(na) heyatva-vacanāc ca - the Lord is the highest
The Supreme Lord described in the Vedas is not a manifestation of the material modes, because there is no statement in the scriptures that He should be discarded in favor of something higher.
« Vedānta-sūtra: The Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Sutra 1.1.8 - (na) heyatva-vacanāc ca
(na) heyatva-vacanāc ca
heyaiva: worthy of being discarded; avacandat: because there is no statement; ca: and.
The Supreme Lord described in the Vedas is not a manifestation of the material modes, because there is no statement in the scriptures that He should be discarded in favor of something higher.
Commentary: In this sutra, Vyāsadeva gives the second argument against the idea of the Brahman described in the words of the scriptures being manifest from the three modes. If the scriptures described a material Brahman, there would be statements mentioning that one should eventually discard this realization and go for something higher, truly transcendental. Mayavadis have this opinion, but their conclusion is purely speculative, without support from the scriptures, which describe a single Absolute Truth that should be worshiped by all.
There is a type of logic called arundhatī-nyāya, in which we indicate something easy to perceive to give a general idea, and then proceed in guiding one to the final object near it. For example, to point out the small star called Arundhatī, one usually points to a prominent star near it, and then shows the location of the faint star Arundhatī in relation to it. A similar logic is used in different passages of the Vedas, first describing some component of this material world, something we can perceive or know about, and then hinting at the transcendental Brahman behind it. This explains why many passages describe Brahman as being the universal form, the vital air, or the element ether, for example.
Another use for the arundhatī-nyāya in the Vedas is to indicate some practice of worship that should be practiced to progress up to a certain stage, and later rejected in favor of something higher. This is done, for example, with the worship of demigods. A materialist is recommended to worship different demigods in the karma-kanda section as a means to satisfy material desires, but later this worship is discouraged in the jñana-kanda section in favor of philosophical inquiry and meditation on the Supreme Brahman. However, there are no such statements in the case of the Supreme Lord, which strengthens the idea that the scriptures indeed describe the Supreme Lord as the transcendental, original Brahman. Thus, the ultimate goal of the Vedas is the Supreme Brahman, which has in turn three aspects: Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān, described in different passages of the scriptures. Of the three, Bhagavān, the Lord in His personal aspect, is Supreme. That's the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Whole who includes all other aspects and everything that exists. There is nothing superior and no higher goal.
Not only are statements in the direction of the personal aspects of the Supreme Lord being some kind of lower, material representation of the nirguna Brahman completely absent from the Vedas, but the scriptures go in the opposite direction, urging us to abandon everything else and focus on the Lord, declared as the Supreme Brahman.
The Rig Veda (1.164.39), for example, states:
anya vaco vimuncatha
"Abandon all other talk [that has no relation to the Supreme Lord]!"
This line is part of the mantra 164 in the first book of the Rig Veda. This is a long discourse that describes many features of the universe, including the ordered orbit of the planets and the transmigration of the soul through different species of life inside this gigantic structure. The passage gradually brings the reader to the conclusion that the Supreme Lord is the ultimate conclusion and goal of the Vedas, completely transcendental and the only savior from the dangers of the material ocean, with the line "anya vaco vimuncatha" quoted by Sri Baladeva as being the conclusion of the whole passage:
ṛco akṣare parame vyoman, yasmin devā adhi viśve niṣedhuḥ
yaḥ tan na veda kim ṛcā kariṣyati, yaḥ etat viduḥ te amṛtāḥ babhūvuḥ
anya vāco vimuñcatha, amṛtatvasya eṣa setuḥ
"The Vedic hymns exist in the supreme sky of the imperishable Brahman (akṣara-parame vyoman), where all the devas have taken their seats. If one does not know that supreme reality, what can the Vedic hymns do for him? But those who understand this become immortal. Therefore, abandon all other speech that has no relation to the Supreme Lord. He alone is the bridge to immortality." (Rig Veda 1.164.39)
On top of that, other passages of the scriptures urge the ones who aspire for liberation to worship the Supreme Lord, to become free from the influence of the three material modes. Again, this would not make sense if the scriptures were describing anything apart from the original, Supreme Brahman.
In this way, it becomes clear that the Supreme Lord described in the Vedic scriptures is not a product of the modes of material nature. On the contrary, He is the one who can free one from the influence of the modes. Although the Lord creates the conditions for the formation of the material universes, He remains pure and aloof from them. Everything is done through His different potencies, without His direct involvement.
Because He is pure and transcendental to the modes of material nature, He can give liberation from the modes. If the Lord described in the scriptures was a product of material nature, He would be just some kind of material object, and would not be able to give release to the soul. Just like a lamp can't create universes or compose books, a lamp can't release one from the grip of material nature. Only someone who is out of the ocean can pull us out of it. Therefore, the statement that Brahman can free us from the material ocean reinforces the idea that He is both transcendental and conscious.
In the commentaries of Ramanujacarya and Nimbarka, there is an extra sutra after 1.1.8: pratijñā-virodhāt (Because of contradiction with the fundamental declaration), which just further emphasizes that the idea of the Vedas indicating Pradhāna or saguna Brahman instead of the real Brahman is contradictory to the previous sutras, and thus clearly incorrect. Small divergences like this exemplify the efforts of our previous ācāryas in preserving the integrity of the scriptures at a time when they were written by hand on palm leaves, and there would sometimes be differences in the manuscripts. Each ācārya would thus do his best to identify and remove verses that could have been added or changed in the process, maintaining the pristinity of the scriptures.
« Vedānta-sūtra: The Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa