netaro ’nupapatteḥ: The fulfillment of all desires

Krsna is the Supreme Enjoyer, and the individual spirit soul is His subordinate also in the matter of enjoyment. However, Krsna accepts to be controlled by His pure devotee who has pure love for Him.

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

Sutra 1.1.16 - netaro ’nupapatteḥ

netaro ’nupapatteḥ

na: not; itara: the other; anupapatteh: due to non-justifiability; inconsistency; untenability.

The mantra does not describe the jīva; it is impossible by the context.

Commentary: Two entities are being discussed: The Supreme Brahman and the individual soul, the jīva. The previous sutra described that the mantra satyam jñānam anantam brahma describes the Supreme Brahman, just like the word ānanda-maya. Also, previous sutras sustain that the jīva is distinct from the Supreme Brahman and subordinate to Him.

At this point, one could disagree, arguing that although one can agree that the object to be reached is different from the seeker, the Brahman described in the verse is not truly different from the individual soul. The Brahman described is nothing more than the devotee's soul in its pure state, consisting of pure intelligence, free from material contamination. Therefore, the mantra 'satyam jñānam anantam brahma' simply describes that when the jīva becomes free from ignorance and attains liberation, one becomes identical with the Supreme Brahman.

This is the classical Māyāvāda interpretation. One can accept that there is some difference between the soul and the Supreme Brahman, but because the difference is merely due to the influence of illusion, when the soul comes to the liberated stage the illusion is removed and one realizes he is one with God. Like this, one can distort the meaning of the mantra and make it appear to support the Māyāvāda interpretation.

To this, Vyasadeva answers: netaro ’nupapatteḥ. The mantra does not describe the itara (the other, meaning the jīva), because it is impossible by the context. Such an interpretation of the mantra is inappropriate and illogical. The jīva, even in the liberated position, cannot become the Supreme Person described in the mantra satyam jñānam anantam brahma.

This is confirmed in the last line of the same verse (Taittirīya Upanisad 2.1.2):

so ’śnute sarvān kāmān saha brahmaṇā vipaściteti

"The liberated soul enjoys the fulfillment of all his desires in the company of the Supreme Lord."

This passage explains the difference between the liberated soul and the Supreme Brahman. Sri Baladeva explains that the word vipascit is a combination of three words: vividham, paśya, and cit. It means "He, whose consciousness (cit) sees (paśyati) the great variety of that which exists (vividham)". The word paśya is changed to paś because of the grammatical formula called pṛśodarādi-gaṇa (Pāṇini). In this way, the individual soul, after attaining liberation, attains the association of the Supreme Lord, who is expert in enjoying many varieties of transcendental bliss. The soul can then finally fulfill all his desires. The word asnute should be understood to mean "enjoys" in this context. The verb means "to enjoy", and although we would expect it to be conjugated in the parasmaipada, (asnati), in this passage it is conjugated in the atmanepada (asnute). The reason for this is explained by Panini in the sutra vyatyayo bahulam iti chandasi tatha smrteh.

In summary, the meaning of the passage is that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the Supreme Enjoyer, and the individual spirit soul is His subordinate also in the matter of enjoyment. However, Krsna accepts to be controlled by His pure devotee who has pure love for Him, which is a very confidential subject. As mentioned in the Srimad Bhagavatam (9.4.66):

mayi nirbaddha-hṛdayāḥ, sādhavaḥ sama-darśanāḥ

vaśe kurvanti māṁ bhaktyā, sat-striyaḥ sat-patiṁ yathā

"As chaste women bring their gentle husbands under control by service, the pure devotees, who are equal to everyone and completely attached to Me in the core of the heart, bring Me under their full control."

When entrapped by the material energy, we don't have access to this bliss, and thus we have a difficult existence under the influence of birth, death, disease, and old age. However, when we come to know the Supreme Brahman and again become connected with Him, we can finally find the eternal existence of bliss and knowledge we look for.

The complete passage being discussed here (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1) is:

brahmavid āpnoti param

"One who knows Brahman attains the Supreme."

tad eṣā ’bhyuktā

satyam jñānam anantam brahma

yo veda nihitam guhāyām parame vyoman

so ’śnute sarvān kāmān saha brahmaṇā vipaściteti

"This has been declared: The Supreme Brahman has no limits. He is eternal and full of knowledge. The liberated soul, who knows this Brahman, who is hidden inside the cave of the heart, enjoys the fulfillment of all his desires in the company of the Supreme Lord."

This mention of the Brahman situated inside the cave of the heart refers to Paramātmā. This is a metaphor that will be discussed in detail in further sections. The heart is compared to a cave where the Lord resides in a form measuring the distance from the thumb to the index finger. Every night, the soul enters this cave to meet the Lord after spending the day performing material activities. When one comes to realize the Supreme Lord, He gains his association, which brings the fulfillment of all desires, bringing us to the platform of spiritual bliss we all hanker for.

Sutra 1.1.17 - bheda-vyapadeśāt

bheda-vyapadeśāt

bheda: difference; vyapadesat: because of the statement.

The Lord and the jīva are distinct, because of the statements indicating the difference between the two.

Commentary: There are numerous statements in the Upanisads declaring the difference between the individual soul and the Supreme Brahman. These different statements make it clear that these are two different personalities and that, consequently, the individual soul is dependent on the Supreme Brahman.

In his commentary, Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa quotes the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.7.1):

raso vai saḥ rasaṁ hy evāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati

"When one understands the Personality of Godhead, the reservoir of pleasure, Kṛṣṇa, he truly becomes transcendentally blissful."

This verse clearly shows the difference between the liberated individual soul and the Supreme Lord, described as the ānanda-maya, the supremely blissful. Even in the liberated stage, the soul remains a distinct individual, joining the Lord in His eternal pastimes and enjoying a transcendental relationship with Him. Both remain as separate individuals, and that's what makes a relationship possible.

We can see that the same basic idea is repeated in different verses of the Taittirīya Upaniṣad and also of other Upanisads, making it impossible to insist that the individual soul is the Supreme Brahman, that there is no difference between the two, or that the soul becomes the Supreme after being liberated.

This difference is also described in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (4.4.6):

brahmaiva san brahmapnoti

"After becoming like Brahman, the individual spirit soul attains Brahman."

This statement does not mean that after liberation the individual spirit soul becomes non-different from the Supreme Brahman, but rather that the liberated soul becomes similar to Brahman, regaining his original purity, and in this pure condition meets Brahman and attains His association.

This same concept is more elaborately explained in the Bhagavad-gītā:

brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā, na śocati na kāṅkṣati

samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu, mad-bhaktiṁ labhate parām

"One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments or desires to have anything. He is equally disposed toward every living entity. In that state, he attains pure devotional service unto Me."

After attaining the stage of brahma-bhūta, the liberated stage, a devotee continues practicing and gradually attains the platform of pure devotional service, the ultimate perfection. The process thus has a negative goal (to become free from material affinity) and a positive one (to attain pure devotional service). After concluding both, a devotee attains sameness with the Lord in terms of nature, interest, desires, and so on. This sameness in terms of nature and interest, living with the Lord in His transcendental abode and serving Him in a transcendental relationship, is true unity, misinterpreted by Māyāvādis as merging into the Supreme Brahman.

This is confirmed in the Mundaka Upaniṣad (3.1.3):

niranjanah paramam samyam upaiti

"This liberated soul becomes like the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

The word upaiti indicates that the purified soul (niranjana) attains, gains, approaches, or reaches the Supreme Lord. This word can't be interpreted as merging or becoming one.

This becomes even clearer when we examine the passage in context:

dvā suparṇā sayujā sakhāyā, samānam vṛkṣam pariṣasvajāte

tayor anyaḥ pippalam svādvatti, anaśnan anyo abhicākaśīti

"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." (Mundaka Upaniṣad 3.1.1)

samāne vṛkṣe puruṣo nimagno, ’nīśayā śocati muhyamānaḥ

juṣṭam yadā paśyaty anyam īśam, asya mahimānam iti vīta-śokaḥ

"Although the two birds are in the same tree, the eating bird is fully engrossed with anxiety and moroseness as the enjoyer of the fruits of the tree. But if in some way or other, he turns his face to his friend the Lord and knows His glories, at once the suffering bird becomes free from all anxieties." (Mundaka Upaniṣad 3.1.2)

yadā paśyaḥ paśyate rukma-varṇam, kartāram īśam puruṣam brahma-yonim

tadā vidvān puṇya-pāpe vidhūya, nirañjanaḥ paramam sāmyam upaiti

"When the enlightened soul finally sees the golden-hued Lord, the creator, the Supreme Person, who is the source of the impersonal Brahman, he finally becomes free from material duality and attains the Supreme destination, becoming pure like the Lord." (Mundaka Upaniṣad 3.1.3)

prāṇo hi eṣa yaḥ sarva-bhūtair vibhāti, vijānan vidvān bhava tenātivādī

ātma-krīḍa ātma-ratiḥ kriyāvān, eṣa brahma-vidām vairṣṭhaḥ

"Indeed, the Lord is the Supreme life force behind everything. He shines in all beings, and He is the shelter of all. One who realizes that becomes absorbed in meditation into the Lord and enjoys the transcendental bliss of His association. He teaches others about devotional service and becomes dear to the Lord." (Mundaka Upaniṣad 3.1.4)

satyena labhyas tapasā hy eṣa ātmā, samyag jñānena brahmacaryeṇa nityam

antaḥśarīre jyotir mayo hi śubhro, yam paśyanti yatayaḥ kṣīṇa-doṣāḥ

"This Supreme Self is attainable through the practice of truth, austerity, perfect knowledge, and constant discipline. Within the body, pure and luminous, the Lord is seen by the ascetics whose impurities have been destroyed." (Mundaka Upaniṣad 3.1.5)

satyam eva jayate nānṛtam, satyena panthā vitato devayānaḥ

yenākramanty ṛṣayo hy āptakāmāḥ, yatra tat satyasya paramam nidhānam

"Truth is always victorious. It always prevails over untruth. By practicing the truth, one takes the ascending path called devayāna, by which great sages who have exhausted all their material pursuits attain the Supreme destination. " (Mundaka Upaniṣad 3.1.6)

Also, in the Bhagavad-gītā (14.2), the Lord declares:

idaṁ jñānam upāśritya, mama sādharmyam āgatāḥ

sarge ’pi nopajāyante, pralaye na vyathanti ca

"By becoming fixed in this knowledge, one can attain to the transcendental nature like My own. Thus established, one is not born at the time of creation or disturbed at the time of dissolution."

In this way, the scriptures declare that the liberated souls become like the Supreme Personality of Godhead, not that they merge into Him.

Sutra 1.1.18 - kāmāc ca nānumānāpekṣā

kāmāc ca nānumānāpekṣā

kamat: because of desire, intent; ca: also; na: not; anumana: to the theory; apeksa: in relation.

Also, one cannot infer that pradhāna is the ānanda-maya puruṣa because the passage states that He has desire.

Commentary: The word "anumandapeksa" mentioned in the sutra means "by inference". As we know, inference means a hypothesis, a logical conclusion that is not necessarily correct. The hypothesis mentioned here is the idea that the pradhāna, the unmanifested aggregate of matter, is the ānanda-maya puruṣa. Since it was already proved that the ānanda-maya is not the individual soul, one could argue that He is pradhāna, the aggregate of inanimate matter.

To this, Vyāsadeva answers: kāmāc ca nānumānāpekṣā. The ānandamaya puruṣa is not pradhāna, because He is described as having desire.

Here, Vyāsadeva refers to the same passage of the Taittirīya Upaniṣad that has been in discussion for the past few sutras. On 2.6.1, it is mentioned:

so'kāmayata bahu syāṁ prajāyeya

"The Lord desired, "May I become many! May I produce offspring!"

In this way, the Supreme Lord, already defined as the ānanda-maya puruṣa, is described as having desire and creative intent, creating the universe not as a mechanical process, but out of his conscious desire. Even Śaṅkarācārya accepts this point. Since the ānanda-maya, the Supreme Brahman, is described as having desire, it can't be sustained that He may be pradhāna, which is an undifferentiated mass of material elements, inert and desireless. Such inference has no basis whatsoever.

Inanimate matter doesn't have desire, it is just manipulated by superior forces. Only a conscious being can have desire. This is another characteristic that points out that Brahman is a conscious being and not an impersonal entity. Brahman created everything, Brahman composed the Vedas, Brahman is full of bliss, and Brahman has desire and creative intent. At the same time, however, Brahman is transcendental to matter. This means that the desires of Brahman are completely spiritual, and thus different in essence from the material desires we have in our current stage.

In connection with this, one could ask: What is the difference between pradhāna and prakṛti? They are the same. When the material energy is in an unmanifested form, it is called pradhāna, and when it becomes active, it is called prakṛti. In any case, it is not the ānanda-maya puruṣa.

Srila Prabhupada explains this point in detail on SB 3.26.10:

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: The unmanifested eternal combination of the three modes is the cause of the manifest state and is called pradhāna. It is called prakṛti when in the manifested stage of existence.

Purport: The Lord points out material nature in its subtle stage, which is called pradhāna, and He analyzes this pradhāna. The explanation of pradhāna and prakṛti is that pradhāna is the subtle, undifferentiated sum total of all material elements. Although they are undifferentiated, one can understand that the total material elements are contained therein. When the total material elements are manifested by the interaction of the three modes of material nature, the manifestation is called prakṛti. Impersonalists say that Brahman is without variegatedness and without differentiation. One may say that pradhāna is the Brahman stage, but actually the Brahman stage is not pradhāna. Pradhāna is distinct from Brahman because in Brahman there is no existence of the material modes of nature. One may argue that the mahat-tattva is also different from pradhāna because in the mahat-tattva there are manifestations. The actual explanation of pradhāna, however, is given here: when the cause and effect are not clearly manifested (avyakta), the reaction of the total elements does not take place, and that stage of material nature is called pradhāna. Pradhāna is not the time element because in the time element there are actions and reactions, creation and annihilation. Nor is it the jīva, or marginal potency of living entities, or designated, conditioned living entities, because the designations of the living entities are not eternal. One adjective used in this connection is nitya, which indicates eternality. Therefore the condition of material nature immediately previous to its manifestation is called pradhāna."

It is described that, desiring to create the material manifestation, Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu looks in the direction of the material energy, and in this way inseminates pradhāna with the time energy and the jīvas who want to take part in the material creation. With this, the energy is activated, and the material creation starts. First, the three material modes become apparent, and from the successive combination of pradhāna with the material modes, all the material elements are created. All of this happens within the limits of material time.

The material creation doesn't imply a transformation of the material energy, but instead a permutation, or reorganization of it. The material energy is permuted into the material creation and later returned to its original, disassembled state. In this way, Brahman does not change while creating the universe, because the whole process of creation is done through the manipulation of his different energies, and even the energy does not change, because it is simple rearranged in the form of the material creation and later returned to its original state, just like many Lego blocks used to assemble different toys and later dismantled.

Vyāsadeva explains this point in the sutra janmādy asya yataḥ, but Śaṅkarācārya couldn't accept this principle while at the same time maintaining his impersonal interpretation of the Vedas, since once accepted that the Supreme has potencies, desire, and creative intent, it becomes impossible to negate that Brahman is a person. Therefore, he had to reject the natural explanation of the Vedanta-sutra and craft his theory of illusion, contradicting Vyāsadeva in trying to sustain that in reality the material creation does not exist and the jīvas have no separate existence, everything being simply the fruit of illusion.

Sutra 1.1.19 - asminn asya ca tad-yogaṁ ca śāsti

asminn asya ca tad-yogaṁ ca śāsti

asmin: in this (referring to the ānanda-maya person); asya: of this (referring to the individual soul); ca: also; tat-yogam: the process of union with the Supreme that brings fearlessness; sasti: the Vedic scriptures teach.

And also because the scripture teaches that the union with the ānanda-maya person brings fearlessness to the jīva.

Commentary: As yet another argument against the idea of Brahman being pradhāna or prakṛti (the aggregate of material energy), this sutra explains that Brahman, the ānanda-maya puruṣa, is not the material energy because the scriptures explain about yoga, the connection between the individual soul and Brahman. This connection brings fearlessness to the soul, while the attachment to matter has the opposite effect, making the jīva fearful.

This is mentioned in the Taittirīya Upanisad (2.7.1):

yadā hy evaiṣa etasminn adṛśye’nātmye’nirukte’nilayane’bhayam pratiṣṭhām vindate, atha so’bhayam gato bhavati

yadā hyevaiṣa etasminn udaram antaram kurute

atha tasya bhayam bhavati, tat tv eva bhayam viduṣo’manvānasya

"A living entity becomes established in spiritual, blissful life when he fully understands that his happiness depends on spiritual self-realization, which is the basic principle of ānanda (bliss), and when he is eternally situated in the service of the Lord, who has no other lord above Him.

By understanding the Personality of Godhead, the reservoir of pleasure, Kṛṣṇa, one becomes truly transcendentally blissful. For one who deviates from it, however, taking shelter in the false ego, there is great fear. This fear exists only for the one who thinks himself wise, and not for the true sage."

...and also on Srimad Bhagavatam 11.2.37:

bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syād, īśād apetasya viparyayo ’smṛtiḥ

tan-māyayāto budha ābhajet taṁ, bhaktyaikayeśaṁ guru-devatātmā

"Fear arises when a living entity misidentifies himself as the material body because of absorption in the external, illusory energy of the Lord. When the living entity thus turns away from the Supreme Lord, he also forgets his constitutional position as a servant of the Lord. This bewildering, fearful condition is affected by the potency for illusion, called māyā. Therefore, an intelligent person should engage unflinchingly in the unalloyed devotional service of the Lord, under the guidance of a bona-fide spiritual master, whom he should accept as his worshipable deity and as his very life and soul."

In our current conditioned state, we are constantly in fear of losing what we have or not obtaining what we desire. We also fear death and other superior forces, and on top of that, our knowledge is imperfect. This is opposite to the existence pure souls enjoy on the spiritual planets, where they enjoy an eternal existence of complete fearlessness, knowledge, and bliss. This fearlessness comes from detachment from matter and yoga (connection) with the Lord. This again proves that pradhāna or prakṛti is not the ānandamaya puruṣa. Brahman must be transcendental to matter.

Even in the atheistic Sankhya, it's understood that separation from pradhāna brings fearlessness to the soul, while contact with it brings the soul into bondage, which is the cause of fear.

Contact with the ānanda-maya puruṣa is described as bringing fearlessness to the soul, while the slightest separation from Him brings fear. In this way, the ānanda-maya is described as being diametrically opposite to pradhāna. It doesn't make any sense to argue that the two may be the same.

Exercise

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

Opponent: Explaining these points using your own terminology, I can say that the ānanda-maya mentioned in the Taittirīya Upanisad is not the Supreme Brahman, but the living being itself, the jīva. The verse describes the ānanda-maya as being a person, while Brahman is formless and homogeneous, without qualities. Form, activities, and desires exist only within the realm of illusion, therefore, the description of the ānanda-maya fits the individual soul living inside the body, and not the Supreme Brahman.

We can clearly see that the description offered in the Upaniṣad, starting with the anna-maya, describes the life of the conditioned souls who are entrapped under the influence of Maya. Why then do you think the stage of blissfulness, ānanda-maya, would indicate something different? If the ānanda-maya is transcendental as you argue, why would it be described as part of an explanation about the different levels of conditioning of the soul?

Apart from that, the affix "-maya" means transformation. Brahman is not a transformation of some pre-existing state of happiness. From this, it becomes clear that the word ānanda-maya in the verse does not at all describe Brahman. Instead, the word brahma-puccham describes brahman, while the word ānanda-maya describes the individual soul, covered by maya. The soul is Brahman, and Brahman is bliss, but in illusion, this bliss is transformed, leading to the different coverings of illusion, up to the stage of anna-maya. However, when this illusion is removed, all these coverings cease to be, and one becomes again part of the qualityless, undifferentiated Brahman, free from all designations.

If you argue that ānanda-maya is Brahman because it is described that the individual soul should meditate on the ānanda-maya, and the object to be reached is different from the meditator, then I can offer that the Brahman described is nothing more than the conditioned soul in its pure state, free from material contamination. The aphorism 'satyam jñānam anantam brahma' also mentioned in the Taittirīya Upanisad describes how the soul becomes free from ignorance and attains liberation, becoming identical with the Supreme Brahman.

If you insist that the ānandamaya must be different from the individual soul, then I can offer it should be pradhāna, the state of undifferentiated matter permeated by the mode of goodness. This is supported by the idea that by taking shelter of the ānanda-maya person, the individual spirit soul attains fearlessness. Indeed, by taking shelter of pradhāna, the soul becomes blissful by becoming free from the influence of the material modes of passion and ignorance.

If you don't agree with these logical explanations, then the onus of explaining what the ānanda-maya is or is not falls upon you.

How can you answer this challenge? The opponent uses a layered argumentation, but his points are all based on mistaken Mayavada speculation. Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana teaches us well how to deal with this type of argument.

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