upadeśa-bhedān neti cen - There is no contradiction

As a last ditch attempt to discredit the previous conclusion, an obstinate opponent could try to insist that verses 3.12.6 and 3.13.7 of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad speak about different subjects.

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

Sūtra 1.1.27 - There is no contradiction

upadeśa-bhedān neti cen, nobhayasminn apy avirodhāt

upadeśa: of the instruction, scriptural teaching; bhedāt: because of the difference; na: not; iti: thus; cet: if; na: not; ubhayasmin: in both cases; api: also; avirodhāt: because there is no contradiction.

To argue that the two passages describe two different things is not a valid objection. There is no contradiction.

Commentary: As a last ditch attempt to discredit the previous conclusion, an obstinate opponent could try to insist that verses 3.12.6 and 3.13.7 of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad speak about different subjects, arguing that both passages are contradictory, since 3.12.6 uses the word “divi” (referring to the spiritual sky in the locative case) and 3.13.7 uses the word “divo” (referring to the spiritual sky in the ablative case). In other words, one says that Brahman is “in” the spiritual sky, and the other that He is “on” the spiritual sky.

Vyāsadeva brushes off this last attempt to stall the discussion by saying: “upadeśa-bhedān neti cen, nobhayasminn apy avirodhāt”. To argue that the two passages describe two different things is not a valid objection. There is no contradiction.

Sri Baladeva expands this argument by explaining that the uses of the locative and ablative cases in the two quotations do not present a contradiction. A parrot may be said to be “in” a tree or “on” the tree, and this does not make any real difference. It does not mean we are speaking about two different birds. In this way, the Lord may be said to the “in” or “on” the spiritual world, there is no real difference. There is thus no contradiction (avirodhāt); it just reinforces the point that He is everywhere.

A final argument that can be offered is that after “atha yad ataḥ paro divo jyotir dīpyate” (That light which shines above heaven, higher than everything), text 3.13.7 continues, stating that “viśvataḥ pṛṣṭheṣu sarvataḥ pṛṣṭheṣv anuttameṣūttameṣu lokeṣu idam vāva tad yad idam asminn antaḥ puruṣe jyotiḥ”: That light that forms the background on which all universes and all planets—from the highest to the lowest—rest, is the same light which is within the heart of all living beings.

In this way, jyoti is described as being everywhere, not just “over” the universe but also inside of it, including the body and heart of all living beings, just as Gāyatrī is also described to be. This proves the point that Vyāsadeva makes: Indeed, there is no contradiction; Gāyatrī is jyoti, and both are the Supreme Brahman.

This discussion shows the nature of many debates centered around the Brahma-sūtras. Because the sūtras are extremely compact, small differences in the interpretation of grammatical rules can create all kinds of contradictions and different points of view. That’s why it’s important to study the Vedānta-sūtra in light of the conclusions of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Otherwise, one may debate the meaning of the sūtras for centuries, as many Indian philosophers did in the past, without reaching the correct conclusions.

Exercise

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

Opponent: The third part of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad brings us a beautiful passage that describes the greatness of the gāyatrī metric and the light of the Sun, revealing mystical aspects of the cosmos and the mathematical precision behind it. Gāyatrī is a well-known metric for the students of the Vedas, with verses composed of 24 syllables. Verse 3.12.1 of the Chandogya Upaniṣad reveals how this beautiful metric is behind everything that exists, both inside and outside, showing the mathematical precision behind the cosmic manifestation.

Later, in text 3.13.7, there is another metaphysical description of the light of the Sun, which permeates the whole universe. This light that transcends even the celestial heavens is also referred to in the gāyatrī mantra starting with oṃ bhūr bhuvaḥ. Vaiṣnavas try to impose an imaginary interpretation of the verses, pushing the same artificial view they propose on other passages of the Upaniṣads, of a personal God behind everything, but this is clearly dismissed by a careful study of the Sanskrit syntax of the text.

Text 3.12.6 ends with “tri-pād asyāmṛtam divīti”. We can observe that the locative case is used to state that three quarters of the gāyatrī metric exist in heaven, while the other quarter resides on Earth. This is a reasonable explanation, since the area of the universe occupied by the Sun and stars is much greater than our planet.

Text 3.13.7, which speaks about jyoti, the light of the Sun, starts with “atha yad ataḥ paro divo jyotir dīpyate”, where the ablative case is used to explain that the light of the Sun shines over the heavens.

This proves beyond doubt that both descriptions are separated. The only thing in common is the poetic language and the fact that both are related to a lyrical description of the universe. Between them, ākāśa, the element ether, and various devatās are described, and they are also obviously all separated things. Of course, one can argue that they are all one in the sense we are all one, part of the same non-dual, qualityless, supreme reality that transcends space, time, and matter, above the non-existence of this imaginary world, but this is a topic for another discussion, which is not part of the passage in question.

Description: This purvāpakṣa represents a modern speculator who gets some inspiration from the Nyāya school of philosophy in the direction of insisting on the literal sense of the words (insisting on taking jyotis as the sun, and Gāyatrī as the metre), mixing it with Māyāvāda (all is one, the supreme reality beyond qualities) and new-age nonsense (astronomy, poetic universe, mystical beauty, “mathematical precision”, etc). In other words, this is not a faithful representation of any one traditional school, but a hybrid, a modern speculative style that borrows from Nyāya literalism, slips into Advaita vagueness, and coats it in modern aesthetics.

One problem in interpreting verses is speculation, but insisting on the literal meaning of the words can be an even greater problem. This purvāpakṣa does both, failing to grasp the correct meaning of the verses. In general, we must avoid both traps, avoiding both speculation and dry interpretation of the words. Instead of going to one or the other extreme, we must accept the interpretation of self-realized ācāryas, who can reveal the deeper, proper meanings of the passages.

This is precisely the point that makes the contribution of Śrīla Prabhupāda so significant. Before him, other acaryas would keep the original verses in Sanskrit and give brief commentaries also in Sanskrit, making the text accessible only to scholarly audiences. Prabhupāda was the first to publish translations and commentaries in English on a large scale, creating an entire framework for the translation of scriptures that made them more available. He was the combination of a great Sanskrit scholar, a pure devotee, and an empowered representative of the Lord, who could reveal the deeper purports of the scriptures.

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