2.3: Guhādhikaraṇam - The person in the heart

“The two selves inside the heart are the Lord and the jīva, because this is clearly seen in other passages of the śāstras, and also because of the differences between them.”

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

Topic 3: Guhādhikaraṇam - The person in the heart

The Lord dwells inside the heart together with the soul

guhām praviṣṭāv ātmānau hi tad-darśanāt, viśeṣaṇāc ca

“The two selves inside the heart are the Lord and the jīva, because this is clearly seen in other passages of the śāstras, and also because of the differences between them.”

Sūtra 1.2.11 - The two selves inside the heart

guhām praviṣṭāv ātmānau hi tad-darśanāt

guhām: in the cave (heart); praviṣṭāu: (the two) having entered; ātmānau: two selves; hi: indeed, truly; tat: that; darśanāt: because it is seen, revealed.

The two selves inside the heart are the Lord and the jīva, because this is clearly seen in other passages of the śāstras.

Commentary: When we speak about the Lord and the soul being together inside the heart, a controversy may arise. Some may consider that the two beings described as being inside the heart are not the soul and the Supreme Lord, but the soul and buddhi (intelligence) or the soul and prāna (the vital air).

In the passage immediately after the verse about the eater we studied in the previous session, the Kaṭha Upaniṣad mentions (1.3.1):

ṛtam pibantau sukṛtasya loke guhām praviṣṭau parame parārdhe
chāyātapau brahma-vido vadanti pañcāgnayo ye ca tri-ṇāciketāḥ

“The knowers of Brahman, who tend the five fires and perform the threefold nāciketa sacrifice, speak of the two beings who have entered the cave of the heart, the most excellent space, for performing pious deeds and experiencing the results of karma. They describe them as like shadow and light.”

We can see that this passage describes a companion for the jīva inside the heart. Because the verse is vague in defining who He is, it’s possible to interpret the companion as being either buddhi, prāna, or the Supersoul. Superficially, it appears that buddhi or prāna may make more sense because the heart is a small space, and thus, how could it be the abode of the Supreme Brahman? In fact, the word “guhām” actually means “cave”, confirming the analogy.

Another possible argument in this line is that in the verse from the Kaṭha Upaniṣad it is mentioned that they experience the results of karma, suggesting that the companion assists the jīva as one experiences the inevitable results of his karma. In this way, it could be argued that the companion can’t be the Lord, because He never experiences the results of karma. Following this logic, one could conclude that the companion must be either buddhi or prāna, which negates the existence of the Supersoul. This is a standard conclusion of the Nyāya and Mīmāṃsā schools, where the existence of the Supersoul is not accepted.

Māyāvādis don’t directly negate the existence of the Supersoul, but they interpret it in the light of the saguṇa Brahman theory. According to them, Brahman is present inside the heart as antaryāmi, acting as a witness and dispenser of the results of karma, as well as an object of meditation. In their understanding, however, this Brahman inside the heart is viewed as being under the upādhi of māyā, and not as the nirguṇa Brahman, which is pure, attributeless consciousness. According to them, when the avidyā is removed by the cultivation of spiritual knowledge, one sees oneself in one’s original nature, as Brahman. In other words, their interpretation is that the references to the soul and Paramātmā inside the heart are merely pedagogic, since they are ultimately one. To sustain this view, they use examples such as the same sun reflected in two pots of water and the air inside a pot being temporarily separated from the atmosphere, but at the same time being one with it.

The idea of Paramātmā as the Supreme Lord in His transcendental form, accompanying the soul inside the heart, counters both theories, but if we accept that the soul is alone inside the heart, accompanied by just the material intelligence or the vital airs, or that Paramātma is saguṇa Brahman, we end up being misguided.

To this, Vyāsadeva answers: guhām praviṣṭāv ātmānau. The two companions inside the heart are the two selves (Paramātmā and the jīva). Why? hi tad-darśanāt: this is very clearly seen in other passages from the śāstras.

In the sūtra, the word ātmānau (the dual form of ātmā) makes it clear that these are two transcendental selves, similar in nature. The word ātma can be interpreted as meaning buddhi and prāna in a few passages, but the primary and consistent meaning is ātmā as the Supreme Lord, in His transcendental form, and the secondary meaning is as the individual soul. Even if we were to accept the interpretation of ātmā as prāna or buddhi in this verse, still, the construction of the word “ātmānau” would not allow them to be paired with the soul, since they are different in nature. Just as when we have two persons, we can call them “people”, but not when we have a man and a horse.

Other references

While it’s possible to try to sustain the thesis of the companion being buddhi or prāna using the Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.1 alone, this thesis falls apart when confronted with other references. In other passages, the scriptures are very clear in defining the companion as the Supersoul. In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.12, for example, it’s mentioned:

tam durdarśam gūḍham anupraviṣṭam
guhāhitam gahvareṣṭam purāṇam
adhyātma-yogādhigamena devam
matvā dhīro harṣa-śokau jahāti

“That primeval and beginningless Supreme Lord, who is subtle, hidden, and difficult to perceive, who has entered into the heart of all beings, situating Himself in their very core, that Supreme Self is realized in the trance of transcendental yoga (adhyātma-yoga). Knowing Him as the indwelling Self (antaryāmī), the wise one transcends both joy and sorrow.”

In this verse, the word “purāṇam” (primeval) can be used only in connection with the Supreme Lord or the soul, but not in connection with buddhi or prāna, which are material manifestations created at a certain point (at the beginning of the universe). Only something eternal can be called primeval, as defined by Kṛṣṇa in Bg 2.20. The word “devan” (divine being) is also an explicit theistic term, indicating the Supreme Lord, just as anupraviṣṭam (He who has entered into all beings), since only the Lord can simultaneously enter into all hearts.

The specific use of these words makes the argument of the companion of the jīva being buddhi or prāna untenable. Both are material manifestations and are not situated in the cave of the heart mentioned in the passage, but outside of it, as part of the subtle body. One could try to insist on the Māyāvādi idea of the jīva and Paramātmā being ultimately one, but this last argument is defeated by the words “guhāhitam gahvareṣṭam“ (placed in the innermost depths of the cave, and sought after), which clearly define the Lord as the object of meditation of the jīva, and thus separate from it. This gains even more strength with the word “devam”, in the next line, which further reinforces the idea of a perfect being, different from the jīva, who must be realized by the individual soul.

In this way, it’s not possible to misinterpret the verse to suggest that the companion is anyone else apart from the transcendental Supersoul. And this is just one reference of many. That’s why Vyāsadeva uses the word “darśanāt”, meaning that this is a fact that can be clearly seen in the scriptures, just like we can see the sun in the sky.

At this point, the opponent could try to save face by holding to the words “ṛtam pibantau sukṛtasya loke” in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.1, which describe the two selves entering the body to perform pious deeds and then enjoying the karmic results of these acts. Since the Supreme Brahman is pure and performs no material actions, one could argue that this must thus apply to the individual soul, accompanied by buddhi or prāna.

Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, however, argues that the word pibantau (they drink, in the sense of drinking the results of karma) is used in the sense of they being together, and not in the sense of both enjoying the karmic results. This usage is similar to when we say “the two carriers of the umbrella”. Although only one is factually carrying the umbrella, they are still referred to as “the two carriers of the umbrella” because the two are walking together. Similarly, when it is said “ṛtam pibantau sukṛtasya loke”, it means that Paramātmā accompanies the jīva in his material suffering and enjoyment, as a neutral witness, with just the jīva being involved in material actions.

How can this interpretation be proved? We just need to examine the same verse a little further. The word “chāyātapau“ in the second line (chāyā=shadow, tapa=light) indicates that the two selves are different. One is in darkness, identifying with the body and mind, enjoying the sweet and bitter fruits of the tree, while the other maintains His transcendental position. This not only further emphasizes that the two are distinct personalities, but confirms that, although living together, only one is materially engaged.

This is consistent with the passage “tayor anyaḥ pippalam svādvatti, anaśnan anyo abhicākaśīti” (Mundaka Upaniṣad 3.1.1), where it is mentioned that “Two birds of beautiful plumage and close friends reside on the same tree. One of them eats the fruits of the tree, thinking they are sweet. The other bird simply observes.”

In this way, the argument of the second self not being the Supreme Lord because of performing material actions is fully invalidated. The Lord is the source of the material nature, including karma, and thus He never becomes entangled in it.

In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (4.28.54-55), it’s mentioned:

hamsāv aham ca tvam cārya, sakhāyau mānasāyanau
abhūtām antarā vaukaḥ, sahasra-parivatsarān
sa tvam vihāya mām bandho, gato grāmya-matir mahīm
vicaran padam adrākṣīḥ, kayācin nirmitam striyā

“My dear gentle friend, both you and I are exactly like two swans. We live together in the same heart, which is just like the Mānasa Lake. Although we have been living together for many thousands of years, we are still far away from our original home. My dear friend, you are now My very same friend. Since you left Me, you have become more and more materialistic, and not seeing Me, you have been traveling in different forms throughout this material world, which was created by some woman.”

In his purport to ŚB 5.20.5, Śrīla Prabhupāda gives a different translation for the Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.1, focusing on the deep meaning, instead of the literal translation of the words. His interpretation makes the real meaning very clear:

“O Nāciketā, the expansions of Lord Viṣṇu as the tiny living entity and the Supersoul are both situated within the cave of the heart of this body. Having entered that cavity, the living entity, resting on the chief of the life airs, enjoys the results of activities, and the Supersoul, acting as witness enables him to enjoy them. Those who are well-versed in knowledge of Brahman and those householders who carefully follow the Vedic regulations say that the difference between the two is like the difference between a shadow and the sun.”

Sūtra 1.2.12 - The scriptures describe the differences between them

viśeṣaṇāc ca

viśeṣaṇāt: because of distinctive qualities; ca: also

And also because of the differences between them.

Commentary: In this sūtra, Vyāsadeva makes an additional argument to support the conclusion that the two companions are the soul and Paramātmā: viśeṣaṇāc ca. Many verses in the scriptures describe the differences between them, and this makes it impossible to sustain that the companion is not the Supersoul, or that the jīva and the Supersoul are one.

We don’t have to go far. In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.12, for example, the same verse we studied in the previous sūtra, the words “matvā dhīro harṣa-śokau jahāti” (Knowing Him as the indwelling Self, the wise one transcends both joy and sorrow) clearly describe the jīva as the meditator, while most of the words of the verse (tam, durdarśam, gūḍham, etc.) describe the Lord (devam) as the object of meditation, being all in the accusative case. With this, the verse makes it clear that the jīva (defined as dhīraḥ, the wise one) meditates on the Lord (devam, the divine one) to become free from the joy and sorrow of material conditioning.

In the other verse we studied in the previous passage, Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.1, the word “chāyā-tapau” (one is light, the other darkness) also indicates that they are different, being one under illusion while the other maintains His transcendental position. This is just a start from the verses we have at hand. If we examine the scriptures as a whole, hundreds of other passages can be mentioned.

The Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.9 states:

vijñāna-sārathir yas tu manaḥ pragrahavān naraḥ
so’dhvanaḥ pāram āpnoti tad viṣṇoḥ paramam padam

“He who has higher knowledge (vijñāna) as his driver and a controlled mind as his reins, crosses the material ocean of samsāra and attains the Supreme Lord.”

A little later, on verse 1.2.1, the same Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.1 mentions:

parāñci khāni vyatṛṇat svayambhūs tasmāt parān paśyati nāntarātman
kaścid dhīraḥ pratyag-ātmānam aikṣad āvṛtta-cakṣur amṛtatvam icchan

“The Lord created the material senses and turned them outward. Because of this, one sees only external objects and not the inner self. But a wise person, desiring immortality, withdraws the senses from external objects and sees the inward Self (the Lord).”

The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (3.1.8) adds:

na cakṣuṣā gṛhyate nāpi vācā, nānyair devais tapasā karmaṇā vā
jñāna-prasādena viśuddha-sattvas, tatas tu tam paśyate niṣkalam dhyāyamānaḥ

“He can’t be understood by the eyes, the speech, or by any other of the material senses. He can’t be attained by austerity or pious actions. He can be seen only by the grace of transcendental knowledge, attained when one becomes completely free from the influence of passion and ignorance. Such a pure soul can see the Lord’s indivisible form inside his own heart by fixed meditation.”

All these verses speak about seeing or attaining the Lord, making clear that He is different from the jīva. Even the most obstinate opponent will be forced to eventually accept this fact, since the list of references that can be brought in is practically unlimited.

Exercise

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

Opponent: “The jīva enters the body accompanied by prāna, the vital air, and buddhi, intelligence. Vyāsadeva himself explains this relationship in the 4th canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, in the allegory of King Purañjana, where prāna is described as the serpent that defends the body, and buddhi is represented by the queen, who accompanies and enjoys together with the jīva. In this way, buddhi is brought to the forefront, as the prominent companion of the soul, while prāna is described in a secondary role, maintaining the body.

The Kaṭha Upaniṣad, 1.3.1, brings us an interesting description: ṛtam pibantau sukṛtasya loke guhām praviṣṭau parame parārdhe, chāyātapau brahma-vido vadanti pañcāgnayo ye ca tri-ṇāciketāḥ

“The knowers of Brahman, who tend the five fires and perform the threefold nāciketa sacrifice, speak of the two beings who have entered the cave of the heart, the most excellent space, for performing pious deeds and experiencing the results of karma. They describe them as like shadow and light.”

One of the beings is the jīva, and the other is buddhi, the intelligence, who accompanies the soul. Both enter the cave of the heart and together perform material actions and enjoy the karmic results.

Some would argue that the companion of the jīva is nirguna-Brahman, in the form of Paramātmā, but this interpretation does not find support in the scriptures, since the transcendental Brahman does not assume material qualities, much less perform material actions. One could insist that the word chāyātapau (light and darkness) in the passage refers to jīva and Paramātmā, but this again is purely speculative. Chāyātapau simply refers to the waking and dream state of the jīva, performing actions when awake (light) and becoming inert while in deep sleep (darkness).

Following the same interpretation, one could argue that Vyāsadeva defends the duality of jīva and Paramātmā in the sūtras “guhām praviṣṭau ātmānau hi tad-darśanāt” and “viśeṣaṇāc ca” of the second pāda of the Vedānta-sūtra, but this is also incorrect, because the philosophy of Vyāsadeva does not support duality.

Even in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, popularly used by Vaiṣnavas, he defines the absolute truth as advayam (non-dual) in text 1.2.11. Therefore, when Vyāsadeva mentions: guhām praviṣṭau ātmānau hi tad-darśanāt, he just mentions that two selves have entered the cave, and confirms this point by stating that it is so because it is stated in the scriptures. As explained, the scriptures, more specifically the Kaṭha Upaniṣad, explain that the two selves entering the cave as the jīva and buddhi, and both are accompanied by prāna.”

Description: We have strong arguments supporting the siddhanta, the proper conclusion of the jīva living with Paramātmā inside the heart, but the opponent is mixing arguments from Nyāya and Advaita, trying to turn the verses and sūtras we would use to support it against us. What is your answer to this challenge?

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