4.4: Kāraṇatvādhikaraṇam - The cause of everything
Certainly, Brahman alone is the cause of the universe, since Brahman is the cause of all material elements, starting with ether, as described in the scriptures.
« Vedānta-sūtra: The Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Topic 4: Kāraṇatvādhikaraṇam - The cause of everything
Brahman is the only original cause
kāraṇatvena cākāśādiṣu yathā-vyapadiṣṭokteḥ, samākarṣāt
“Certainly, Brahman alone is the cause of the universe, since Brahman is the cause of all material elements, starting with ether, as described in the scriptures.
The words asat and avyākṛta also refer to the Supreme Lord. This is the only appropriate interpretation.”
Sūtra 1.4.14 - The Lord is the cause of the elements, not material nature
kāraṇatvena cākāśādiṣu yathā-vyapadiṣṭokteḥ
kāraṇatvena: as the cause; ca: certainly; ākāśa-ādiṣu: beginning with ākāśa (ether); yathā – as; vyapadiṣṭa: designated, described; ukteḥ: from the statements (of the scriptures).
Certainly, Brahman alone is the cause of the universe, since Brahman is the cause of all material elements, starting with ether, as described in the scriptures.
Commentary: It was proved in the previous sūtras that the Vedas do not support the atheistic Sānkhya philosophy. The Vedas are very profoundly theistic, and it is only with great effort that one may find some references that appear to support an atheistic or impersonalistic view. However, proving that the Vedas do not support atheism is only half of the work. It is also necessary to prove that the Vedas give a clear, ultimate cause for the creation
When we study the scriptures superficially, it appears that there are many contradictions in the texts, even in such a basic point. This could be used as a basis for criticizing the arguments from the previous topics.
For example, one could argue that in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.1.3) ātma (Self) is revealed as the source of creation in the following words:
tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśaḥ sambhūtaḥ
“From ātmā, ākāśa (ether) was born.”
A little later, in verse 2.7.1, the same Taittirīya Upaniṣad describes asat (non-existence) as the original cause:
asad vā idam agra āsīt tato vā sad ajāyata tad ātmānam svayam akuruta
“In the beginning, there was non-existence (asat). From asat, existence was born. Existence created the self.”
The Chāndogya Upaniṣad (1.9.1) says that ākāśa (ether) is the original cause:
asya lokasya kā gatir ity ākāśa iti hovāca
“What is the origin of this world? Ākāśa is the origin, he said.”
Later, the same Chāndogya Upaniṣad (1.11.5) mentions that prāṇa (vital air) is the original cause:
sarvāṇi hā vā imāni bhūtāni prāṇam evābhisamviśanti
“Everything was born from prāṇa and ultimately enters into prāṇa again.”
Another passage proclaims asat (non-existence) as the original cause:
asad evedam agra āsīt tat samabhavat
“In the beginning, there was non-existence. From non-existence, this world was manifested.”
A few chapters later, the same Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.2.1) proclaims that Brahman is the original cause:
sad eva saumyedam agra āsīt
“O saintly one, in the beginning there was Brahman.”
The Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.4.7) mentions that avyākṛta (the unmanifested) is the original cause:
tad vaidam tarhy avyākṛtam āsīt tan-nāma-rūpābhyām vyākriyata
“In the beginning was the unmanifested. From it, all the names and forms have come.”
To these arguments, Vyāsadeva answers: kāraṇatvena cākāśādiṣu yathā vyapadiṣṭokteḥ. The Upaniṣads state that Brahman is the cause of the ether and the other elements. Brahman is thus the sole cause of the universe.
One verse may say that the material manifestation comes from the unmanifested, from non-existence, ether, prāṇa, and so on, but it’s not hard to understand how all these descriptions fit together when we understand that the source of all these material elements is the Supreme Lord. Vyāsadeva adds the word “ca” (certainly) to the sūtra to dispel any doubt.
This Supreme Brahman is described in many passages of the scriptures as a host of transcendental qualities.
The Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.1.2), for example, describes:
tad eṣā ’bhyuktā
satyam jñānam anantam brahma
yo veda nihitam guhāyām parame vyoman
so ’śnute sarvān kāmān saha brahmaṇā vipaściteti“This has been declared: The Supreme Brahman has no limits. He is eternal and full of knowledge. The liberated soul, who knows this Brahman, who is hidden inside the cave of the heart, enjoys the fulfillment of all his desires in the company of the Supreme Lord.”
The next verse (2.1.3) describes Brahman as the original cause of all causes:
tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśaḥ sambhūtaḥ
ākāśād vāyum vāyor agnim, agner āpam adbhyam pṛthivī
pṛthivyā oṣadhayaḥ oṣadhībhyo ’nnam, annāt puruṣam“From that Self (Brahman) sprang ākāśa (ether); from ākāśa sprang air; from air, fire; from fire, water; from water, earth. From earth sprang plants; from plants came food; from food arose man.”
We can see that when we take just the fragment “tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśaḥ sambhūtaḥ“, the meaning is simply “From ātmā, ākāśa was born.” However, when we take the entire verse and consider the context, it becomes clear that ātmā is the Supreme Brahman, who is thus declared as the origin of everything, starting from ether. In fact, when all the verses from the previous section are taken in context, the same truth is revealed. The scriptures appear to indicate different causes only when we take just fragments of the verses and interpret them out of context.
See the same Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7.1 that was mentioned earlier, but now in its totality:
asad vā idam agra āsīt, tato vai sad ajāyata
tad ātmānam svayam akuruta, tasmāt tat-sukṛtam ucyata iti
yad vai tat sukṛtam raso vai saḥ
rasam hy evāyam labdhvā ’nandī bhavati
ko hy evānyāt kaḥ prāṇyāt, yad eṣa ākāśa ānando na syāt
eṣa hy evānandayāti
yadā hy evaiṣa etasminn adṛśye’nātmye’nirukte’nilayane’bhayam pratiṣṭhām vindate, atha so’bhayam gato bhavati
yadā hyevaiṣa etasminn udaram antaram kurute
atha tasya bhayam bhavati, tat tv eva bhayam viduṣo’manvānasya
tad apy eṣa śloko bhavati“In the beginning, the creation was non-existent. It was not yet defined by forms and names. From the unmanifest was born whatever exists. The Lord created it by His own potency, therefore He is called sukṛta: non-dual and fully independent. When one understands the Personality of Godhead, the reservoir of pleasure, Kṛṣṇa, he truly becomes transcendentally blissful. Who could exist without the Supreme Lord, who is filled with limitless bliss?
A living entity becomes established in spiritual, blissful life when he fully understands that his happiness depends on spiritual self-realization, which is the basic principle of ānanda (bliss), and when he is eternally situated in the service of the Lord, who has no other lord above Him.
By understanding the Personality of Godhead, the reservoir of pleasure, Kṛṣṇa, one becomes truly transcendentally blissful. For one who deviates from it, however, taking shelter in the false ego, there is great fear. This fear exists only for the one who thinks himself wise, and not for the true sage.”
The passage of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad previously mentioned, asad evedam agra āsīt tat samabhavat (In the beginning there was non-existence. From non-existence this world was manifested) is also just a fragment of a discussion that establishes the Supreme Brahman as the ultimate cause. This also becomes clear when we study the whole passage instead of just the fragment:
sad eva somyedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyam, tadhaika āhuḥ ’asad evedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyam, tasmād asatas saj jāyat [iti]
“O gentle one, previous to the creation of the universe, only sat (Brahman) existed, as the one without a second. Some, however, argue that in the beginning, only asat (non-existence) existed, and from that asat, existence was produced.” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.1)
kutas tu khalu somyaivam syāt” iti hovāca “katham asataḥ saj jāyeta”iti
sat tv eva somyedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyam
“O handsome one, how could it be like that? How could non-existence give rise to existence? Therefore, before creation only Brahman existed, as the sole cause, with no other cause.” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.2)
tad aikṣata, bahu syām prajāyeyeti, tat tejo ’sṛjata, tat teja aikṣata, bahu syām prajāyeyeti, tad apo ’sṛjata, tasmāt yatra kvacana śocati svedate vā puruṣaḥ, tejasa eva tad adhy āpo jāyante
“The Lord deliberated, ‘May I become many. May I manifest in a remarkable way.’ He thus created fire. Fire thought, “May I become many.” Fire then created water. We can practically see that when a person cries in lamentation, or perspires due to heat, from the heat (fire), water appears.” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.3)
The description of the Lord creating fire and fire creating water indicates that He is the supreme cause. Everything has a cause, like water being created from fire, but ultimately everything comes from the Lord.
The Vedas explain the creation of the universe as an intricate sequence, where one material element serves as the basis for the creation of the next. In this way, we can say that any of the elements described is the origin of the cosmic manifestation since everything passes through it at some stage. However, everything starts with the Lord, who is thus the cause of all causes. The process of universal creation is described in detail in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (3.10.14-17). These stages are followed by the creation of Brahmā, and so on.
“There are nine different kinds of creations besides the one which naturally occurs due to the interactions of the modes. There are three kinds of annihilations due to eternal time, the material elements and the quality of one’s work.
Of the nine creations, the first one is the creation of the mahat-tattva, or the sum total of the material ingredients, wherein the modes interact due to the presence of the Supreme Lord. In the second, the false ego is generated, in which the material ingredients, material knowledge and material activities arise.
The sense perceptions are created in the third creation, and from these the elements are generated. The fourth creation is the creation of knowledge and of working capacity.
The fifth creation is that of the controlling deities by the interaction of the mode of goodness, of which the mind is the sum total. The sixth creation is the ignorant darkness of the living entity, by which the master acts as a fool.”
In the Bhagavad-gītā (14.27), Kṛṣṇa describes Himself as the basis of the impersonal Brahman, with the words “brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham“. In this way, everything ultimately comes from Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The impersonal Brahman is nothing more than the effulgence of His body, and the material energy is just His shadow. In this way, although different causes can be pointed out for the material manifestation, ultimately, these are all secondary causes that have their origin in the Supreme Person.
These apparent contradictions in the scriptures appear only when we interpret the verses without understanding the proper meaning of the words. Apart from that, as we studied in previous topics, words like ākāśa, ātmā, prāṇa, and so on are often used to ultimately describe the Supreme Lord.
The word ātmā means literally “pervading”, ākāśa means “effulgent”, prāṇa means “full of life”, sat means “essence”, and Brahman means “great”. We can see that apart from being the origin of all these different manifestations, the Lord is appropriately described by all these words.
The expression “He thought” from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad also appropriately describes the Lord as a conscious being, and it further dismisses the theory of an inert pradhāna being the origin of everything as propagated in the Sānkhya philosophy.
With this, most of the words mentioned in the quoted verses as the origin of everything are explained as being nothing more than descriptions of the Supreme Lord. However, two particular words, asat (non-existence) and avyākṛta (unmanifested), demand a separate explanation and will be addressed in the next sūtra.
Sūtra 1.4.15 - The Lord is also non-existent and unmanifest
samākarṣāt
samākarṣāt: from suitability, from appropriateness, because it is fitting.
The words asat and avyākṛta also refer to the Supreme Lord. This is the only appropriate interpretation.
Commentary: It’s easy to understand that words like ātmā, ākāśa, and prāṇa refer to the Supreme Brahman since these words all have positive meanings that describe the qualities of the Lord. The Lord is certainly effulgent, all-pervading, and so on. But what about the word asat (non-existence) mentioned in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.7.1)? How can we claim that it describes the Supreme Lord?
Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa explains that in the preceding verse to the word asat in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7.1 (asad vā idam agra āsīt, “In the beginning was asat” from 2.6.1), there is the expression so ‘kāmayata (He desired). In this way, it’s clear that this passage must refer to the Supreme Brahman since something that doesn’t exist (asat) can’t have desires. Just as in the previous examples, it’s clear that the word asat also indicates the Supreme Lord.
It becomes more clear when we put the verse in context. The preceding verse reads:
so’kāmayata, bahu syām prajāyeyeti, sa tapo’tapyata
sa tapastaptvā, idam sarvam asṛjata, yad idam kiñca
tat sṛṣṭvā, tad evānuprāviśat, tad anupraviśya
sac ca tyac cābhavat
niruktam cāniruktam ca, nilayanam cānilayanam ca
vijñānam cāvijñānam ca, satyam cānṛtam ca satyam abhavat
yad idam kiñca, tat-satyam ityācakṣate
tad apy eṣa śloko bhavati“The Lord desired, “May I become many! May I produce offspring!” After deliberating in this way, He created the material universes and whatever exists. Having created the universes, He entered into each of them. Having entered, he became the conscious and unconscious entities, the definable and undefinable, the shelter and the sheltered, the knowledge and ignorance, truth and falsehood. The sages who see things as they are, declare that whatever exists is the Lord.” (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.6.1)
An alternative translation for the same passage is:
“He desired: may I be many, may I grow forth. He contemplated over Himself, and after He had thus contemplated, He created all, whatever there is. Having created, He entered into it. Having entered it, He became what is manifest and what is not manifest, defined and undefined, supported and not supported, endowed with knowledge and without knowledge, real and unreal. The Satya (true) became all this whatsoever, and therefore, the wise call Him Satya.”
Therefore, when verse 2.7.1 mentions “In the beginning, there was asat, from asat, sat was born“, the word “asat” must be taken in the context of the previous verse, of the Supreme Lord, desiring to create the cosmic manifestation.
The word asat, therefore, shows that before the creation, the distinction between names and forms did not exist, and in this way, Brahman was “asat” in the sense that He was not connected with names and forms. From this “asat”, the cosmic manifestation was created (sat), including all living beings.
In other words, the Lord existed in His original spiritual form, but not in the material sense. This follows the same logic as when the word “avyakta” (unmanifest) is used in relation to the Supreme Brahman. When it’s said that the Lord is “avyakta”, it means He doesn’t have a material form, and not that He literally doesn’t have a form or doesn’t exist. The idea that the word “asat” refers to the Supreme Brahman is reinforced by the words ādityo brahma (splendid Brahman) that also precede it.
The idea that asat and not the Supreme Brahman may be the original cause of the universal manifestation is also refuted in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.2.1-2) that we already studied.
Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa also mentions a grammatical argument for asat not being the ultimate cause. According to him, it’s not possible to use the Sanskrit verb “to be” (the Sanskrit root “as”) with the noun asat. Thus, to say “asat āsīt” is absurd, since asat indicates non-existence, and the āsīt indicates something that exists. The predicate thus cancels the subject, resulting in a self-contradiction, just as in expressions such as śaśa-śṛnga (the horns of the rabbit) and vandhyā-suta (the son of a barren woman). A rabbit does not have horns, and a barren woman, by definition, can’t have a child. If an animal has horns, it is not a rabbit, and if a woman has a child, she is not barren.
This self-contradiction is, however, found in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.2.1) when it is mentioned “asad evedam agra āsīd” (asat only, in the beginning was). The exact construction “asat āsīt” is found there. It becomes, thus, clear that the word “asat” there does not mean absolute non-existence, but rather describes the unmanifest condition of the Supreme Brahman, without material qualities. Asat thus means the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate cause, and asat āsīt means that before creation, only the Supreme Brahman existed.
What about the word avyākṛta (the unmanifested) from the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.4.7), also described as the original cause?
tad vaidam tarhy avyākṛtam
āsīt tan-nāma-rūpābhyām vyākriyata“In the beginning, there was avyākṛta. From it, all the names and forms were manifested.”
Just as in the previous passage, avyākṛta should be understood as meaning the Supreme Brahman. This is corroborated by the next verse, which includes the words sa eṣa iha praviṣṭaḥ (He then entered within). The meaning of the verse is thus that the Supreme Brahman, Who is free from identification with material names and forms (avyākṛtam), created the material manifestation, including names and forms, and then entered within it.
As Vyāsadeva argues, samākarṣāt: this is the only appropriate interpretation. Any other interpretation contradicts the teachings of the Vedānta-sūtra and the general conclusions of the Upaniṣads.
Exercise
Now it’s your turn. Can you answer the following arguments using the ideas from this section?
Opponent: “It cannot be said that the Vedānta describes Brahman as the sole cause of the universe, for the Vedānta philosophy does not describe a single original cause of creation. The Upaniṣads describe many different first causes, not a single one. In one place, the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.1.3) states: tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśaḥ sambhūtaḥ, “From ātmā, ākāśa was born.” — Here ātmā is pointed out as the cause. Later, the same Upaniṣad states: asad vā idam agra āsīt tato vā sad ajāyata, “In the beginning was asat. From asat, sat was born.” — Here, asat is given as the cause. Similarly, Chāndogya Upaniṣad points to ākāśa as being the cause in 1.9.1, sat in 6.2.1, and prāṇa in sloka 1.11.5. In another dissonant voice, the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka (1.4.7) points to avyākṛta as the cause. Therefore, the Upaniṣads describe many different entities as the origin of creation: ātmā, asat, ākāśa, prāṇa, sat, avyākṛta, etc. It is therefore not coherent to claim that Brahman alone is the cause.
In contrast, if we accept the Sānkhya view that pradhāna is the original cause, then all these scriptural statements can be reconciled without contradiction. Since pradhāna is all-pervading, it may be called ātmā (Self). Because it is subtle and expansive, it may be called ākāśa. Because it underlies all transformations, it may be called sat, and because it is eternal and unmanifest, it may be called asat or avyākṛta. Since prāṇa and all other functions depend upon it, it may even be metaphorically called prāṇa.
When the scriptures speak of the cause as “desiring” or “thinking”, this should be taken metaphorically, not literally, for pradhāna is without consciousness. Thus, considering the variety of statements in the Upaniṣads, it is more consistent to understand that pradhāna is the true material cause of the world, described under various names. Therefore, the Vedānta cannot be said to teach Brahman alone as the cause of creation.”
Do you agree with this interpretation? If not, what is your answer to these arguments?
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