Click here to load whole tree
NITAAI-Veda.nyf > All Scriptures By Acharyas > Baladeva Vidyabhushana > Vedanta Sutra > Chp 3

Chapter 3

 

 

Pada 1

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

na vina sadhanair devo

     jnana-vairagya-bhaktibhih

dadati sva-padam shriman

     atas tani budhah shrayet

 

     The glorious Supreme Personality of Godhead does not give residence in His abode to they who do not follow the path of devotion, knowledge, and renunciation. Therefore the wise should take shelter of that path.

 

     In the previous two chapters was explained the truth that the entire Vedanta philosophy describes the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the only creator of the material world, completely faultless, a jewel mine of transcendental virtues, eternal, full of knowledge and bliss, the supreme person, and meditated on by they who seek liberation. In those chapters all opposing views were refuted, and the real nature of the Supreme was described.

     In this third chapter will be described the spiritual practices that should be followed in

order to attain the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The most important of these are thirst to attain the Supreme Lord and a disinterest in what has no relation to the Lord. That is explained in the first two padas.

     In the first pada, in order to show that one should renounce the world, the various defects of

material existence are explained. In this connection the description of the soul's travels from one kind of material body to another kind of material body are quoted from the Pancagni-vidya chapter of the Chandogya Upanishad. In the second pada, in order to show that one should love the Supreme Lord, the Lord's many glories and virtues will be described. In the Pancagni-vidya portion of the Chandogya Upanishad (Adhyaya 5, khandas 3-10) are described the individual souls departure for another world and return to this world.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): When the individual soul goes to the next world does he take his subtle body with him or not?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The soul does not take the subtle body with him.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 1

 

tad-antara-pratipattau ramhati samparishvaktah prashna-nirupanabhyam

 

     tat - of that; antara - of another; pratipattau - in the attainment; ramhati - goes; samparishvaktah - embraced; prashna - from the questions; nirupanabhyam - and answers.

 

     In going to another it is embraced. This is so from the questions and answers.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     Here the word "tad" means "the body". That meaning is taken from the word "murti" in sutra 2.4.20. When it leaves one gross material body and enters another, the soul takes the subtle body with it. How is that known? It is known from the questions beginning in Chandogya Upanishad 5.3.3 and answers beginning in 5.4.1. Here is the gist of that passage.

     A king named Pravahana, who was the ruler of Pancala-desha, asked five questions of a brahmana bow named Shvetaketu who had come to his court. These questions concerned: 1. the destination of they who perform pious deeds, 2. the way these persons return to the earth, 3. they who do not attain that world, 4. how the path to the devas and the path to the pitas are different paths, and 5. the question expressed in these words (Chandogya Upanishad 5.3.3):

 

vettha yatha pancamyam ahutav apah purusha-vacaso bhavanti

 

     "Do you know why the fifth libation is called

purusha?

 

     Unhappy because he did not know the answer to these questions, the boy approached his father, Gautama Muni, and expressed his sorrow. The father also did not know the answers

and, wishing to learn them, approached Pravahana. Pravahana wished to give wealth to his guest, but Gautama begged from him the alms of the answers to the five questions.

     Answering the last question first, Pravahana described (Chandogya Upanishad (5.4.1) the five fires: 1. heaven, 2. rain, 3. earth, 4. man, and 5. woman. Then he described the five libations for these fires: 1. shraddha, 2.soma, 3. rain, 4. food, and 5. seed. The priests offering all these libations are the devas. The homa (yajna) here is the devas' throwing of the spirit soul, which is enveloped in its subtle body, up to the celestial worlds (dyuloka) so it may enjoy celestial pleasures.

     The devas here are the senses of the soul who has passed through death. These devas offer shraddha in the fire of the celestial world. That shraddha becomes a celestial body named

somaraja, a body suitable for enjoying celestial pleasures.

      When the time of enjoyment is over the devas offer a yajna where this body is placed in the fire of parjanya and transformed into rain. The devas then offer a yajna where that rain is placed in the fire of earth and transformed into grains. The devas then offer a yajna where those grains are placed in the fire of a man's food and transformed into semen. The devas then offer a yajna where that semen is placed in the fire of a woman's womb and transformed into an unborn child. In that way the question was answered with the words (Chandogya Upanishad 5.9.1):

 

iti tu pancamyam ahutav apah purusha-vacaso bhavanti.

 

     "Thus the fifth libation is called purusha."

 

     In this sequence it is seen that in the fifth libation semen is offered in the fire of a woman's womb and the result is a material body, which is thus called purusha. That is the meaning. In this description it is thus seen that, accompanied by the subtle material body, the soul leaves one gross material body, goes to the celestial world, falls from there, and, still accompanied by the same subtle material body, again enters a woman's womb.

 

     Here someone may object: Is it not so that the word  apah" (water) is used here with the word "purusha". How, then, can it be that the soul is accompanied by all the elements of the subtle material body.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 2

 

try-atmakatvat tu bhuyastvat

 

     tri-atmakatvat - because of being threefold; tu - but; bhuyastvat - because of being prominent.

 

     But because of being threefold and because of being prominent.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     The word "tu" (but) is used here to dispel doubt. The other elements go because the water here is threefold, a compound of three elements. Because the semen, which is the seed of the material body, is primarily water, therefore it is porper to call it water. In the Smriti-shastra it is said:

 

tapapanodo bhuyastvam ambhaso vrittayas tv imah

 

     "Because it has the power to remove heat, water is said to predominate."

 

     In this way the water is prominent.

 

Sutra 3

 

prana-gatesh ca

 

     prana - of the pranas; gateh - of the departure; ca - and.

 

     Also because of the pranas' departure.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     When the soul enters another material body the pranas also come. This is described in Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.2):

 

tam utkramantam prano 'nutkramati pranam anutkramantam sarve prana anutkramanti.

 

     "When the soul departs, the principal prana follows. When the principal prana departs, the other pranas follow."

 

     The pranas cannot exist without taking shelter of a maintainer. They take shelter of the elements of the subtle material body. Therefore it must be accepted that the subtle material body accompanies the soul. That is the meaning.

 

Sutra 4

 

agny-adi-gati-shruter iti cen na bhaktatvat

 

     agni - fire; adi - beginning; gati - going; shruteh - fromthe Shruti-shastra; iti - thus; cet - if; na - not;bhaktatvat - because oif being a metaphor.

 

     If it is said that the Shruti-shastras describe the departure of fire and other elements, then I reply: It is not so, because it is a metaphor only.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

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

 

yasyasya purushasya mritasyagnim vag apy eti vatam pranash cakshur adityam manash candram dishah

shrotram prithivim shariram akasham atmaushadhir lomani vanaspatin kesha apsu lohitam ca retash ca

nidhiyate.

 

     "When a person dies his speaking power enters the fire, his breath enters the wind, his eyes enter the sun, his mind enters the moon, his ears enter the directions, his body enters the earth, his soul enters the ether, the hairs of his body enter the plants and herbs, the hairs of his head enter the trees, and his blood and semen enter the waters."

 

     Therefore the speech and other faculties enter the fire and other objects. They cannot possible accompany the departing soul. That is the verdict of the Shruti-shastra.

 

     If this is said, then I reply: No. It is not so. Why not? The sutra explains: "bhaktatvat" (because it is a metaphor only). It is not directly seen that "the hairs of the body enter the plants and herbs, and the hairs of the head enter the trees," as this passage declares. Therefore this passage's description of the entrance into fire and other elements is a metaphor only. Because all these are placed together in a single passage it is not possible to say one part is metaphor and another part is not metaphor. It is not seen that the bodily hairs jump from the body and enter the plants and herbs. Therefore at the time of death the voice and other faculties temporarily cease being useful to the soul, but they do not leave. They accompany the soul. That is the conclusion of the Shruti-shastra.

 

 

Sutra 5

 

prathame 'shravanad iti cen na ta eva hy upapatteh

 

     prathame - in the first; ashravanat - because of not being described in the Shruti-shastra; iti - thus; cet - if;na - not; tah - they; eva - indeed; hy - indeed; upapatteh - because of being appropriate.

 

     If it is said that in the beginning there is no description, then I reply. It is indeed that, because that is appropriate.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     Here someone may object: If the five libations were all water, then it would be possible to say that in the fifth libation the soul departs accompanied by water. However, this is not so. It is not said that in the first libation water is offered into fire. There it is said that "shraddha" is offered. It says:

 

tasminn agnau devah shraddham juhvati

 

     "The devas offer a yajna, placing shraddha in the fire."

 

     The word "shraddha" refers to a particular state of mind. It never means "water". The word "soma" and other words may be interpreted to mean "water", but is it not possible to interpret the word "shraddha" to mean  water". Therefore the departing soul is not accompanied by water.

 

     If this is said, then I reply: No. It is not so. The  shraddha offered into fire in the beginning here is indeed water. Why is that? The sutra explains: "upapatteh" (because it is appropriate). It is appropriate in the context of this question and answer. The question here is: "Do you know why the water in the fifth libation is called purusha?" From this is is seen that all the offerings into the fire here are water. Then, in the beginning of the reply it is said:  Shraddha is offered into the fire". If the word  shraddha" here does not mean "water", then the answer does not properly reply to the question. That is the meaning. Water is offered in these five libations. Because water

is clearly offered in the last four, it is appropriate that it also be offered in the first. It is seen that the offerings of soma, rain, and the others, are clearly all caused by shraddha. Because the cause must be like the effect, therefore, the offering of shraddha must also be water. Therefore the word  shraddha" here means "water". The Shruti-shastra (Taittiriya-samhita 1.6.8.1) explains:

 

shraddha va apah

 

     "The word shraddha means water."

 

     Therefore the word "shraddha" here does not refer to a condition of the mind. The meaning of a condition of the mind is not appropriate in this context of offering yajnas. In this way it is shown that the departing soul is certainly accompanied by water.

 

     Here someone may object: In this part of the Shruti-shastra it said that the water departs, but it is not said that the soul departs. The soul is not mentioned in this passage.

 

     To remove this doubt the author of the sutras gives the following reply.

 

Sutra 6

 

ashrutatvad iti cen na ishtadi-karinam pratiteh

 

     ashrutatvat - because of not being described in the Shruti-shastra; iti - thus; cet - if; na - not; ishtadikarinam - by they who perfom pious deeds; pratiteh - because of the understanding.

 

     If it is said that this is not proved in the Shruti-shastra, then I reply: No, because this is understood to be about they who perform pious deeds.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     The word "ashrutatva" here means "unproved". The passage in the Chandogya Upanishad describes the travel to the moon of they who perform pious deeds. The passage states (Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.3-4):

 

atha ya ime grame ishtapurte dattam ity upasate te dhumam abhisamvishanti. . . akashac candramasam esha somo raja.

 

     "They who perform pious deeds in their village enter the smoke, . . . and then they go from the sky to the moon planet, where the become the king of soma."

 

     In this way they who perform pious deeds go to the moon and become known as Somaraja (the king of soma).

 

     About the fire and Devaloka it is said (Chandogya Upanishad 5.4.2):

 

devah shraddham juhvati. tasyah ahuteh somo raja sambhavati.

 

     "The devas offer shraddha in sacrifice. From that offering he becomes a king of soma."

 

     In this way shraddha-sharira (a body made of shraddha) and somaraja (the king of soma) both refer to the same thing. They both mean "body" and in this context the word  body" means the individual spirit soul, because the soul takes shelter of a body. In this way it is understood that the departing soul is accompanied by water.

 

     Here someone may object: Is it not so that in the Chandogya Upanishad (5.10.4) it is said:

 

esha somo raja devanam annam tam deva bhakshayanti

 

     "That king of soma is the devas' food. The devas eat it."

 

     Because the Shruti-shastra thus says that this king of soma is eaten by the devas it is not possible that the phrase  king of soma" here refers to the individual spirit soul, for no one can eat the soul.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 7

 

bhaktam vanatma-vittvat tatha hi darshayati

 

     bhaktam - metaphor; va - or; an - not; atma - the soul; vit - knowing; tvat - because of the condition; tatha - so;hi - indeed; darshayati - shows.

 

     Or it is a metaphor, because of ignorance of the Supersoul. This the Shruti-shastra shows.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     The word "va" (or) is used here to dispel doubt. The word "somaraja" here refers ot the individual spirit soul. The description that it is the devas' food is only a metaphor. The soul is said to be the devas' food because the soul serves the devas and thus pleases them. That is the meaning. The do this because they are ignorant of the Supersoul. The Shruti-shastra shows that they who are ignorant of the Supersoul become servants of the devas. In Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad (1.4.10) it is said:

 

atha yo 'nyam devatam upaste anyo 'sav anyo 'ham asmiti na sa

veda yatha pashur eva sa devanam.

 

     "A person who thinks, `I am different from the demigods' worships the demigods. He becomes like an animal in the demigods' service.

 

     Here is the meaning of this. It is not possible that the devas eat the individual souls. the meaning here is that the souls please the demigods and in this way become like food for

them. They please the demigods by serving them. It is said:

 

visho 'nnam rajnam pashavo 'nnam visham

 

     "The vaishyas are the kshatriyas' food, and the cows are the vaishyas' food."

 

     In this passage it is clear that the word "food" is not used literally. It is used to mean "servant".If the word [food" were used in the literal sense, then the rules of the jyotistoma and other yajnas would all be meaningless. If the devas ate whomever went to Candraloka, why would the souls beso eager to perform yajnas and go there? In this way it is proved that the deprting soul is accompanied by water.

 

 

Adhikarana 2

The Soul's Return to the Earth

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     Vishaya (Statement of the Subject): Following Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.3, which describes how the soul that has performed pious deeds travels by the smoke and other pathways, attains

Svargaloka, stays there for some time, and then again returns to the earth, is this passage (Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.5):

 

yavat sampatum ushitvathaitam evadhvanam punar nivartate.

 

     "After staying there for some time his karma is

exhausted and he again returns."

     Samshaya (doubt): When it leaves Svargaloka, does the soul bring its past karma or not?

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The soul stays in Svargaloka for as long as he has the results of past karma. This is described in Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.6):

 

 

prapyantam karmanas tasya

 

 

     "He stays there until he reaches the end of his karma."

 

     This shows that the soul only falls when his past karma is completely exhausted. The word "sampata" (karma) is derived from the verb "sampat" (to ascend), as in the words "sampatanty anena svargam" (the instrument by which the souls ascend to Svargaloka). The word "anushaya" (which also means karma) is derived from the verb  shish" (to remain) and means "that which remains after one has enjoyed". It means "that which remains and pushes the soul to experience certain results." In Svargaloka one uses up all his past karma, and therefore no further karma remains.

 

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

 

Sutra 8

 

kritatyaye 'nushayavan drishta-smritibhyam

 

     krita - of what is done; atyaye - at the end; anushaya - karma; van - possessing; drishta - from the Shruti-shastra; smritibhyam - from the Smriti-shastra.

 

     At the end there is still karma, because of the statements of Shruti and Smriti shastras.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     When the good karma of pious deeds performed to enjoy in Candraloka is exhausted, the enjoyment ends and the soul attains a new body to enter flames of suffering. In this way, when his good karma is exhausted, he falls down. How is that known? The sutra explains: "drishta-smritibhyam" (by the statements of Shruti and Smriti shastras). The Shruti-shastra (Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.7) explains:

 

tad ayam ramaniya-caranabhyaso ha yat te ramaniyam yonim apadyeran brahmana-yonim va kshatriya-yonim vaishya-yonim va. atha ya iha kapuya-caranabhyaso ha yat te kapuyam yonim apadyeran shva-yonim va shukara-yonim va candala-yonim va.

 

     "When one acts piously, he attains a good birth. He is born as a brahmana or a kshatriya or a vaishya. When one acts sinfully, he attains a sinful birth. He is born as a dog, a pig, or an outcaste."

 

     Here the words "ramaniya-carana" means  pious deeds". This refers to pious karma remaining after one has enjoyed pious karmas. The word "abhyasa" means "repeated practice". This word is formed from the verb "as", the preposition "abhi" and the affix  kvip". The meaning of the word "ha" (indeed) is obvious. The word "yat" means "when". In this passage there are when-then clauses.

 

     In the Smriti-shastra it is said:

 

iha punar-bhave te ubhaya-sheshabhyam nivishanti.

 

     "Accompanied by the remnants of their good and bad karma, they again enter the world of repeated birth."

 

     In this way it is clear that the soul falling from Svargaloka still has past karma. This does not contradict the description in Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.5 because that passage described only the exhaustion of the specific karmas that brought the soul to Svargaloka and not the exhaustion of other karmas.

 

     Now the author of the sutras describes the method of the soul's descent.

 

 

Sutra 9

 

yathetam anevam ca

 

     yatha - as; itam - departed; an - not; evam - thus;ca - and.

 

     Also, not as he went.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     The soul, who still has karma, does not descend from Candraloka in the same way he rose to Candraloka. The words yatha itam" mean "as he arrived". The word "an-evam" means "in a different way". The soul descends by the path of smoke and the path of ether. These paths were also traveled in the ascent. However, in the descent there is no mention of the night or other paths used in the ascent. Also, in the descent there is mention of the cloud and other paths not used in the ascent. Therefore the descent is not like (anevam) the ascent.

 

 

Sutra 10

 

caranad iti cen na tad-upalakshanartheti karshnajinih

 

     caranat - by conduct; iti - thus; cet - if; na - not;tad-upalakshana-artha - that meaning; iti - thus; karshnajinih - Karshnajini.

 

     If it is said to be by conduct, then Karshnajini replies: No. Here it has the same meaning.

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     Here someone may object: It is not so that the soul fallen from Svargaloka attains a new birth according to his past karma. The passage quoted here from the Shruti-shastra uses the word 

ramaniya-carana" (good conduct). The word "carana" means "conduct". It has not the same meaning as  anushaya" (karma). The difference of the two words is seen in the following statement of Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad:

 

yathacari yathakari tatha bhavati

 

     "As one performed carana, and as one performed karma, so one attains an appropriate birth."

     To this I reply: There is no fault here to interpret the word "carana" as a synonym of karma. Karshnajini Muni affirms that in this passage of Chandogya Upanishad (5.10.7) the word "carana" means karma. This is also true because the Shruti-shastras affirm that karma is the origin of conduct. That is the meaning.

 

 

Sutra 11

 

anarthakyam iti cen na tad-apekshatvat

 

     anarthakyam - meaninglessness; iti - thus; cet - of;na - not; tad-apekshatvat - because of being in relation to that.

 

     If it is said that it has no meaning, then I reply: No. Because it is in relation to that.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     Here someone may object: If karma is indeed the source of all that is good, then good conduct is useless and the rules of good conduct are also useless.

 

     If this is said, then the author of the sutras replies: No. It is not so. Why not? The sutra explains: "Because good karma itself is created by good conduct." One cannot attain good

karma without performing good conduct. The Smriti-shastra explains:

 

 

sandhya-hino 'shucir nityam anarhah sarva-karmasu

 

 

     "A person who is impure and does not chant the Gayatri prayer is not qualified to perform any pious karmas."

 

     Therefore, Karshnajini Muni explains, because good conduct is the cause of good karma, the word "carana" in this passage means "karma".

 

 

 

 

 

Sutra 12

 

 

sukrita-dushkrite eveti tu badarih

 

     sukrita—pious deeds; dushkrite—impious deeds; eva—indeed; iti—thus; tu—but; badarih—Badari.

 

 

     But Badari Muni indeed thinks it means pious and impious deeds.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "tu" (but) is used here to begin a refutation of the previous argument. Badari Muni thinks the word "carana" here means "pious and impious deeds". An example of this is the sentence:

 

 

punyam karmacarati

 

 

     "He performs pious deeds"

 

     In this sentence the verb "carati" is used to mean "performs karmas". If a word's primary meaning is possible, then it is not appropriate to accept the secondary meaning. Therefore the word "carana" here means “karma", and any other interpretation of it is meaningless. "Carana" (good conduct) is merely a specific kind of karma. Carana and karma are thus different in the same way the Kurus and Panavas are different. The word "eva" (indeed) hints that this is also the opinion of the author of the sutras. Therefore, since "carana" is a specific kind of karma, it is proved that the soul departing from Svargaloka is accompanied by the remainder of its karma.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 3

Do the Impious Also Go to Candraloka?

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

     Thus it has been said that a person who performs pious deeds goes to Candraloka and then again returns with the remainder of his karma. Now will be discussed whether sinners who perform no pious deeds also go and return in the same way. In Isha Upanishad (3) it is said:

 

 

asurya nama te loka

     andhena tamasavrtah

tams te pretyabhigacchanti

     ye ke catma-hano janah

 

 

     "The killer of the soul, whoever he may be, must enter into the planets known as the worlds of the faithless, full of darkness and ignorance."*

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Do the sinners go to Candraloka or Yamaloka?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The opponent gives his opinion in the following sutra.

 

 

Sutra 13

 

 

anishtadi-karinam api ca shrutam

 

     an—not; ishta—pious deeds; adi—beginning with; karinam—of the performers; api—also; ca—and; shrutam—in the Shruti-shastra.

 

 

     The Shruti-shastra declares that it is also so for they who do not perform ishta or other pious deeds.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The Shruti-shastra declares that they who perform ishta and other pious deeds, as well as they who do not perform ishta and other pious deeds, both go to Candraloka. This is explained in the Kaushitaki Upanishad (1.2):

 

 

ye vai ke casmal lokat prayanti candramasam eva te sarve gacchanti

 

 

     "All who leave this world go to Candraloka."

 

     Since with these words the Shruti-shastra declares that all, Ťwithout distinction, go to Candraloka, then sinners are also included in that all. This being so, the words of Isha Upanishad are only an empty threat to frighten the sinners from acting badly. In truth the pious and the sinner both attain the same result.

 

     To this I reply: No. It is not so. The sinner does not enjoy happiness.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 14

 

 

samyamane tv anubhuyetaresham arohavarohau tad-gati-darshanat

 

     samyamane—in Samyamani Puri; tv—but; anubhuya—experiencing; itaresham—of others; aroha—ascent; avarohau—descent; tat—of them; gati—travel; darshanat—by the Shruti-shastra.

 

 

     But the others go to and return from Samyamana-pura. the Shruti-shastra describes this as their travels.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "tu" (but) is used here to begin the refutation of the Purvapaksha. The word "itaresham" (of the others) here means "of they who did not perform ishta and other pious deeds". The word "samyamane" means “in the city of Yamaraja". That is where they go. There they are punished by Yamaraja and then sent back to the earth. Their departure and return is like that. Why do you say that? The sutra explains: "tad-gati-darshanat" (Because Shruti-shastra describes this as their travels). In the Katha Upanishad (1.2.6) Yamaraja explains:

 

 

na samparayah pratibhati balam

     pramadyantam vitta-mohena mudham

ayam loko nasti para iti mani

     punah punar vasham apadyate me

 

 

     "The path to liberation does not appear before a childish fool intoxicated by the illusory wealth of this world. He who thinks, `This is the only world. There is no world beyond this,' falls into my control again and again."

 

     In this way the Shruti-shastra explains that the sinners are punished by Yamaraja. That is the meaning.

 

 

Sutra 15

 

 

smaranti ca

 

     smaranti—the Smriti-shastra; ca—also.

 

     The Smriti-shastras also affirm it.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Shrimad-Bhagavatam (3.30.23) explains:

 

 

tatra tatra patan chranto

     murchitah punar utthitah

patha papiyasa nitas

     tarasa yama-sadanam

 

 

     "While passing on that road to the abode of Yamaraja, he falls down in fatigue, and sometimes he becomes unconscious, but he is forced to rise again. In this way he is very quickly brought to the presence of Yamaraja."*

 

     In the Smriti-shastra it is also said:

 

 

sarve caite vasham yanti yamasya bhagavan.

 

 

     "O Lord, all sinners come under Yamarja's dominion."

 

     In this way the sages and Smriti-shastras affirm that the sinners come under Yamaraja's control.

 

 

 

Sutra 16

 

 

api sapta

 

     api—also; sapta—seven.

 

 

     There are seven and others also.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Mahabharata it is said:

 

 

rauravo 'tha mahamsh caiva

     vahnir vaitarani tatha

kumbhipaka iti proktany

     anitya-narakani tu

 

tamisras canda-tamisro

     dvau nityau samprakirtitau

iti sapta pradhanani

     baliyas tuttarottaram

 

 

     "The temporary hells named 1. Raurava, 2. Mahan, 3. Vahni, 4. Vaitarani, and 5. Kumbhipaka, as well as the permanent hells named 6. Tamisra, and 7. Andha-tamisra, are said to be the Ťseven most important hells, each one more horrible than the last."

 

     Thus the Smriti-shastra explains that sinners are punished for their sins in these hells. These hells are the places where sinners go. The word "api" (also) is used to indicate that in the Fifth Canto of Shrimad-Bhagavatam other hells are also described.

 

     Here someone may object: Does this (the description of Yamaraja's punishment of sinners) not contradict the scriptures' declaration that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the supreme controller of everything?

 

     The author of the sutras now answers this objection:

 

 

Sutra 17

 

 

tatrapi ca tad-vyaparad avirodhah

 

     tatra—there; api—even; ca—also; tat—of Him; vyaparat—because of the activities; a—without; virodhah—contradiction.

 

 

     There is no contradiction, for He also acts there.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "ca" (and) is here used for emphasis. Yamaraja and others punish sinners by the command of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This does not contradict the scriptures' description of the Lord's supremacy. That is the meaning. The Puranas affirm that, on the Supreme Lord's order, Yamaraja and others punish sinners.

 

     Here someone may object: It must be that, after receiving punishment from Yamaraja, sinners also ascend to Candraloka. This must be so, for the Kaushitaki Upanishad affirms that all who leave this world travel to Candraloka.

 

     To refute this misconception the author of the sutras speaks the following words.

 

 

Sutra 18

 

 

vidya-karmanos tv iti prakritatvat

 

     vidya—of knowledge; karmanoh—of action; tu—but; iti—thus; prakritatvat—because of being the topics.

 

 

     But because pious deeds and knowledge are the topics.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "tu" (but) is used to begin the answer to the Ťprevious objection. The word "na" (It is not so) is to be understood in this sutra. Sinners do not go to Candraloka. Why not? The sutra explains that only they who perform pious deeds or are situated in true knowledge (vidya-karmanoh) travel to the worlds of the devas and pitas. That is the description of the scriptures (prakritatvat). In the Chandogya Upanishad (5.10.1) it is said that they who are situated in knowledge travel on the path to the devas. In Chandogya Upanishad (5.10.3) it is said that they who perform pious deeds travel on the path to the pitas. Thus when it is said that all (sarve) go to Candraloka, the meaning is that all who have qualified themselves in these ways go to Candraloka.

 

     Here someone may object: Is it not so that without first going to Candraloka it is not possible for sinners to attain a new material body? This is the reason: Because (without first going to Candraloka) it is not possible to offer the fifth libation (by which one attains a new body). Therefore, in order to attain a new material body, all must first go to Candraloka.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 19

 

 

na tritiye tathopalabdheh

 

     na—not; tritiye—in the third; tatha—so; upalabdheh—because of the perception.

 

 

     Not so in the third, for it is so perceived.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the third place there is no need to offer the fifth libation to attain a new material body. Why not? The sutra explains: "tathopalabdheh" (because it is so perceived). This means: "Because the Shruti-shastra affirms that it is so." In the Chandogya Upanishad the following question is posed:

 

 

yathasau loko na sampuryate

 

 

     "Do you know why the world never becomes filled?"

 

     The answer is given (Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.8):

 

 

athaitayoh pathor na katarena ca tanimani kshudrany asakrid avrittini bhutani jivanti jayasva mriyasvety etat tritiyam sthanam. tenasau loko na sampuryate.

 

 

     "There are these two paths and there is also another path, where many tiny creatures live, and where they are ordered: `Now you must be born.' and `Now you must die.' It is because of this third place that the world never becomes filled."

 

     Aside from the worlds of the devas and the worlds of the Ťpitas, there is another, a third world, the home of tiny creatures like mosquitoes, insects, and worms, creatures who do not go to the higher worlds, but are simply again and again ordered: "Now you must be born." and "Now you must die." In this way they are born again and again and they die again and again. That is the meaning. Their abode is this third world. It is said that sinners take birth in the bodies of these insects and other lower creatures. Their place is the third world because it is different from the first and second worlds: Brahmaloka and Dyuloka.

     Because they have not attained true knowledge and thus become able to travel to the world of the devas, and because they have not performed pious deeds and thus become able to travel to the world of the pitas, they become tiny creatures like mosquitoes and insects and they stay in a third world. That is why the other worlds do not become filled to overflowing. These creatures neither rise to nor descend from the celestial worlds of Dyuloka, and for that reason Dyuloka does not become overfilled. They stay in a third world, where they do not offer the fifth oblation in order to attain a new body.

 

 

Sutra 20

 

 

smaryate 'pi ca loke

 

     smaryate—affirmed in the Shmriti-shastra; api—and; ca—also; loke—in the world.

 

 

     The Smriti-shastras affirm that it is also in this world.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In this world also some pious persons, Drona and Dhrishtadyumna are two examples, also attain new bodies without offering a fifth oblation. This is described in the Smriti-shastras. The words "api ca" (and also) hint that there are other examples also.

