2.1: Sarvatra-prasiddhādhikaraṇam - The Lord is mentioned everywhere in the scriptures

The word manomaya [in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad] refers to the Lord, because His qualities are described everywhere in the scriptures.

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

Topic 1: Sarvatra-prasiddhādhikaraṇam - The Lord is mentioned everywhere in the scriptures

The manomaya is the Supreme Lord

sarvatra-prasiddhopadeśāt, vivakṣita-guṇopapatteś ca, anupapattes tu na śārīraḥ, karma-kartṛtva-vyapadeśāc ca, śabda-viśeṣāt, smṛteś ca, arbhakaukastvāt tad-vyapadeśāc ca neti cen na nicāyyatvād evam vyomavac ca, sambhoga-prāptir iti cen, na, vaiśeṣyāt

“The word manomaya [in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad] refers to the Lord, because His qualities are described everywhere in the scriptures. Furthermore, the qualities described in the passage can be appropriately applied only in relation to the Supreme Brahman. It can’t refer to the jīva, because the qualities mentioned cannot be attributed to the minute conditioned soul, and also because the text draws a distinction between the agent and the object.

The word manomaya in the passage cannot refer to the jīva, because the words are in different cases. This is supported by the reference in the smṛti-sastra. If one argues that the object of meditation must be the jīva, because the text describes manomaya as living in the small space inside the heart, I say no. In the same text, manomaya is described as being greater than the sky. This description is given simply for the purpose of meditation.

If one argues that living in the heart, the Lord would share the pains and pleasures of the jīva, I say it is not so; there is a great difference.”

Sūtra 1.2.1-2 - The word manomaya refers to the Lord

sarvatra-prasiddhopadeśāt

sarvatra: everywhere, universally, throughout the śāstra; prasiddha: established, known, accepted; upadeśāt: because of the teaching, scriptural injunction.

The word manomaya [in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad] refers to the Lord, because His qualities are described everywhere in the scriptures.

vivakṣita-guṇopapatteś ca

vivakṣit: intended, that which is desired to be said; guṇa: qualities, attributes; upapatteḥ: because of being proven, being appropriate, being reasonable; ca: and, moreover.

Furthermore, the qualities described in the passage can be appropriately applied only in relation to the Supreme Brahman.

Commentary: In his commentary, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa puts the discussion of this sūtra in the context of verses 3.14.1-2 of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad:

sarvam khalv idam brahma taj-jalān iti śānta upāsīta, atha khalu kratu-mayaḥ puruṣo yathā kratur asmin loke puruṣo bhavati tathetaḥ pretya bhavati sa kratum kurvīta, mano-mayaḥ prāṇa-śarīro bhā-rūpaḥ satya-sankalpa ākāśātmā sarva-karmā sarva-kāmaḥ sarva-gandhaḥ sarva-rasaḥ sarvam idam abhyātto ’vāky anādaraḥ

If translated literally, this verse sounds like this:

“All this is indeed Brahman, and from that (Brahman), everything is born. One should meditate on that calmly and in peace. A person is indeed composed of resolve (kratu). According to our determination, so are our actions, and so is what we become after death. One should thus be enlightened in his determination.

He is made of mind, with prāṇa as his body, having the form of existence itself, with true resolve as its nature, ether as its self, the doer of all actions, the possessor of all desires, all scents, all tastes. This self pervades all existence, beyond the words. He is worthy of reverence.”

The first part of the verse, sarvam khalv idam brahma taj jalān iti śānta upāsīta, is clear enough. It speaks about Brahman, who is the creator and maintainer of everything, and should be the object of our meditation.

The second part of the verse, atha khalu kratumayaḥ puruṣaḥ yathā kratur asmin loke puruṣo bhavati tathetaḥ pretya bhavati sa kratum kurvīta, is also clear. It speaks about the jīva, who should meditate on this Brahman to achieve realization. As the verse explains, our actions are based on our determination, which is in turn born from our meditation. Our actions lead us to our next destination; therefore, we should maintain the proper object of meditation: we should meditate on the Supreme Lord.

However, the second verse includes many adjectives, such as manomayaḥ prāṇa-śarīro bhā-rūpaḥ, ākāśātmā, etc., and both the meaning and object of these adjectives are not clear. Do they apply to the individual soul, or do they apply to the Supreme Brahman?

One could argue that they apply to the jīva. In the Mundaka Upaniṣad (2.1.2), for example, it is mentioned:

divyo hy amūrtaḥ puruṣaḥ sa bāhyābhyantaro hy ajaḥ
aprāṇo hy amanāḥ śubhraḥ hy akṣarāt parataḥ paraḥ

“The Supreme Brahman is indeed divine and without a material form (amūrtaḥ). He is simultaneously inside and outside, permeating everything (bāhya-abhyantaraḥ). He is without prāṇa, without mind (aprāṇaḥ, amanāḥ). He is pure and spotless (śubhraḥ) and exists beyond the imperishable pradhāna (akṣarāt). He is the highest and transcends all.”

Here, Brahman is defined as aprāṇaḥ and amanāḥ, without prāna and without mind. The verse speaks about a being who is made of mind, with prāṇa as his body; therefore, one could argue that verses 3.14.1-2 of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad must speak about the jīva, and not about the Supreme Brahman.

If accepted, this argument would imply that only the beginning of the passage (“All this is indeed Brahman, and from that, everything is born. One should meditate on that calmly and in peace”) speaks about the Supreme Brahman, and that the rest of the two verses describe the jīva. Following this logic, one would assume that the subsequent verses, as well as other passages of the Upaniṣad, also speak about the jīva, leading to other misunderstandings.

To this, Vyāsadeva answers: sarvatra-prasiddhopadeśāt. The word manomaya in the passage refers to the Lord, because His qualities are described everywhere in the scriptures.

To prove this point, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa explains the meanings of the words in the verse. The word kratu doesn’t mean “resolve”, but means “devotional service”, and manomaya doesn’t mean “made from mind” but “He who can be understood by a pure mind”.

How can we be sure about this meaning? The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (4.4.19) explains, “manasaiva anudraṣṭavyam” (He may be seen by a pure mind).

In this way, the passage yato vāco nivartante, aprāpya manasā saha from the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.4.1) doesn’t mean that the Lord can’t at all be described in words (this was already discussed in previous sūtras), but that the Lord can’t be understood by the foolish. In fact, although the Lord is described in the scriptures and in the words of self-realized souls, even great sages can’t understand Him completely.

Back to the verse, the word prāṇa-śarīra doesn’t mean “body made of prāna” as it would be ordinarily translated, but “He who is the controller of life” or “He whose transcendental form is most dear”, indicating the transcendental nature of the Lord.

Similarly, the words “aprāṇo hy amanāḥ“ from the Mundaka Upaniṣad don’t mean that He has neither prāna nor mind, but that He is supremely independent and does not need prāna or mind, and also that He does not possess material prāna or mind like embodied souls. It follows the same logic as many passages that say He has no form, no senses, etc. It just indicates He is transcendental. This is confirmed by the words manovan (the Supreme has a spiritual mind) and anida-vatam (He has spiritual breath) of the Upaniṣads.

In this way, the same words that at first appear to support the idea that the passage speaks about the jīva prove, after a more careful consideration, that the whole section speaks about the Supreme Lord. These same ideas are confirmed in many other verses of the scriptures, as Vyāsadeva confirms with the second sūtra: vivakṣita-guṇopapatteś ca. The word manomaya refers to the Lord, because His qualities are described everywhere in the scriptures.

Where exactly in the scriptures is it confirmed that manomaya applies to the Supreme Lord, who is understood by the pure mind, and that this supreme Lord is the controller of life (prāṇa-śarīra)?

Here are just a few examples of verses of the Upaniṣads that confirm these points:

manomayaḥ prāṇa-śarīra-netā

“He is understood by the pure mind (manomaya), and He is the guide of the body and senses.” (Mundaka Upaniṣad 2.2.7)

sa ya eṣo ’ntarhṛdaya ākāśaḥ tasminnayam puruṣo manomayaḥ amṛto hiraṇmayaḥ

“There is an extremely attractive golden person who exists beyond the cycle of samsara. He is understood by the pure mind and resides in the sky of the heart.” (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 1.6.1)

hṛdā manīṣā manasābhiklp
to ya etad vidur amṛtās te bhavanti

“The Supreme Lord is known by those who have a pure heart and a pure mind. They who know Him in this way become free from death.” (Katha Upanisad 7.9)

pranasya pranah

“The Supreme Lord is the life of all life.” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.18)

With these meanings given by Śrī Baladeva, a more precise translation of the original passage would be:

sarvam khalv idam brahma taj-jalān iti śānta upāsīta, atha khalu kratu-mayaḥ puruṣo yathā kratur asmin loke puruṣo bhavati tathetaḥ pretya bhavati sa kratum kurvīta

“Everything is Brahman. From Him everything has come. The peaceful sage should meditate upon Him in tranquility with this understanding. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is present in the activities of devotional service, and according to the degree of one’s performance of devotional service in this life, he will attain an appropriate body after death. Therefore, all should serve Him. (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.1)

mano-mayaḥ prāṇa-śarīro bhā-rūpaḥ satya-sankalpa ākāśātmā sarva-karmā sarva-kāmaḥ sarva-gandhaḥ sarva-rasaḥ sarvam idam abhyātto ’vāky anādaraḥ

“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is known by those whose minds are pure (manomaya). He is the controller of all life, whose transcendental form is most dear. He is effulgent and glorious. His every desire is automatically fulfilled. He is all-pervading, situated in the sky of the heart. He is the original creator of everything, the fulfiller of all desires. He possesses all pleasant fragrances. He is all sweetness. He is present everywhere. His glories are impossible to fully describe in words. He is worthy of all respect.” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.2)

As we can see, when the words are taken in their deep meaning, the original verse clearly describes the glories of the Supreme Lord, and such glories are confirmed everywhere in the scriptures.

As a nail in the coffin of the idea that the verse speaks about the jīva, the passage continues in the next two verses, adding more qualities to the description that simply can’t be applied to the jīva:

eṣa me ātmāntar hṛdaye ‘ṇīyān vṛher vā yavād vā sarṣapād vā śyāmakād vā śyāmaka-taṇḍulād vā, eṣa me ātmāntar hṛdaye jyāyān pṛthivyā jyāyān antarikṣād jyāyān divo jyāyān ebhyo lokebhyaḥ

“The Lord in my heart is smaller than a grain of rice, a grain of barley, a mustard seed, or a grain of millet. At the same time, however, He is greater than the earth, greater than the sky, greater than heaven, greater than all these worlds.” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.3)

sarva-karmā sarva-kāmaḥ sarva-gandhaḥ sarva-rasaḥ sarvam idam abhyātto ’vāky anādaraḥ eṣa ma ātmāntar hṛdaya etad brahma etam itaḥ pretyābhisambhavitāsmi yasya syād addhā na vicikitsāstīti sa smāha śāṇḍilyaḥ

“The Supreme Lord is the creator of the universe. He enjoys all enjoyable objects. He has spiritual fragrance and taste and accepts all auspicious qualities. He is beyond material speech. He is disinterested in the material world, yet He is in my heart as Paramātmā. All of this is Brahman. After departing from this mortal body, I shall attain Him. He who firmly believes this has no doubt in his mind; he will surely attain the Supreme. Thus spoke Śāṇḍilya.” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.4)

Sūtra 1.2.3 - The qualities mentioned can’t be attributed to the jīva

anupapattes tu na śārīraḥ

anupapatteḥ: because of inconsistency, impossibility; tu: but, on the contrary; na: not; śārīraḥ: jīva, the embodied soul.

It can’t refer to the jīva, because the qualities mentioned cannot be attributed to the minute conditioned soul.

Commentary: The Supreme Lord is infinite, and the soul is infinitesimal. In other words, the Lord is infinitely big and we are infinitely small. Although the soul and the Lord are the same in terms of quality, they are different in terms of quantity. The Lord is infinitely more powerful than the jīva, just like a glow-worm compared to the sun.

In this way, all passages in the scriptures that refer to “the Supreme Controller”, “the creator and destroyer”, “the all-pervasive”, “the ultimate cause”, and so on must apply to the Supreme Brahman, and not to the individual soul, since it’s just impossible to apply such qualities to the jīva. It could be said that I am the cause of my own body (although even this could be contested), but it would be madness to claim that I’m the cause of everything that exists. Similarly, I may be the controller of my own apartment, but it’s not possible to claim that I’m the controller of the whole universe. This sūtra calls our attention to the logical fallacy of philosophies that try to relate such passages to the individual soul. Trying to qualify the ordinary jīva as the supreme creator and maintainer would make as much sense as saying that a spark is the origin of the sun or that a glow-worm is the source of all electricity.

However, while we accept the soul as being one in quality with the Supreme Brahman, it’s important to avoid the idea of the soul being a fragment of the Supreme Spirit. Kṛṣṇa defines the soul in the Bhagavad-gītā as being immutable. There is no possibility of the Supreme Brahman being cut into infinitesimal souls, or of them merging back into the Supreme Brahman. Thus, the individual souls are considered parts and parcels of the Lord, but at the same time, they are eternally separated. All these apparent contradictions are reconciled by Sri Caitanya Mahāprabhu in his Acintya-bhedābheda-tattva philosophy.

“Part and parcel” thus indicates the relationship between the jīva and the Lord, and not a historical event when the whole was cut into pieces. In Bg 2.20, Kṛṣṇa defines the soul as “unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval”. In the spiritual platform, everything exists eternally. Creation and destruction happen only in the illusory material plane.

On his purport to SB 3.25.17, Prabhupāda mentions that:

“The jīva particle is estimated in the Vedic literature to be one ten-thousandth the size of the upper portion of a hair. It is therefore infinitesimal. The Supreme Spirit is infinite, but the living entity, or the individual soul, is infinitesimal, although it is not different in quality from the Supreme Spirit. Two words in this verse are to be particularly noted. One is nirantaram, which means “nondifferent,” or “of the same quality.” The individual soul is also expressed here as aṇimānam. Aṇimānam means “infinitesimal.” The Supreme Spirit is all-pervading, but the very small spirit is the individual soul. Akhaṇḍitam means not exactly “fragmented” but “constitutionally always infinitesimal.” No one can separate the molecular parts of the sunshine from the sun, but at the same time the molecular part of the sunshine is not as expansive as the sun itself. Similarly, the living entity, by his constitutional position, is qualitatively the same as the Supreme Spirit, but he is infinitesimal.”

Sūtra 1.2.4 - The meeting of the devotee and the Lord

karma-kartṛtva-vyapadeśāc ca

karma: object, that which is acted upon; kartṛtva: the status of being the agent, the doer; vyapadeśāt: because of the declaration in the sastras; ca: also.

And also because the text draws a distinction between the agent and the object.

Commentary: Normally, the word karma is translated as “work” or “action”. However, in the Pāṇinian system of study of syntax (vākya-vyākaraṇa), karma often refers to the object of a verb, the receiver of the action. In this case, we have the kartā (the agent, doer) and karma (the object, that which is acted upon). Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa reveals that this is the correct interpretation for the words in this sentence. The Lord (manomaya) is the karma, or object, and the jīva is the kartṛ, or agent.

What is the action performed by the jīva that relates the devotee to the Lord in this syntax? This is described in the passage of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (3.14.4) we studied previously.

The part of the verse that is directly connected to the passage is itam itaḥ pretya abhi saṃbhavitā asmi: “After departing from this mortal body, I shall attain Him.”

As we can see, the Lord is the object of the sentence, and the jīva is clearly identified as the agent by the words abhi saṃbhavitā asmi (I will attain). Therefore, the Lord, or manomaya, must be different from the jīva. This very clearly defines manomaya as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and the verse describes the meeting of the devotee and the Lord, just as a river meets the ocean.

One could try to twist the meaning of the verse, trying to imply that the jīva merges with the Supreme Lord, but this is also denied by the verse itself. The words abhi saṃbhavitā asmi clearly describe a meeting between two separate persons. The argument becomes even stronger when the verse is put in the context of Bg 18.55, where Kṛṣṇa describes the same event:

bhaktyā mām abhijānāti, yāvān yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ
tato mām tattvato jñātvā, viśate tad-anantaram

“One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.”

In his purport, Śrīla Prabhupāda mentions that: “One who is fully conversant with the Kṛṣṇa science becomes eligible to enter into the spiritual kingdom, the abode of Kṛṣṇa. Becoming Brahman does not mean that one loses his identity. Devotional service is there, and as long as devotional service exists, there must be God, the devotee, and the process of devotional service. Such knowledge is never vanquished, even after liberation.”

Sūtra 1.2.5 - The object of meditation is not the jīva

śabda-viśeṣāt

śabda: word, grammatical form, expression; viśeṣāt: because of the distinction.

The word manomaya in the passage cannot refer to the jīva, because the words are in different cases.

Commentary: Here, yet another argument is posed against the idea that the manomaya, or the object of meditation, may be the jīva.

If we accept that the manomaya is the jīva, then the object of meditation indicated in the passage becomes oneself, just as believed by Māyāvādis and new-age gurus (who interpret “tat tvam asi” as “You are that Brahman” or “You are God”). The verses then appear to support the idea that we are all one.

However, in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.3, it’s mentioned that “eṣa ma ātmāntar-hṛdaye” (He is within my heart). In this sentence, the agent (the jīva, indicated by the word “me”) is put in the genitive case, and the object (the Lord, indicated by the word “atmā”) is put in the nominative case (of me). The jīva is thus indicated as the possessor.

In summary, we have:

1- The word me (my) is in the genitive case. It refers to the jīva (devotee), the seeker.

2- The words eṣa ātmā (this Self) are in the nominative case, referring to the manomaya-puruṣa, the Supreme Lord, the object of worship.

Hence, the jīva (in the genitive) worships the ātmā (in the nominative), who is the Supreme Lord residing in the heart, distinct from the jīva. This proves that the two are different persons. The jīva is the worshiper, and the Lord is the worshiped. The jīva is the seeker and the Lord the destination. One may pose this argument based on a superficial or incorrect understanding, but when the verses are scrutinized, the incorrect argument is exposed.

As we can see, understanding the discussion centered around the sūtras helps us to understand the correct way to interpret the śāstras, which ultimately leads to the Vaiṣnava conclusion.

Sūtra 1.2.6 - The reference from the Gītā

smṛteś ca

smṛteḥ: because of the smṛti-sastra; ca: also, moreover.

This is supported by the reference in the smṛti-sastra.

Commentary: By the word smṛteḥ, the sūtra refers the Bhagavad-gītā, more specifically to verse 18.16, where Kṛṣṇa says:

īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānām, hṛd-deśe ’rjuna tiṣṭhati
bhrāmayan sarva-bhūtāni, yantrārūḍhāni māyayā

“The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone’s heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy.”

Just as the previous arguments, this verse makes clear that the Lord and the jīva are two different entities and that the jīva is subordinate to the Lord.

As Śrīla Prabhupāda explains in his purport for the same verse: “The Supreme Personality of Godhead, or He Himself, Kṛṣṇa, as the localized Supersoul, sits in the heart directing the living being. After changing bodies, the living entity forgets his past deeds, but the Supersoul, as the knower of the past, present, and future, remains the witness of all his activities. Therefore, all the activities of living entities are directed by this Supersoul.”

Sūtra 1.2.7 - The Lord is greater than the sky, but fits inside the heart

arbhakaukastvāt tad-vyapadeśāc ca neti cen na nicāyyatvād evam vyomavac ca

arbhaka: small, minute; okastvāt: because of being the abode; tat: of that; vyapadeśāt: because of the description; ca: and; na iti: not so; cet: if (argued); na: not; nicāyyatvāt: because of being the object of meditation (in the heart); evam: thus; vyomavat: like space; ca: also.

If one argues that the object of meditation must be the jīva, because the text describes manomaya as living in the small space inside the heart, I say no. In the same text, manomaya is described as being greater than the sky. This description is given simply for the purpose of meditation.

Commentary: In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (3.14.3), the manomaya is described as “eṣa me ātmā antar hṛdaye ’ṇīyān vrīher vā yavād vā“ (The ātmā inside my heart is smaller than a grain of rice, a grain of barley).

From this passage, the ātmā, or manomaya, is described as dwelling in a small space (the heart) and being even smaller in size.

One could thus make the argument that the manomaya must be the jīva, and not the Supreme Lord, since the jīva is described as being very small in size. However, this sūtra breaks this argument by stating that other passages of the śāstras state that the Lord is very big. In fact, right after the passage eṣa me ātmā antar hṛdaye ’ṇīyān vrīher vā yavād vā, which declares that the Lord is small, the same verse of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad mentions that:

eṣa me ātmāntar hṛdaye jyāyān pṛthivyā jyāyān antarikṣād jyāyān divo jyāyān ebhyo lokebhyaḥ

“At the same time, however, He is greater than the earth, greater than the sky, greater than heaven, greater than all these worlds.”

How can these apparently contradictory statements be reconciled? In some parts of the scriptures, the Lord in the heart is described as very small, and in others as enormously big. This sūtra reconciles this apparent contradiction by stating that nicāyyatvād evam: He is described as small so He can become the object of meditation. At the same time, however, He is the all-pervading Supreme Brahman, who is bigger than the sky and anything that exists.

In his commentary, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa explains:

“This means that when the Vedic literature states that the infinite, all-pervading Supreme Personality of Godhead is as small as the distance between the thumb and forefinger or some other very small size, in some instances it is meant to be taken figuratively and in other places literally. In the first instance (figuratively), the devotee meditates on the Lord in his heart, and in the second (literally), by His inconceivable potencies, the Lord personally appears in the heart out of kindness to His devotee. Although the Supreme Lord has only one original form, He still manifests in many different forms to His devotees.”

Just like the Lord can become infinitely big, to the point of universes passing through the pores of His body in His form as Mahā-Viṣnu, He can also become infinitely small, entering each individual atom as Paramātmā. In this way, due to His kindness, the Lord is perfectly capable of presenting Himself in a small form for the facility of his devotees who want to meditate upon Him inside their hearts.

This is described in the Gopāla-Tāpanī Upaniṣad:

eko vaśī sarvagaḥ kṛṣṇa īḍyaḥ, eko ’pi san bahudhā yo vibhāti
tam pīṭham ye ’nubhajanti dhīrāḥ, teṣām siddhiḥ śāśvatī netareṣām

“Kṛṣṇa is the single, independent, all-pervading, worthy of all worship, Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although He is one, He manifests in many forms. The steadfast devotees who worship that divine Person attain eternal perfection; others do not.”

Because of His inconceivable potency, the all-pervading Lord can become smaller than an atom but at the same time appear everywhere and assume any type of gigantic form. As Mahā-Viṣnu, the Lord can become infinitely big, to the point of universes passing through His pores, but He is perfectly capable of also presenting Himself in a small form for the facility of his devotees who want to meditate upon Him inside their hearts. He appears in this way due to His kindness.

Sūtra 1.2.8 - The difference between the two souls in the heart

sambhoga-prāptir iti cen, na, vaiśeṣyāt

sambhoga: of enjoyment, experience, participation; prāptir: attainment, acquisition; iti: thus; cet: if (argued); na: no, not so (we answer); vaiśeṣyāt: because of special distinction.

If one argues that living in the heart, the Lord would share the pains and pleasures of the jīva, I say it is not so; there is a great difference.

Commentary: Once the arguments related to size are dismissed and it is established that the Lord indeed lives inside the heart together with the jīva, with the passage referring to Him instead of the individual soul, the next argument that could be made is that if the Lord is also inside the heart, then He should also experience the pains and pleasures of the body, just like the jīva. Since the Lord is clearly defined as transcendental in the scriptures, if accepted, this argument would lead to the conclusion that the Lord can’t be present inside the heart, and that therefore the previous passages refer to the jīva, invalidating all the conclusions established up to here.

This sūtra answers this argument with the word vaiśeṣyāt: Both the Lord and the jīva dwell in the heart, but there is a great difference between them. The jīva enters a material body to enjoy the material plane, and thus becomes entangled in actions and reactions under the law of karma. Due to his attachment to the body, the jīva is forced to accept the pains and pleasures connected with the body. The Lord, on the other hand, is not subjected to the law of karma, nor is He attached to the body. He (as Paramātmā) is thus just a witness to the activities of the jīva, always established in His transcendental position. There is thus a great difference between the individual soul and the Supersoul, even though they share the same abode.

Many passages of the Upaniṣads explain this difference in the position of the Lord and the individual soul seated inside the heart, comparing them to two birds who are seated in the same tree. One of the birds, the individual soul, is busy eating the fruits of the tree, and thus experiencing their bitterness and sweetness, while the other bird (Paramātmā) acts as an impartial witness, who doesn’t get involved in the activities of the first. However, when the soul becomes frustrated in tasting the fruits of the tree, Paramātmā is eager to assist him in becoming free and returning to his original transcendental position.

The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (3.1.1), for example, mentions:

dvā suparṇā sayujā sakhāyā, samānam vṛkṣam pariṣasvajāte
tayor anyaḥ pippalam svādv atty, anaśnann anyo ‘bhicākaśīti

“Two companion birds sit together in the shelter of the same pippala tree. One of them is relishing the taste of the tree’s berries, while the other refrains from eating and instead watches over His friend.”

This is further explained in the next verse (3.1.2):

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, he at once becomes free from all anxieties.”

In the Bhagavad-gītā (4.14), Kṛṣṇa Himself confirms this point, mentioning that although present in the heart of everyone, He is not affected by the activities of the jīva:

na mām karmāṇi limpanti, na me karma-phale spṛhā
iti mām yo ’bhijānāti, karmabhir na sa badhyate

“There is no work that affects Me; nor do I aspire for the fruits of action. One who understands this truth about Me also does not become entangled in the fruitive reactions of work.”

In his purport to SB 1.2.31, Śrīla Prabhupāda mentions that:

“In the Vedic literatures (śruti) it is said that there are two birds in one tree. One of them is eating the fruit of the tree, while the other is witnessing the actions. The witness is the Lord, and the fruit-eater is the living entity. The fruit-eater (living entity) has forgotten his real identity and is overwhelmed in the fruitive activities of the material conditions, but the Lord (Paramātmā) is always full in transcendental knowledge. That is the difference between the Supersoul and the conditioned soul.”

Understanding this analogy of the two birds in the tree is more important than it may appear at first, because it deals with a number of very central points in Vaiṣnava philosophy. One is that it explains the transcendental position of the Lord, who, although seated inside the heart, right beside us, remains transcendental to the pains and pleasures of this world. Another is that it explains how we can be elevated to the transcendental platform. Right now, our attention is turned to the outside, to the sweetness and bitterness of this material world, but if we can turn it to the inside, we can finally find the peace and happiness we are looking for. The third point is our eternal relationship with the Lord. We are not alone; every soul has an eternal relationship with the Lord that can never be broken (although it may be temporarily forgotten), and the proof of that is that the Lord follows us, even when we become imprisoned in this material world.

Exercise

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

Opponent: “The verse from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad starting with sarvam khalv idam brahma taj-jalān iti śānta upāsīta, the words “mano-mayaḥ prāṇa-śarīro bhā-rūpaḥ” clearly describe the jīva inside the body, which is understandable by the mind, possesses prāna and is made of light. There is no necessity of speculating on the existence of a hypothetical personal God.

The passage starts by speaking about Brahman, the ultimate reality: “All this is indeed Brahman, and from that (Brahman), everything is born. One should meditate on that calmly and in peace.”

This Brahman or ātmān is transcendental and is brilliant like the sun. The jīva is like a reflection of the sun on a pot of water. Brahman is one, but avidyā (ignorance) makes this one transcendental consciousness appear as many selves, bodies, and worlds, like the incorrect and self-imposed vision of a snake when seeing a rope on the road.

Covered by avidyā, Brahman becomes many, and these many jīvas assume material bodies and perform material actions, as indicated by the next section of the verse: “A person is indeed composed of resolve (kratu). According to our determination, so are our actions, and so is what we become after death. One should thus be enlightened in his determination.”

What are the characteristics of the jīva? The verse also answers that: “He is made of mind, with prāṇa as his body, having the form of existence itself, with true resolve as its nature, ether as its self, the doer of all actions, the possessor of all desires, all scents, all tastes. This self pervades all existence, beyond the words. He is worthy of reverence.”

Being one with Brahman, the jīva transcends material existence, but at the same time, currently enjoys material existence under the influence of avidyā. All these points are easy enough to understand.

The Chāndogya Upaniṣad then continues, describing more characteristics of the jīva on verses 3.14.3 and 3.14.4, stating that the jīva dwells in the heart and is smaller than a grain of rice or barley. At the same time, due to his unity with Brahman, the jīva is greater than the sky. As the enjoyer of the material world, the jīva is sarva-karmā sarva-kāmaḥ sarva-ganhaḥ sarva-rasaḥ, the enjoyer of all activities, desires, qualities, and tastes. The verse concludes by stating that “All of this is Brahman” and that after leaving his body, the self-realized merge into this ultimate reality, becoming one with Brahman.

Some argue that the passage refers to Paramātmā, a manifestation of the transcendental Brahman inside the heart, living together with the jīva, but this interpretation is untenable. Nirguna-Brahman is transcendental and doesn’t come in contact with illusion, as explained everywhere in the scriptures. Brahman comes to the material world only when covered by ignorance, be it as the innumerable jīvas, or as saguna-Brahman, as in the cases of the incarnations. There is no logic in arguing on the existence of two Brahmans inside the heart, one covered by avidyā and the other not. If we contemplate such an argument, then we would have to accept that nirguna-Brahman becomes affected by the pains and pleasures of the body, together with the jīva, creating the contradictory idea of a transcendental Brahman affected by suffering.

In this way, manomaya is the jīva, who is very small. After becoming free from avidyā, there is no difference between the jīva and Brahman. One becomes Brahman, the ultimate reality.”

Description: This purvāpakṣa represents an Advaitin with influence from the Nyāya or Mīmāmsā schools. He follows the general Māyāvāda conclusions, but interprets the passage in a particular way, concluding that the manomaya is the jīva. Both Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa and Śankarācārya agree that manomaya in the passage refers to Brahman, using similar arguments. The difference is that Baladeva offers the correct personalist interpretation, while Śankarācārya uses his Illusionism to cover the final conclusion, accepting that the manomaya is Brahman, but interpreting the qualities attributed to Him as being provisional attributes to assist in meditation. In other words, he explains the personal attributes attributed to Brahman in the passage in the light of the saguna-Brahman theory. The purvāpakṣa, however, disagrees with both while trying to apply all the attributes described in the passage to the jīva, an idea that can be defeated with the arguments described in this section.

What is your answer to this challenge? Pay attention to the translation of the verses given by the opponent. To build the arguments that can defeat this presentation, first of all, it is necessary to establish the correct meaning of the verses. After that, the arguments used by the opponent can be defeated one by one using the counterarguments given in the text.

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