Sutra 14
karanatvena cakacadisu yatha vyapadistokteh
karanatvena - as the cause; ca - certainly; akaca - sky; adisu - beginning with; yatha - as; vyapadista - described; ukteh - from the statement.
The Upanisads state that Brahman is the cause of sky and the other elements. Purport by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana
The word ca (certainly) is used here to dispel doubt. It may be said that Brahman is the only cause of the world. Why? Because "the Upanisads state that Brahman is the cause of sky and the other elements." The words yatha vyapadistam (as described) mean {.sy 168}Brahman who in the laksana-sutra of 2}Vedanta (1.1.2) and in other places in Vedic literature is described as all-knowing, all-powerful, and full of all other powers and virtues." This is true because in all 2}Vedanta literatures Brahman is described as the original cause of sky and all the elements. That Brahman is all-knowing and full of a host of transcendental qualities: is described in the following words (Taittiriya Upanisad 1} 1.2.2):
"Brahman is eternal, limitless, and full of knowledge."
That Brahman is the original cause of all causes is described in these words (Taittiriya Upanisad
1.2.3):
tasmad va etasmat
"From Brahman sky is manifested."
The qualities of Brahman are described in the following words (Chandogya Upanisad 6.2.1): sad eva saumyedam
"O gentle one, in the beginning was the eternal Brahman." Also, in these words (Chandogya Upanisad 6.2.3): tad aiksata bah syam
"He thought: I shall become many."
The truth of Brahman is also described in the following words ( 2}Taittiriya Upanisad 6.2.3): tat tejo 'srjata 1}
" Then He created light."
The relationship between cause and effect in regard to Brahman we will describe later on. The words atma, akaca, prana, sat, and Brahman mean {.sy 168}all-pervading", "all-effulgent," "all-powerful," "the supreme existence," and "the greatest," respectively. These words are very appropriate as names for Brahman. In the same way the statement sa aiksata (He thought.) is very appropriate for Brahman.
Now, describing the meaning of the words asat (non-existence) and avyakrta 1} (unmanifested), he says:
Sutra 15
samakarsat
samakarsat - from appropriateness.
The words "asat" (non-existence) and {.sy 168}avyakrta" (unmanifested) also refer to Brahman, for that interpretation is appropriate in this context.
Because it is preceded by the words so 'kamayata 1} (He desired.) the word asat in the 2}Taittiriya Upanisad 2.7.1 passage asad va idam agra asit (In the beginning was asat) must refer to the Supreme Brahman, and because it is preceded by the words adityo brahma (splendid Brahman) the word asat in the passage asad evedam (In the beginning was asat) must also refer to the Supreme Brahman. Because before the creation of the material world the Supreme Brahman's names and forms had not existed in the material world, the Supreme Brahman is sometimes known as asat (non-existence). The idea that asat and not the Supreme Brahman is the original cause of creation is refuted in the following statement of Chandogya Upanisad (6.2.1-2):
2}sad eva saumyedam agra asid ekam evadvitiyam tad dhaika ahur asad evedam agra asid ekam evadvitiyam tasmad asatah saj jayate. kutas tu khalu saumyaivam syad iti hovaca katham asatah saj jayeteti sat tv eva saumyedam agra asid ekam evadvitiyam.
"O gentle one, in the beginning was sat, who is one without a second. Some say that in the beginning was asat, who is one without a second, and from that asat the sat was born. O gentle one," he said, "how is it possible that the sat was born from the asat? O gentle one, it is the sat, which is one without a second, that existed in the beginning."
The idea that asat was the original cause of creation is also refuted by the argument of time.
Note: The argument of time is that is not possible to use the verb "to be" with the nound asat (nonexistence). Because it is thus not possible to say "In the beginning non-existence was," it is also not possible to say that asat (non-existence) 2}was the original cause of creation.
In this way the wise declare that it is not possible for non-existence to be the cause of creation and for this reason when asat is described as the cause of creation it must refer to the Supreme Brahman, who is asat because His transcendental potencies are supremely subtle and fine. That is the proper understanding of the word 2}asat in this context.
The Brhad- aranyaka Upanisad (1.4.7) explains:
tad vaidam tarhy avyakrtam asit tan-nama-rupabhyam vyakriyata
"In the beginning was the avyakrta. From it all the names and forms have come."
The word avyakrta should be understood to mean Brahman. In the words sa esa iha pravistah (Then He entered within) that immediately follow it becomes clear that the avyakrta that becomes manifested by name and form is the powerful Supreme Brahman who appears by His own wish. Any conclusion other than this would oppose the clear teachings of Vedanta-sutra and the general conclusions of all the sruti-sastras. For these reasons it is therefore confirmed that the Supreme Brahman is the actual cause of the material universes.
Adhikarana 5
The "Purusa" of the Kausitaki Upanisad Is Brahman
In the next passage the author of the sutras) again refutes the sagkhya theory. In the 2}Kausitaki Upanisad 4.18 Balaki Vipra promises {.sy 168}I shall tell you about Brahman," and proceeds to describe 16 purusas, beginning with the sun-god, as Brahman. King Ajatacatru then rejects these instructions and says: {.sy 168}O Balaki, the person who is the creator of these 16 2}purusas, the person engaged in this karma is the actual Brahman."
Samcaya: At this point the doubt may be raised: "Is the superintendent of matter, the enjoyer described in the sagkhya texts, or is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Visnu, to be understood as the Brahman mentioned here?
Purvapaksa: Someone may object: Because the use of the word karma here identifies this Brahman with the experiencing the results of good and bad work, because it the next passage this Brahman is described as sometimes sleeping (tau ha suptam purusam ajagmatuh, and because in the passage after that this Brahman is described as an enjoyer (tad yatha cresthi svair bhugkte), it should be understood that the Brahman here is the jiva (individual spirit soul) described in the tantras. The use of the word prana (life-breath) here also confirms that the Brahman described here is the living individual soul. This Brahman (the jiva), which is different from matter, should thus be understood as the original cause of the many enjoyer-purusas and the original cause of their sinless activities as well. In this way it has been proven that the Brahman described in this passage is the individual spirit soul (jiva). The theory that there is a Supreme Personality of Godhead is separate from the individual spirit soul (jiva) is thus completely untenable. The text (sa aiksata) that explains that the creator thinks is thus very appropriate if it is understood that the original cause, the controller of the material energy that creates this world, is in fact the individual soul ( 2}jiva). Siddhanta: In response to this:
Sutra 16
jagad-vacitvat
jagat - the world; vacitvat - because of the word.
(The word Brahman here means the Supreme Personality of Godhead, because the word "karma" here should be understood) to mean "jagat" (creation).
Purport by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana
The word Brahman here does not mean the ksetraj{.sy 241}a (individual spiritual soul) described in the 2}tantras, but rather it means the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is known by study of Vedanta. Why? Because of the use of the word jagat. Because it is accompanied by the word jagat, the word karma in this passage means "the material world composed of a mixture of matter and spirit." Because He is the original creator, this karma (material world) may be understood to be His property (yasya karma). The truth is this: the word karma, which is derived from the verb kr (to do, create) here means {.sy 168}creation". When this interpretation is accepted the actual meaning of the word here is understood. This interpretation refutes the mistaken idea that the individual spirit soul ( 2}jiva) is the original creator. Even the Kapila- tantra does not accept the individual living entity as the original creator. One also cannot say that by adhyasa 1} (association) the individual living entity may be considered the creator of the material world, for all the scriptures maintain that the spirit soul is always aloof from matter. For these reasons it is the Supreme Personality of Godhead who is the original creator of the material world. It cannot be that King Ajatacatru speaks lies in this passage. Rejecting Balaki's teaching that the sixteen purusas (persons) are Brahman, Ajatacatru promises, "I will tell you
about Brahman." If Ajatacatru then teaches that the jivas (individual spirit souls) are Brahman then his teaching is no different than Balaki's, and he is dishonest to reject Balaki's instruction as untrue, and then teach the same instruction as the truth. In this way the meaning of this passage is understood. "You have described these purusas (persons) as Brahman, but I will tell you of someone who is the creator of all of them," is the gist of Ajatacatru's statement. In this way it should be understood that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original cause and the entire material world is His creation. Purvapaksa: If someone objects "Because it mentions mukhya-prana (the chief breath of life) the Brahman here must be the jiva and not anyone else," then he replies:
Sutra 17
jiva-mukhya-prana-liggan neti cet tad-vyakhyatam
jiva - the individual spiritual entity; mukhya - the chief; prana - breath of life; liggan - because of the characteristics; na - not; iti - thus; cet - if; tad - that; vyakhyatam - has been explained.
If the objection is raised that the jiva or chief breath of life is described as Brahman in this passage, then I say, "No. This has already been explained (in 1.1.31)."
Purport by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana
In sutra 1.1.31, which dealt with the conversation of Indra and Pratardana, this question was conclusively decided. There it was explained that in a passage where in both the beginning and the end Brahman was explicitly named, what in the beginning may seem perhaps by its characteristics to refer to the jivas or something else (without them being explicitly named) must be taken as referring to Brahman also.
This passage from the Kausitaki Upanisad begins with the words brahma te bravani (Now I will tell you about Brahman), and ends with the words sarvan papmano 'pahatya sarvesam bhutaanam crestham adhipatyam paryeti ya eva veda (A person who understands this becomes free from all sins. He becomes the king of all men). Because of these words understood according to the explanation given in the conversation of Indra and Pratardana (1.1.31) and because of the other arguments given here the words yasya caitat karma in this passage of Kausitaki Upanisad should not be understood to refer to anything other than Brahman, the Personality of Godhead.
Samcaya: Certainly you may connect the words karma and 2}prana with the word etat and then interpret them to refer to Brahman, but still there are direct references to the jiva in this passage (of 2}Kausitaki Upanisad). The evidence of the questions and answers in this passage make it impossible to consider Brahman different from the jiva. In the question about the sleeper the jiva is asked about, and in the questions about the place of sleep, the nadis, and the senses, the jiva, who is here called 2}prana, is also asked about. It is the jiva who awakens (at the end). In this way the entire passage is about the jiva. In this way it may be understood thgat the jiva is the Supreme. To answer this doubt he says:
Sutra 18
anyartham tu jaiminih pracna-vyakhyanabhyam api caivam eke
anya - another; artham - meaning; tu - but; jaiminih - Jaimini; pracna - with the questions; vyakhyanabhyam - and answers; api - also; ca - and; evam - in this way. eke - some.
Jaimini thinks these questions and answers convey a different meaning and some versions of the text also give a different meaning.
Purport by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana
The word tu (but) is used here to dispel doubt. The description of the jiva here has a different meaning. Jaimini considers that this passage explains that Brahman and the jiva are different. Why? Because of the questions and answers in this passage. The questions ask about the living soul, sleeping and awake, who is different from the life-breath. The text reads: kvaisa etad balake purusa cayista kva va etad abhut kuta etad agat 1} (O Balaki, where does this person rest while he sleeps? From where does he come when he wakes?) In this question the difference between Brahman and the jiva may be clearly seen. The answer is given yada suptah svapnam na kaYcana pacyati tathasmin prana evaikadha bhavati (When he sleeps without seeing a dream he becomes one with the life-breath). The passage etasmad atmanah prana yathayatanam vipratistante pranebhyo deva devebhyo lokah (From that Supreme Self the breath of life comes. From the breath of life the demigods come. From the demigods the planets come.) shows the difference between Brahman and the jiva. The word prana here means Lord Paramatma because Paramatma is famous as the resting-place of dreamless sleep. Into Him the jivas merge and from Him they become manifested again. The meaning of the following passage is that the nadis are merely the gateways leading to the realm of sleep. The Paramatma should be understood to be the realm where the sleepy jiva sleeps and from which the jiva emerges to enjoy (in wakefulness). In the Vajasaneyi recension of this conversation between Balaki and Ajatacatru the jiva is described as vij{.sy 241}anamaya full of knowledge and Brahman is clearly distinguished from him. In that reading the question is: 2}ya esa vijnanamayah purusah kvaisa tadabhut kuta etad agat (O Balaki, where does this person full of knowledge rest while he sleeps? From where does he come when he wakes?) and the answer is given: ya eso 'ntar hrdaya akacas tasmin cete (He rests in the sky within the heart). In this way the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the object of knowledge taught in this passage.
Adhikarana 6
The "Atma" of Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 4.5 is Brahman and Not Jiva Introduction by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana
In the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 4.5.6 Yaj{.sy 241}avalkya teaches his wife, Maitreyi:
na va are patyuh kamaya patih priyo bhavati
"A husband is not dear because the wife loves the husband. A husband is dear because she loves the Self."
He also says:
na va are sarvasya kamaya sarvam priyam bhavati atmanas tu kamaya sarvam priyam bhavati
"Everything is not dear because one loves everything. Everything is dear because one loves the
Again, he says:
atma va are drastavyah crotavyo mantavyo nididhyasitavyo maitreyy atmano va are darcanena cravanena matya vijYanena idam sarvam viditam
"The Self should be seen, heard, worshiped, and always meditated on. O Maitreyi, by seeing, hearing, worshiping, and understanding the Self, everything becomes known."
Samcaya: In this passage which self is to be understood: the jiva (individual spirit soul) described in the Kapila-tantra, or the Paramatma (the Supreme Personality of Godhead)? Purvapaksa: Because in this passage he describes the love of husband and wife and because in the middle of the passage he says: etebhyo bhutebhyah samutthaya tany evanuvinacyati na pretya-samjYasti (He leaves the material elements, his body is destroyed, he dies and is no longer conscious), words that clearly describe a resident of the material world who is subject to birth and death, and because at the end he says: vijYataram are kena vijaniyat 1} (How should we understand the person who is the knower?) this passage should be interpreted to describe the jiva, who is the knower described in the Kapila-tantra.
One may object: "But it says that by knowing the Self everything becomes known. Certainly this refers to the Paramatma and not the jiva." but this objection is not valid. The jiva takes birth in this world with an aim to enjoy and one may figuratively say that by knowing the 2}jiva one knows everything for one then knows the world around him meant for his enjoyment. One may again object, {.sy 168}This passage canot refer to the jiva because the text says amrtatvasya tu nacasti vittena (By knowing Him one becomes immortal). Because it is only by knowing the Paramatma that one becomes immortal, how can this passage refer to the jiva?" This objection is also not valid because by understanding that the jiva is by nature different from matter one may also attain immortality. In the same way all descriptions in this passage that seem to refer to Brahman should be understood to refer to the jiva 1}. In this way this entire passage describes the jiva 1}. In this way it should be understood that the material nature, which is under the control of the jiva, is the original cause of the world. Siddhanta: In this matter:
Sutra 19
vakyanvayat
vakya - statement; anvayat - because of the connection. The context of this passage proves that Brahman is the object of discussion. Purport by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana
In this passage the Paramatma, and not the jiva 1} of the Kapila-tantra, is described. Why? Because in the context of the whole passage, including what precedes and follows this quote, that is the appropriate interpretation.
Three sages also confirm this interpretation: Sutra 20
pratijYa-siddher liggam acmarathyah
pratijYa - of the promise; siddher - of the fulfillment; liggam - the mark; acmarathyah -Acmarathya.
Acmarthya (maintains that the Self here is Paramatma because only in that way) is the promise (that by knowledge of the Self everything is known) fulfilled.
Purport by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana
Acmarathya maintains that the promise atmano vij{.sy 241}anena sarvam viditam (By knowledge of the Self everything is known) indicates that the Self referred to here is the Paramatma. It is not taught here that by knowledge of the jiva everything becomes known. On the other hand by knowledge of the cause of all causes everything becomes known. It is not possible to interpret these words in a figurative way because after promising that by knowing the Self everything becomes known, in the passage beginning brahma tam paradat (One who thinks the brahmanas rest in a place other than the Self is spurned by the 2}brahmanas. One who thinks the ksatriyas rest in a place other than the Self is spurned by the 2}ksatriyas. One who thinks the worlds rest in a place other than the self is spurned by the worlds) he affirms that the Paramatma is the form of everything and the resting place of the brahmanas, ksatriyas, and world. For these reasons it is not possible that the Self here can be any other than the Paramatma. It is also not possible for the individual living entity who remains under the control of karma to be the original cause of all causes decsribed in the passage beginning tasya va etasya mahato bhutasya nihcvasitam 1} (transcendental he Vedas were manifested from the breathing of this Supreme Being). It is also not possible for (the sage Yajnavalkya) to have taught his wife, who had renounced all wealth and material benefits to attain liberation, only about the jiva and not about the Supreme Brahman. It is also not possible that the Self referred to here is the jiva because on cannot attain liberation simply by knowing the jiva. That liberation is attained only by understanding the Supreme Brahman is confirmed in the following statement of Svetasvatara Upanisad 3.8 and 6.15: tam eva viditvati mrtyum eti (By understanding the Supreme Brahman one is able to transcend death). For all these reasons it should be understood that the Self described in this passage is the Paramatma. Purvapaksa: The objection may be raised: Because the Self in this passage is described as the object of love for the husband and other persons, this self must be the jiva bound to the cycle of repeated birth and death and not the Paramatma. It cannot be said that the Self described here must be the Paramatma because that interpretation answers the promise (of Yajnavalkya to speak certain words), nor can it be said that the Self here must be the Paramatma because this Self is the shelter of the devotees, the creator of everything, all-powerful, and the origin of transcendental bliss. The jiva may also be these things, as the 2}Padma Purana explains: yenarcito haris tena tarpitani jaganty api rajyanti jantavas tatra sthavara jaggama api (One who worships Lord Hari pleases all the worlds. All moving and non-moving creatures love the devotee). In this way the Self described here is not the Paramatma. Siddhanta: Fearing that the opponent may speak these words, he says: