Finding our way out of battles of quotes

One great problem is that often we don't go very deep into the philosophy, and prefer to just base our understanding on isolated quotes from Prabhupada's books or other scriptures.

One great problem is that often we don't go very deep into the philosophy, and prefer to just base our understanding on isolated quotes from Prabhupada's books or other scriptures. We can see these battles of quotes everywhere. This is one point made by Srila Jīva Goswami in his Sat Sandarbhas: isolated quotes from the scriptures are of very little value since verses must be understood inside a context. When verses are taken out of context, they can be misused to support all kinds of conclusions.

Although we use quotes all the time to sustain different philosophical conclusions, as a general rule, no isolated passage can be accepted as proof of anything. We need to examine the context of the passage inside the book, studying the verses that precede and follow it, as well as understand what are the general conclusions of the book and the Vedas as a whole. In the case of a passage from Srila Prabhupada, for example, one has to examine the context of the quote, the general conclusions of the book, and take into consideration the general conclusions Prabhupada gives on his teachings. If a passage appears to suggest that Prabhupada is authorizing divorce, for example, it must be taken within the general context that Prabhupada was condemning divorce, and thus accepted as an exception, and not the rule. By examining the context, we can then understand what exactly does it exactly means.

One good book to study to develop the critical sense necessary to deconstruct mistaken ideas sustained by isolated quotes is the Govinda Bhasya of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana. I’m currently in the process of publishing a commentary on it, which is already partially online.

The whole book is based on examining mistaken philosophical propositions and finding the real meaning of passages used to sustain them. One example of discussion from the book is the passage that deals with the argument around Indra being the supreme, centered around a verse from the Kauṣītakī Upanisad. There is a passage that appears to suggest that Indra defines himself as the Supreme Lord. If taken out of context, this passage can be used both to sustain that Indra is God or that everyone is God. However, Sri Baladeva teaches us to understand and deconstruct this mistaken argumentation.

The passage from the Kauṣītakī Upanisad comes from chapter 3 of the book. In this passage, Patardana, the son of Divodasa, meets Lord Indra after showing his prowess on the battlefield. Indra is satisfied with him and wants to offer him a benediction, but Patardana asks him to choose it himself. This results in Indra giving him a series of instructions. Amongst them, there is the passage:

prāṇo 'smi prajñātmā taṁ mām āyur-amṛtam upasasva

"I am prāṇa, the intelligent ātmā; meditate on me as that prāṇa, the nectar of life."

In the previous sutras of the Govinda Bhasya, it was already concluded that prana is ultimately Brahman. However, this passage appears to suggest something else: that prana is the jiva inside the body and not the Supreme Brahman. If accepted, this interpretation would ultimately lead to the conclusion that Indra is God, or that we are all God.

The full passage from the Kauṣītakī Brāhmaṇa is quite long, but the central point is that it appears that Indra is referring to himself as prana, and instructing Patardana to meditate on him. To this, Vyasadeva answers (on sutra 28), prāṇas tathānugamāt: The word prana should be understood as referring to Brahman because of the context. In other words, in this sutra, Indra is not speaking about himself, but about Paramatma, who is situated inside his body. According to this argument, the word "prana" in this passage can't refer to Indra or any other jiva because of the context (tathānugamāt). The word "prana" thus doesn't refer to Indra but to Paramatma.

In the same discussion from the Kauṣītakī Upanisad, it is mentioned that:

sa esa prāna eva prajñātmānando 'jaro 'mrtah. eșa lokādhipatir esa sarveśvarah

"Prana is the Supersoul present in all living entities. Prāna is the transcendental bliss. Prāna remains eternally untouched by old age and death. Prāna is the master of all living entities and all planets. Prana is the Supreme Controller."

The prana described in this passage is present in all living entities. He is transcendental and full of bliss, free from old age and death. These are not attributes of the individual soul, but of the Supreme Soul, Paramatma, who is inside the body together with the individual soul.

We can't say that Indra is free from death. He is also not completely transcendental or full of bliss, nor is he present inside the hearts of all living entities. He is also not the Supreme Controller, since he is often defeated by the demons. These are qualities shown only by the Supreme Lord. In his commentary, Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana quotes several passages from the same Upanisad to sustain this argument, which is consistent with the point made by Srila Vyasadeva.

For example, when Patardana asked for the most beneficial gift (in other words, how to attain liberation), Indra answered, "Worship me as prana". As a demigod, Indra can't give liberation. Prana, as the life air, also can't give liberation, since it is itself composed of material elements. The only one who can give liberation is the Supreme Lord, and therefore, the passage must refer to Paramatma.

We can see how this passage teaches us about the point I was making previously, that verses must always be understood according to the context. When taken in isolation, passages can be easily misinterpreted, leading to all kinds of wrong conclusions, as in this case. Each book should be studied as a whole unit, as a set of arguments and counterarguments that lead to an ultimate conclusion. All the passages need to be taken in the context of this conclusion, and not as isolated units. The Upanisads ultimately speak about the Supreme Lord, who is clearly defined as personal and transcendental. It's a mistake to use any isolated passage to try to sustain that there is no God, we are all God, Indra is God, or anything else. Different passages of the Vedanta-sutra deconstruct these mistaken ideas, helping the reader to stick to the correct conclusion.

See this for example:

"If one says that the passage teaches about Indra, the reply is no. In that section of the Upaniṣad there are plenty of references to the Paramātmā."

Why them Indra speak like that? Why doesn't he use direct language that can't be misunderstood? To this, Vyasadeva answers with verse 1.1.30 from the Vedanta-sutra: śāstra-dṛṣṭyā tūpadeśo vāma-devavat (He speaks following the scriptures, like the sage Vamadeva). This adds to the argument.

Here, the statements of Indra are compared to the teachings of the sage Vamadeva. In the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad (1.4.10), it's mentioned:

tad vaitat paśyan nrşir vāmadevah pratipade aham manur abhavam sūryaś ca

"Seeing this, the sage Vāmadeva repeated at every moment: 'I was Manu. I was the Sun-god.'"

When there is an assembly of several people and they all agree on a certain point, it is not strange to say that "they are one". This doesn't mean they merged as individuals, but that they share the same opinion. Similarly, we refer to all cables, poles, electrical sub-stations, individual outlets, etc., as the "electrical grid", although it is formed by individual components.

In the same way, because the Supreme Brahman grants power to all living entities, including Manu, the Sun god, and Vāmadeva, it is not incorrect to say they are one since they are connected to the same source. This, however, should not be misinterpreted as meaning that they physically merged into a single entity.

In this passage, Vāmadeva speaks according to this principle. When he says "I was Manu", and "I was the Sun-god", he refers to the fact that they all receive their powers from the Supreme Brahman, who is all-pervading (Paramatma). In one sense, the Supreme Lord is one with everything, because everything is permeated by Him. Similarly, the Supreme Lord is the source of both prana and Indra, and, therefore, when Indra says "I am prāṇa, the intelligent ātmā; meditate on me as that prāṇa, the nectar of life." it should be understood he is speaking about Paramatma, following the same logic that is used by the sage Vamadeva.

"Indra gives the teachings of identity from the point of view of scriptural insight as is the case of Vāmadeva."

Following the previous points, one could argue that the word "prana" in these verses can be used in the sense of the vital air, the individual soul in the body of Indra and Brahman. If this idea were accepted, it would lead to the conclusion that all three of them are worshipable, which would, in turn, end in some impersonal conception.

In answer to this last argument, Sri Baladeva argues that the correct understanding is that the word "prana" in this passage refers only to the Supreme Brahman and that only He is actually worshipable.

By the previous arguments, the idea that "prana" in different passages of the scriptures means the individual soul or the life air was already dismissed. The idea that sometimes "prana" refers to the individual soul and sometimes to the Supreme Brahman is also not acceptable. Therefore, the only possibility left is to accept the correct conclusion that "prana" refers to the Supreme Lord. Thus, Vyasadeva concludes this section with the expression "tad-yogāt"; this is the appropriate conclusion.

"If one claims that jīva and prāṇa should be worshipped, and not just Brahman because of indications in the text, the answer is no, because then there would be three types of worship, because Brahman is described elsewhere as a jīva and prāṇa, and because there are explicit indications to indicate Brahman."

These are just a few examples of how the real meaning of a passage can be very different from what it may appear at first. Most unbonafide philosophies based on the Vedas, such as Mayavada, atheistic Sankiya, etc., are based on passages of the scriptures that are misinterpreted. This phenomenon is nothing new, because that’s the general tendency of the conditioned souls. When we use passages of the scriptures to try to sustain whatever ideas we have, instead of trying to understand what they really mean, we take part in it.

The way to obtain perfect knowledge is to receive it from perfect souls, through the parampara. We receive the correct conclusions of the scriptures from the commentaries of Srila Prabhupada, understood through the spiritual master, and with these conclusions in hand, we can understand other passages from the scriptures.

If you read this article to the end, give it a like. This makes Substack recommend it to more people.

Read also: