2.4: Antarādhikaraṇam - The person in the eye

"The person in the eye is the Lord, because of the evidence given in the passage, and also because of the statements in the scriptures of the Lord being present in the eye and in other places as well"

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

Topic 4: Antarādhikaraṇam - The person in the eye

Who is the person in the eye mentioned in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad?

antara upapatteḥ, sthānādi-vyapadeśāc ca, sukha-viśiṣṭābhidhānād eva ca, śrutopaniṣatka-gaty-abhidhānāc ca, anavasthiter asambhāvāc ca netaraḥ

“The person in the eye is the Lord, because of the evidence given in the passage, and also because of the statements in the scriptures, of the Lord being present in the eye and in other places as well.

The person in the eye is the Lord, because He is described as being full of transcendental bliss, and also because it is described that those who hear the Upaniṣads attain the Lord. He can’t be anyone else, because others don’t permanently reside in the eye, and don’t possess the attributes described in the text.”

Sūtra 1.2.13 - The person in the eye is the Lord

antara upapatteḥ

antaraḥ: the person within; upapatteḥ: because it is reasonable, logically consistent.

The person in the eye is the Lord, because of the evidence given in the passage.

Commentary: This sūtra is revealed in the context of text 4.15.1-2 of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, the conclusion of the passage on the spiritual instructions received by Satyakāma Jābāla and Upakosala.

Satyakāma is the protagonist of the fourth part of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. He is a poor boy born to a maidservant, who doesn’t know who his father is. When Satyakāma goes to Gautama to ask for spiritual instructions, the guru asks about his gotra (or lineage), and the boy, in all honesty, admits his mother does not know who the father was. From this, the guru immediately understands that despite his low birth, Satyakāma has the nature of a Brāhmana, since only a Brāhmana could speak so honestly. He thus accepts him as his student.

Prabhupāda mentions this passage in a few of his lectures, including a class on SB 1.2.2 he gave in Rome, May 26, 1974:

“If anyone wants to become a brāhmaṇa, it is not that the brāhmaṇa’s son would automatically become brāhmaṇa. No. Anyone could become brāhmaṇa. Just like Satyakāma Jābāla. Satyakāma was the son of a prostitute. He was not a brāhmaṇa’s son. He wanted to become brāhmaṇa, so he went to Gautama Muni, “Sir, please initiate me. I want to become a brāhmaṇa.” Śūdras were not initiated; therefore, Gautama Muni inquired, “What are you? Because I do not initiate who is not born of a brāhmaṇa father.” So he said, “I do not know.” “So go to your mother. Ask whose son you are.” The mother said, “I do not know.” So he came and he said, “Sir, my mother does not know whose son I am.” So Gautama Muni accepted him as a disciple because he was truthful. He saw that he has got the brahminical qualification, truthful. No one is willing to admit that he is the son of a prostitute. No. But he admitted, “Yes, my mother does not know by whom I was begotten.” So this is his qualification.”

After being accepted by his guru, Satyakāma receives the task of taking care of 400 squalid cows and bringing them back when the herd numbers 1,000. During this time, he is instructed by Vāyu (in the form of a bull), Agni (appearing from the sacrificial fire), Āditya (as a swan), and Prāṇa (appearing as a diving bird), who teach him to see Brahman in the four directions, in the different planetary systems, the sources of light and in the senses. When he comes back, after several years, his guru notices his effulgence and understands he had realized the Supreme Brahman. When Satyakāma describes how he had been instructed by demigods, the teacher asks him to share the knowledge with him.

Later, Satyakāma becomes a guru himself and accepts Upakosala as his student. The boy serves in the āśrama for twelve years, tending the sacrificial fires, but Satyakāma does not teach him, departing instead on a trip. Since the boy is very anxious to hear about the Absolute Truth and become thus free from birth and death, the fires themselves appear to him in their personified forms and instruct him, teaching him to see Brahman in prāna, as the source of life and unlimited happiness. They tell him that, worshiping the sacrificial fire, as he was doing, he should meditate on Brahman in the earth, fire, food, the sun, water, the directions, constellations, and the Moon, prāna, ether, Svargaloka, and lightning.

When Satyakāma returns, the boy reveals to him the instructions he had received. Satyakāma then adds the final teaching, described in the two verses quoted by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, which conclude the whole passage:

ya eṣo ‘ntar-akṣiṇi puruṣo dṛśyate sa eṣa ātmeti hovāca
etad amṛtam ayam etad brahma
tad yad yad asmin sarpir vā udakam vā siñcati vartmani eva gacchati
etam sampad-dhāma iti ācakṣate
etam hi sarvāṇi kāmāni abhisamyanti

“He said: He who is seen within the eye is the ātmā. He is immortal. He is the Supreme Brahman. Because of His presence, if one sprinkles ghee or water on the eye, it runs off. He is called sampad-dhāma, the indwelling Self, source of all opulence, and the supreme destination. For one who sees Him, all desires are at once fulfilled.” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 4.15.1-2)

The soul lives inside the heart, which is by nature a dark place. By itself, the soul has no power to perceive the world outside; this power has to be given by the Lord, who activates the senses, allowing the soul to see, taste, hear, etc., and thus perceive the world. Of all the five senses for acquiring knowledge, vision is considered the principal, and thus is especially emphasized. The Lord is present in the eye, and because of His presence, we can see the world. The whole universe is a manifestation of the Lord, and it is because of the potency of the Lord that we can see it; therefore the Lord is present in the eye.

Because of the presence of the Lord, the eye has a special characteristic: water, oil, and other substances do not stick to it. Instead, they flow away on both sides. This comes from the special characteristic of the Lord of never becoming contaminated.

The instructions received from the fire-gods taught Upakosala to see the Supreme Lord everywhere, in all material manifestations, but the final instruction added by Satyakāma taught him to see Him inside his own heart, and in the functions of all senses. This instruction, revealed by the Upaniṣad, teaches us to see the Lord everywhere. The whole material manifestation is a manifestation of the Lord. He is the material objects we see, He is the light that allows us to see, and He is also the function of the senses that allow us to see. The whole material experience is thus nothing more than a partial manifestation of the Lord that we see at every moment. One who understands this can see the effulgence of the Lord behind this temporary manifestation and see the Lord as the Supreme Person behind this effulgence, surrounded by His devotees. By this realization, one can attain the Lord, just as Upakosala.

This passage also teaches us to see the functions of the senses as a direct manifestation of the Lord, and connect all our activities of seeing, touching, tasting, etc., with the service of the Lord. When we see our body and senses as our property, we automatically become inclined to use them for material enjoyment, but when we see both the body and senses as a manifestation of the Lord, we see that they should be used only in His service. With this, the passage ultimately brings us to the stage of pure devotional service to the Lord.

We then come to the philosophical discussion concerning the verse. The person in the eye is described as puruṣa, ātma, brahman, amṛta, and sampad-dhāma. However, as we studied in previous explanations, these words can be interpreted in different ways. Since this is the conclusion of the passage, if someone apart from the Supreme Lord is accepted as the person in the eye, the meaning of the whole passage changes, and suddenly the goal becomes something else.

One could argue that the person in the eye is just a reflection. I see myself reflected in another person’s eyes, just like I see myself reflected in a mirror. Another could argue that he is a demigod since the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (5.5.2) mentions that “raśmibhir eṣo ‘smin pratiṣṭhitaḥ” (with the rays of sunlight, the sun-god enters the eye). It could also be argued that the person is the jīva, following the Nyāya/Mīmāṃsā interpretation of attributing the words ātma, brahman, amṛta, etc. to the individual soul.

To this, the sūtra answers: antara upapatteḥ. It doesn’t make sense to presume that the person in the eye is anyone else but the Lord, in his form as Paramātmā. The passage mentions a set of qualities that don’t apply to a reflection, a demigod, or the jīva.

The first is “ātma”, which denotes that he is spiritual in nature. This indicates that he is not a reflection or a demigod. He is also amṛta, immortal, which again doesn’t apply to a demigod or a reflection. He is the greatest (brahma), which also rules out being the jīva since the jīva is described in the scriptures as being very small. He is not touched by water or butter (which means He is beyond all material rituals and offerings, or in other words, free from all material contact), and, more importantly, He is the abode of all opulence (sampad-dhama), and by seeing Him, all one’s desires are immediately satisfied (meaning, one attains liberation).

Due to all this evidence, it can only be concluded that the person in the eye is the Lord Himself, as Paramātmā. The word upapatteḥ in the sūtra indicates that the conclusion is dictated by reason; it is simply logical.

Sūtra 1.2.14 - The statements in the scriptures

sthānādi-vyapadeśāc ca

sthāna-ādi: a group of characteristics beginning with sthāna, position; vyapadeśāt: because of the statement, or description; ca: also.

And also because of the statements in the scriptures, of the Lord being present in the eye and in other places as well.

Commentary: In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (3.7.3), it is mentioned:

yaḥ pṛthivyām tiṣṭhan pṛthivyā antarāḥ, yam pṛthivī na veda
yasya pṛthivī śarīram, yaḥ pṛthivīm antarāḥ yamayati
eṣa ta ātmāntaryāmy amṛtaḥ

“He who dwells in the Earth, who is within, whom the Earth does not know, who is the ultimate proprietor of the Earth and the body, and who, residing within, rules the Earth is the immortal Supersoul (antaryāmī), the Supreme Personality of Godhead (ātmā) who resides in the heart.”

The word “pṛthivī” in this context does not just mean the Earth as the planet, but the Earth as the whole cosmic manifestation, in the context of the universal form, meaning the space for activities for all living beings.

Antaryāmī is the controller within, the inner Self, who is present inside all material objects and in the hearts of all living beings. Although He is present everywhere, He is not perceived either by the material objects or by the living entities inside of which He dwells. This antaryāmī is defined as ātmā, the Supreme Self, leaving no doubt that it refers to the Supersoul.

The fact that antaryāmī is the Supersoul is accepted in both Vaiṣnava schools and by Śankarācārya. The difference, however, is that Śankarācārya accepts antaryāmī as ultimately identical with the soul, juggling that although one, they appear to be different due to avidyā, the material ignorance. According to him, Paramātmā is the Supreme Brahman reflected in māyā, accepting the māyā-upādhi (false designation) of being the Supreme controller, acting under the mode of goodness, while the jīva is the same Brahman reflected in individual avidyā, acting as a conditioned soul under the three modes.

That’s why we call their philosophy Māyāvāda, since (although they try to deny it) the truth is that their philosophy assumes that Māyā is greater than God. Vaiṣnava schools, however, hold the proper conclusion of the individual soul and antaryāmī being qualitatively one, but at the same time eternally different individuals. Paramātmā is a partial manifestation of Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and the jīva never becomes one with the Lord, even in the perfect stage.

This and other verses make it clear that the person in the eye is Paramātmā, who is also present in the earth (meaning all material objects) and inside the heart with the jīva. In fact, Paramātmā is everywhere and it is only due to His sanction that we can move our bodies and perform activities. This shows how we remain dependent on the Lord even in our conditioned state.

Sūtra 1.2.15 - Transcendental bliss

sukha-viśiṣṭābhidhānād eva ca

sukha: transcendental bliss; viśiṣṭa: characterized by, distinguished by; abhidhānāt: because of the earlier description; eva: indeed; ca: and.

The person in the eye is the Lord, because He is described as being full of transcendental bliss.

Commentary: In his purport, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa connects this sūtra with verse 4.10.5 of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, another verse inside the passage of Upakosala and Satyakāma. After Satyakāma departed without instructing him, Upakosala lamented and stopped eating, being very anxious to receive knowledge about the Lord and become free from birth and death. Seeing this, the sacrificial fires appeared to him in their personified forms to give him instructions. This is the first of the instructions:

prāṇo brahma kam brahma kham brahmeti sa hovāca vijānāmy aham yat prāṇo brahma kam ca tu kham ca na vijānāmīti
te hocur yad vāva kam tad eva kham yad eva kham tad eva kam iti prāṇam ca hāsmai tad ākāśam cocuḥ

“’Prāna is Brahman, kam (bliss) is Brahman, and kham (ether) is Brahman’, the fire-gods said. Upakosala answered: ‘I understand that prāṇa is Brahman. I do not understand about kam and kham.’ They then said, ‘Kam (bliss) is the same as kham (ākāśa, or ether) and kham (ākāśa) is the same as kam (bliss).’ In this way, they taught him that both prāṇa and ākāśa are Brahman, and that Brahman is bliss.”

The word “kam” is not an abbreviation, but a Sanskrit verbal root that means “to desire”, “to love”, or “to enjoy”. In the verse, it is used in the same meaning as ānanda (transcendental bliss), describing the blissful nature of the Absolute truth.

Kham, on the other hand, comes from the root khi (to appear, to expand), and is used as an alternative term for ākāśa (ether) in the sense of a name of the Supreme Brahman. In this way, this passage clarifies that both prāna and ākāśa refer to the Supreme Lord, and that the characteristic of the Lord is ānanda.

This passage comes a few verses before verses 4.15.1 and 4.15.2 of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, which forms the main passage discussed in this topic (the whole discussion about who is the person in the eye).

The verse about kam and kham (4.10.5) comes a few verses before the main conclusion, and therefore, based on the context, the person in the eye described on 4.15.1-2 must be the same person described on 4.10.5 and in the other verses in the middle.

Verse 4.10.5 describes the person in the eye as transcendental bliss. More than that, it declares this bliss as a prominent characteristic of the Supreme Brahman, and equates Him with both prāna and ākāśa, which are also words consistently used to describe the Supreme Brahman in the different Upaniṣads. Prāna is the source of life, the maintainer of all senses, and enabler of all material activities, while ākāśa or ether is the foundation of the whole material manifestation, the all-pervading element from which the whole material manifestation appears. Although prāna and ākāśa don’t fully represent the opulences of the Lord, they describe some of His potencies, and thus help one to gradually come to the state of personal realization. The fact that Brahman is described as both in the passage leaves no doubt that the person in the eye described in the later passage is the Supreme Lord.

In this way, when Vyāsadeva says sukha-viśiṣṭābhidhānād eva, he means that the person in the eye is the Supreme Lord, because the Lord in the eye is defined as transcendental bliss, prāna, and ether in the earlier passage. No one else fits this description.

This sūtra again reinforces the proper way of understanding the śāstras: by studying different passages as part of a discussion, and not as isolated quotes. This point is also made by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī in his Ṣaṭ-sandarbhas: isolated quotes from the scriptures are of very little value since verses must be understood within a context. When verses are taken out of context, they can be misused to support all kinds of conclusions, as we have seen repeatedly in the arguments from Naiyāyikas, Vaiśeṣikas, Mīmāmsakas, Sānkhyas, and Māyāvādīs we have been discussing up to here.

The general process is that we use quotes as confirmation of conclusions that are evident in the scriptures. In other words, we use a quote as evidence to sustain the proper meaning of a passage, and not as a support for whatever theories come to our minds. How can we be sure that we have the right conclusion? By hearing these conclusions from the proper source.

We can see that most of the passages of the Vedānta-sūtra deal exactly with wrong conclusions based on misinterpretations of isolated verses. In this way, Vyāsadeva teaches us the proper way to study the scriptures he compiled. We can get the proper conclusions from a self-realized soul who is part of the paramparā, and equipped with these conclusions, we can understand the scriptures. These conclusions are thus like the keys that allow us to enter into the house of transcendental knowledge.

Sūtra 1.2.16 - Those who hear the Upaniṣads attain the Lord

śrutopaniṣatka-gaty-abhidhānāc ca

śruta: heard; upaniṣatka: of the Upaniṣads; gati: destination; abhidhānāt: because of the description; ca: also.

And also because it is described that those who hear the Upaniṣads attain the Lord.

Commentary: In his commentary, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa mentions that one who hears the Upaniṣads and understands the secret knowledge of the Vedas (devotional service to the Supreme Lord) goes to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The destination of a person who understands the person in the eye realized by Upakosala is described later in the Upaniṣad in the passage by the words arciṣam abhisambhavati (he attains the realm of light), indicating he attains the same destination. Since both attain the same destination, it must be understood that the person in the eye is the same Supreme Personality of Godhead.