 

 

Sutra 21

 

 

darshanac ca

 

     darshanat—from seeing; ca—also.

 

 

     From seeing also.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Chandogya Upanishad (6.3.1) it is said:

 

 

tesham khalv esham bhutanam triny eva bijani bhavanti. anda-jam jiva-jam udbhij-jam.

 

 

     "Living beings are born in one of three ways. Some are born from an egg, some are born live, and some are plants Ťsprouting from a seed."

 

     The Shruti-shastra affirms that plants sprouting from a seed and tiny creatures born from perspiration take birth without the fifth oblation. They neither ascend to nor descend from Candraloka. They are born from water without the fifth oblation. This view is not contradicted by the scriptures.

 

     Here someone may object: The passage you quoted from Chandogya Upanishad mentioned three kinds of birth but did not mention birth from perspiration.

 

     The author of the sutras now gives his answer to this objection.

 

 

Sutra 22

 

 

tritiya-shabdavarodhah samshoka-jasya

 

     tritiya—shabda—word; avarodhah—description; samshoka—from grief; jasya—born.

 

 

     The grief-born is included in the third word.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The perspiration born creatures, here called grief-born, are included in the description of plants born from seeds. Because they are both born by bursting forth, one bursting from earth and the other bursting from water, they are considered in the same class. They differ in that one one (the perspiration-born creatures) has the power to move about and the other (the plants) does not. In this way it is proved that they who do not perform pious deeds do not go to Candraloka.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 4

The Soul Does Not Become Ether

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     It has already been shown that the soul who performs pious deeds goes, accompanied by his subtle material body, to Candraloka, and (after some time again) descends, accompanied by the remnant of his karma, (to the earth). The way this happens is described in Chandogya Upanishad (5.10.5):

 

 

athaitam evadhvanam punar nivartante yathetam akashasm akashad vayuh bhavati vayur bhutva dhumo bhavati dhumo bhutva abhram bhavaty abhram bhutva megho bhavati megho bhutva pravarshati

 

 

     "He returns by this path. First he becomes ether. From ether he becomes air. Having become air he becomes smoke. Having become smoke he becomes mist. Having become mist he becomes a cloud. Having become a cloud, he becomes rain."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is the descent literally like this, or is it not like this?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): This account of the descending soul becoming ether and other things is to be accepted literally. During its descent does the soul become completely identical with these various things, or does it become only similar to them? If the soul becomes only similar, then a secondary interpretation of the passage must be accepted. For this reason it should be understood that the soul becomes completely identical with these different things.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 23

 

 

tat-svabhavyapattir upapatteh

 

     tat—of them; svabhavya—similarity; apattih—attainment; upapatteh—because of being reasonable.

 

 

     It is similar to them, for that is reasonable.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     This passage should be interpreted to mean that the soul becomes similar to these things. Why is that? The sutra explains: "upapatteh" (for that is reasonable). On Candraloka the soul attains a a body suitable for enjoyment. However, when the Ťtime for enjoyment comes to an end, that body perishes in the fire of grief, just as mist perishes in the sunlight. Thus deprived of its external body, the soul becomes like ether. Then the soul comes under the control of air. Then the soul comes into contact with smoke and the other things. That is a reasonable explanation of these events. This is so because it is not possible for one thing to become another, and also because if it did indeed become ether or these other things, it would not be possible for the soul to continue its descent.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 5

The Passage From Ether to Rain Is Quick

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is the soul's descent from ether to rain accomplished quickly or slowly?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): No outside force pushes it, so the soul must proceed very slowly.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 24

 

 

nati-cirena visheshat

 

     na—not; ati—very; cirena—for long; visheshat—because of something specific.

 

 

     Not for very long, because of something specific.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The soul's descent from ether and the other things does not take a long time. Why is that? The sutra explains: “visheshat" (because of something specific). The specific thing here is a specific statement that the passage through rice and other grains is very difficult. Because this part of the passage is singled out as especially difficult it may be inferred that the other parts of the passage are quickly accomplished.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 6

The Descending Soul Does Not Take Birth Among the Plants

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Vishaya (statement): The passage after entering rain is described in the following statement of Shruti-shastra:

 

 

ta iha vrihi-yava aushadhi-vanaspatayas tila-masha jayante

 

 

     "The descending souls then take birth as rice, barley, plants, trees, sesame, and beans."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Do the souls literally take birth as rice or these other species, or is this description metaphorical?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The text says “jayante" (they take birth). This is should be taken literally.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 25

 

 

anyadhishthite purvavad abhilapat

 

     anya—by an other; adhishthite—occupied; purva—before; vat—like; abhilapat—because of the statement.

 

 

     In what is occupied by another because of a statement like the previous.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Because the bodies of the plants and other beings are already inhabited by other spirit souls, the description here is metaphorical. The descending souls are not born in those species to experience their karma. Why not? The sutra explains: “purvavad abhilapat" (because of a statement like the previous). As it was previously said that the descending soul does not become ether, or the other things in its descent, but merely comes into contact with them, so the fallen soul merely comes into contact with the rice and other species. That is the meaning. As when it enters the ether the descending soul is not yet experiencing the specific results of various pious and impious deeds, so when it falls down in the rain the soul is also not yet experiencing the results of specific deeds. This the scriptures say. In Chandogya Upanishad (5.10.7) it is said: “They who act piously attain an auspicious birth. They who do not act piously attain a birth that is not auspicious." Therefore Ťthe description here that the descending souls take birth in this way is metaphorical. It is not literal.

 

 

Sutra 26

 

 

ashuddham iti cen na shabdat

 

     ashuddham—impure; iti—thus; cet—if; na—not; shabdat—because of Shruti-shastra.

 

 

     If it is said to be impure, then I reply: No, for that is the statement of the Shruti-shastra.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Here someone may object: It is not at all logical to say that the scriptures' statement that the descending soul, accompanied by the remnant of his karma, takes birth in the body of a rice plant or similar species, is only a metaphor, and the soul does not really take birth in those species for the soul has no remaining karma to push it into that birth. The so-called pious deeds performed to attain residence in Svargaloka are actually impure. This is because the Agnisomiya-yajna and other yajnas like them involve violence to animals. The scriptures give the following prohibition:

 

 

ma himsyat sarva-bhutani

 

 

     "Never commit violence to anyone."*

 

     Therefore, by performing these yajnas there is a pious portion, which sends the performer to Svargaloka, and also an impious portion, which forces him to take birth as a rice plant or similar species. In the Manu-samhita (12.9) it is said:

 

 

sharira-jair karma-doshair

     yati sthavaratam narah

 

 

     "A person who sins with his body becomes an unmoving plant."

 

     Therefore the statement that the descending soul takes birth as a rice plant or similar being should be taken literally.

 

     If this is said, then the sutra replies: "na" (No. It is not so). Why not? The sutra explains: "shabdat" (Because that is the statement of the Shruti-shastra). The Vedas order:

 

 

agnisomiyam pashum alabheta

 

 

     "One should sacrifice an animal in an agnisomiya-yajna."

 

     Because piety and impiety is known only from the Vedas' statements, the Vedas' order to commit violence must be Ťunderstood to be actually kind and pious. Therefore the orders of the Vedas are never impure. The prohibitions: "Never commit violence to anyone" and "Violence is a sin" are the general rules decreed by the Vedas, and the statement: "One should sacrifice an animal in an agnisomiya-yajna" is an exception to that general rule. A general rule and a specific exception to that rule need not contradict each other. There is scope for each. For these reasons, therefore, the scriptures' description that the fallen soul takes birth as a rice plant or similar being is metaphorical and not literal.

     What follows in this sequence is described in the next sutra.

 

 

Sutra 27

 

 

retah-sig-yogo 'tha

 

     retah—semen; sik-sprinkling; yogah—contact; atha—then.

 

 

     Then there is contact with the male that sprinkles the semen.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     After entering the rice-plant or other plant, the fallen soul, accompanied by the remainder of his karma, enters the semen of a male. In the Chandogya Upanishad (5.10.6) it is said:

 

 

yo yo 'nnam atti yo retah sincati tad bhuya eva bhavati

 

 

     "A male eats that grain and then sprinkles semen. From that semen the fallen soul takes birth. He becomes just like his father."

 

     The statement that the soul becomes just like the father should not be taken literally, for one thing cannot have exactly the same form as another. In truth, if the offspring were completely identical with the father, and there were no difference at all between them, then the soul would not actually attain a new material body. Therefore this statement should be taken metaphorically. As the soul merely comes into contact with the rice plant or other vegetation, so the soul comes into contact with the father. The soul does not become identical with the father in all respects.

 

 

Sutra 28

 

 

yoneh shariram

 

     yoneh—from the womb; shariram—a body.

 

 

     The body comes from the womb.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     The word "yoneh" here is in the ablative case. The soul departs from its father's body and enters its mother's womb. In this way, so it may experience the fruits of its karma, the soul attains a new material body. In the Chandogya Upanishad (5.10.7) it is said:

 

 

tad ya iha ramaniya-caranah

 

 

     "They who perform pious deeds attain an auspicious birth. They who sin attain an inauspicious birth."

 

     In this way the soul's entrance into the series of things beginning with ether and the series of things beginning with a rice-plant or other vegetation is described. The conclusion is that a person who is actually intelligent will renounce this material world, a world filled with sorrows, and place all his thoughts on Lord Hari, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is filled with transcendental bliss.

 

 

 

 

 

Pada 2

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

vittir viraktish ca kritanjalih puro

     yasyah parananda-tanor vitishnhate

siddhish ca seva-samayam pratikshate

     bhaktih pareshasya punatu sa jagat

 

 

     May devotion to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, devotion that is filled with transcendental bliss, devotion before whom knowledge and renunciation stand, their hands folded with respect, devotion that mystic power yearns to serve, purify the entire world.

 

     Devotional service, by performing which one falls in love with the Supreme Personality of Godhead and attains His association, will be described in this pada. In order to strengthen the soul's love and devotion for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Lord's glorious creation of dreams and other states of being, the Lord's identity with His many incarnations, His appearance as the all-pervading Supersoul, His non-identity with His worshipers, who are still one with Him in quality, His being attained only by devotional service, His appearence in both spiritual and material worlds, His transcendental blissfulness, His coming before His devotees according to the devotees' love for Him, His supremacy over all, His supreme generosity, and a great host of the Lord's other virtues and glories will also be described here. When a person desires to love, the beloved's glories must be understood. Otherwise there can be no love.      In the beginning of this pada will be described the Lord's creation of the world in a dream. the idea that someone other than the Supreme Lord had created the material world contradicts the scriptures' statement that the Lord is the creator of everything. If the Lord is the creator of only some parts of the world, then it is not possible for the devotee to have full love for Him. For this reason now will be shown the glory of the Lord as the creator of all.

 

 

 

Adhikarana 1

The Supreme Personality of Godhead Creates Dreams

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.3.10) it is said:

 

 

na tatra ratha na ratha-yoga na panthano bhavanty atha rathan ratha-yogan pathah shrijate. na tatrananda mudah pramudo bhavanty athanandan mudah pramudah shrijate. na tatra veshantah pushkarinyah sravantyah shrijate sa hi karta.

 

 

     "In that place there are neither chariots nor animals yoked to chariots. He creates the chariots and animals yoked to chariots. In that place there are neither happiness, nor pleasures, nor bliss. He creates the pleasures there. In that place there are neither streams nor ponds nor lotus flowers. He creates them. He is the creator."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is the individual spirit soul or the Supersoul the creator of this dream world with chariots asnd other things?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The individual spirit soul is the creator. In Chandogya Upanishad (8.7.1) Prajapati declares that by willing the individual soul has the power to create.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 1

 

 

sandhye shrishnir aha hi

 

     sandhye - in the junction; shrishnir - creation; aha - says; hi - indeed.

 

 

     Indeed, it says that in the junction there is creation.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "sandhya" (junction) here means  dream". In the Shruti-shastra it is said:

 

 

sandhyam tritiyam svapna-sthanam

 

 

     "The third state is sandhya, or dreaming."

 

     Dreaming is called sandhya (junction) because it stands in the junction between wakefulness and dreamless sleep. The Supersoul creates the chariots and other things present in dreams. Why isthat? The Shruti-shastra explains:

 

 

sa hi karta

 

 

     "He is the creator."

 

     Thus the Shruti-shastra affirms that the chariots and other things present in dreams are created by Him. The meaning is this. To give the results of of very, very insignificant karmas, the Lord creates the chariots and other things present in dreams, things seen only by the dreaming person. The Lord, who has the inconceivable power to do anything by merely willing it be done, thus creates the things in dreams. In the Katha Upanishad (4.4) it is said:

     "A wise man, aware that whatever he sees in dreams or awake is all the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His potencies, never laments."

 

     In the liberated state the individual spirit souls also have the power to do anything by merely willing it be done, but what they create with that power is not a dream.

 

 

Sutra 2

 

 

nirmataram caike putradayash ca

 

     nirmataram - the creator; ca - and; eke - some; putra - sons; adayas - beginning with; ca - also.

 

 

     Others that He is the creator. Sons and others also.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The Katha Upanishad affirms that the Supersoul creates the objects of desire seen in dreams and other situations. It says (Katha Upanishad 5.8):

 

 

ya eshu supteshu jagarti kamam kamam purusho nirmimana

 

 

     "Remaining awake, the Supreme Personality of Godhead creates the objects of desire seen in dreams."

 

     Here the word "kama" refers to good sons and other blessings that the individual soul may desire. The word  kama" is used in this way in Katha Upanishad (1.1.25):

 

 

sarvan kaman chandatah prarthayasva

 

 

     "You may ask for whatever you wish."

 

     In Katha Upanishad (1.1.23) it is said:

 

 

shatayushah putra-pautran vrinishva

 

     "You may choose many sons and grandsons that live for a hundred years."

 

     In the Smriti-shastra it is said:

 

 

etasmad eva putro jayate. etasmad bhrata. etasmad bharya. yad enam svapnenabhihanti.

 

 

     "From the Supreme Personality of Godhead a good son is born. From Him a brother appears. From Him a wife appears. From Him these things appear in a dream."

 

     In the next passage the author of the sutras describes the instrument the Supreme Personality of Godhead employs to create dreams.

 

 

Sutra 3

 

 

maya-matram tu kartsnyenanabhivyakta-svarupatvat

 

     maya - the maya potency; matram - only; tu - but; kartsnyena - completely; an - not; abhivyakta - manifested; svarupatvat - because of the condition of having a form.

