athāto brahma-jijñāsā: Further arguments

By following the rituals prescribed in the karma-kanda section of the Vedas, one can obtain pious material benefits, but such results are very limited and temporary. This is confirmed in many passages

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

« Sutra 1.1.1 - athāto brahma-jijñāsā (Begining of the topic)

Further arguments

One difficulty in understanding the correct meaning of the verses of the scriptures is that Sanskrit words can be interpreted in different ways, and according to the interpretation, the meaning of the verses changes. This is a topic that is dealt with in many different passages of the Govinda-bhāṣya. This specific sutra, athāto brahma-jijñāsā, is composed of just four words (atha, ataḥ, brahma, jijñāsā), and the meaning is quite straightforward. Still, at least two objections could be raised to the meaning of the words.

The first is that one could argue that words such as "om" and "atha" are often used at the beginning of books to invoke auspiciousness and drive away obstacles, being auspicious sounds that emanated from the throat of Lord Brahma in ancient times. One could try to sustain this idea using the following reference:

oṃkāraś cātha-śabdaś ca dvāv etau brahmaṇaḥ purā

kaṇṭhaṃ bhittvā vinirjātau tena māṅgalikāv ubhau

"Oṁ and atha came from the throat of Brahmā in ancient times. Hence, both are regarded as auspicious."

If we accept this interpretation, the word "atha" has no special meaning, and the sutra becomes just a generic instruction for philosophical search, without any particular cause or urgency.

However, Sri Baladeva disagrees with this interpretation: "To this objection I reply: This is not true. Srila Vyāsadeva, the author of Vedanta-sutra, is the incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, and therefore does not need to invoke auspiciousness or drive away obstacles and dangers.”

Therefore, the words atha and ataḥ are used in the begining of the sutra purposefully to indicate that at a certain point in time, after attaining certain qualification (a human birth, education, etc.) a person comes to the point of inquiring about Brahman, and such inquiring brings one to the stage of understanding the Supreme Lord and reawakening ones eternal spiritual nature, which is the ultimate goal of human life.

The fact that Vyāsadeva is the Supreme Personality of Godhead is confirmed by the following statement of the smrti-sastra:

kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyana-vyāsaṁ viddhi nārāyaṇaṁ prabhum

"Know Krsna Dvaipāyana Vyāsa to be none other than Sri Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

The four Vedas, as well as the Upaniṣads are called sruti (that which is heard), being part of the original Vedic knowledge, while the Puranas, Mahābhārata, etc. as well as the Bhagavad-gītā are called smṛti (that which is remembered) because they are scriptures composed later based on the teachings of great sages. This particular quote, for example, comes from the Mahābhārata (12.334.9)

The entire verse is:

kṛṣṇadvaipāyanaṃ vyāsaṃ viddhi nārāyaṇaṃ prabhum

ko hyanyaḥ puruṣavyāghra mahābhāratakṛdbhavet

dharmānnānāvidhāṃścaiva ko brūyāttamṛte prabhum

"Know Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa to be none other than Sri Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Who else, O tiger among men, could be the author of the Mahābhārata? Who else, besides the Lord, could expound the various kinds of dharma for observance and adoption of men?"

This verse appears in the Śānti-parva, a very long book with the teachings of Bhīṣmadeva to Maharaja Yudhiṣṭhira while in the bed of arrows. Just as in the Srimad Bhagavatam, the Mahabharata has several layers of narratives. The whole epic is narrated by Ugraśravā Sauti (Suta Goswami) to the sages at Naimiṣāraṇya, who describe the teachings of Vaiśampāyana to King Janamejaya during his snake sacrifice. During most of the Śānti-parva, Vaiśampāyana describes the teachings of Bhīṣmadeva to Maharaja Yudhiṣṭhira, but in this particular passage, he interrupts the narration to extol the qualifications of Vyāsadeva as not just an ordinary author, but as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself.

Brahman means the soul?

Concluding the topic on the discussion of athāto brahma-jijñāsā, another possible objection is to the meaning of the word "brahma". Some will argue that it can also be used to refer to the individual spirit soul, and not only to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Even the dictionary explains: "The word brahma means that which is big, the brahmana caste, the individual spirit soul, and the demigod Brahma who sits on a great lotus flower."

To understand the correct meaning, words need to be interpreted according to the context of the passage and other scriptural references. The word brahma is consistently used in the Vedas to refer to the Supreme Lord, as it will be made clear through the book. Take this passage of the Taittirīya Upaniṣad for example:

bhṛgur vai vāruṇiḥ, varuṇam pitaram upasasāra, adhīhi bhagavo brahmeti

tasmā etat provāca, annam prāṇam cakṣuḥ śrotram mano vācamiti

tam hovāca

yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante, yena jātāni jīvanti

yatprayantyabhisamviśanti tad vijijñāsasva, tad brahmeti

sa tapo’tapyata, sa tapas taptvā

"Bhṛgu, the son of Varuṇa, approached his father and inquired: "O my Lord, my respected father, please teach me about Brahman." His father then spoke to him: "Food, prāṇa, seeing, hearing, the mind, and speech are Brahman. From Him, all beings arise. From Him, they all obtain sustenance, and unto Him, they at last return. This Brahman you should now seek." Bhṛgu then fixed himself in thought and practiced austerities, and, as a result, acquired spiritual realization." (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 3.1.1)

When we analyze this passage, we see that the word "Brahman" can't be interpreted as being the individual soul, because the Brahman mentioned has qualities that are found only in the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It does not make sense to argue that the individual soul is the cause of all living beings, that it maintains all living beings, and that it merges into itself. These qualities can be attributed only to the Supreme Lord, and thus it is not possible to interpret the word Brahman differently.

How does the original text of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa look?

As in other works, the whole commentary of Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa in the Govinda-bhāṣya is written in Sanskrit prose, with verses from different scriptures quoted inside the text:

१. ब्रह्मजिज्ञासाधिकरणम्

इत्येवं स्थिते ब्रह्मजिज्ञासाधिकरणं तावत् प्रवर्तते।

यो वै भूमा तत् सुखं, नान्यत् सुखम् अस्ति। भूमैव सुखं, भूमा त्वेव विजिज्ञासितव्यः इति।

आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यो मैत्रेयी इति च श्रूयते।

निदिध्यासितव्यो जिज्ञासितव्यः इति भवति संशयः।

अधीतवेदस्य पुंसो धर्मज्ञस्य ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा युक्ता न युक्ता वेति

अपामसोमम् अमृताः अभूमा, अक्षय्यं ह वै चातुर्मास्ययाजिनः सुकृतं भवतीत्यादिषु धर्मैर् अमृतत्वाक्षय्य–

सुखत्व–श्रवणान् न युक्तेति पूर्वस्मिन् पक्षे प्राप्ते भगवान् बादरायणो व्यासः प्रारिप्सितस्य शास्त्रस्यादिमं सूत्रम् इदम् अवतारयति—

अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा॥

This can be romanized following the IAST system, which makes it more familiar to us, but not so much:

1. brahmajijñāsādhikaraṇam

ity evaṃ sthite brahmajijñāsādhikaraṇaṃ tāvat pravartate.

yo vai bhūmā tat sukhaṃ, nānyat sukham asti. bhūmaiva sukhaṃ, bhūmā tv eva vijijñāsitavyaḥ iti.

ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo maitreyi iti ca śrūyate.

nididhyāsitavyo jijñāsitavyaḥ iti bhavati saṃśayaḥ.

adhīta-vedasya puṃso dharmajñasya brahma-jijñāsā yuktā na yuktā veti?

apāma-somam amṛtā abhūma, akṣayyaṃ ha vai cāturmāsya-yājinaḥ sukṛtaṃ bhavatīty-ādiṣu dharmair amṛtatva-akṣayya–

sukhatva–śravaṇān na yukteti pūrvasmin pakṣe prāpte bhagavān bādarāyaṇo vyāsaḥ prāripsitasya śāstrasyādimaṃ sūtram idam avatārayati—

athāto brahmajijñāsā ||

It may sound very unusual for us, but in the original, there is also no verse numbering for quotes, since the author presumes that the reader will be familiar with different scriptures. Often, just key phrases or lines are quoted, and not even entire verses. Explicit citation of quotes with standardized numbering (like “Bg 4.34”) as we are used to seeing, is a modern convention, adopted to make the texts more accessible.

These conventions adopted by Sri Baladeva in his text make it difficult to follow, since a reader who is unfamiliar with the topics discussed will have difficulty even distinguishing the commentary from the verses quoted.

In this work, I add the translations and references for the verses, as well as explanations and elaborations of the different ideas and quotes included in the text, in order to make the contents accessible and understandable. However, it is natural that when we see a translation, interpretation, or commentary of some Sanskrit work, we wonder what was written in the original. To satisfy this natural curiosity, here is a direct translation of the original commentary from Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa for the first sutra, which you can check to see how the ideas we just studied are originally explained.

In this example, I just try to keep it as close as possible to the original, translating the commentary, but keeping the quotes in Sanskrit, just as Sri Baladeva includes in the original work, so you can have a feeling of how it looks in the original. All these verses are included in the main explanation, so you can just go back there to find the translations and verse numbers.

Here is the translation of the first sutra:

1. brahmajijñāsādhikaraṇam

Now the topic of inquiry into Brahman begins. The Upaniṣads declare: yo vai bhūma tat sukhaṁ, nānyat sukham asti, bhūmaiva sukhaṁ, bhūmatveva vijijñāsitavyaḥ, and also: ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo maitreyi

This gives rise to a doubt: Is inquiry into Brahman necessary or not for a person who has studied the Vedas and who knows dharma?

In references such as: apāma somaṃ amṛtā abhūma, and akṣayyaṃ ha vai cāturmāsyajinaḥ sukṛtam bhavati, one hears that immortality, inexhaustibility, and bliss come from ritual actions. Thus, it might seem that inquiry is not necessary.

When this objection arises, the great Bādarāyaṇa Vyāsa introduces the opening aphorism of the scripture:

athāto brahma-jijñāsā

Here, the words atha and ataḥ indicate sequence and causality. Thus, “atha” implies what follows next, and “ataḥ” signifies a reason; together they justify the appropriateness of the inquiry into Brahman. The construction of the phrase suggests that the inquiry is appropriate for one who has studied the Vedas as prescribed, who has a preliminary understanding of their meaning, and whose mind has been purified through duties such as following the sequence of four āśramas and practicing virtue.

Having thus attained eligibility for the knowledge of truth, such a person, having arrived at this juncture, searches beyond fruitive rituals that result in limited and impermanent results. Brahman, however, is known only through knowledge; He is eternal, infinite, and conscious bliss. He is endowed with eternal qualities such as omniscience, and He is the source of eternal bliss. Therefore, only when one has renounced fruitive rituals does the qualified inquiry into Brahman become appropriate.

One might object: does not mere study of the Vedas already yield such understanding, since the purpose of study is to comprehend their meaning? From that understanding, renunciation and meditation would naturally follow. What is then the need for this fourfold-qualified inquiry?

It is answered thus: even from a superficial or indirect understanding of the Vedic meaning, the intellect may deviate due to doubt and misapprehension. Therefore, in order to overcome these obstacles, scriptural study that is accompanied by reasoning must be pursued, for only then does the intellect become firmly established in the ultimate reality.

The point is thus that duties associated with the āśrama stages serve as a means of purification of the mind and are thus limbs of knowledge. As stated in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad: tam etaṁ vedānuvacanena brāhmaṇā vividiṣanti yajñena dānena tapasānāśakena.

Similarly, the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad says: satyena labhyas tapasā hy eṣa ātmā, samyag jñānena brahmacaryeṇa nityam.

Also, the smṛti declares: japyenaiva ca saṁsiddhyed brāhmaṇaḥ nātra saṁśayaḥ, kuryād anyan na vā kuryān maitro brāhmaṇa ucyate.

Association with one who knows the truth is indeed a cause of knowledge, as seen in the case of Nārada, whose inquiry into Brahman arose through his encounter with Sanat-kumāra.

This is also supported by the smṛti: tad viddhi praṇipātena, paripraśnena sevayā, upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ, jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ.

Fruitive rituals yield impermanent results, as the Chāndogya Upaniṣad states: tad yatheha karma-cito loko kṣīyate, evam evāmutra puṇya-cito loko kṣīyate.

The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad says: parīkṣya lokān karma-citān brāhmaṇo, nirvedam āyān nasty akṛtaḥ kṛtena, tad vijñānārtham sa gurum evābhigacchet, samit pāṇiḥ śrotriyam brahma-niṣṭham.

And the Taittirīya Upaniṣad declares Brahman to be satyam jñānam anantam brahma, and ānando brahmeti vyajānāt.

Brahman is thus endowed with eternal qualities such as omniscience, as the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad affirms: parasya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate, svābhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā ca; sarvendriya-guṇābhāsaṁ sarvendriya-vivarjitam, asaktaṁ sarva-bhṛc caiva nirguṇaṁ guṇa-bhoktṛ ca; bhāva-grāhyam anidākhyam.

As for the nature of true happiness, the Gopāla Upaniṣad states: tam pīṭhasthaṁ ye tu yajanti dhīrāḥ teṣāṁ sukhaṁ śāśvataṁ netareṣām.

The rejection of fruitive rituals will be explained in the third section. Thus, having studied the Veda along with its auxiliaries and head portions, and having gained a preliminary understanding of its meaning, one becomes engaged, imbued with the fourfold qualifications: Association with knowers of truth; discernment between the eternal and the non-eternal; disinterest in the non-eternal; desire to realize the eternal.

Here, it cannot be claimed that one has to necessarily practice fruitive activities before beginning inquiry into Brahman, because even those who have performed them may not pursue brahma-jijñāsā if they lack association with self-realized persons. Conversely, even those without ritual background but who are purified through truth and have the company of self-realized persons are seem to pursue it.

Nor can it be said that the fourfold qualifications come from understanding the difference between eternal and non-eternal, because this understanding is rare and arises only by receiving instructions from the self-realized. Those who have attained this knowledge follow the path of their teachers and, depending on their stage of commitment, fall into three categories: Those who continue performing actions with commitment are known as sa-niṣṭha; those who act for the welfare of the world, though fully accomplished, called pariniṣṭhā; those who practice only meditation and remain detached, nirapekṣa.

All these ultimately reach the Supreme Brahman, each according to their natural inclination for Brahma-vidyā. This gradation is further elaborated step by step.

One might object mentioning: oṃkāraś cātha-śabdaś ca dvāv etau brahmaṇaḥ purā, kaṇṭhaṃ bhittvā vinirjātau tena māṅgalikāv ubhau.

If one argues that the learned begin with the word atha in śāstra for removing obstacles, I answer that this is not the case, for the Lord is beyond any fear of obstacles. Indeed, the smṛti says, kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyana-vyāsaṁ viddhi nārāyaṇaṁ prabhum.

Yet, even so, due to its inherently auspicious nature, the usage of atha may still be accepted as appropriate, just as the sound of a conch is considered auspicious. By that reasoning, even common usage accepts it in this manner.

Therefore, for such a qualified person as Vyāsa, it is indeed appropriate that the inquiry into Brahman follows immediately after. A textual unit without a dot or head may be understood as an independent sūtra, even when read in commentary. But when a passage is marked with two bindus [॥] and a mastaka [the connecting line on top of the letters], it must be interpreted as part of a structured topical unit (adhikaraṇa).

As you can see, the text of Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa is very elegant and succinct, but not exactly easy to understand. In this commentary, I try to explain all the philosophy behind the arguments and quotes he uses, so we can go deep into the meaning of the text.

Exercise

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

Opponent: There is no need to waste our time inquiring about philosophical matters that have no substance. Rather, we should be concerned about practical things such as satisfying our different material needs in this life and obtaining a better position in the next. The Vedas offer us a way to satisfy both in the dharma-sastras. Simply by discharging these pious duties, one can attain immortality and eternal rewards, as described in many passages of the Vedic literature:

apāma somaṃ amṛtā abhūma

"We have attained immortality by drinking soma-rasa." (Rg Veda 8.18.3)

akṣayyaṃ ha vai cāturmāsyajinaḥ sukṛtam bhavati

"Indeed, the merits of one who performs the vow of cāturmāsya are inexhaustible."

As these and other passages indicate, one can attain perfection by performing religious rituals or performing austerities and penances prescribed in the Vedas, like the vow of caturmasya. We are satisfied with the prosperity obtained by following the path of morality and the ritualistic functions of religion. This is the true spirit of the Vedas, there is no need to inquire about Brahman, which is just a subjective concept.

How do you answer this challenge?

Next: Topic 2: Janmādyādhikaranam - Definition of Brahman »

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