Adhikarana 5

Brahman Is Knowable

Visaya (statement): Now, by the use of logic and scriptural quotation, we shall refute the

misconception that Brahman cannot be described. One may argue, however, that many scriptural

passages support the theory that Brahman cannot be described by words. For example:

yato vaco nivartate

aprapya manasa saha

"The mind cannot understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead and words cannot describe Him."

- Taittriya Upanisad 2.4.1

yad vacanabhyuditam yena vag abhyudyate tad eva brahma tad viddhi nedam yad idam upasate

"No one has the power to describe Brahman with words, even though everyone's speech occurs by the

power granted by Brahman. Know that this Brahman is not material. Worship this Brahman."

- Kena Upanisad (1.5)

Samsaya (doubt): Is Brahman expressable by words or not?
Purvapaksa (the opponenet argues): The sruti-sastra states that Brahman cannot be described by

words. If this were not so, it would not be said that the Supreme Brahman is self-manifested. That

Brahman cannot be described with words is also explained in the following statement of {Srimad-

Bhagavatam (3.6.40):

yato 'prapya nyavartanta

vacas ca manasa saha aham canya ime devas

tasmai bhagavate namah

"Words, mind and ego, with their respective controlling demigods, have failed to achieve success in

knowing the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, we simply have to offer our respectful

obeisances unto Him as a matter of sanity."*

Srila Vyasadeva refutes these arguments in the following sutra:

Sutra 5

iksater nasabdam

iksateh - because it is seen; na - not; asabdam - indescribable by words.

Because it is seen (that Brahman is vividly described in the Vedic scriptures, it should be

understood that Brahman) is not indescribable by words.

Purport by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana

Here the word asabdam means "that which cannot be described by words." In this sutra Brahman is

described as not (na) indescribable by words (asabdam). Why is this so? Because iksateh (because it is

seen that Brahman is described in the passages of the scriptures).

For example, Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad states:

tam tv aupanisadam purusam prcchami

"I shall now ask about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is described in the Upanisads."

We may note in this connection that the word aupanisada means "that glorious person who is

described in the Upanisads." We may also note that the word iksateh is bhava (passive), and it is

formed by adding the affix tip-pratyaya. The unusual usage here is arsa (a certain degree of

grammatical liberty allowed to an exalted author).

That the Supreme Personality of Godhead may be described in words is also confirmed by the

following statement of Katha Upanisad (2.15):

sarve veda yat-Padam amananti

"All the Vedas describe the feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

When it is said that Brahman cannot be described in words, the intention is that He cannot be

completely described in words. In the same way it is sometimes said that no one can see Mount Meru

because no one can see the entire mountain, but only small parts of it at any one time. Without

accepting this understanding, that Brahman is not completely expressible by words or understandable

by the mind, we would not properly understand the meaning of the scritpural statements yato vaco

nivartate (words cannot describe Brahman), aprapya manasa saha (the mind cannot understand

Brahman), and yad vacanabhyuditam (No one has the power to describe Brahman with words). These

statements explain that Brahman cannot be completely described in words.

That Brahman can to some extent be described with words does not contradict the fact that Brahman

reveals Himself by His own wish. The Vedas are actually the incarnation of Brahman, and therefore

Brahman may reveal Himself in the words of the Vedas.

Samsaya (doubt): This may be so, but still the Suprme Person described in the words of the Vedas

may be saguna (a manifestation of the Lord according to the modes of material nature), and not the

perfect, complete and pure original Brahman who remains indescribable by words.

If this doubt were to arise, Srila Vyasadeva would answer it in the following sutra.

Sutra 6

gaunas cen natma-sabdat

gaunah - Saguna Brahman, or the Lord's potencies; cet - if; na - not; atma - atma; sabdat -

because of the word.

If (one says that the Brahman described in the Vedas is) Saguna Brahman (a manifestation of

the modes of material nature, and not the original Supreme Lord Himself), Then I say this cannot be

true, because Brahman is described in the Vedas as "Atma" (the Supreme Self).