 

 

     But it is the maya potency only, because the forms are not completely manifested.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The Lord's inconceivable maya potency is the creator of what is seen in dreams. What is seen in dreams is not made of the five gross material elements, neither is it created by the demigod Brahma. Why is that? The sutra explains:  kartsnyenanabhivyakta-svarupatvat" (because the forms are not completely manifested). This means: "because they are not seen by everyone". In this way it is proved that the Supersoul is the creator of what is seen in dreams.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 2

Not All Dreams Are Illusions

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Are dreams reality or illusion?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): When a person wakes up he immediately knows that what he dreamed was an illusion. Therefore dreams are all illusions.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 4

 

 

sucakash ca hi shruter acakshate ca tad-vidah

 

     sucakas - an indicator; ca - and; hi - indeed; shruter - of the Shruti-shastra; acakshate - declare; ca - and; tad - that; vidah - they who know.

 

 

     It gives omens. The Shruti-shastra and the experts affirm it.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Dreams show good and bad omens. They also reveal mantras and other things. Therefore dreams are reality. Why is it that dreams reveal these things? The sutra explains: "shruteh" (the Shruti-shastra affirms it). the Chandogya Upanishad (5.2.9) affirms:

 

 

yada karmasu kamyeshu

     striyam svapne 'bhipashyati

samriddhim tatra janiyat

     tasmin svapna-nidarshane

 

 

     "If, when the auspicious rites are completed, one sees a woman in a dream, he should know that the rites were successful."

 

     In the Kaushitaki-brahmana it is said:

 

 

atha svapne purusham krishnam krishna-dantam pashyati sa enam hanti

 

 

     "If in a dream one sees a black man with black teeth, that man will kill him."

 

     The word "tad-vidah" here means "they who know how to interpret dreams". These persons affirm that dreams reveal omens of good and evil. For example a dream of riding on an elephant is a good omen, and a dream of riding on a donkey is an omen of misfortune. In dreams one may also receive prayers. the Smriti-shastra affirms:

 

 

adishnavan yatha svapne

     rama-raksham imam harah

tatha likhitavan pratah

     prabuddho buddha-kaushikah

 

 

     "Then Lord Shiva appeared in a dream and taught him the Rama-raksha prayer. Waking up in the morning, Buddha Kaushika at once wrote it down."

 

     Therefore, because in dreams one sometimes receives omens, prayers, medicines, and other things, and becauses sometimes a person will actually appear in a dream, therefore sometimes dreams are as real as what is seen in the waking state. That is the conclusion of Shruti-shastra.

 

     Here someone may object: Is it not true that after waking up a person becomes convinced that what he saw in a dream was false. This proves that all dreams are unreal.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 5

 

 

parabhidhyanat tu tirohitam tato hy asya bandha-viparyayau

 

     para - of ther Supreme Personality of Godhead; abhidhyanat - by the will; tu - indeed; tirohitam - withdrawn; tato - from Him; hi - indeed; asya - of him; bandha - bondage; viparyayau - release.

 

 

     By the will of the Supreme Personality of Godhead it is withdrawn. Indeed, bondage and liberation also come from Him.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Because they are created by the will of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, chariots and other things seen in a dream are not unreal. They are not like the illusion of silver seen on a seashell. the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the cause of bondage and liberation for the individual spirit soul. this is described in Shvetashvatara Upanishad (6.16):

 

 

samsara-moksha-sthiti-bandha-hetuh

 

 

     "the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of this cosmic manifestation in regard to bondage to the conditional state of material existence and liberation from that bondage."*

 

     the Lord brings liberation from the bondage of repeated birth and death.Therefore it is not surprising that He has the power to bring dreams to their end. That is the meaning. Therefore it should be understood that dreams are manifested by Him and withdrawn by Him also. In the Kurma Purana it is said:

 

 

svapnadi-buddhi-karta ca

     tiraskarta sa eva tu

tad-icchaya yato hy asya

     bandha-mokshau pratishnhitau

 

 

     "The Supreme Lord creates and ends dreams and other states of being. By His will both bondage and liberation are manifested."

 

     Therefore, because they are created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, dreams are real.

 

 

 

Adhikarana 3

The Supreme Personality of Godhead Creates the Waking State

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Now will be explained that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the creator of the waking state also. In the Kanha Upanishad (2.1.4) it is said:

 

 

svapnantam jagaritantam

      cobhau yenanupashyati

mahantam vibhum atmanam

     matva dhiro na shocati

 

 

     "Aware that the all-powerful Supreme Person creates all that is seen in both waking and dreaming states, a wise man never laments."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Does the Supreme Personality of Godhead create the waking condition of the individual spirit souls, or not?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The waking state is not created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for it is seen that the waking state is under the control of time and other factors.

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

 

 

Sutra 6

 

 

deha-yogad va so 'pi

 

     deha - of the body; yogad - from contact; va - or; so - that; api - even.

 

 

     That also from contact with the body.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     As explained in Kanha Upanishad 2.1.4, the waking state, qwhich occurs when the soul is in contact with the body, is manifested from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is so because time and the other factors are only inert matter. The word "api" (also) in this sutra hints that the state of dreamless sleep and fainting are also created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is so because the Shruti-shastra affirms that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is creator of everything.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 4

The Supreme Personality of Godhead Is the Creator of Dreamless Sleep

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Now the condition of dreamless sleep will be considered. The Shruti-shastra describes the state of dreamless sleep in the following passages. In the Chandogya Upanishad (8.6.3) it is said:

 

 

asu tada nadishu supto bhavati

 

 

     "Entering the nadis, the soul sleeps."

 

     In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (2.1.19) it is said:

 

 

tabhih praty avashripya puri-tati shete

 

 

     "Entering the membrane surrounding the heart, the soul sleeps."

 

     In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (2.1.17) it is said:

 

 

ya esho 'ntar hridaya akashas tasmin shete

 

 

     "Entering the sky of the heart, the soul sleeps."

 

     Many other like verses may also be quoted. The "sky in the heart" here is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this way the Shruti-shastra explains that dreamless sleep is manifested when the soul enters the nadis, the membrane surrounding the heart, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Does the soul enter any one of these three places, or does the soul enter all of them?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The soul may enter any one of these places. This is so because these three places are equally able to be the place where the soul sleeps. The Nyaya-

shastra explains:

 

 

tulyarthas tu vikalperan

 

 

     "A list of things equally suitable for a certain thing indicates the option of choosing from them."

 

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

 

 

Sutra 7

 

tad-abhavo nadishu tac chruter atmani ca

 

     tad - of that; abhavo - the absence; nadishu - in the nadis; tat - that; shruter - from Shruti-shastra; atmani - in the Supreme Personality of Godhead; ca - also.

 

 

     Its absence occurs in the nadis and the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is so because of the Shruti-shastra.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "ca" (and) here hints the inclusion of the membrane surrounding the heart. The word "tad-abhava" (its absence) means "the absence of wakefulness and dream". Thus it means "the state of dreamless sleep". Dreamless sleep occurs in the nadis, the membrane surrounding the heart, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead collectively. Why is that? The sutra explains: "tac chruteh" (This is so because of the Shruti-shastra). Thus the Shruti-shastra declares that they are all, taken collectively, the place of dreamless sleep. The idea that there is an option here, and that to perform the activity of deep sleep the soul chooses one of these places, is an idea that contradicts the statements of Shruti-shastra. In the scriptures' description of dreamless sleep, it is seen that the nadis and pranas are described together. In the Kaushitaki Upanishad (4.19) it is said:

 

 

tasu tada bhavati. yada suptah svapnam na kancana pashyaty athasmin prana evaikadha bhavati.

 

 

     "Then the soul enters the nadis. When sleeping, the soul does not see any dream. Then the soul become one with the pranas."

 

     The explanation that the soul has an option of one of these three places does not apply here, for if that option were to apply, then these three places would have to be equally suitable for the action of dreamless sleep, but the truth is they are not. What occurs is the soul passes through the door of the nadis, enters the palace of the membrane surrounding the heart, and sleeps on the bed of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this way all three places are involved in the activity of dreamless sleep, but the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the actual place where dreamless sleep occurs. the word "puritat" here means "the membrane surrounding the lotus of the heart".

 

 

Sutra 8

 

 

atah prabodho 'smat

 

     atah - therefore; prabodho - waking; asmat - from Him.

 

     Therefore the waking state is from Him.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the actual place where dreamless sleep occurs and the nadis and other things mentioned here are merely doors through which the soul passes in order to rest on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, therefore the waking soul rises from the bed of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the Chandogya Upanishad it is said:

 

 

satas cagatya na viduh sata agacchamahe

 

 

     "We had departed from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, although we could not understand that we had departed from the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

     In this way the idea that sometimes the soul sleeps in the nadis, sometimes in the membrane surrounding the heart, and sometimes in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is disproved. It is not like that. Therefore the soul sleeps on the bed of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

 

 

Adhikarana 5

The Same Person Returns to the Body

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Chandogya Upanishad it is said:

 

 

satash cagatya na viduh

 

 

     "We had departed from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but we did not know we had departed from the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is the person awakening from the bed of the Supreme Personality of Godhead the same person who first went to sleep there, or is he a different person?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): It is not possible that the soul, having attained the Supreme Personality of Godhead, would again return to the same material body. Therefore it must be a different soul that awakens.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 9

 

 

sa eva tu karmanusmriti-shabda-vidhibhyah

 

     sas—he; eva — indeed; tu—but; karma—karma; anusmriti—memory; shabda—of the Shruti-shastra; vidhibhyah—from the instructions.

 

 

     It is he, because of the memory of karma and because of the teachings of Shruti-shastra.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sutra 10

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

 

Sutra 12

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 13

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 14

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 15

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 16

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 17

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 18

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 19

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 20

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 21

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 22

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 23

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 24

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 25

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 26

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 27

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 28

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 29

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 30

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 31

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 32

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 33

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 34

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 35

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 36

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 37

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sutra 38

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 39

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 40

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sutra 41

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 42

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 43

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 44

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 45

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sutra 46

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 47

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sutra 48

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 49

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

Sutra 50

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sutra 51

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 11

The "Neti Neti" Text Explained

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Here someone may object: It is not true that the individual spirit soul is a separate conscious person in some ways like the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The individual soul is only a reflection of the Supreme. In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (2.3.1) it is said:

 

 

dve vava brahmano rupe murtam caivamurtam ca

 

 

     "The Supreme has two forms: the subtle and the gross."

 

     After dividing the five elements into two categories, the Upanishad declares that all are forms of the Supreme. Then the Upanishad (2.3.6) declares:

 

 

tasya haitasya purushasya rupam yatha maharajanam vaso yatha pandv-avikam yathendragopo yathagny-arcir yatha pundarikam yatha sakrid vidyutam sakrid vidyutaiva ha va asya shrir bhavati ya evam veda.

 

 

     "That person's form is like gold, like white wool, like an indragopa, like a burning flame, like a white lotus, like a lightning flash. He who understands this becomes splendid like a lightning flash."

 

     Then, having described this person splendid like gold, the Upanishad (2.3.6) declares:

 

 

athata adesho neti neti. na hy etasmad iti. nety anyat param asti. atha namadheyam satyasya satyam iti. prana vai satyam tesham eva satyam.

 

 

     "This is the teaching: No. No. Not than Him. Nothing is greater than Him. Nothing is greater than Him. His name is the truth of the true. He is life. He is truth. He is truth."

 

     The meaning of this passage is this: the Supreme is greater that all the subtle and gross things in the material world. No person or thing is greater than Him. That is the meaning of the words, "No. No." in this passage. The words “No. No." therefore mean "Not than the Supreme Personality of Godhead". The word "no" is repeated twice to mean, "the material elements and material desires are not greater than Him" or to mean, "inanimate matter and the conscious living beings are not greater than Him", or to mean "other groups of two are not greater than Him". Thus he Ťspeaks the teaching (adesha): "No" (na). In this way he says, "No person or thing is greater than the Supreme Personality of Godhead".

 

     Here someone may object: Is it not so that this passage means, "As the material world does not exist in reality, so the Supreme Personality of Godhead also does not exist in reality? That is the meaning of the Upanishad's assertion “no". The form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, which is eternal and spiritual, and which ends all illusions, is not different from the visible material world. This also means that the individual spirit soul is also not different from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The spirit soul is a reflection of the Supreme. The individual spirit soul, who is atomic, and the Supreme, who is all-pervading, are not different. They are like the air in a pot and the air in the great sky. Therefore it is not correct to say that they are different.

 

     If this objection is raised, then the author of the sutras gives the following reply:

 

 

Sutra 22

 

 

prakrtaitavattvam hi pratishedhati tato braviti ca bhuyah

 

     prakrta—the topic under discussion; etavattvam—being like that; hi—indeed; pratishedhati—denires; tatah—then; braviti—says; ca—and; bhuyah—more.

 

 

     The previous statement denies that He is like them. It affirms that He is greater.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     This passage of Shruti-shastra does not teach that the one Supreme has no qualities. It teaches only that the Supreme is not like other persons. It teaches that the Supreme is superior to all others. In this way the Shruti-shastra affirms that the Supreme is not like other persons or things. The Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad's (2.3.1) statement that the subtle and gross elements of the world are forms of the Supreme does not mean that the Supreme is like the things of this world. The forms of the Supreme are not material. Therefore it is said that the Supreme is superior to everything in the material world and therefore He has the name "the truth of the true". That is the teaching here. He is more than the forms of this world. Because His form has no limit, therefore the Upanishad declares, "No. No." that is the meaning here. The meaning is that the form of the Lord is not like the subtle and gross forms of the material world. He is not like them because His form is eternal and true, and therefore He has the name "the truth of the true". This is what the Shruti-shastra teaches. Then the scriptures affirm "No person or thing is greater than Him". (na hy etasmat). Because nothing is greater than Him, therefore He has the name "the truth of the true". That Ťis why the text here says, "no". By this explanation of a small part of the Lord's nature, the Lord's nature as a whole may be understood.