This is the full passage, describing how one attains liberation through this path:

tad ya ittham viduḥ, ye ceme ’raṇye śraddhā tapa ity upāsate te ’rciṣam abhisambhavanty arciṣo ’har ahna āpūryamāṇa-pakṣam āpūryamāṇa-pakṣād yān ṣaḍ udann eti māsāms tān

māsebhyaḥ samvatsaram samvatsarād ādityam ādityāc candramasam candramaso vidyutam tat puruṣo ’mānavaḥ sa enān brahma gamayaty eṣa deva-yānaḥ panthā iti

“Those who understand the science of the soul, who practice austerities and penances in the forest with great faith, attain the realm of light through the path called devayāna, the path of the devas. First, they attain the fire, and from the fire the day. From the day, the bright fortnight, and then the six months of uttarāyaṇa (when the sun travels north). From there, the year, and then the sun. From the sun they attain the moon, and from the moon lightning. There he meets a spiritual being who conducts him to the Supreme Brahman.” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 5.10.1-2)

This same idea is expressed in other passages of the scriptures. In the Bhagavad-gītā, for example, Kṛṣṇa says:

avyakto ’kṣara ity uktas, tam āhuḥ paramām gatim
yam prāpya na nivartante, tad dhāma paramam mama

That which the Vedāntists describe as unmanifest and infallible, that which is known as the supreme destination, that place from which, having attained it, one never returns – that is My supreme abode. (Bg 8.21)

na tad bhāsayate sūryo, na śaśānko na pāvakaḥ
yad gatvā na nivartante, tad dhāma paramam mama

That supreme abode of Mine is not illumined by the sun or moon, nor by fire or electricity. Those who reach it never return to this material world. (Bg 15.6)

All these different passages also hint that the ultimate purpose of the Vedas is not just to attain impersonal liberation, but to attain the Supreme abode, where the Lord performs His pastimes. That’s the place where one can find true ānanda or bliss. Such bliss can’t be compared to the monotonous existence in the impersonal Brahmajyoti, or the illusory enjoyment of the celestial planets.

Sūtra 1.2.17 - The person in the eye can’t be anyone else

anavasthiter asambhāvāc ca netaraḥ

anavasthiteḥ: because the abode is not eternal; asambhavāt: because of impossibility or inconceivability; ca: and; na: not; itaraḥ: anyone else.

He can’t be anyone else, because others don’t permanently reside in the eye, and don’t possess the attributes described in the text.

Commentary: This sūtra summarizes the discussion, concluding that no one else apart from the Supreme Lord can be the person in the eye, since others don’t have a permanent abode in the eye, and don’t possess the other attributes described. Reflections appear and disappear, demigods are mortal, and although immortal, the jīva constantly changes his body, and therefore has no permanent residence in the material world. The Lord, on the other hand, is the very foundation of the material manifestation. He is the source of life, is present everywhere, etc. In this context, only the Lord has a truly permanent position.

Exercise

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

Opponent: “You based your thesis of the person in the eye being the Supreme Brahman, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as you call it, based on the words ātma, amṛta, brahman and sampad-dhama from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 4.15.1-2. You argue that the usage of these terms proves that the passage refers to the Supreme Brahman, but this is not true. The word ātma often indicates the individual self, and Brahman simply means “the great”. The word amṛta is also often used to describe the long life of the demigods, while sampad-dhama can be interpreted as “the heavenly realm attained through ritual merit”, again indicating the abode of the demigods. In this way, although your arguments are respectable, it is not possible to conclude that the person in the eye is Bhagavān. A careful and unbiased study of the śruti keeps the discussion open.

The person in the eye can very well be the jīva, because a person sees with his eyes, so one may be described as the person in the eye, and also because the different attributes described in the verse can be applied to the jīva. The person in the eye can also be a demigod, since words such as ātma, amṛta, brahman and sampad-dhama can also be attributed to them. In fact, the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (5.5.2) mentions that: rasmibhir eso ‘smin pratisthitah (With the rays of sunlight the sun-god enters the eye). This is direct evidence for the presence of a demigod.

Even the idea of the person in the eye being a reflection can’t be ruled out, because an observer sees himself reflected in the eyes of another person, and therefore becomes the person in the eye. It would not be far-fetched to accept the description of the Upaniṣad as a metaphor to some higher teaching.”

Description: The opponent has no better answer for the identity of the person in the eye, he is just a skeptic, trying to stall the discussion by contradicting our conclusion based on just one of the references offered, and then offering a few speculative possibilities without a conclusion. 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