Purport by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana

The Brahman described in the Vedas is not merely a saguna manifestation of the mode of Goodness.

Why? Because the Vedas use the word atma (the Supreme Self) to describe Him. For example:

atmaivedam agra asit purusa-vidhah

"The Supreme Self (atma), who is a transcendental person, existed before this material world was

manifested in the beginning."

- Vajasaneya-samhita

atma va idam eka evagra asit nanyat kincana misat sa iksata lokan nu srja

"Before the material world was manifest, the Supreme Self (atma) alone existed. Nothing else was

manifested at that time. The Supreme Self then thought, `Let me create the material planets.'"

- Aitareya Aranyaka

Both these texts clearly refer to the Supreme Self (atma) who existed before the creation of the

material world. Also, In the commentary on sutra 1.1.2, I have already explained that the word atma

primarily refers to the perfect Supreme Brahman, and not to anyone or anything else. For this reason the

word atma used in the scriptures should be understood to refer to the transcendental Supreme

Personality of Godhead, and not to any material manifestation of the mode of goodness. The

transcendental Supreme Person is described in the following statements of Vedic literature:

vadanti tat tattva-vidas

tattvam yaj jnanam advayam brahmeti paramatmeti

bhagavan iti sabdyate

"Learned transcendentalist who know the Absolute Truth call this non-dual substance Brahman,

Paramatma or Bhagavan."*

'Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.11

suddhe maha-vibhutakhye

pare brahmani sabdyate maitreya bhagavac-chabdah

sarva-karana-karane

"O Maitreya, the word Bhagavan refers to the Supreme Brahman, who is full of all powers and

opulences, the original cause of all causes, and the supreme transcendence, pure and always untouched

by matter."

- Visnu Purana

In this way the supremely perfect and pure Brahman is described by the statements of the smrti-

sastras. If it were not possible to describe Him with words, then the scriptures would not have been

able to describe Him in the above quotations.

Sutra 7

tan nisthasya moksopadesat

tat - that; nisthasya - of the faithful devotee; moksa - of the liberation; upadesat - because of

the instructions.

(The Brahman described in the scriptures is the transcendental Supreme Lord, and not a

temporary manifestation of the mode of goodness, because the scriptures) teach us that they who

become His devotees attain liberation.

Purport by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana

The word "not" is understood in this sutra and the following three sutras as well. The liberation of

those devoted to Brahman is described in the following statement of Taittiriya Upanisad (2.7):

asad va idam agra asit tato vai sad ajayata tad atmanam svayam akuruta. . . yada hy evaisa etasminn

adrsye anatmye anirukte 'nilayane abhayam pratistham vindate 'tha so 'bhayam gato bhavati yada hy

evaisa etasminn udaram antaram kurute atha tasya bhayam bhavati

"Before the material cosmos was manifested, it existed in a subtle form. At a certain time it became

manifested in a gross form, and at a certain time the Supreme Brahman manifested as the Universal

Form. When an individual spirit soul takes shelter of that Supreme Brahman, who is different from the

individual spirit souls, invisible to the gross material senses, indescribable by material words, and self-

effulgent, then the individual spirit soul attains liberation and is no longer afraid of the cycle of

repeated birth and death. If one does not take shelter of this Supreme Brahman, he must remain afraid

of taking birth again and again in this world."

The Brahman described in this passage of the Vedic literature must be the Supreme Brahman

who is beyond the limitations of the material world, and who is the creator of the material universes,

and yet beyond them. This passage could not be interpreted to describe a Brahman that is actually a

manifestation of the modes of material nature, for if this were so, then it would not have explained that

they who become devoted to this Brahman attain ultimate liberation. They who are devoted to the

manifestations of the modes of nature do not attain liberation by that material devotion. Therefore,

because the devotees attain liberation, the Brahman mentioned here must be the transcendental

Supreme Person, who is beyond the modes of nature, and completely non-material in nature.

This non-material, transcendental Supreme Brahman is described in the following statement of

Srimad-Bhagavatam (10.88.5):

harir hi nirgunah saksat

purusah prakrteh parah sa sarva-drg upadrasta

tam bhajan nirguno bhavet

"Sri Hari, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is situated beyond the range of material nature;

therefore He is the supreme transcendental person. He can see everything inside and outside; therefore

He is the supreme overseer of all living entities. If someone takes shelter at His lotus feet and worships

Him, he also attains a transcendental position."*

Sutra 8

heyatva-vacanac ca

heyatva - worthy of being abandoned; vacanat - because of the statement; ca - also.

(The Brahman described in the Vedic scriptures is not a manifestation of the modes of material

nature,) because no scriptural passage advises one to abandon (Brahman in order to attain something

higher).

Purport by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana

If the Brahman described in the scriptures were enmeshed in the modes of material nature, then why do

the scriptures not direct men and women to abandon the worship of Brahman and worship something

higher? If this Brahman were under the spell of the modes of nature, then why do those aspiring after

liberation worship this Brahman to become free from the grip of the modes of nature? Clearly, the

Brahman described in the scriptures is not entangled in the modes of material nature, and for this reason

the scripture state:

anya vaco vimuncatha

"Give up talking about things that have no relation to the Supreme Brahman!"

They who aspire for liberation should meditate with pure faith on this Supreme Brahman, who

is eternal, filled with all transcendental qualities, and the orginal creator of the material universes. In

this way it may be understood that the Brahman described in the Vedic scriptures is not a product of the

modes of material nature.

Sutra 9

svapyat

sva - into Himself; apyat - because He merges.

(The Supreme Brahman described in the Vedic literatures is not bound by the modes of nature,)

because He merges into Himself, (unlike the creatures bound by nature's modes, who all merge into

something other than their self).

Purport by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana

The Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad (5.1.1) explains:

om purnam adah purnam idam

purnat purnam udacyate purnasya purnam adaya

purnam evavasisyate

"The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all

emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes.

Whatever is produced of the complete whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the complete

whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance."*

This verse explains that that which is purna (perfect and complete), enters into itself. This

cannot be said of that which is not perfect and complete. If the Supreme Brahman described in the

scriptures were a product of the modes of material nature, then it would merge into the Supreme and

not into itself. In this way it could not be described as truly perfect and complete. In this verse the word

adah (this) refers to the aprakata (not manifested in the material world) form of the Supreme Lord,

which is the root from which the various prakata forms of the Lord emanate. Both aprakata and

prakata forms of the Lord are perfect and complete. The Lord expands from His aprakata form and

appears in the material world in His prakata form, displaying His rasa-lila and other transcendental

pastimes. When the prakata form of the Lord leaves the material world and enters the aprakata form of

the Lord, the Lord remains unchanged, eternally perfect and complete. That the Lord is untouched by

the modes of material nature, and that He expands into many forms, are confired by the following

statement of smrti-sastra:

sa devo bahudha bhutva

nirgunah purusottamah

eki-bhuya punah sete

nirdoso harir adi-krt

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is faultless. Even though He is the original creator of the

material world, He remains always untouched by matter. He expands in innumerable visnu-tattva

incarnations, and then these incarnations enter Him and He again becomes one."

At this point someone may raise the following objection: There are actually two kinds of

Brahman: Saguna Brahman (Brahman enmeshed in the modes of material nature), and Nirguna

Brahman (Brahman untouched by the modes of material nature). The first, or Saguna Brahman, has a

form constructed of the mode of material goodness. This Saguna Brahman is the omnisicent, all-

powerful creator of the material universes. The second, or Nirguna Brahman, is pure transcendental

existence only. This Nirguna Brahman is pure, perfect, and complete. The Saguna Brahman is the sakti

(potency) described by the Vedas, and the Nirguna Brahman is the tatparya (meaning) of the Vedas.

Srila Vyasadeva refutes this argument by explaining, in the next sutra:

Sutra 10

gati-samanyat

gati - the conception; samanyat - because of uniformity.

