is also atomic.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The principal prana is also atomic in size. This is so because the Shruti-shastras declare that the principal prana leaves (the material body at the time of death). Scriptural passages describing the principal pranas as atomic should be understood to mean that living entities everywhere are dependent on the principal prana.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 10

The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the Moving Force Behind the Prana

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad it is said:

 

 

supteshu vag-adishu prana eko jagarti.

 

 

     "When speech and the other senses sleep, prana alone remains awake. Prana alone is untouched by death. Prana controls speech and the other senses. As a mother protects her children, so one prana protects the other pranas."

 

     In this way the function of the principal prana is described.

 

     The functions of the secondary pranas are described in the following passage:

 

 

sapteme loka yeshu sancaranti

 

 

     "The panas move in seven realms."

 

     Thus the secondary pranas move among the senses.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Do the secondary pranas move by their own power among the senses, or does something else create the movement of the pranas? Are the pranas moved by the demigods, the individual spirit soul, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): Endowed with the power of action, the pranas move themselves. Or perhaps the demigods move them. In the Aitareya Upanishad (2.4) it is said:

 

 

agnir vag bhutva mukham pravishad

 

 

     "Becoming speech, Agnideva entered the mouth."

 

     Or perhaps the individual spirit soul moves the pranas. This may be so because the pranas are instruments the soul uses to attain enjoyment.

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives His conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 14

 

 

jyotir-ady-adhishthanam tu tad amananat

 

     jyotih—effulgence; ady-adhishthanam—the supreme ruler; tu—indeed; tat—that; amananat—because of the description.

 

 

     Indeed, light is the controller, because that is the description.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "tu" (indeed" is used here to dispel doubt. The word "jyotih" (light) here means "the Supreme Personality of Godhead". He is the mover (adhishthanam) of the pranas. The affix lyut in the word “adhishthanam" makes it mean "the mover". Why is the Supreme Personality of Godhead the mover of the pranas? The sutra explains: "Because that is the description". This means "Because it is understood that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as the all-pervading Supersoul, moves the pranas and senses. In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (3.7.16) it is said:

 

 

yah praneshu tishthan

 

 

     "The Supersoul stays in the midst of the pranas and moves them."

 

     That the demigods and the individual spirit soul may also move the pranas is not disputed here, but the pranas cannot move themselves, for they are only inert matter.

 

     Hoping to enjoy, the individual spirit soul also moves the pranas. That is described in the next sutra.

 

 

Sutra 15

 

 

pranavata shabdat

 

     pranavata—by the person who possesses the pranas; shabdat—because of the Shruti-shastra.

 

 

     By the person who possesses the pranas, because of the Shruti-shastra.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "pranavata" (the person who possesses the pranas) refers here to the individual spirit soul. Hoping to enjoy, the spirit soul moves the pranas and senses. Why is that? The sutra explains: "shabdat" (because of the Shruti-shastra). In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (2.1.18) it is said:

 

 

sa yatha maha-rajo janapadan grihitva sve janapade yatha-kamam parivartate evam evaisha etat pranan grihitva sve sharire yatha-kamam parivartate.

 

 

     "As a great king rules the subjects in his kingdom, ¨so the individual spirit soul rules the pranas in his body."

 

     This is the gist of the matter: The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the supreme ruler of the pranas and the demigods and the individual spirit soul also rule the senses. The former (the demigods) rule the pranas and senses by enabling them to act, and the latter (the individual spirit souls) rule the pranas and senses with the hope of attaining enjoyment. By exerting their wills, the individual souls thus move the pranas.

 

     There is no alternative to this description. This the author of the sutras explains in the following words.

 

 

Sutra 16

 

 

tasya ca nityatvat

 

     tasya—of this; ca—and; nityatvat—because of eternality.

 

 

     Because this is eternal.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Because He has an eternal relationship with them, the all-powerful Supersoul is the actual controller and mover of them. He should be considered the primary mover and controller. This is confirmed in the words of the Antaryami-brahmana (Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 3.7).

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 11

The Principal Prana Is Not a Sense

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In this subject another doubt is raised.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Are the principal prana and the other pranas also senses?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): Because they assist the individual spirit soul, all the pranas are considered to be senses.

 

     Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives His conclusion.

 

 

Sutra 17

 

 

ta indriyani tad vyapadeshad anyatra shreshthat

 

     te—they; indriyani—senses; tat—that; vyapadeshat—because of the description; anyatra—otherwise; shreshthat—from the best.

 

 

     They are senses, for that is the description. Only the principal one is not.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     With the sole exception of the principal prana, the pranas are all senses. Why is that? The sutra explains: "For that is the description." In the Mundaka Upanishad (2.1.3) it is said:

 

 

etasmaj jayate pranah

     manah sarvendriyani ca

 

 

     "From the Supreme Personality of Godhead are born the principal prana, the mind, and the senses."

 

     In this way, with the sole exception of the principal prana, the pranas are the senses, such as the ears and the others. In the Smriti-shastra it is said:

 

 

indriyani dashaikam ca

 

 

     "There are eleven senses."

 

     In another place in the Shruti-shastra it is said:

 

 

prano mukhya sa tv anindiriyam

 

     "The principal prana is not a sense."

     Here someone may object: Is it not so that in the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.5.21) it is said:

 

 

hantasyaiva sarve rupam asametyetasyaiva sarve rupam abhavat.

 

 

     "The senses then assumed the form of the principal prana. They all assumed his form."

 

     Because the secondary pranas are senses and because the secondary pranas are merely functions of the principal prana, therefore the principal prana is also a sense. How can you claim, then, that the principal prana is not a sense?

 

     To the this objection the author of the sutras gives the following reply.

 

 

Sutra 18

 

 

bheda-shruteh

 

     bheda—difference; shruteh—from Shruti-shastra.

 

 

     Because the Shruti-shastra says it is different.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Mundaka Upanishad (2.1.3) it is said:

 

 

prano manah sarvendriyani

 

 

     "From the Supreme Personality of Godhead are born the principal prana, the mind, and all the senses."

 

     In this way, because it is mentioned apart from the senses in this passage, the principal prana is clearly different from the senses. That is the meaning here.

     Here someone may doubt: The mind is also mentioned apart from the senses in this passage. It must be that the mind is not a sense.