4.2: Camasādhikaraṇam - The cup
The word ajā [in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad] also does not mean pradhāna, just like the word camasa [in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad] does not mean cup in the context
« Vedānta-sūtra: The Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Topic 2: Camasādhikaraṇam - The cup
Ajā does not mean pradhāna (Additional clarification on the Sānkhya philosophy)
(na) camasavad aviśeṣāt, jyotir ūpa-kramā tu tathā hy adhīyata eke, kalpanopadeśāc ca madhv-ādivad avirodhaḥ
“The word ajā [in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad] also does not mean pradhāna, just like the word camasa [in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad] does not mean cup in the context, due to the lack of specific differentiation. Indeed, Brahman is the cause of ajā, this can be understood from context. This is also supported by other passages that confirm it.
Because it is said to be created by the Supreme Lord, there is no contradiction in saying that the material nature is both created and unborn, just like the madhu-vidyā and other things.”
Sūtra 1.4.8 - The metaphor of the inverted cup
(na) camasavad aviśeṣāt
camasa: a cup (used in Vedic rituals, such as the soma sacrifice); vat: similar to; aviśeṣāt: because of non-distinction, lack of specification.
The word ajā [in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad] also does not mean pradhāna, just like the word camasa [in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad] does not mean cup in the context, due to the lack of specific differentiation.
Commentary: Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa explains that the word “na” (not) should be added from sūtra 1.4.5, since it continues the discussion of passages that are incorrectly interpreted in the atheistic Sānkhya as referring to pradhāna, the material energy.
Originally, the verse reads “like a cup”, but after adding “na”, the meaning is inverted, and it reads “not like a cup”.
This mention of a cup is connected with a passage from the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (2.2.3):
arvāg bilaś camasa ūrdhva budhnas tasmin yaśo nihitam viśva-rūpam, tasyāsata ṛṣayaḥ sapta tīre vāg aṣṭamī brahmaṇā samvidāneti, arvāgbilaś camasa ūrdhvabudhna iti, idam tac chīra eṣa hy arvāg-bilaś camasa ūrdhva-budhnaḥ, tasmin yaśo nihitam viśvarūpam iti, prāṇā vai yaśo, viśvarūpam, prāṇān etad āha, tasyāsata ṛṣayaḥ sapta tīra iti, prāṇā vā ṛṣayaḥ, prāṇāṇ etad āha, vāg aṣṭamī brahmaṇā samvidāneti, vāg ghy aṣṭamī brahmaṇā samvitte
“There is a camasa (cup) with its mouth down and its bottom up. In it is placed the glory, manifold in form. On its border, the seven Ṛṣis sit. Speech is the eighth, joined with Brahman in expression.
What is called a cup with its mouth down and its bottom up is this head, for its mouth is below and its bottom [the skull] is above. When it is said that manifold glory has been placed within it, the vital airs are that manifold glory. When he says that the seven Ṛṣis sit on its border, the Ṛṣis are the active senses. And when he says that speech is the eighth Ṛṣi joined with Brahman in expression, it is because the tongue has the unique power to reveal Brahman through transcendental sound vibration.”
In this verse, the word “camasa” is translated as “cup”, but in reality, the verse speaks figuratively about the skull being like a cup with the mouth down and the bottom up. This is indicated by this “cup” having senses and a tongue that allows one to connect with Brahman by reciting mantras and prayers from the scriptures. In this way, although the word camasa is used, it is clear that the verse speaks about the head, which includes the senses and the tongue, which one can use to practice self-realization. The cup is just figurative.
This analogy of the cup is mentioned by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa to support the main point in this sūtra, which is a misinterpretation of another verse by followers of the Sānkhya philosophy.
The discussion is based on verse 4.5 of the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad:
ajām ekām lohita-śukla-kṛṣṇām, bahvīḥ prajāḥ sṛjamānām sarūpāḥ
ajo hy eko juṣamāno ‘nuśete, jahaty enam bhukta-bhogam ajo ‘nyaḥ
“A certain unborn male associates with the red, white, and black unborn female that produces many offspring of similar nature. Another male gives up this female after finishing his enjoyment.”
This verse describes the difference between the Lord and the jīva. The material nature is called prakṛti, as the energy of the Lord, which is enjoyed by the conditioned souls. The verse describes that one soul is absorbed in this illusory enjoyment, while another, who finally came to a position of knowledge, after a long time of such bewilderment, rejects conditioned life and turns to the Lord. The soul is thus sometimes conditioned and sometimes free, while the Lord is always transcendental.
The meaning of the terms pradhāna and prakṛti is essentially the same; the difference is that “pradhāna” refers to the material potency in the unmanifested form, when the three modes are in equilibrium, and prakṛti refers to the same in the active state, when the three modes become active. This is explained by Lord Kapila on SB 3.26.10.
The Lord is the cause
Back to the verse of the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, the word ajā is interpreted in the Sānkhya philosophy as pradhāna, serving as another support to the idea that material nature is independent, creating innumerable living entities without any external help. According to them, puruṣa (the soul) joins this creation by enjoying it and eventually goes back to its transcendental position by abandoning it. In this description, there is no God in control.
However, Śrī Baladeva argues that this interpretation is incorrect, just like interpreting the word “camasa” in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.2.3 as being literally a “cup”.
The word “ajā” simply means “unborn”. Sānkhya philosophers take it as meaning pradhāna, as a way to support their doctrine, but there are no specific descriptions in the text indicating that.
That’s what Vyāsadeva indicates with the current sūtra: camasavad aviśeṣāt. Just like the word camasa in the verse doesn’t literally indicate a cup, ajā does not mean pradhāna, because this doesn’t follow the general context of the text, and there is no specific description indicating that it may be so.
In general, impersonalistic doctrines don’t follow good principles in interpreting texts from the Vedas. They play with the meaning of the words, sometimes using the primary meaning, sometimes using some secondary meaning, and sometimes inventing a completely new meaning or inventing metaphors without considering the context of the passages. That’s what Prabhupāda refers to as “word jugglery” in his works. We may ourselves unconsciously do that on occasion, when we start from a pre-conceived idea and try to find isolated quotes that support it. The best way to contradict such incorrect interpretations is to analyze the verses not as separate units, but in context, as Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa teaches us in his Govinda-bhāṣya.
Back to the main topic, if ajā is not pradhāna, what is it? Ajā is the potency of the Supreme Lord, which is eternal, just like the Lord, and it is under His complete control. Ajā is in this verse compared to a woman who has three colors (red, white, and black), corresponding to three modes of material nature, producing many living entities. The difference from the Sānkhya interpretation is that ajā does not work independently but under the direction of the Lord. The first male described in the verse is the conditioned soul, who, although originally also female, is playing the role of a male trying to enjoy material nature, while the second male is the soul who attains liberation, abandoning his propensity for material enjoyment. Based on other passages, we can understand that just like the female described in the allegory is the divine energy of the Lord, who is under His control, both the souls who are enjoying matter and those who are trying to become free from material entanglement have their activities facilitated by the Lord in the form of Paramātmā.
Verse 4.5 of the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad thus does not support the atheistic Sānkhya, but on the contrary, reinforces the concept of a Supreme Lord who is the controller of the material energy.
This is corroborated in SB 1.7.4, where Suta Gosvāmī describes what Śrīla Vyāsadeva saw in his meditation:
bhakti-yogena manasi, samyak praṇihite ’male
apaśyat puruṣam pūrṇam, māyām ca tad-apāśrayām
“Thus he fixed his mind, perfectly engaging it by linking it in devotional service [bhakti-yoga] without any tinge of materialism, and thus he saw the Absolute Personality of Godhead along with His external energy, which was under full control.”
The word apāśrayam suggests that this energy of the Lord is under His full control. The material energy can only affect the individual souls, who are very small and weak, never affecting the Lord.
Sūtra 1.4.9 - The divine potency of the Lord
jyotir ūpa-kramā tu tathā hy adhīyata eke
jyotiḥ: light (the Supreme Brahman); upa-kramā: beginning with (passages beginning with the word); tu: indeed; tathā: thus, in that way; hi: for this reason; adhīyate eke: is studied by some (some recensions have the reading).
Indeed, Brahman is the cause of ajā, this can be understood from context. This is also supported by other passages that confirm it.
Commentary: The word “jyotiḥ” used in this sūtra does not mean ordinary light, but Brahman, the same way the term is used in many other texts. In the Bṛhad-āranyaka Upaniṣad 10.4.16, for example, it’s mentioned: tad deva jyotisam jyotih, “The demigods meditate on Him, the light of lights.”
The word “upakramā” means coming from, or having its origin with. The word “tu” enforces the idea, declaring that there is no doubt about it. The meaning is thus that the ajā (unborn nature) described in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad comes from the Supreme Lord, instead of being the independent and autonomous pradhāna from the Sānkhya philosophy. In this way, the “unborn” is taken as metaphorical, meaning that ajā is the devatma-sakti, the divine potency of the Lord, just like the “cup” from the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, since ajā originates from the Supreme Lord and is dependent on Him.
This is similar to the usage in other passages. Lord Brahmā is also called “unborn” because he doesn’t have a material father and mother, but at the same time, he originates from Lord Viṣnu. To try to use the description of Lord Brahmā as unborn in the sense of him being independent of the Supreme Lord would contradict numerous passages of the scriptures.
Vyāsadeva adds the words “tu tathā hy adhīyata eke“, emphasizing that this reading is confirmed in several other passages and some recensions of the scriptures. The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (1.3), for example, mentions:
te dhyāna-yogānugatā apaśyan, devātma-śaktim sva-guṇair nigūḍhām
yaḥ kāraṇāni nikhilāni tāni, kālātma-yuktāny adhitiṣṭhaty ekaḥ
“The sages, engaged in meditation, perceived prakṛti, the divine potency of the Supreme Lord (devatma-sakti), composed of the three material modes. Beyond, they saw the Lord, who rules over all causes, including time and the jīvas.”