     Now the word "namadheyam" will be explained. The Lord's name here is "satyasya satyam" (the truth of the true). This name describes the form of the Supreme. Then the text declares that the Supreme is "prana". Prana" here means, "the life of all that live". In this way the Lord's forms are superior to all others. This proves that the Lord's form is better than all other forms, either spiritual or material. No other form is better than His. In the material world the material forms are of two kinds: subtle and gross. That the Supreme Lord's forms are not material is explained in Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (2.3.6). Then the text declares that the Supreme is the truth of life. Because both the Lord and the individual spirit souls are not made of the material elements, which begin with ether, therefore they are both called truth. However, unlike the individual spirit souls, the Supreme is not subject to the different transformations of the material nature, which grant and remove true knowledge in different circumstances. Thus the individual spirit soul is certainly spiritual and conscious. However, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is superior to the individual souls for the Supreme Lord has limitless auspicious qualities. When they are understood, then devotion for the Lord naturally develops. Thus the Shruti-shastra does not deny the existence of the Lord's form, for in Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (2.3.6) the Lord's spiritual form was described. Only a madman would state one thing and then immediately contradict his own words. Therefore the author of the sutras says that "the Supreme is not like that". The author does not say "the Lord has no form at all". Thus the proper explanation is given.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 12

The Form of the Lord

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Now it will be proved that the Supreme Lord's form is spiritual and not perceivable by the material senses. This must be so, for if the Lord were not spiritual, that is, if he were an ordinary, common, easily available material object, like a pot or something of that nature, then it is not possible that there should be love and devotion for Him. The Shruti-shastra also affirms this, for it says:

 

 

sac-cid-ananda-rupaya

 

 

     "I offer my respectful obeisances to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose form is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is the Supreme Lord's form spiritual, and thus beyond the understanding of the material senses, or is it material, and thus easily seen by the material senses?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The Lord's form must be material, for many demigods, demons, and human beings have certainly seen it.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 23

 

 

tad avyaktam aha hi

 

     tat—that; avyaktam—unmanifest; aha—said; hi—indeed.

 

 

     Scripture says it is unmanifest.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The Lord can be seen only by spiritual senses. This is described in Katha Upanishad (6.9):

 

 

na sadrishe tishthati rupam asya na cakshusha pashyati kashcanainam

 

 

     "The Supreme Lord's form is not like that. Material eyes have never seen His form."

 

     In Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (3.9.26) it is said:

 

 

agrihyo na hi grihyate

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is not perceived by material senses."

 

     In the Bhagavad-gita (8.21) it is said:

 

 

avyakto 'kshara ity uktas

     tam ahuh paramam gatim

 

 

     "They say He is unmanifest and infallible. They say He is the supreme destination."

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 13

The Supreme Personality of Godhead Can Be Seen

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Now will be revealed the truth that although the Supreme Lord is spiritual by nature, still He can be seen by they who have love, devotion, and spiritual wisdom. If the Supreme Personality of Godhead were always invisible and never to be seen, then it would not be possible to have love and devotion for Him. In the Kaivalya Upanishad (2) it is said:

 

 

shraddha-bhakti-dhyana-yogad avaiti

 

 

     "One who has faith and devotion, and who meditates on Him, can see the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

     In this way it is explained that a faithful devotee who meditates on Lord Hari, attains the direct sight of Lord Hari.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is the Supreme Lord seen by the mind or by the eyes and other senses?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The Supreme Lord is seen by the mind. This is described in Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.19):

 

 

manasaivanudrashtavyam

 

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is indeed seen by the mind."

 

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

 

Sutra 24

 

 

api samradhane pratyakshanumanabhyam

 

     api—certainly; samradhane—in worship; pratyaksha—by the Shruti-shastra; anumanabhyam—by the Smriti-shastra.

 

 

     Certainly it is in worship because of the Shruti-shastra and Smriti-shastra.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "api" (certainly) is used here to mock the purvapaksha (opponent). When one has sincere devotion (samradhane) with one's eyes and other senses one can directly see the Lord. Why is that? The sutra explains: "Because of the Shruti-shastra and Smriti-shastra." In the Katha Upanishad Ť(2.4.1) it is said:

 

 

paranci khani vyatrinat svayambhus

     tasmat paran pashyati nantaratman

kashcid dhirah pratyag atmanam aikshad

     avrita-cakshur amritatvam icchan

 

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead made the conditioned souls gaze at external things and not at what is within the heart. A rare saint who yearns for liberation will look inside his heart and see the Supreme Lord staying there."

 

     In the Mundaka Upanishad (3.1.8) it is said:

 

 

jnana-prasadena vishuddha-sattvas

     tatas tu tam pashyati nishkalam dhyayamanah

 

 

     "In the course of his meditation a pure-hearted saint will become enlightened. Then he sees the perfect Supreme Lord directly."

 

     In the Bhagavad-gita (11.53-54) The Lord Himself declares:

 

 

naham vedair na tapasa

     na danena na cejyaya

shakya evam-vidho drashtum

     drishtavan asi mam yatha

 

 

     "The form you are seeing with your transcendental eyes cannot be understood simply by studying the Vedas, nor by undergoing serious penances, nor by charity, nor by worship. It is not by these means that one can see Me as I am.*

 

 

bhaktya tv ananyaya shakya

     aham evam-vidho 'rjuna

jnatum drashtum ca tattvena

     praveshtum ca parantapa

 

 

     "My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding."*

 

     In this way it is proved that with the aid of devotional service one can see Lord Hari directly. Thus with the aid of the eyes and other senses one can perceive the Lord directly. Thus the Lord can be perceived by the senses. Thus the word “eva" (indeed) in Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.19) does not hint that one cannot see the Lord with the aid of senses.

 

 

Sutra 25

 

 

prakashadi-vac cavaisheshyat

 

     prakasha—fire; adi—beginning with; vat—like; ca—and; Ťa—not; vaisheshyat—with differences.

 

 

     He is (not) like fire or other things, for He has no such different features.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "na" (not) should be taken from a previous sutra (3.2.19) and placed here also.

 

     Here someone may object: As fire has two forms: subtle and gross, the subtle form invisible and unmanifest, and the gross form visible and manifest, so does the Supreme Lord also have two forms in the same way.

 

     If this objection is stated, then I reply: "No. It is not so." Why not? The sutra explains: "Because He is not subtle and gross like fire". The Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (3.4.4) explains:

 

 

asthulam ananv ahrasvam

 

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is neither subtle, nor gross, nor short, nor tall."

 

     In the Garuda Purana it is said:

 

 

sthula-sukshma-vishesho 'tra

     na kashcit parameshvare

sarvatraiva prakasho 'sau

     sarva-rupeshv ajo yatah

 

 

     "Because He appears everywhere and in every form, the distinctions of subtle and gross do not apply to the unborn Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

     Here someone may object: Is it not so that the Supreme Lord does not always appear before the devotees when they worship Him with devotion. For this reason it must be true that the Lord does not always appear when He is worshiped with love.

 

     Fearing that someone may doubt in this way, the author of the sutras gives the following explanation.

 

 

Sutra 26

 

 

prakashash ca karmany abhyasat

 

     prakashah—appearance; ca—and; karmani—in activity; abhyasat—by repetition.

 

 

     And when the activity is repeated, then He appears.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "ca" (and) is used here to dispel doubt. When activities like meditation and worship are repeated, then the Lord appears. In the Dhyana-bindu Upanishad (18) it is said:

 

 

dhyana-nirmathanabhyasad

     devam pashyen nigudhavat

 

 

     "By repeated meditation one is able to see the Supersoul hidden in the heart."

 

     By repeated meditation one develops love for the Lord, and at that time one is able to see the Lord. However, in the Brahma-vaivarta Purana it is said:

 

 

na tam aradhayitvapi

     kashcid vyakti-karishyati

nityavyakto yato devah

     paramatma sanatanah

 

 

     "No one, simply by engaging in worship, can force the Lord to become visible. To a person who tries to force Him in this way, the eternal Lord is always invisible."

 

     The worship described here is worship performed without sincere love for the Supreme Lord.

 

     Here someone may object: Is it not true that the Supreme Lord is present within everything? If He is present within, then it is a contradiction to say that He can come out. He remains within and He does not come out. Therefore the statement that the Supreme Lord comes out and becomes directly visible is a collection of meaningless words, words that contradict the truth that the Lord is always present within everything.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 27

 

 

ato 'nantena tatha hi lingam

 

     atah—therefore; anantena—by the infinite; tatha—so; hi—indeed; lingam—evidence.

 

 

     It is so by the infinite. There is evidence.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     There is evidence to support both ideas: that the Supreme Lord is present within everything, and that the Supreme Lord becomes visible to they who meditate on Him. The unlimited Supreme Lord, pleased by His devotees' worship of Him, shows to them His own form. He does this by His inconceivable mercy. That should be accepted. How is this known? The sutra explains: “There is evidence." In the Atharva Veda it is said:

 

 

vijnana-ghanananda-ghana-sac-cid-anandaika-raso bhakti-yoge tishthati

 

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose sweet form is eternal and full of bliss and knowledge, becomes visible when He is worshiped with devotion."

 

     This means that by His mercy the Lord appears before they who worship Him with devotion. In the Narayanadhyatma it is said:

 

 

nityavyakto 'pi bhagavan

     ikshate nija-shaktitah

tam rite paramatmanam

     kah pashyetam itam prabhum

 

 

     "Although He is always invisible, the Supreme Personality of Godhead becomes visible by His own power. Without first obtaining His mercy, who can see Him?"

 

     This means that the Lord becomes visible by His own wish. The Supreme Lord Himself declares (Bhagavad-gita 7.24):

 

 

avyaktam vyaktim apannam

     manyante mam abuddhayah

param bhavam ajananto

     mamavyayam anuttamam

 

 

     "Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme."*

 

     Because the Lord becomes visible in response to His devotees' love, that does not mean that He is not also all-pervading, present within everything. He does both these actions by the power of His own internal potency. However, to they who do not love Him, He presents only a reflection or a shadow of Himself. The Lord Himself affirms (Bhagavad-gita 7.25):

 

 

naham prakashah sarvasya

     yogamaya-samavritah

 

 

     "I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My internal potency."*

 

     Therefore, even though He is full of transcendental bliss and other auspicious qualities, He appears terrible and ferocious to they who have no love for Him. Therefore to they who do not love Him He remains invisible.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 14

The Lord's Qualities Are Not Different From His Self

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     Now will be proved the truth that the Lord's qualities are not different from His self. If the Lord's qualities were different from His self, then His qualities would be secondary and unimportant, and thus love for the Lord, love inspired by those qualities, would also become secondary and unimportant. However, love for the Lord is not secondary and unimportant. It is clearly seen that love for the Lord is of the greatest importance. The Lord's qualities are described in the Shruti-shastra:

 

 

vijnanam anandam brahma

 

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of knowledge and bliss."

 

 

yah sarva-jnah sarva-vid

 

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is all-knowing."

 

 

anandam brahmano vidvan

 

 

     "A wise man knows that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of bliss."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is the worshipable Supreme Truth the actual qualities of bliss and knowledge themselves, and thus impersonal, or is the Supreme Truth a person who possesses the qualities of bliss and knowledge?"

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): Because both ideas are described in the scriptures it is not possible to come to a final conclusion.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 28

 

 

ubhaya-vyapadeshat tv ahi-kundala-vat

 

     ubhaya—of both; vyapadeshat—because of the description; tu—indeed; ahi—the snake; kundala—and the coils; vat—like.

 

 

     Because indeed there is description of both, He is like a snake and its coils.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

     The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the qualities of knowledge and bliss themselves, and He is also a person who possesses the qualities of knowledge and bliss. He is like a snake and its coils. As a snake both is and possesses its coils, so the Supreme Personality of Godhead both is and possesses His qualities. How is this known? The sutra explains: “Because there is description of both." The Shruti-shastra describes both. That is the meaning. The word "tu" (indeed) here hints that the passages of the Shruti-shastra have a single meaning. The meaning here is that the Lord is inconceivable. The Lord is not divided. It is not that these two kinds of explanations of the scriptures mean that one part of the Lord has one nature and another part of Him has a different nature. He is not divided into parts in that way.

 

 

Sutra 29

 

 

prakashashrayavad va tejastvat

 

     prakasha—of light; ashraya—the shelter; vat—like; va—or; tejastvat—because of being splendid.

 

 

     Or, because He is effulgent He is like an abode of light.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is effulgent, that is to say because He is full of consciousness, therefore He is the abode of light. That is the conclusion. As the effulgent sun is the abode of light, so the all-knowing Supreme Personality of Godhead is the abode of knowledge. That is the meaning. The word "tejah" is defined to mean either “the destroyer of ignorance" or "the destroyer of darkness".

 

 

Sutra 30

 

 

purvavad va

 

     purva—past; vat—as; va—or.

 

 

     Or, as the past.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     As it is said that time both possesses the past and also is the past itself, so the Supreme both possesses knowledge and bliss and also is knowledge and bliss. Thus the Supreme is both the quality and the possessor of the quality. In the Brahma Purana it is said:

 

 

anandena tv abhinnena

     vyavaharah prakashavat

purvavad va yatha kalah

     svavecchedakatam vrajet

 

 

     "As the sun is not different from its light or time is not different from its quality of the past, so the Supreme is not different from His bliss."

 

     In this series of analogies (sutras 28-30) each analogy is more subtle than the one before it.

 

 

Sutra 31

 

 

pratishedhac ca

 

     pratishedhat—because of denial; ca—also.

 

 

     Also because it is denied.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "ca" (also) is used here for emphasis. In the Katha Upanishad (2.4.11 and 14) it is said:

 

 

manasaivedam aptavyam

     neha nanasti kincana

mrityoh sa mrityum apnoti

     ya iha naneva pashyati

 

 

     "A pure heart can understand that the Lord and His attributes are not different. He who sees them as different travels from death to death."

 

 

yathodakam durge vrishtam

     parvateshu vidhavati

evam dharman prithak pashyams

     tan evanuvidhavati

 

 

     "One who thinks the Lord and His attributes are different falls into hell as rainwater glides down a mountain peak."

 

     In the Narada-pancaratra it is said:

 

 

nirdosha-purna-guna-vigraha atma-tantro

     nishcetanatmaka-sharira-gunaish ca hinah

ananda-matra-kara-pada-mukhodaradih

     sarvatra ca svagata-bheda-vivarjitatma

 

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is independent, faultless, filled with virtues, not residing in a material body, untouched by the modes of nature or a material body fashioned of inanimate matter, but still possessing a face, belly, hands, feet and other features of a spiritual body filled with bliss. He is not different from His various limbs, features, and qualities."

 

     Because in this way the scriptures deny that the Lord is Ťdifferent from His attributes, therefore the Lord is not different from His attributes. Therefore the word “bhagavan" (the all-opulent Supreme Lord) is defined in terms of the Lord's knowledge and other attributes. In the Vishnu Purana it is said:

 

 

jnana-shakti-balaishvarya-

     virya-tejamsy asheshatah

bhagavac-chabda-vacyani

     vina heyair gunadibhih

 

 

     "The word `bhagavan' means `He who has all knowledge, strength, wealth, power, heroism, and splendor, but no faults'."

 

     Although the Lord and His attributes are actually one, they are spoken of as being two in the same way that a body of water and its waves are spoken of as being two. The Lord is blissful. He is also bliss itself. Therefore His form is full of bliss. Because the Lord's activities are eternal, therefore the Lord's form is also eternal. However, for the sake of ordinary dealings a pretended distinction is made between the Lord and His attributes, even though there is in truth no distinction at all. If this is not done then it would not be possible to speak sentences like, "Existence exists," "Time is always," and "Space is everywhere," statements that are useful in ordinary discourse. Nor are statements like “Existence exists" foolish illusions. They are meaningful statements, as the sentence "The jar exists" is a meaningful statement. These statements are not metaphors like the sentence "Devadatta is a lion", for the statement “Existence does not exist" can never be truthfully said. Nor do these statements hint that attributes do not exist, for in the previously stated example of water flowing from a mountain peak there are certainly attributes. However, the idea that the Supreme Lord is different from His attributes is certainly denied here. In this way the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not different from the attributes He possesses.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 15

The Supreme Personality of Godhead Experiences the Highest Bliss

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Now will be described the truth that the bliss and other attributes of the Lord are all of the highest nature. If the bliss and other attributes of the individual spirit souls were equal to the bliss and attributes of the Lord, love and devotion for the Lord would not be possible.

 

     Vishaya (the subject to be discussed): Now will be discussed the texts that describe these attributes of the Lord.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Are the bliss and other attributes of the Supreme Lord greater than the bliss and other attributes of the individual spirit souls, or are they not greater than them?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): Because the bliss of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is described in the same terms used to describe the ordinary blisses of the material world, therefore the Lord's bliss is not greater. After all, when one speaks the word "jar" one doesn't mean something greater than a jar.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 32

 

 

param atah setunmana-sambandha-bheda-vyapadeshebhyah

 

     param—greater; atah—than this; setu—of a bridge; unmana—immeasurable; sambandha—relationship; bheda—difference; vyapadeshebhyah—from the descriptions.

 

 

     It is greater because of the statements about a bridge, immeasurability, a relationship, and a difference.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The bliss and other attributes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are greater than the bliss and attributes of the individual spirit souls. Why is that? The sutra declares: “because of the statements about a bridge, immeasurability, a relationship, and a difference." The statement about a bridge is given in the Chandogya Upanishad (8.4.1), where the bliss of the Supreme Lord is described in these words:

 

 

esha setur vidhritih

 

     "It is the highest bridge."

 

     The statement about immeasurability is given in the Taittiriya Upanishad (2.4.1):

 

 

yato vaco nivartante

 

 

     "Unable to describe the immeasurable bliss of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, words return and become silent."

 

     The statement about a relationship is given in the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.3.32):

 

 

etasyaivanandasyanyani bhutani matram upajivanti

 

 

     "The bliss of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the highest. All others experience only a small portion of that bliss."

 

     The statement about a difference is given in the following words:

 

 

anyaj jnanam tu jivanam

     anyaj jnanam parasya ca

nityanandavyayam purnam

     param jnanam vidhiyate

 

 

     "The knowledge possessed by the individual spirit souls is one thing and the knowledge possessed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead is another. The perfect, complete, blissful, and immutable knowledge possessed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead is higher."

 

     The bliss and other attributes described in these statements are not at all like the ordinary bliss and other attributes found in this world.

 

     Here someone may object: Still, what is described with the word "jar" cannot really be different from a jar.

 

     To answer this objection the author of the sutras speaks the following words.

 

 

Sutra 33

 

 

samanyat tu

 

     samanyat—because of resamblance; tu—but.

 

 

     But because of a common quality.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "tu" (but) is used here to dispel doubt. As the word "jar" is used to describe many different kinds of jars, which all have a single quality of "jarness" in Ťcommon, so the word "bliss" describes many different kinds of ordinary and extraordinary blisses, which all have a single quality of "blissness" in common. However the different kinds of bliss and other attributes are not alike in all respects. Therefore it is said:

 

 

para-jnanamayo 'sadbhir

     nama-jaty-adibhir vibhuh

na yogavan na yukto 'bhun

     naiva parthiva yokshyati

 

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead has the highest transcendental knowledge. He never is, was, or will be touched by the temporary names and forms of the material world."

 

     It this way it is demonstrated that the knowledge possessed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead is superior to the knowledge possessed by the individual spirit souls.

 

     Here someone may object: If the Supreme Personality of Godhead is actually superior to the individual spirit souls and to the inanimate material world, then why does the Chandogya Upanishad (3.14.1) declare:

 

 

sarvam khalv idam brahma taj jalan iti shanta upasita

 

 

     "Everything is the Supreme. Everything is manifested from Him. A peaceful sage should worship Him."

 

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

 

 

Sutra 34

 

 

buddhy-arthah pada-vat

 

     buddhi—of understanding; arthah—for the purpose; pada—foot; vat—like.

 

 

     It is for understanding, like the word "foot".

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     This teaching is meant to increase understanding. The understanding here is that everything belongs to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is like the explanation of the word "foot" in the scriptures. In the Rig Veda (10.90.3) it is said:

 

 

pado 'sya vishva bhutani

 

 

     "The entire material universe is His one foot."

 

     By understanding that the entire material universe is a single foot of the Supreme, a person no longer hates anyone, Ťand then his heart becomes devoted to the Lord. This does not mean, however, that one should become attracted to everything, for that would bewilder the intelligence.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 16

The Supreme Is Not Devoid of Variety

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Now will be explained the truth that because there is a great variety of kinds of love and devotion for Him, worshipable Lord Hari assumes a great variety of forms. If this were not so then many kinds of love for the Lord would be thwarted. These many forms of the Lord are all beginningless and eternal. In the Shruti-shastra it is said:

 

 

eko 'pi san bahudha yo 'vabhati

 

 

     "Although He is one, He appears in many forms."

 

     Thus the one Supreme Personality of Godhead appears eternally in many different places.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Are there varieties of greater and lesser in these forms, or not?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): Because these forms are all equally the Supreme Lord, therefore they are all the same and they are not different.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 35

 

 

sthana-visheshat prakashadi-vat

 

     sthana—of places; visheshat—from the variety; prakasha—light; adi—beginning with; vat—like.

 

 

     Like light and other things, so He also is different in different places.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Although the Supreme Personality of Godhead is one, nevertheless, in different places and before different devotees He manifests different kinds of opulence, power, and sweetness. In this way, in the presence of devotees in the various mellows, such as the mellows of peacefulness, servitude, and friendship, the Lord manifests many different kinds of forms. He does this in the same way as light or other things also manifest many different kinds of forms. As the light of a lamp appears clear or red when reflected from crystals or rubies set in a temple's walls, and as sound, although originally one, appears different when sounded by Ťa conchshell, mridanga, flute, or other musical instrument, so the Supreme Personality of Godhead manifest sweetness and other attributes according to the different circumstances. That is the meaning. When the Lord manifests His great opulence, He is worshiped by the rules and regulations of vidhi-bhakti. That manifestation is compared to the light reflected from crystal. When the Lord manifests His great sweetness, He is worshiped by the spontaneous love of ruci-bhakti. That manifestation is compared to the light reflected from rubies. In this way the Lord's many manifestations in different abodes and in relation to the different kinds of devotion of different kinds of devotees, are basically of these two kinds (opulence and sweetness).

 

 

Sutra 36

 

 

upapatesh ca

 

     upapateh—because of reasonableness; ca—also.

 

 

     Also because it is reasonable.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     This is also described in Chandogya Upanishad (3.14.1), which explains:

 

     "As one has faith in the Lord, so one is rewarded."

 

     It is not otherwise. As there are different kinds of love for the one Supreme Lord, so the one Lord expands into many different forms.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 17

The Lord is the Highest

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Now will be explained the truth that the Supreme Lord is the highest. If anyone were superior to the Supreme Lord, then it would not be possible to develop love and devotion to Him. Shvetashvatara Upanishad (3.4) clearly states that the Lord is the greatest. However, Shvetashvatara Upanishad (3.10) describes something superior to the Supreme Lord.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is there a person or thing greater than the worshipable Supreme Lord, or is there not?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): There is something greater than the Supreme Lord. This is clearly described in Shvetashvatara Upanishad (3.10).

 

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

 

 

Sutra 37

 

 

tathanya-pratishedhat

 

     tatha—so; anya—of another; pratishedhat—because of the denial.

 

 

     It is so, for another is denied.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Nothing is greater than the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Why is that? The sutra explains: "for another is denied." In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad (3.9) it is said:

 

 

yasmat param naparam asti kincid

     yasman naniyo na jyayo 'sti kincit    

 

 

     "There is no truth superior to that Supreme Person because He is the supermost. He is smaller than the smallest, and He is greater than the greatest."*

 

     In this way the scriptures deny the existence of anything greater than the Supreme Lord. That is the meaning here. In Shvetashvatara Upanishad (3.8) it is said:

 

 

vedaham etam purusham mahantam

     aditya-varnam tamasah parastat

tam eva viditvati mrityum eti

     nanyah panthah vidyate 'yanaya

 

 

     "I know that Supreme Personality of Godhead who is transcendental to all material conditions of darkness. Only he who knows Him can transcend the bonds of birth and death. There is no way for liberation other than knowledge of that Supreme Person."*

 

     After thus teaching that no path but knowledge of the Supreme Person leads to liberation, the Shvetashvatara Upanishad (3.9) explains:

 

 

yasmat param naparam asti

 

 

     "There is no truth superior to that Supreme Person."

     In this way is proved that there is no truth superior to the Supreme Lord. In Shvetashvatara Upanishad (3.10) it is said:

 

 

tato yad uttarataram

     tad arupam anamayam

ya etad vidur amritas te bhavanty

     athetare duhkham evapi yanti

 

 

     "They who know that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is greater than the greatest, and has no material body and no faults, become immortal. They who do not know Him suffer."

 

     In this way the scriptures declare that there is no truth superior to the Lord. In this way the false idea of our opponent is disproved. In Bhagavad-gita (7.7), the Supreme Lord Himself declares:

 

 

mattah parataram nanyat

     kincid asti dhananjaya

 

 

     "O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me."*

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 18

The Lord is All-pervading

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Now, to show that the object of worship is always nearby, the truth that the Supreme Lord is all-pervading will be described. Otherwise, if the Supreme Lord were not always nearby, then there would not be enthusiasm to love the Lord, and love for the Lord would become slackened. In the Gopala-tapani Upanishad it is said:

 

 

eko vashi sarva-gah krishna idyah

 

 

     "Lord Krishna, the supreme controller and the supreme object of worship, is present everywhere."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Is Lord Hari, the supreme object of meditation, all-pervading, or does He stay only in one place?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): Because the Lord is of moderate height, and because He stays aloof from the material world, the Lord cannot be everywhere and does not go to every place. Therefore the Lord is not all-pervading.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 38

 

 

anena sarvagatatvam ayama-shabdadibhyah

 

     anena—by Him; sarva—everywhere; gata—going; tvam—the state of being; ayama—all-pervasiveness; shabda—Shruti-shastra; adibhyah—beginning with.

 

 

     He is everywhere, for the Shruti-shastra and other scriptures declare that He is all-pervading.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Even though His form is of a moderate height, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is all-pervading. Why is that? The sutra explains: "the Shruti-shastra and other scriptures declare that He is all-pervading." Here the word "ayama" means "all-pervading". The word "adi" (beginning with) here means "because He has inconceivable potencies".

     In the Gopala-tapani Upanishad it is said:

 

 

eko vashi sarva-gah krishna idyah

 

     "Lord Krishna, the supreme controller and the supreme object of worship, is present everywhere."

 

     In the Taittiriya Aranyaka it is said:

 

 

yac ca kincij jagat sarvam

     drishyate shruyate 'pi va

antar bahish ca tat sarvam

     vyapya narayanah sthitah

 

 

     "Lord Narayana is present everywhere. He is within and without everything. He is within everything that has ever been seen or heard."

 

     In this way it is declared that, even though He has a form of moderate height, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is certainly all-pervading. Because of His inconceivable potencies the Lord is greater than all and present everywhere, even though His form is of a moderate height. In Bhagavad-gita (9.4 and 5), the Supreme Lord Himself declares:

 

 

maya tatam idam sarvam

     jagad avyakta-murtina

mat-sthani sarva-bhutani

     na caham teshv avasthitah

 

na ca mat-sthani bhutani

     pashya me yogam aishvaram

 

 

     "By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence!"*

 

     Because the Supreme Lord is different from matter does not mean that He cannot be all-pervading within the material world, for the Shruti-shastra clearly declares that He is certainly present within and without. The scriptures also affirm that as oil is present in sesame seeds and as butter is present in yogurt, so the Supreme Lord is present everywhere. In this way it is proved that worshipable Lord Hari is present everywhere. This is clearly shown in His Damodara pastime. Even though He was a small child, still He displayed His power of being all-pervading.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 19

The Supreme Lord Awards the Fruits of Action

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Now will be described the truth that the Supreme Lord awards all the fruits of action. Otherwise, if He did not award the fruits of action, or if He awarded only some of the fruits of action, because of His miserliness it would be difficult to develop love for Him. In the Prashna Upanishad (3.7) it is said:

 

 

punyena punyam lokam nayati

 

 

     "The Supreme Lord takes the pious to the world of the pious."

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Are the pious results that begin with entrance into Svargaloka attained by performing yajnas and other pious deeds, or are they attained by the sanction given by the Lord?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): These results are caused by performance of yajnas and other pious deeds. The Supreme Lord has nothing to do with it.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 39

 

 

phalam ata upapatteh

 

     phalam—fruit; atah—from Him; upapatteh—because it is reasonable.

 

 

     The result is from Him, for that is reasonable.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The attainment of Svargaloka and other pious benefits, benefits attained by performing yajnas and other pious deeds, are actually awarded by the Supreme Lord Himself. Why is that? The sutra explains: "for that is reasonable." In this way it is shown that the eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, and supremely generous Lord, when He is worshiped by the performance of yajnas and other pious deeds, after some time has elapsed grants the rewards of these pious deeds. The deeds themselves, which are only inert matter and which perish in a moment as soon as they are performed, do not grant these rewards. That is the meaning.

     In the next sutra the author gives the proof of this.

 

Sutra 40

 

 

shrutatvac ca

 

     shrutatvat—because of being described in the Shruti-shastra; ca—also.

 

 

     Also because it is affirmed by the Shruti-shastra.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (3.9.28) it is said:

 

 

vijnanam anandam brahma ratir datuh parayanam

 

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of knowledge and bliss. It is He who gives the fruits of actions to they who perform yajnas."

 

     In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.24) it is also said:

 

 

sa va esha mahan aja atma annado vasu-danah

 

 

     "The unborn Supreme Personality of Godhead gives the fruits of work."

 

     These two passages explain that the Supreme Lord gives the fruits of action. The word "datuh" means "of the performer of yajna", and "ratih" means “the giver of the results".

 

 

Sutra 41

 

 

dharmam jaiminir ata eva

 

     dharmam—piety; jaiminih—Jaimini; atah—from Him; eva—indeed.

 

 

     Jaimini affirms that piety comes from Him.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Jaimini holds that piety comes from the Supreme Lord. The pious deed that gives an auspicious result itself comes from the Supreme Lord. In the Kaushitaki Upanishad (3.8) it is said:

 

 

esha eva sadhu karma karayati

 

 

     "The Lord engages the living entity in pious activities."*

 

     According to Jaimini, the Supreme Lord does not give the results of actions, either directly or indirectly. The Lord creates only the actions themselves and the results are given by the actions.

     Here someone may object: Is it not so that actions are over in a moment, whereas there is often a great lapse of time before actions bear their karmic result? If the actions quickly cease to exist they cannot create the karmic results, for something that has ceased to exist cannot create something new.

 

     To this objection Jaimini may reply: No. It is not so. Even though the action itself comes to an end, it leaves behind a potential result. Only when this result is fulfilled is the action actually completed. Even if there is a considerable lapse of time, the action itself gives the result to the person, a result appropriate to that particular action. Thus actions are the givers of results.

 

     In the following words Shrila Vyasadeva, the author of the sutras, gives His opinion.

 

 

Sutra 42

 

 

purvam tu badarayano hetu-vyapadeshat

 

     purvam—previous; tu—but; badarayanah—Vyasadeva; hetu—of the cause; vyapadeshat—from the description.

 

 

     But Vyasadeva holds the previous view, for the Lord is described as the cause.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Here the word "tu" (but) is employed to dispel doubt. Vyasadeva holds the previous view, that the Supreme Personality of Godhead awards the fruits of action. Why so? The sutra explains: "for the Lord is described as the cause". In the Prashna Upanishad (3.7) it is said:

 

 

punyena punyam lokam nayati papena papam

 

 

     "The Supreme Lord takes the pious to the world of the pious and the sinful to the world of the sinful."

 

     In this way the scriptures teach that the Supreme Lord awards the results of action. That is the meaning. Because they already have ceased to exist, the actions themselves cannot be the cause of the karmic results. Also, it is the Supreme Lord Himself who is the creator of karma, for the scriptures say:

 

 

dravyam karma ca kalash ca

 

 

     "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is creator of matter, karma, and time.

 

     In this way it is proved that the Lord is the creator of karma. The idea that actions leave behind a potential result is a lame and foolish idea. Actions are inanimate and unconscious. They are like a block of wood or a stone, and therefore they have no power to award the results of actions. Also, the Shruti-shastra never describes them as awarding the results of actions.

 

     Here someone may object: Is it not so that the demigods are worshiped in the performance of yajnas and it is the demigods themselves who give the results of these yajnas.

 

     If this is said, then I reply: It is by the sanction of the Supreme Lord that the demigods are able to give these results. This is clearly described in the Antaryami Brahmana. Therefore the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself awards the results of actions. The lotus-eyed Supreme Lord Himself affirms this in the following words (Bhagavad-gita 7.21-22):

 

 

yo yo yam yam tanum bhaktam

     shraddhayarcitum icchati

tasya tasyacalam shraddham

     tam eva vidadhamy aham

 

 

     "I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship some demigod, I make his faith steady so he can devote himself to that particular deity.*

 

 

sa taya shraddhaya yuktas

     tasyaradhanam ihate

labhate ca tatah kaman

     mayaiva vihitan hi tan

 

 

     "Endowed with such a faith, he endeavors to worship a particular demigod and obtain his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone."*

 

     In this way worshiped by the performance of yajna, the Supreme Lord Himself gives the auspicious results to the worshiper. When He is thus pleased by devotion, the Supreme Lord will give everything, even Himself to His devotee. This will be described later on with quotes from the Shruti-shastra.

 

     Thus, in these two padas has been seen: 1. the fault of the material world, which is an abode of many sufferings, beginning with repeated birth and death, 2. the faultless glories of the Lord, 3. the Lord's being the controller of all, 4. the Lord's form of pure spirit, and 5. the Lord's being not different from His attributes. By hearing of these things one develops a great thirst to attain the Lord's association and a great disgust for all that is far from the Lord. In this way one comes to attain the Lord. That is what was revealed in these two padas.

 

 

 

 

Pada 3

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

 

paraya nirasya mayam guna-

     karmadini yo bhajati nityam

devash chaitanya-tanur manasi

     mamasau parisphuratu krishnah

 

 

     May Lord Krishna, who with the aid of His transcendental potency pushes aside the influence of maya, who has a host of transcendental virtues eternally, who enjoys eternal transcendental pastimes, and who has now appeared as Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, appear in my heart.

 

     In this pada will be revealed the way of worshiping the Lord's transcendental attributes. As in a vaidurya jewel many splendid colors are always manifest, so in the Supreme Personality of Godhead many different transcendental forms, all perfect and without beginning, are also manifest eternally. Understanding that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is supremely perfect, complete, and pure, has many different forms, a devotee becomes attracted to one of the Lord's forms and directs his worship to that form. If the various scriptures describe transcendental virtues present in that form of the Lord, all those virtues may also be ascribed to that single chosen form. Thus a person who worships the Supreme Personality of Godhead as present in His powers and opulences, such as the mind and the other powers of the world, should review the scriptures' descriptions of the various qualities of these forms, but not of other forms of the Lord.

     Others, however, speak in the following way: The one Supreme Personality of Godhead assumes different forms as an actor assumes different roles on the stage. In this way the Lord has many different names and abodes. For this reason all the qualities and pastimes of the different forms of the Lord, as described in the scriptures, may be ascribed to any one of the Lord's forms.

 

     Here someone may object: Is it not so that many of the qualities of many of the Lord's forms, qualities described in the scriptures, cannot be properly ascribed to all of the Lord's forms? Is it not so that sweetness, opulence, peacefulness, austerity, ferociousness, and other qualities may be mutually contradictory, and it may also be contradictory to ascribe the features of having a horn, tail, mane, tusk, or other features appropriate to the Lord's forms like Varaha and others to the Lord's humanlike forms, which carry a flute, conchshell, bow, arrows, and other paraphernalia? Therefore in the Mahabharata it is said:

 

yo 'nyatha santam atmanam

     anyatha pratipadyate

kim tena na kritam papam

     caurenatmapaharina

 

 

     "A person who ascribes to the Supreme Lord qualities that the Lord does not actually possess is a thief who robs himself. Does he not sin with his words?"

 

     Therefore, because of both the injunction of Smriti-shastra and the experience of the wise sages, one should not ascribe the qualities of one of Lord's forms to another of the Lord's forms.

 

     If this is said, then the following reply may be given: The qualities of one of Lord's forms may be ascribed to another of the Lord's forms only when the qualities are appropriate to that particular form. Ascribing the qualities of one of Lord's forms to another of the Lord's forms is of two kinds: 1. cintana, and 2. dhi-matra. They who perform this first kind of meditation are called sva-nishtha, and they who perform the second kind of meditation are called ekanti. In the next pada three kinds of wise devotees, headed by the sva-nishtha devotees, will be described. The sva-nishtha devotees have equal love for all the Lord's forms. They see all the qualities of all the Lord's forms present equally in each of the Lord's forms. They do not see anything improper in ascribing many contradictory qualities to each of the Lord's forms. They consider that the Lord by His great potency may possess many mutually contradictory qualities, just as a vaidurya jewel may display many different colors.

     The ekanti devotees, who are divided into two groups: parinishthita and nirapeksha, do not have equal love for all the Lord's forms. They meditate only on the qualities of one form the Lord, the form they have chosen. They see the qualities of this form alone. Even though they are well aware of the Lord's other forms, they do not meditate or gaze upon them. On His part, the Lord generally does not reveal His other forms to these devotees. This will be reveled in another adhikarana. As for the passage quoted from the Mahabharata, its true meaning is that it is a rebuke hurled at the impersonalists, who claim that the Supreme is consciousness and nothing else. The truth that the Supreme certainly does have qualities, and therefore the Lord's qualities should be sought out by they who seek liberation, is described in Chandogya Upanishad (8.1.1-6). It is also said, in thw Taittiriya Upanishad (2.4.1):

 

 

anandam brahmano vidvan

     na bibheti kutashcana

 

 

     "He who knows that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of bliss never fears anything."

 

     This means that they who understand the qualities of the Supreme become free of fear. In this way the scriptures affirm that the Supreme certainly does have qualities. The impersonalists claim that the Lord's qualities are either falsely Ťascribed to Him or else are accepted only because of the material traditions of this world. However, because many of these qualities are present in the Lord alone and no one else, it cannot be said that these qualities are falsely ascribed to the Lord, and because the revelation of scripture does not describe them as such, it also cannot be said that the qualities of the Lord are accepted only because of the material traditions of this world. They who claim that the qualities of the Lord are imagined to facilitate worship of the Lord, as in the statement, "Imagining the goddess of speech to be a cow, one should worship her", are all fools. Their idea is destroyed by the simple statement of the scriptures:

 

 

satyam etyopasita

 

 

     "Approaching the Supreme Reality, one should worship Him."

 

     Even the impersonalists, in their commentaries on sutras 3.3.12 and 3.3.38, affirm that the Supreme is bliss and there is no difference between the individual souls and the Supreme. In this way they accept the idea that the qualities of the worshipable Supreme are real and not metaphors. When the scriptures say that the Supreme has no qualities (nirguna), the intention is that He has no material qualities. Because it is clearly stated that the Lord is not different from His qualities, this objection of the impersonalists should not be taken seriously. For the purpose of meditation the Lord's qualities should be understood to be of two kinds: angi-nishtha (general qualities) and anga-nishtha (features of the Lord's form). It is said that one may collect from all the different parts of the Vedas descriptions of the Lord's qualities.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 1

The Lord Should Be Sought

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Vishaya (the subject to be discussed): To understand the Lord's qualities one should search all the texts of the Vedas.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Should one learn about the Supreme by studying the branch (shakha) of Vedic texts in one's own community, or should one study all the branches of the Vedas?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): Because all the branches of the Vedas are different, one should study only one's own branch of the Vedas.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 1

 

 

sarva-vedanta-pratyayam codanady-avisheshat

 

     sarva—all; veda—Vedas; anta—end; pratyayam—meaning; codana—injunctions; adi—beginning with; avisheshat—because of not being different.

 

 

     Because the Vedic injunctions and all other sources of real knowledge are not genuinely different, therefore knowledge of Him is the conclusion of all the Vedas.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "anta" (end) here means “conclusion". The word "anta" is also used in this way in Bhagavad-gita (2.16):

 

 

ubhayor api drishto 'ntah

 

 

     "This they have concluded by studying the nature of both."*

 

     Thus knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the final conclusion taught by all the Vedas. Why is that? The sutra explains: "because the Vedic injunctions and all other sources of real knowledge are not genuinely different." The “other sources of real knowledge" here refers to logic. In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.4.7) it is said:

 

 

atmety evopasita

 

     "One should worship the Supreme."

 

     These words, as well as the promptings of logic, confirm the truth that these statements and many others like them in passages of all the Vedas, all describe the same Supreme Lord. The same Supreme Lord is described in the same way in the Kanva, Madhyandina, and other recensions of the Vedas.

 

     Here someone may object: In one part of the Vedas (Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad 3.9.28) it is said:

 

 

vijnanam anandam brahma

 

 

     "The Supreme is knowledge and bliss."

 

     However, in another part of the Vedas (Mundaka Upanishad 1.1.9) it is said:

 

 

yah sarva-jnah sarva-vit

 

 

     "The Supreme knows everything."

 

     Because in this way each branch of the Vedas speaks differently of the Supreme, they do not all describe the same object as the Supreme.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 2

 

 

bhedad iti cen naikasyam api

 

     bhedat—because of difference; iti—thus; cet—if; na—not; ekasyam—in one; api—also.

 

 

     If it is said, "because they are different," then I reply, "It is not so, for it is also in one".

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     It is not so. That is so because these differences are seen even within the same branch of the Vedas. An example of this is the Taittiriya Upanishad, which gives the following two statements.

 

 

satyam jnanam anantam brahma

 

 

     "The limitless Supreme is both knowledge and truth."

 

 

anando brahma

 

 

     "The Supreme is bliss."

 

     In this way the many different branches of the Vedas Ťdescribe the same form of the Supreme Lord. They do not contradict each other at all.

 

 

Sutra 3

 

 

svadhyayasya tathatvena hi samacare 'dhikarac ca

 

     svadhyayasya—of Vedic study; tathatvena—by being so; hi—indeed; samacare—in Vedic rituals; adhikarat—because of being qualified; ca—also.

 

 

     Because of being qualified to study the Vedas and to perform rituals.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Taittiriya Aranyaka (2.15) it is said:

 

 

svadhyayo 'dhyetavyah

 

 

     "One should study the Vedas."

 

     In this way one is ordered to study all the Vedas. In the Smriti-shastra it is said:

 

 

vedah kritsno 'dhigantavyah sa-rahasyo dvijanmana

 

 

     "A brahmana should study the entire Veda, including even its confidential portions."

 

     The word "samacare" in this sutra means “because all are qualified to perform all pious rituals". The Smriti-shastra confirms this in the following words:

 

 

sarva-vedokta-margena

     karma kurvita nityashah

anando hi phalam yasmac

     chakha-bhedo hy ashakti-jah

 

sarva-karma-kritau yasmad

     ashaktah sarva-jantavah

shakha-bhedam karma-bhedam

     vyasas tasmad aciklpad

 

 

     "Following the path of all the Vedas, one should regularly perform pious rituals. Bliss is the result attained by this. The Veda was divided into different branches because the people were not able to perform all the pious deeds described in the Veda. That is why Vyasa divided the Veda into many branches and the one collection of pious rituals into many collections."

 

     Therefore, if a person is able to do so, he may understand the Supreme by performing all the spiritual practices described in all the branches of the Vedas. In the next sutra the author gives an example of indirect reasoning leading to the same Ťconclusion.

 

 

Sutra 4

 

 

sava-vac ca tan niyamah

 

     sava—yajnas; vat—like; ca—and; tat—that; niyamah—rule.

 

 

     That rule is like the yajnas.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The "savas" here are the seven yajnas beginning with the saurya-yajna and ending with the shataudana-yajna which, because they are performed with only one fire, may be performed only by the followers of the Atharva Veda. The worship of the Supreme Lord, however, can performed by the followers of all the Vedas.

     The word "salila-vat" (like water) is an alternate reading of the first word in this sutra. If this reading is accepted, then the sutra means, "As all waters flow, without restriction, into the sea, so all the statements of the Vedas describe, as much as they have the power, the Supreme Personality of Godhead." In the Agni Purana it is said:

 

 

yatha nadinam salilam

     shaktya sagaratam vrajet

evam sarvani vakyani

     pum-shaktya brahma-vittaye

 

 

     "As the water of rivers, as far as it has the power, always enters the sea, so all words, as far as their speaker has the power, should be employed to understand the Supreme Lord."

 

 

Sutra 5

 

 

darshayati ca

 

     darshayati—reveals; ca—also.

 

 

     It also reveals it.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     In the Katha Upanishad (1.2.15) it is said:

 

 

sarve veda yat-padam amananti

 

 

     "All the Vedas describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

     This means that the Supreme Lord is known by all the Vedas, or, in other words, the Vedas reveal the truth of Lord Hari. The word "ca" (and) in this sutra hints, "as far as one has the power". They who have the power may worship the ŤSupreme Lord by performing the pious rituals described in all the branches of the Vedas. They who do not have the power must worship the Supreme Lord by performing the pious rituals described in their own community's branch of the Vedas. The conclusion is that the Supreme Lord is the final object of knowledge sought by all the branches of the Vedas. This truth was also described in the very beginning of Vedanta-sutra (1.1.4):

 

 

tat tu samanvayat

 

 

     "But that (Lord Vishnu is the sole topic of discussion in the Vedas) is confirmed by all scriptures."

 

     This truth is thus repeated here in the discussion of the properness of studying the different qualities of the Supreme Lord. Because this repetition strengthens the argument here, there is no fault in it.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 2

The Lord's Qualities Are Described in Many Scriptures

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Now the author of the sutras will show that the many qualities of the Lord may be understood by studying all the Vedas. For example, in the Atharva Veda's Gopala-tapani Upanishad (1.8), the Supreme Lord is described as a cowherd boy dark like a tamala tree, dressed in yellow garments, decorated with a Kaustubha jewel, wearing a peacock-feather, playing graceful melodies on a flute, and surrounded by gopas, gopis, and surabhi cows. There He is the Deity of Gokula. In the Rama-tapani Upanishad, however, He is described as the Lord whose left side is decorated by Janaki-devi, holding a bow, the killer of Ravana and a host of demons, and the king of Ayodhya. In the Rama-tapani Upanishad it is said:

 

 

prakritya sahitah shyamah

     pita-vasa jata-dharah

dvi-bhujah kundali ratna-

     mali dhiro dhanur-dharah

 

 

     "Decorated with earrings and a jewel necklace, His complexion dark, His garments yellow, and the hair on His head matted, saintly, two-armed Lord Rama is accompanied by Goddess Sita."

 

     In the scriptures the Lord's form as Nrisimha is described as having a frightening face and filling His enemies with fear. The word "bhishana" (frightening), which occurs in Lord Nrisimha's mantra, is explained in the following words of the Nrisimha-tapani Upanishad:

 

 

atha kasmad ucyate bhishanam iti. yasmad yasya rupam drishtva sarve lokah sarve devah sarvani bhutani bhitya palayante svayam yatah kutashcin na bibheti. bhishasmad vatah pavate bhishodeti suryah. bhishasmad agnish cendrash ca mrityur dhavati pancamah.

 

 

     "Why is the Lord called frightening? Because when all the demigods, all the worlds, and all living entities see His form, they all flee in fear. He fears no one. Out of fear of Him the wind blows and the sun rises. Out of fear of Him fire, the moon, and death all flee."

 

     The Lord's form as Trivikrama is described in the Rig Veda (1.154.1):

 

 

vishnor nu kam viryani pravocam

     yah parthivani vimame rajamsi

yo askambhayad uttaram sadhastham

     vicakramanas tredhorugaya

 

 

     "How can I describe all the glories and powers of Lord Vishnu, who created the heaven and earth, established the worlds above and below, and with three steps passed over all the worlds?"

 

     Therefore, like the yajnas, which are different because they are offered to different demigods, so the method of worship to be offered to the different forms of the Supreme Lord are all different because the qualities of the Lord's different forms are different.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): Should the Shruti-shastra's description of the Lord's qualities in one kind of worship be added in another kind of worship, or not?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): The Shruti-shastra's description of the Lord's qualities in one passage should be heard. One should not mix that description with other descriptions of the Lord in other passages.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 6

 

 

upasamharo 'rthabhedad vidhi-shesha-vat samane ca

 

     upasamharah—combination; artha—of meaning; abhedat—because of non-difference; vidhi—of duties; shesha—remainder; vat-like; samane—in being the same; ca—also.

 

 

     In what is common there may be combination, for the meaning is not different. This is like what is appropriate for the rules and regulations.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "ca" (and) is used here for limitation. When the method of worship is the same, when the pure Supreme Personality of Godhead is the object of worship, and when the Lord's form is the same, then the qualities described in different places may be combined together. Why is that? The sutra explains: "for the meaning is not different." This means “because the worshipable qualities of the Supreme Lord are in all respects not different, that is because they are one, or harmonious. Here the sutra gives an example: "This is like what is appropriate for the rules and regulations." Descriptions of the rules for performing a yajna may be collected from different passages because the ritual of a yajna is everywhere the same. In the Atharva Veda's Rama-tapania Upanishad it is said:

 

yo vai shri-ramacandrah sa bhagavan ye matsya-kurmady-avatara bhur bhuvah svas tasmai namo namah.

 

 

     "Bhuh Bhuvah Svah. Obeisances to Shri Ramacandra, the Supreme Lord who descends in a host of incarnations, such as Lord Matsya and Lord Kurma."

 

     In this passage the forms of Lord Matsya and other incarnations are brought into a meditation on Lord Ramacandra.

 

     In the Gopala-tapani Upanishad it is said:

 

 

eko 'pi san bahudha yo 'vabhati

 

 

     "Although He is one, He appears in many forms."

 

     In this passage the forms of Lord Ramacandra and other incarnations are brought into a meditation on Lord Krishna.

    

     In Shrimad-Bhagavatam it is said of Lord Krishna:

 

 

namas te raghu-varyaya

     ravanantakaraya ca

 

 

     "Obeisances to You, the best of the Raghus and the killer of Ravana."

 

     Many other passages may be quoted to show meditations where descriptions of different forms of the Lord are brought together.

 

     Here someone may object: In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.4.7) it is said:

 

 

atmety evopasita

 

 

     "One should worship the Supreme."

 

     Therefore one should worship the Lord alone and not bring other forms into one's method of worship.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 7

 

 

anyathatvam shabdad iti cen navisheshat

 

     anyathatvam—otherwise; shabdat—because of the Shruti-shastra; iti—thus; cet—if; na—not; avisheshat—because of the lack of something specific.

 

 

     If someone says, "It is otherwise because of the Shruti-shastra", then I reply, "It is not so, for there is nothing specific".

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     If someone claims that Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.4.7) refutes the idea of thus bringing together the Lord's qualities, then I reply: No. It is not so. Why not? The sutra explains: "for there is nothing specific". This means that no scriptural passage declares, "the Lord's qualities should not be worshiped together." The word "eva" (indeed) in Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.4.7) means that one should not worship what is not the Supreme Lord. It does not mean that the Lord's qualities can not be worshiped together. If it is said, "The king alone is seen", that does not mean that the king's royal parasol and other royal paraphernalia were absent. It is said:

 

 

tasmad yatha-shakti-gunash cintyah

 

     "Therefore, as far as one is able, one should meditate on the Lord's various transcendental qualities."

 

     In this way it is proved that one may bring together the various qualities of the Lord.

 

     As a vaidurya jewel manifests many different colors, so the Supreme Lord manifests many different forms. Each of these forms is the same perfect, complete, and pure Supreme Lord. In some forms the Lord displays all His qualities, and other forms the Lord does not display all His qualities. Therefore a wise devotee may meditate on all the Lord qualities, as described in the scriptures, as being present in the particular form of the Lord that is chosen for worship.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 3

The Ekanti Devotees Do Not Meditate On All the Lord's Qualities

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Although they are learned in the many branches of the Vedas, still the ekanti devotees meditate only the Lord's qualities as revealed in their own Upanishads, which they have carefully studied. Even though they are aware of other qualities, they do not meditate on them. In this way there is an exception to what was previously described.

 

     Vishaya (the subject matter): The subject matter here is a passage of Gopala-tapani Upanishad.

 

     Samshaya (doubt): In the worship performed by the ekanti devotees, should all the qualities of the Supreme Lord be brought together or not?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): Because the Lord's qualities are to be praised, the ekanti devotees should meditate in this way, if they are able.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 8

 

 

na va prakarana-bhedat parovariyastvadi-vat

 

     na—not; va—or; prakarana—of devotion; bhedat—because of differences; parovariyastva—greater than the greatest; adi—beginning with; vat—like.

 

 

    Certainly not. Because of the differences in devotion. Like the Parovariya and others.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "va" (or) is used in the sense of “certainly". The ekanti devotees do not bring the qualities of the Lord's other forms into the specific form they have selected to worship. In this way the ekanti devotees who are exclusively devoted to Lord Krishna do not think of Lord Nrisimha's mane, teeth, fearsomeness, and other qualities as present in Lord Krishna. In the same way the ekanti devotees who are exclusively devoted to Lord Nrisimha do not think of Lord Krishna's flute, stick, peacock-feather, and other qualities as present in Lord Nrisimha. Why is that? The sutra explains: “prakarana-bhedat" (because of the differences in devotion). The word "prakarana" here means "the most Ťexalted (pra) activity (karana)." Therefore the word “prakarana" here refers to devotional service. The word “bhedat" here means "because of the differences".

     Because it is more intense and deep, the devotion of the ekanti devotees is more exalted than the devotion of the svanishtha devotees. Here the author of the sutras gives and example. He says: "Like the Parovariya and others." This means that the ekanti devotees who are exclusively devoted to the Lord's form as the Hiranya Purusha in the sun planet do not ascribe to their object of worship the qualities of the Lord's form as Parovariya, a form worshiped by the worshipers of Udgitha. The word Parovariya means "greater than the greatest". The example here is of the worshipers of Ugitha in relation to Parovariya.

 

     Here someone may object: Is it not so that the ekantis and svanishthas are both called devotees of the Lord and therefore they must both meditate on all the Lord's qualities just as they who call themselves brahmanas must all meditate on the Gayatri-mantra?

 

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

 

 

Sutra 9

 

 

samjnatash cet tad uktam asti tu tad api

 

     samjnatah—by the name; cet—if; tat—that; uktam—spoken; asti—is; tu—but; tat—that; api—also.

 

 

     If it is because of the name, then I reply, "But it was already said. That also."

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     The word "tu" (but) is employed here to dispel doubt. If it is said that all who worship the Supreme must meditate on all His qualities, then the answer was already given in the previous sutra. The answer is, "Certainly not. Because of the differences in devotion." Although they are certainly included in the general category of the Lord's devotees, the ekantis are the best of the devotees, and therefore they do not meditate on all the qualities of the Lord. If it were otherwise then they would not be the best of the devotees. Because the ekanti devotees are passionately devoted to one particular form of the Lord, they are superior to the svanishtha devotees who are in a general way devoted to all the forms of the Lord. Also, even the svanishtha devotees are not able to meditate on every single one of the Lord's qualities. In the Rig Veda (1.154.1) it is said:

 

 

vishnor nu kam viryani pravocam

 

 

     "How can I describe all the glories and powers of ŤLord Vishnu?"

 

     In the Smriti-shastra it is said:

 

 

nantam gunanam agunasya jagmur

     yogeshvara ye bhava-padma-mukhyah

 

 

     "Even Brahma, Shiva, the demigods, and the masters of yoga could not find the end of the transcendental qualities of the Lord, who is beyond the touch of the modes of matter."

 

     The sutra explains, "asti" (it is that), which here means, "the idea that all devotees are exactly alike because they all bear the name `devotee' is the logical fallacy called `hetor anvaya-vyabhicara'." As the worshipers of the Parovariya form of the Lord and the worshipers of the Hiranmaya form of the Lord have different conceptions of the Lord, even though both are considered worshipers of the Udgitha, in the same way the svanishtha and ekanti devotees also have different conceptions of the Lord, the svanishtha devotees meditating on all the Lord's qualities and the ekanti devotees meditating only on the qualities of the particular form of the Lord they have chosen to worship. That is the conclusion of these two adhikaranas.

 

 

 

 

Adhikarana 4

The Lord's Childhood and Youth

 

 

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     Now the author begins a discussion of bringing together in meditation the Lord's qualities in His childhood and other ages. In the Gopala-tapani Upanishad it is said:

 

 

krishnaya devaki-nandanaya om tat sat. bhur bhuvah svas tasmai vai namo namah.

 

 

     "Om Tat Sat. Bhur Bhuvah Svah. Obeisances to Lord Krishna, the son of Devaki."

 

     The author of Nama-kaumudi defines the name Krishna in the following way:

 

 

krishna-shabdas tu tamala-nila-tvishi yashoda-stanandhaye rudhih

 

 

     "The word Krishna means: Yashoda's infant son, who is dark like a tamala tree."

 

     In the Rama-tapani Upanishad it is said:

 

 

om cin-maye 'smin maha-vishnau

     jate dasharathe harau

raghoh kule 'khilam rati

     rajate yo mahi-sthitah

 

 

     "Om. Born as Dasharatha's son in King Raghu's dynasty, the spiritual Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is known as Maha-Vishnu and Hari, was splendidly manifested on the earth. He delighted everyone."

 

     In this way the Shruti-shastra describes the qualities of the Supreme Lord in His childhood and other ages. Many similar descriptions are also found in the Smriti-shastra.

 

     Samshaya (Doubt): Should one meditate on these descriptions of the Lord in His childhood and other ages, or should one not meditate on them?

 

     Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): One should not meditate on the form of the Lord in His different ages, for then the Lord's form would be sometimes large and sometimes small. This would contradict the Shruti-shastra's advice that in one's meditation the features of the Lord should be harmonious.

 

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

 

 

Sutra 10

 

 

vyaptesh ca samanjasam

 

     vyapteh—becasue of being all-pervading; ca—also; samanjasam—proper.

 

 

     It is proper because He is all-pervading and for other reasons also.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

     It is proper to meditate on the Lord in His childhood and other ages because the Lord is all-pervading and because the Lord is not limited to His features in His different ages. In sutra 3.2.38 the Lord's all-pervasiveness was confirmed. The Lord's so-called "birth" is not in reality a change of condition for Him. In the Purusha-sukta prayer it is said:

 

 

ajayamano bahudha vijayate

 

 

     "Although He is never born, the Lord takes birth again and again in many different forms."

 

     Therefore the word "birth" here means “the appearance of the Supreme Lord, who never really takes birth." The word "ca" (also) in this sutra means, “also because He is the reservoir of transcendental mellows." This is confirmed in the Taittiriya Upanishad (2.7.1):

 

 

raso vai sah