4.8: Sarva-vyākyātādhikaraṇam - All names are names of the Lord

All names mentioned in the scriptures are originally names of the Lord. Only in the secondary meaning they indicate demigods and others.

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

Topic 8: Sarva-vyākyātādhikaraṇam - All names are names of the Lord

All names mentioned in the scriptures are originally names of the Lord. Only in the secondary meaning they indicate demigods and others

etena sarve vyākhyātā vyākhyātāḥ

“The Supreme Lord is the original cause of everything. All words of the scriptures should be interpreted according to this explanation.”

Sūtra 1.4.28 - All names belong to the Supreme Lord

etena sarve vyākhyātā vyākhyātāḥ

etena: by this (by the method of interpretation indicated previously); sarve: all (names and words of the scriptures); vyākhyātāḥ: explained, accounted for.

The Supreme Lord is the original cause of everything. All words of the scriptures should be interpreted according to this explanation.

Commentary: An argument could be raised against the arguments offered in the previous topics: different verses in the scriptures appear to indicate a different supreme cause instead of Lord Viṣnu.

The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, for example, appears to indicate Lord Śiva as the supreme cause:

kṣaram pradhānam amṛtākṣaraḥ haraḥ

“Pradhāna, the material nature, is in a constant state of flux. While Hara, the Supreme, is eternal and unchanging.” (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 1.10)

eko rudro na dvitīyāya tasthuḥ

“Lord Rudra is the Supreme. He has no rival.” (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.2)

yo devānām prabhavaś codbhavaś ca, viśvādhiko rudraḥ śivo maharṣiḥ

“Lord Śiva, who is known as Rudra, is the omniscient ruler of the universe. He is the father of all the demigods. He gives the demigods all their powers and opulences. He is greater than all.” (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.4)

yadā tamas tan na divā na rātrir, na san na cāsac chiva eva kevalaḥ

“When the final darkness comes and there is no longer light or darkness, when there is no longer being and non-being, then only Lord Śiva exists.” (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.18)

Other passages mention pradhāna or even the jīva as the supreme:

pradhānād idam utpannam, pradhānam adhigacchati

pradhāne layam abhyeti, na hy anyat kāranam matam

“From pradhāna this material world has arisen, and into pradhāna it merges at the time of annihilation. Nothing else is the cause of this world.”

jīvād bhavanti bhūtāni, jīve tiṣṭhanty acañcalāḥ

jīve ca layam icchanti, na jīvāt kāraṇam param

“From the jīva all beings arise. By the jīva they are supported, and into the jīva they find dissolution. Nothing else is the cause of this world.”

In all these references, the usage of the words haraḥ, rudra, śiva, pradhāna, and jīva makes it unequivocal that the passages in fact define the supreme cause using these terms. How can such passages be understood?

Some will argue that the words in these passages must be accepted in the original sense, and Lord Śiva, pradhāna, or the jīva should be accepted as the ultimate cause. However, this doesn’t make any sense, since in most passages Lord Viṣnu is indicated as the Supreme cause. Unless we accept the Māyāvāda theory that everything is one and all variety is due to material illusion, it’s not possible to accept the idea that different passages from the scriptures contradict each other by indicating several different supreme causes.

To this doubt, Vyāsadeva answers: etena sarve vyākhyātā vyākhyātāḥ. As concluded previously, the Supreme Lord is the original cause of everything. All words of the scriptures should be interpreted according to this explanation.

Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa explains that the word “etena” is used in the meaning of explanations previously given (the Lord is the origin of everything, etc.), and “sarve” refers to all different names mentioned in the scriptures (such as haraḥ, rudra, śiva, pradhāna, etc). The word vyākhyātā indicates an explanation, indicating that “sarve” (all names) should be explained according to “etena” (the conclusion that the Lord is the origin of everything, which was previously given).

What is the evidence? The Bhālvaveya-śruti explains:

nāmāni viśvāni na santi loke, yad āvirāsīt puruṣasya sarvam

nāmāni sarvāṇi yam āviśanti, tam vai viṣṇum paramam udāharanti

“The names of this world are not different from Him. All names in this world are names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All names refer to Him, Lord Viṣṇu, whom the wise declare is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”

Vyāsadeva mentions that this conclusion is also upheld by Vaiśampāyana, who concludes that all names are names of Kṛṣṇa. This is also sustained in the Skanda Purāṇa:

śrī-nārāyaṇādīni nāmāni vinānyāni rudrādibhyo harir dattavān

“Except for Nārāyaṇa and some other names, Lord Hari gave away His names to Lord Śiva and the other demigods.”

All names mentioned in the scriptures come originally from the Lord. These names, which belong to the Lord, are just loaned to demigods and other beings. Therefore, the rule is that when the ordinary sense of the names mentioned in passages of the scriptures doesn’t contradict the general teachings of the Vedas, the ordinary meaning should be accepted. However, when the ordinary meaning of the names contradicts the teachings, then the names should be understood to be names of Lord Viṣnu. That’s how the meaning of these different passages can be understood.

Take, for example, SB 4.2.29:

naṣṭa-śaucā mūḍha-dhiyo, jaṭā-bhasmāsthi-dhāriṇaḥ

viśantu śiva-dīkṣāyām, yatra daivam surāsavam

“Those who vow to worship Lord Śiva are so foolish that they imitate him by keeping long hair on their heads. When initiated into the worship of Lord Śiva, they prefer to live on wine, flesh, and other such things.”

Here we can understand that the word “Śiva” refers to Lord Śiva, acting as Bhūta-nātha, the Lord of the ghosts and spirits, since this understanding is consistent with the teachings given in other verses from the scriptures.

However, when it’s said:

yadā tamas tan na divā na rātrir, na san na cāsac chiva eva kevalaḥ

“When the final darkness comes and there is no longer day or night, when there is no longer being and non-being, then only Lord Śiva exists.”

... then the “Śiva” should be taken as the name of the Supreme Lord and not the name of the demigod. In this way, the real meaning of the verse is that “When the final darkness comes and there is no longer day or night when there is no longer being and non-being (at the dissolution of the Universe), then only the Supreme Lord exists.”

The word vyākyātāḥ is repeated in this sūtra to indicate the end of the first adhyāya (chapter): “etena sarve vyākhyātā vyākhyātāḥ”.

Exercise

Now it’s your turn. Can you answer the following arguments using the ideas from this section?

Opponent: “It cannot be maintained that all names found in the śruti are names of the Supreme Brahman. Many passages clearly identify other entities, such as Śiva, pradhāna, and jīva, as the cause of the cosmic manifestation. If we forcefully reinterpret these names as merely denoting Viṣṇu, we disregard both the ordinary meaning and the natural intent of the texts. If every name is arbitrarily taken as “Viṣṇu,” then the clear conclusions of the scriptures are lost. The text explicitly distinguishes between Rudra, pradhāna, jīva, and Brahman.

The principle of ordinary usage (mukhya-vṛtti) should not be violated without necessity. Śiva is always known as Rudra, pradhāna always as the material cause, and the jīva always as the individual knower. To redefine them all as “Viṣṇu” is to impose an artificial meaning (gauṇa-vṛtti) where the primary one works perfectly well.

Śāstra itself allows independent supremacy of Rudra: In various Purāṇas, Śiva is said to be eternal, all-knowing, and the cause of dissolution. To deny these statements by saying “all names ultimately mean Viṣṇu” is sectarian. Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that when the Upaniṣads and Purāṇas glorify Rudra, pradhāna, or jīva as the cause, these passages are to be taken in their direct sense, as glorifying different controllers of the cosmic manifestation. The words of the śāstra cannot be forcibly reinterpreted against their plain meaning.”

What is your answer to these arguments?

All the sūtras of the fourth pāda in prose

“If some assume that avyakta in the passage refers to pradhāna, I say no. The metaphor refers to the body, it is clearly shown. “Body” in this passage refers to the subtle body. This is appropriate in the context. This meaning should be accepted because pradhāna is ultimately dependent on the Lord, and also because it is not described in the text as an object of knowledge. If one argues that pradhāna is described as the object of knowledge in another passage, I say it is not so. The reference applies to the omniscient Supreme Personality of Godhead. Only three subjects are introduced, answering three questions. Apart from that, the word mahat is already used as a modifier for ātmā.

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.

Even if we were to consider the passage [from the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad] as meaning five groups of five, it doesn’t match the Sānkhya theory, because the number exceeds the Sānkhya counting, and because the groups don’t correspond to the disposition of the elements in the living entities. The five units described in the passage are prāna and the rest, as mentioned in the subsequent verse in the passage. In another recension of the text, the word jyotis is found, while the word anna is absent.

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.

Because the word “karma” [in the passage of the Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad] means the material creation, the subject is the Supreme Lord, not the jīva. If one argues that the passage does not refer to the Lord because of the references to the jīva and the chief prāna, I say it is not so. This has already been refuted [in Sūtra 1.1.31]. According to Jaimini, the discussion about the jīva has another purpose. The questions and answers make it clear that the jīva is different from Brahman. Another recension of the text also shows in this way.

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.

Brahman is also prakṛti, the material nature. This is the only proposition that is not contradictory to the conclusions of the Upaniṣads. Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient, because it is described that He creates the world out of desire, and because of other reasons. He is certainly the creator and also the ingredient of creation, because both truths are directly stated in the scriptures. He creates the world by the permutation of His energy. The scriptures declare thus that the Lord is the womb, or source, from which the material world is born.

The Supreme Lord is the original cause of everything. All words of the scriptures should be interpreted according to this explanation.”

Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa ends his commentary with the following prayer:

sarve vedāḥ paryavasyanti yasmin, satyānantācintya-śaktau pareśe
viśvotpatti-sthema-bhangādi-līle, nityam tasmin nas tu kṛṣṇe matir naḥ

“May we always fix our hearts on Lord Kṛṣṇa, who is the final goal taught by all the Vedas, who is the master of unlimited and inconceivable transcendental potencies, who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and who, as His own pastime, creates, maintains, and destroys 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