4.6: Vākyānyādhikaraṇam - By context, the Lord is understood

Āśmarathya concludes that ātmā means the Lord, because only this interpretation fulfills the conclusion of the passage [that by knowledge of the Self everything becomes known].

« Vedānta-sūtra: The Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa

Topic 6: Vākyānyādhikaraṇam - By context, the Lord is understood

The atmā of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad is the Supreme Brahman and not the jīva

vākyānvayāt, pratijñā-siddher lingam āśmarathaḥ, utkramiṣyata evam-bhāvād ity auḍulomiḥ, avasthiter iti kāśa-kṛtsnaḥ

“The context of this passage proves that the Supreme Lord is the object of discussion. Āśmarathya concludes that ātmā means the Lord, because only this interpretation fulfills the conclusion of the passage [that by knowledge of the Self everything becomes known]. Auḍulomi concludes that ātmā means the Lord, for one who approaches the Lord becomes dear to all. Kāśa-kṛtsna concludes that the passage refers to the Lord because He is great, boundless, and full of knowledge, and resides with the jīva inside the body and in the material elements.”

Sūtra 1.4.19 - Paramātmā is the Self

vākyānvayāt

vākya – of the statement, passage; anvayāt – because of the connection, sequence.

The context of this passage proves that the Supreme Lord is the object of discussion.

Commentary: This topic is centered around verse 2.4.5, the passage from the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad with the teachings of Yājñavalkya to his wife Maitreyī. There, he says:

na vā are patyuḥ kāmāya patiḥ priyo bhavaty ātmanas tu kāmāya patiḥ priyo bhavati, na vā are jāyāyai kāmāya jāyā priyā bhavaty ātmanas tu kāmāya jāyā priyā bhavati, na vā are putrāṇām kāmāya putrāḥ priyā bhavanty ātmanas tu kāmāya putrāḥ priyā bhavanti

“It is not for the sake of the husband that the husband is dear; it is because of the Self (ātmā) that he becomes dear. It is not for the sake of the wife that the wife is dear; it is because of the Self that she becomes dear. It is not for the sake of the children that the children are dear; it is because of the Self that they become dear.”

na vā are sarvasya kāmāya sarvam priyam bhavaty ātmanas tu kāmāya sarvam priyam bhavati

“Indeed, it is not because of the objects themselves that all things are dear; it is because of the Self that all becomes dear.”

ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo maitreyi, ātmano vā are darśanena śravaṇena matyā vijñānenedam sarvam viditam

“O Maitreyī, the Self should be sought, heard, contemplated, and always meditated upon. By seeing, hearing, worshiping, and understanding this Self, everything becomes known.”

The question is: How should the word ātmā (Self) be interpreted in this passage? Is it the jīva, or the Supreme Lord in His all-pervading aspect as Paramātmā?

Followers of the atheistic Sānkhya argue that the ātmā, or Self, described in the passage, refers to the jīva, and not to Paramātmā, because by knowing oneself one understands the world around as a place for one’s enjoyment, and by understanding that one is different from matter one can attain immortality. Therefore, knowing oneself, one becomes aware of both the world, as a place of enjoyment, and also the path of immortality, by attaining liberation. Thus, they justify the sentence “everything becomes known”.

If we accept this conclusion, then the passage appears to describe that material attachment to family, etc., comes from identification with ourselves. All attachment to family, etc., is centered in our self, and thus this personal self should be known. Both Sānkhya philosophers and Māyāvādis share a similar interpretation.

One could then argue that later in the passage, Yājñavalkya states:

etebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya tāny evānuvinaśyati, na pretya samjñāsti

“Arising from the material elements, he dissolves back into them. After death, there is no consciousness.”

This describes a resident of the material world, who is born and dies. Apart from that, one could argue, the passage describes the love of husband and wife, which is, again, connected with the activities of the jīva. One could thus conclude that the whole passage must speak about the jīva.

To this, Vyāsadeva answers: vākyānvayāt. Paramātmā is the object of the discussion, as proved by the context of the passage.

Not only is the text itself full of references to the Supreme Lord, but also when we study the passages before and after, we see that the whole text is related to Brahman, and not to the jīva. In the following sūtras, Vyāsa strengthens the argument by quoting the opinion of great sages.

Sūtra 1.4.20 - By knowledge of the Self, everything becomes known

pratijñā-siddher lingam āśmarathaḥ

pratijñā: thesis, proposition, central declaration of the text; siddher: of the fulfillment; lingam: indication, mark; āśmarathyaḥ: the sage Āśmarathya.

Āśmarathya concludes that ātmā means the Lord, because only this interpretation fulfills the conclusion of the passage [that by knowledge of the Self everything becomes known].

Commentary: The great sage Āśmarathya concludes that the object of the passage is the Supreme Lord, and not the jīva, because the conclusion of the passage is that by knowledge of the Self, everything becomes known (ātmano vā are darśanena śravaṇena matyā vijñānenedam sarvam viditam). Nowhere in the scriptures is it mentioned that by knowing the jīva (or that by knowing oneself) everything becomes known, nor does this make any practical sense. On the other hand, when we properly understand the cause (the Supreme Lord), the effect (everything that exists) becomes known.

One could argue that this description of everything becoming known is just metaphorical, but this interpretation becomes unattainable when we examine the next sloka of the passage:

brahma tam parādād yo ’nyatrātmano brahma veda, kṣatram tam parādād yo ’nyatrātmanaḥ kṣatram veda, lokās tam parādur yo ’nyatrātmano lokān veda

“Whoever sees the brāhmaṇa as something other than the Self is abandoned by the brāhmana. Whoever sees the kṣatriya as something other than the Self is abandoned by the kṣatriya. Whoever sees the words as something other than the Self is abandoned by the words”.

This passage describes the Self as the source and the resting place of the brahmanas, kṣatriyas, and the whole creation, which makes it impossible to sustain that the Self described in the passage is the jīva. This is further confirmed in the conclusion of the sloka:

idam brahmedam kṣatram ime lokā ime devā imāni bhūtānīdam sarvam yad ayam ātmā

“For this brāhmana, this kṣatriya, these planets and worlds, these demigods and other beings, all of this is the Self alone.” (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.6)

Here, it becomes clear that the word ātmā is used in the sense of the Supreme Self, the Lord, and not the jīva, or the individual self.

Later, on text 2.4.10, it is mentioned:

sa yathārdraidhāgner abhyāhitāt pṛthag dhūmā viniścaranty eva vā are ’sya mahato bhūtasya niḥśvasitam etad yad ṛgvedo yajurvedaḥ sāmavedo ’tharvāngirasa itihāsaḥ purāṇam vidyā upaniṣadaḥ ślokāḥ sūtrāṇy anuvyākhyānāni vyākhyānāni, asyaivaitāni niḥśvasitāni

“Just as clouds of smoke appear when we light a fire using damp firewood, in the same way, O dear one, the Rg Veda, Sāma Veda, Yajur Veda, Atharva Veda, Purāṇas, Itihāsas, Vidyās, Upaniṣads, ślokas, sūtras, vyākhyās and anuvyākhyās, as well as everything that exists, all come from the breath of this great being.” (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.10)

Again, it’s not possible to argue that the small jīva, who is controlled by karma and acting under the three modes of material nature, could produce everything from his breath.

Yet another argument is that at the beginning of the passage, Maitreyī renounces all wealth and material benefits to attain liberation, and this leads Yājñavalkya to describe transcendental knowledge to her. Only knowledge about the Supreme Brahman is capable of granting liberation, as it is mentioned in many passages of the scriptures. The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.8, for example, mentions:

vedāham etam puruṣam mahāntam, āditya-varṇam tamasaḥ parastāt
tam eva viditvātimṛtyum eti, nānyaḥ panthā vidyate’yanāya

“I know that great Person, who shines like the sun, beyond all darkness. Knowing Him alone, one crosses over death. There is no other path for attaining liberation.”

Sūtra 1.4.21 - The pure soul develops the qualities of the Lord

utkramiṣyata evam-bhāvād ity auḍulomiḥ

utkramiṣyataḥ: one who rises up (to the transcendental platform); evam bhāvāt: because of this condition (becoming dear to all due to transcendental realization); iti: thus; auḍulomiḥ: the sage Auḍulomi.

Auḍulomi concludes that ātmā means the Lord, for one who approaches the Lord becomes dear to all.

Commentary: After the arguments given in the last sūtra, an objection may be raised. In the passage, it’s mentioned that the self becomes the object of love for the husband, the wife, and other persons; therefore, one could argue, the self must be the jīva who is entangled in the cycle of saṃsāra, and not Paramātmā. One could also argue that when the passage says that when one pleases the self, he becomes dear to all, it’s just an exaggeration since it’s not always observed in practice that a devotee becomes dear to everyone.

To this, Vyāsadeva answers: utkramiṣyata evam-bhāvād ity auḍulomiḥ. It’s the opinion of the sage Auḍulomi that a person who approaches the Lord attains the transcendental qualities of the Lord and becomes dear to all.

The word utkramiṣyata describes specifically a person who becomes close to the Lord by spiritual practice, coming close to liberation. The words evam-bhāvād mean that he becomes (in the sense of becoming dear to all), by attaining the transcendental qualities of the Lord. A devotee thus becomes dear to all as he progresses in spiritual life.

This is confirmed in the Padma Purāna:

yenārcito haris tena tarpitāni jaganty api
rajyanti jantavas tatra sthāvarā jangamā api

“By the person who worships Hari, all the worlds are satisfied. Around him, all creatures, both moving and non-moving, become pleased.”

When the passage from the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad says “na vā are patyuḥ kāmāya patiḥ priyo bhavati“, this has very deep significance, just as in other passages of the Upaniṣads.

One of the meanings is that the wife doesn’t become truly dear to the husband unless she loves the Lord. Another is that a husband who thinks he loves his wife because he obtains some satisfaction from her is actually not a loving husband. A truly loving husband is one who shows his affection by engaging his wife in the worship of the Lord. In both cases, the message is that the affection must be centered around the Lord.

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.23.27 mentions:

prāṇa-buddhi-manaḥ-svātma, dārāpatya-dhanādayaḥ
yat-samparkāt priyā āsams, tataḥ ko nv aparaḥ priyaḥ

“Our life, property, home, wife, children, house, country, society, and all paraphernalia which are very dear to us are expansions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Who is more dear to us than the Supreme Person?”

In the expression “ātmanas tu kāmāya“ or the passage “ātmanas tu kāmāya sarvam priyam bhavati“, the Sanskrit dative case (to whom, for whom) is used for the word kāma, which can also be interpreted as “happiness”. In this interpretation, the expression means that by the will of ātmā, due to being close to ātmā, or by the touch of ātmā, even things that are ordinarily unpleasant become blissful. When the Lord is worshiped with devotion, He causes every object to become pleasant and dear to His devotee, and the devotee, in turn, uses everything in the service of the Lord, re-establishing their transcendental relationship.

This is corroborated in many passages. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.14.13, for example, states:

akiñcanasya dāntasya, śāntasya sama-cetasaḥ
mayā santuṣṭa-manasaḥ, sarvāḥ sukha-mayā diśaḥ

“One who does not desire anything within this world, who has achieved peace by controlling his senses, whose consciousness is equal in all conditions and whose mind is completely satisfied in Me finds only happiness wherever he goes.”

In this way, apart from logic and contextual interpretation, when the grammatical structure is taken into account, it becomes quite clear that the word ātmā refers to Paramātmā, and not to the individual soul, since the two are described as two separate persons.

When the expression “ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ“ is mentioned later in the passage (the ātmā should be seen), the word ātmā must also mean the Lord, and not the individual soul. Apart from the context (the ātmā is the object to be seen, therefore must be different from the jīva), there is also the Sanskrit rule that the same word can’t be used with two different meanings close in the same passage, which results in the fault called vākya-bheda (divergence in meaning of statements), which is considered a serious fault in communication. In this way, since the first expression uses ātmā in the sense of Paramātmā, the second expression must also use ātmā in the same meaning. In this way, it is again proved that the whole text refers to the Supreme Lord, and not the jīva.

The sage Auḍulomi mentioned by Vyāsadeva in this sūtra is also mentioned later, in sūtra 4.4.6 (citi tan-mātreṇa tad-ātmakatvād ity auḍulomiḥ, “The liberated soul manifests his original form as pure consciousness. This is the opinion of Auḍulomi.”) Although he is a propounder of the philosophy of nirguṇātmā (a form of impersonalism), still, he maintains that the Lord should be worshiped in order to dispel ignorance and reveal the true nature of the soul. Therefore, Vyāsadeva mentions him in a few passages of the book, in points where his teachings support the correct conclusion of the Vedas, just like he mentions Jaimini and others on occasion.

On sūtra 3.4.45, for example, Vyāsa mentions: ārtvijyam ity auḍulomis tasmai hi parikrīyate, “According to Auḍulomi, the Lord sells himself to the devotee for a small offering, just like a priest performs sacrifices for a sponsor.”

This means that the practice of bhakti allows one to attain all desires. Therefore, even Auḍulomi agrees that bhakti is the process that can satisfy all desires, contradicting the atheistic Sānkhya.

Sūtra 1.4.22 - The Lord in the heart is great and full of knowledge

avasthiter iti kāśa-kṛtsnaḥ

avasthiteḥ: because of abiding (because Brahman resides within the body and material elements); iti: thus; kāśa-kṛtsnaḥ: the sage Kāśa-kṛtsna.

Kāśa-kṛtsna concludes that the passage refers to the Lord because He is great, boundless, and full of knowledge, and resides with the jīva inside the body and in the material elements.

Commentary: Here again, Śrīla Vyāsadeva uses the conclusion of another philosopher as additional support for the conclusions expressed in the previous sūtras. The sage Kāśa-kṛtsna believes that although residing with the jīva inside the body, Paramātmā is different from the jīva, for He is great and full of knowledge.

Later, there is a passage that describes how Paramātmā abides with the jīva and describes how the two are distinct:

sa yathā saindhava-khilya udake prāsta udakam evānuvilīyeta na hāsyodgrahaṇāyeva syāt, yato-yatas tv ādadīta lavaṇam, evam vā ara idam mahad bhūtam anantam apāram vijñāna-ghana eva

etebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya tāny evānuvinaśyati, na pretya samjñāstīty are bravīmi, iti hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ

“When a piece of salt is dissolved in water, it appears to be lost in it, but its presence can still be noted by the salty taste of the water. In the same way, O dear one, Brahman, who is great, infinite, boundless, and full of knowledge, makes Himself present in the material creation.

Arising from the material elements, one dissolves back into them. Having died, there is no knowledge of the body, or identity with it.” (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.12)

Paramātmā permeates everything. He is inside the heart of all living beings, and even inside the atoms. Salt, when dissolved in water, can’t be easily extracted, even though it is different from water. In the same way, Paramātmā is distinct from the jīva and the material elements, but at the same time, He becomes present in them. Paramātmā follows the jīva in all different bodies that the jīva may accept, and remains inside all material elements, even when they are manipulated for different purposes.

Kāśa-kṛtsna uses the word avasthiteḥ (residing) to confirm that the verse speaks about Paramātmā, who resides in the material elements and enters inside the heart. Paramātmā is described by the words mahad bhūtam (the great being), anantam (limitless, boundless), and vijñāna-ghan (full of knowledge). This shows that the Lord is different from the jīva, who is not great or unlimited, and has his knowledge covered in the conditioned state.

The expression “etebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya tāny evānuvinaśyati“ (Arising from the material elements, one dissolves back into them. Having died, there is no knowledge of the body, or identity with it) applies to the individual soul assuming one body after the other. Just as the Supersoul, the jīva enters into the material elements and appears to emerge with the creation of a new material body, and merges back with its destruction. The change, however, applies only to the body, and as soon as we leave one body, we lose knowledge of, or connection with it. This shows how, just like Paramātmā, the jīva is transcendental to the body. The difference is that the jīva identifies with it, while Paramātmā remains always in His transcendental position, just like in the analogy of the two birds eating the fruits of the tree.

Another meaning of this passage is that materialistic persons can’t see the Lord. For them, Paramātmā remains hidden inside the material elements, just like salt dissolved in water. For such a materialistic person, the description of the soul and Paramātmā moving from one body to another in the cycle of birth and death is surely applicable. For devotees, however, another expression mentioned in the passage applies: na pretya samjñāsti, “after death, he becomes free from the world of names”. Upon leaving the material body, a pure devotee, aware of his eternal identity, attains liberation.

The teachings of Yājñavalkya in this passage are then concluded with the following words:

yatra hi dvaitam iva bhavati tad itara itaram jighrati tad itara itaram paśyati tad itara itaram śṛṇoti tad itara itaram abhivadati tad itara itaram manute tad itara itaram vijānāti, yatra vāsya sarvam ātmaivābhūt tat kena kam jighret tat kena kam paśyet tat kena kam śṛṇuyāt tat kena kam abhivadet tat kena kam manvīta tat kena kam vijānīyāt, yenedam sarvam vijānāti tam kena vijānīyāt, vijñātāram are kena vijānīyād iti

“When one is absorbed in duality, seeing an existence separated from the Lord, then one smells another, sees another, hears another, speaks to another, thinks of another, and knows another. But when one becomes aware of the Supreme Self and understands that nothing is separate from him, then who smells what? Who sees what? Who hears what? Who speaks what, who thinks of what, and who knows what?

How could that Supreme Person, by whom all this is known, be known by another? O dear one, the ultimate knower is beyond the grasp of material knowledge.” (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.14)

In this way, the conclusion of the teachings of Yājñavalkya to his wife is that she should engage in devotional service. Having said this, he left for the forest.

Together, all the arguments we studied in this passage make it very clear that what the passage describes as ātmā is Paramātmā, and not the jīva. In this way, the idea that this passage supports the Sānkhya philosophy is defeated.

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