(This is not so) because the Vedas describe only one kind of Brahman.

Purport by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana

In this sutra the word gati means "conception." The Vedic literatures describe Brahman as full of

transcendental knowledge, omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, complete, pure, the all-pervading

Supersoul, the original creator of the material universes, the object of worship for the saintly devotees,

and the bestower of liberation. The Vedas do not describe two kinds of Brahman: Nirguna and Saguna.

Rather, the Vedas describe only one kind of Brahman. This one Brahman is described by Lord Krsna in

the following words (Bhagavad-gita 7.7):

mattah parataram nanyat

kincid asti dhananjaya mayi sarvam idam protam

sutre mani-gana iva

"O conqueror of wealth, there is not truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon me as pearls strung on

a thread."*

Thus the Vedic literatures describe only one kind of Brahman: Nirguna Brahman. Srila

Vyasadeva describes this Nirguna Brahman in the next sutra:

Sutra 11

srutatvac ca

srutavat - because of being described in the Vedas; ca - and.

(There is only one kind of Brahman: Nirguna Brahman), because Nirguna Brahman is

described throughout the Vedic literatures.

Purport by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana

Nirguna Brahman is described in the following statement of Svetasvatara Upanisad (6.11):

eko devah sarva-bhutesu gudhah

sarva-vyapi sarva-bhutantaratma karmadhyaksah sarva-bhutadhivasah

saksi ceta kevalo nirgunas ca

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead manifests Himself as the all-pervading Supersoul, the witness

present in the hearts of all living entities. He witnesses all activities of the living entity. He is the

supreme living force. He is transcendental to all material qualities."

In this way Nirguna Brahman is described in the sruti-sastra. The sruti-sastra does not say that

it is impossible to describe Brahman. Some say that Brahman may be understood not from the direct

statements of the Vedic literatures, but merely indirectly, or from hints found in the Vedic texts. This is

not the correct understanding, for if the Vedic scriptures had no power to directly describe Brahman,

then naturally they would also not have any power to indirectly describe Him or hint about Him. The

Vedic literatures may say that Brahman has no contact with gunas (either qualities, or the three modes

of material nature), and He cannot be seen by material eyes (adrsya), still it does not say that the words

of the Vedas have no power to describe Him.

At this point someone may raise the following objection: Is it not said in the Vedas that Brahman has

no gunas (qualities)? Your statement that Brahman has qualities contradicts the description of the

scriptures.

To this I reply: This is not true. You can only say this because you do not understand the confidential

meaning of the word nirguna. Because the Supreme Brahman is all-knowing and possess many

transcendental qualitites, when the scriptures say that He is nirguna, it should be understood to mean

that He has no (nih) contact with the three modes of material nature (guna).

This is confirmed by the following statements of smrti-sastra:

sattvadayo na santise

yatra caprakrta gunah

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who possesses numberless transcendental qualities, is eternally

free from the touch of the three modes of material nature: goodness, passion, and ignorance."

samasta-kalyana-gunatmako 'sau

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead possesses all auspicious qualities."

For all these reasons it should be accepted that the Vedic literatures have the power to describe

the perfect, pure, complete Supreme Brahman. When it is said by the scriptures that the Supreme

Brahman has no names, forms, or qualities it should be understood that the Supreme Brahman has no

material names, forms, or qualities, and that His names, forms and qualities are limitless and beyond

the counting of limited spirit souls.

At this point someone may object, saying that the literal interpretation of the Vedic statements is that

Brahman is without qualities (nirguna), and your interpretation of the word nirguna is wrong.

To this objection I reply: Does this description that Brahman has no qualities help to positively

undertand Brahman? If you say yes, then you have to admit that the Vedas do have the power to

describe Brahman; and if you say no, then you have to admit that your careful studies of the Vedic

literature have been a great waste of time, and as a result you remain wholly ignorant of Brahman's real

nature.

Далее:

Adhikarana 6