This is also confirmed in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.1: ya eka-varno bahudha sakti-yogat (He who is the one without a second, creates the varieties of this world using His own potencies).
These two verses describe the Lord’s potency, which is the origin of the material manifestation. Just as all the energies of the Lord, this potency exists eternally, although, at the same time, it has its origin in the Lord. This may appear contradictory at first, but this is just because the material logic we try to employ to understand things doesn’t work very well for spiritual topics. In the spiritual reality, everything is eternal and ever-existing, but at the same time, everything originates from the Lord. The origin in this case indicates the relationship; it is not to be taken literally as a birth, like in this material world.
Another passage that confirms that the material nature originates from the Supreme Lord is found in the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (1.1.9):
tasmād etad brahma nāma rūpam annam ca jāyate
“From this external potency, also spiritual and non-different from the Supreme Brahman, this world of names and forms that is enjoyed by the illusioned souls is born.”
The word “brahma” in this passage means the material nature, prakṛti (or pradhāna), which has the three qualities of sattva, rajas, and tamas. It is also used in this sense in the Bhagavad-gītā 14.3: mama yonir mahad brahma, “The total material substance, called brahman, is the source of birth.”
Sūtra 1.4.10 - Created by the Lord, but still unborn
kalpanopadeśāc ca madhv-ādivad avirodhaḥ
kalpana: the creative power of creation; upadeśāt: from the teaching; ca: and; madhu: the madhu-vidyā; ādi: beginning with; vad: like; avirodhaḥ: there is no contradiction.
Because it is said to be created by the Supreme Lord, there is no contradiction in saying that the material nature is both created and unborn, just like the madhu-vidyā and other things.
Commentary: As an answer to the previous sūtra, one could question how material nature can be called “unborn” and at the same time come from the Supreme Brahman (jyotiḥ). To this, Vyāsadeva answers with the current sūtra: kalpanopadeśāc ca madhv-ādivad avirodhaḥ. There is no contradiction (avirodhaḥ) in saying that pradhāna, the material nature, is unborn and at the same time created by the Supreme Lord. There are many other similar examples mentioned in the scriptures, such as madhu and other things.
The word madhu (honey) used in this śutra refers to the madhu-vidyā, mentioned in several other passages. In this case, “honey” does not mean the sweet substance produced by the bees, but is used as an allegory to a class of transcendental knowledge that allows one to attain immortality. It’s said that the madhu-vidyā is created by the sun, but at the same time, it is described as eternal. In this way, the allegory of the madhu-vidyā, the honey in the sun, is used to support the idea that the material nature is at the same time unborn and created by the Lord.
The madhu-vidyā is described as the transcendental knowledge that the Aśvinī Kumāras received from the sage Dadhyañca (or Dadhīci), the same sage who later gave his body to the demigods for producing the thunderbolt weapon that was used by Indra to defeat Vṛtrāsura. This story is mentioned by Śrīla Prabhupāda in his purport to SB 6.9.52:
“The great saint Dadhīci had perfect knowledge of how to perform fruitive activities, and he had advanced spiritual knowledge as well. Knowing this, the Aśvinī-kumāras once approached him and begged him to instruct them in spiritual science (brahma-vidyā). Dadhīci Muni replied, “I am now engaged in arranging sacrifices for fruitive activities. Come back some time later.” When the Aśvinī-kumāras left, Indra, the King of heaven, approached Dadhīci and said, “My dear Muni, the Aśvinī-kumāras are only physicians. Please do not instruct them in spiritual science. If you impart the spiritual science to them despite my warning, I shall punish you by cutting off your head.” After warning Dadhīci in this way, Indra returned to heaven. The Aśvinī-kumāras, who understood Indra’s desires, returned and begged Dadhīci for brahma-vidyā. When the great saint Dadhīci informed them of Indra’s threat, the Aśvinī-kumāras replied, “Let us first cut off your head and replace it with the head of a horse. You can instruct brahma-vidyā through the horse’s head, and when Indra returns and cuts off that head, we shall reward you and restore your original head.” Since Dadhīci had promised to impart brahma-vidyā to the Aśvinī-kumāras, he agreed to their proposal. Therefore, because Dadhīci imparted brahma-vidyā through the mouth of a horse, this brahma-vidyā is also known as Aśvaśira.”
The transcendental science, or brahma-vidyā, mentioned in this passage is the madhu-vidyā referred to in this sūtra.
Another example, hinted at by Vyāsadeva with the word “ādi”, is the sun. The sun rises and sets, and thus it appears that the sun is created anew every day, but in reality, the same sun shines in the sky. We can say that, as a cause, the sun is always there, but as an effect (the way it appears to us), it rises and sets every day. Similarly, different potencies of the Lord, such as the time energy and the material nature exist eternally as cause, but as effect they are sometimes manifest and sometimes unmanifest, following the cycles of creation and destruction of the material universes.
You can also donate using Buy Me a Coffee, PayPal, Wise, Revolut, or bank transfers. There is a separate page with all the links. This helps me enormously to have time to write instead of doing other things to make a living. Thanks!
« Vedānta-sūtra: The Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa