Sections 51–60

English witness · section(s) 51

TEXT 51

atha kim-svarupam tad vastu-tattvam ity atraha vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvam yaj jïanam advayam @VCONTINUE = iti. jïanam cid-eka-rupam. advayatvam casya svayam-siddha-tadrsatadrsa-tattvantarabhavat sva-sakty-eka-sahayatvat paramasrayam tam vina tasam asiddhatvac ca. tattvam iti parama-purusarthata-dyotanaya parama-sukha-rupatvam tasya bodhyate. ata eva tasya nityatvam ca darsitam. Sri-sutah. “What is the nature of this Absolute Reality?” Suta Gosvami answ ers [Bhag. 1.2.11]: “The knowers of that Absolute Reality call it nondual consciousness.” Here the word jïana refers to that entity whose nature is exclusively pure consciousness. This pure spirit is called nondual for the following reasons: (1) there is nothing else, either similar or dissimilar, that is self-existent; (2) it takes support only from its own potencies; and (3) these potencies can have no existence without it as their absolute foundation. The term tattva here implies the idea of the supreme goal of human life. Thus we understand that this tattva, or Absolute Reality, is the embodiment of the highest bliss and is therefore also eternal. The verse under discussion was spoken by Sri Suta Gosvami.

COMMENTARY The Absolute Reality Is Nondual Consciousness In the last TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami stated that the Absolute Reality is to be known from Srimad-Bhagavatam. This naturally raises the question, “What is the essential nature of this Absolute Reality?” In reply Jiva Gosvami quotes Srimad-Bhagavatam’s statement that the Absolute Reality is nondual (advayam), or in other words one without a second. There cannot be more than one Absolute Reality, because if a second one were to be found the first one would immediately cease to be absolute. That the Absolute Reality is nondual, however, does not mean that nothing else exists. Rather, the word “nondual” indicates two further things (in addition to the meaning stated above): first, the Absolute Reality is self-existent, meaning that it is grounded in itself and depends on no external support; second, nothing else can exist independent of this nondual reality’s support. In Vedic philosophy, an object is considered nondual if it is free of three kinds of differences—those among objects of the same class, those among objects of different classes, and those between an object and its parts. A difference between objects of the same class is called sajatiya-bheda. Even though two chairs may look the same, function the same, and belong to the class called “chair,” they still differ as individual chairs. A change in one will not directly affect the other. A difference between objects of different classes is called vijatiya-bheda. For example, in its appearance and function a chair is different from a table. Finally, a difference between an object and its parts is called sva-gata-bheda. For example, if all the parts of a chair are scattered, the chair will no longer exist. In this way the chair is not self-existent. These three kinds of differences give rise to the duality we observe throughout material nature. They do not exist, however, on the absolute plane; thus Suta Gosvami calls the pure consciousness (Absolute Reality) jïanam advayam, nondual consciousness. Even when the Supreme Personality of Godhead expands into forms such as Ramacandra and Balarama, these svamsa (selfsame) expansions remain nondifferent from the Lord’s original self. Still, while He is not dependent on Them, They are dependent on Him. Since the Lord and His svamsa expansions belong to the same class, no difference of the sajatiya-bheda type is found in Him. Material nature, being inert, belongs to a class of existence different from that of the transcendental Personality of Godhead. This might lead one to conclude that there is vijatiya-bheda between Him and material nature. Nevertheless, since material nature’s existence is not independent or separate from Him, there is ultimately no difference of vijatiya-bheda between Him and His material expansions. Finally, the Lord’s body and its limbs are each fully conscious and potent and therefore nondifferent from Him Himself. For this reason it is said that in Lord Krsna there exists no difference of the svagata-bheda type. The finite living entities belong to the marginal potency of the Supreme Lord. Thus one may view them in two ways, both as belonging to the same class as the Lord because they are conscious like Him, and as belonging to a different class because their size and potency is very small. From both viewpoints the jivas are fully dependent on the Supreme Lord, so that there exist none of the three types of differences between them and the Lord. Srila Jiva Gosvami concludes, therefore, that although the Lord’s energies render Him service in various ways, they have no existence separate from Him (tam vina tasam asiddhatvat). Just as a spider weaves a web with a special substance it produces and then makes the web its home, so Sri Krsna, the personified nondual Absolute Reality, employs His own energies to manifest the spiritual realm, where He resides. These energies are part of His internal nature and have no independent existence. In the verse under discussion (Bhag. 1.2.11), the word jïanam means “consciousness.” Its significance here is that the nondual reality is consciousness and also conscious, just as the sun is light and also luminous. Because the word jïanam refers to the Absolute Reality, this nondual consciousness must have perpetual existence (sat) as a characteristic. And because the word tattvam indicates the supreme objective of life, it follows that this nondual reality must also be characterized by bliss (ananda), since all living beings seek pleasure, whether they know it or not. Indeed, direct perception, logical analysis, and scriptural authority all confirm that the pursuit of happiness is the ultimate motivation in all activities. This is the basic purpose underlying creative and destructive processes and all personal relationships. As the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad (2.4.5) states, na va are patyuh kamaya patih priyo bhavaty atmanas tu kamaya patih priyo bhavati: “My dear, the husband is not loved for his own sake, but for the sake of the self.” Here the word “self” refers to either the jiva or the Supreme Lord. In our conditioned state, the self we perceive is our own self, the jiva. We become attached to someone or something because we derive happiness from loving that person or thing. This feeling of happiness comes from our sense of possession—the notion that the object of love is “ours”—not from the person or the object itself. The truth of this principle is shown by the common experience that our happiness naturally decreases when our sense of possession diminishes. By contrast, in the liberated state we realize that our ultimate Self is the Supreme Lord. When we act solely on the basis of this understanding we become the Lord’s pure devotees, and then we render service only for His pleasure and desire nothing in return. Even if the all-attractive Lord treats us roughly we are still happy, for we have abandoned all fears and cares in our loving relationship with Him. Lord Caitanya demonstrated this standard in His Siksastaka, where He prayed: @vpl1 = aslisya va pada-ratam pinastu mam @vpl2 = adarsanan marma-hatam karotu va @vpl1 = yatha tatha va vidadhatu lampato @vpl2 = mat-prana-nathas tu sa eva naparah “I know no one but Krsna as my Lord, and He shall remain so even if He handles me roughly in His embrace or makes me broken-hearted by not being present before me. He is completely free to do anything and everything, for He is always my worshipful Lord, unconditionally.” In conditioned life we do not know that Krsna is the supreme object of love and the source of all bliss. Rather, we mistake ourselves for the source of bliss. To enlighten us about Himself, Krsna instructs us in the Bhagavad-gita (10.8–9): aham sarvasya prabhavo mattah sarvam pravartate iti matva bhajante mam budha bhava-samanvitah

mac-citta mad-gata-prana bodhayantah parasparam kathayantas ca mam nityam tusyanti ca ramanti ca “I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts. The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me.” Thus there is an inherent relationship between jïana (knowledge), satya (eternal existence), and ananda (bliss). This relationship is clearly indicated in such sruti statements as vijïanam anandam brahma: “Brahman is pure consciousness and bliss” (Brhad-aranayaka Up. 3.9.34). Thus the nature of the nondual consciousness described in this verse has been designated sac-cid-ananda, “permanent existence, knowledge, and bliss.” In this TEXT Jiva Gosvami presented his thesis, that jïana is eternal. In the next TEXT he will explain the purva-paksa, that jïana is momentary.

English witness · section(s) 52

TEXT 52.1

nanu nila-pitady-akaram ksanikam eva jïanam drstam tat punar advayam nityam jïanam katham laksyate yan-nistham idam sastram ity atraha sarva-vedanta-saram yad brahmatmaikatva-laksanam vastv advitiyam tan-nistham kaivalyaika-prayojanam @VCONTINUE = iti. `satyam jïanam anantam brahma' iti yasya svarupam uktam, `yenasrutam srutam bhavati' iti `yad-vijïanena sarva-vijïanam pratijïatam' `sad eva saumyedam agra asit' ity-adina nikhila-jagad-eka-karanata, `tad aiksata bahu syam' ity anena satya-sankalpata ca yasya pratipadita, tena brahmana svarupa-saktibhyam sarva-brhattamena sardham, anena jivenatmaneti tadiyoktav idanta-nirdesena tato bhinnatve ’py atmata-nirdesena tad-atmamsa-visesatvena labdhasya badarayana-samadhi-drsta-yukter aty-abhinnata-rahitasya jivatmano yad ekatvam `tat tvam asi' ity-adau jïata tad-amsa-bhuta-cid-rupatvena samanakarata, tad eva laksanam prathamato jïane sadhakatamam yasya, tatha-bhutam yat sarva-vedanta-saram advitiyam vastu, tan-nistham tad-eka-visayam idam Sri-bhagavatam iti praktana-padya-sthenanusangah. One may question, But events of consciousness are seen to exist only briefly, taking the shape, say, of a blue object one moment and a yellow object the next. How then can consciousness be called the nondual and eternal theme of this scripture [Srimad-Bhagavatam]? Suta Gosvami replies: “This Bhagavatam is the essence of all Vedanta philosophy because its subject matter is the Absolute Truth, which, while nondifferent from the spirit soul, is the ultimate reality, one without a second. The goal of this literature is exclusive devotional service unto that Supreme Truth” [Bhag. 12.13.12]. The sruti has defined the nature of this Absolute Truth (Brahman): “The Supreme Brahman is infinite truth and knowledge” [Taittiriya Up. 2.1.1]. That Brahman is the sole cause of the entire creation is shown by such sruti statements as “By hearing about which [Brahman] everything is heard” [Chandogya Up. 6.1.3], “By knowing which [Brahman] everything is known,” and “My boy, in the beginning there was only sat, the eternal reality” [Chandogya Up. 6.2.1]. That the Supreme Brahman achieves everything simply by His desire is shown by the statement “He glanced and desired, Let Me become many’” [Chandogya Up. 6.2.3]. In the statement “Along with this individual living entity I shall manifest name and form” [Chandogya Up. 6.3.2], the living entity (jiva) is mentioned in connection with and as belonging to the Supreme, which is called Brahman because it is greater than all else in essence and potencies; here the pronoun idam (“this”) differentiates the jiva from Brahman, but the word atmana (“self”) indicates that the jiva is part and parcel of Brahman. According to what was revealed in Srila Vyasadeva’s trance, the living entity is one with the Supreme Brahman in the sense of not being completely different from Him. Such sruti statements as tat tvam asi (“You are that”; [Chandogya Up. 6.8.7]) reveal that the oneness of the Supreme Brahman with the jiva consists of their both being purely spiritual by virtue of the jiva’s status as a particle of the Supreme Brahman. Understanding this idea helps one acquire preliminary knowledge of the Supreme Brahman. The entity thus designated as the Supreme Brahman, who is the essence of all the Upanisads and is one without a second, is the focus of interest, the exclusive subject matter, of this Srimad-Bhagavatam. Here we understand “this Srimad-Bhagavatam” to be implied by the syntactic connection with that same phrase in one of the preceding verses [12.13.9].

TEXT 52.2

yatha janma-prabhrti kascid grha-guhavaruddhah suryam vividisuh kathaïcid gavaksa-patitam suryamsu-kanam darsayitva kenacid upadisyate esa sa ity etat-tad-amsa-jyotih-samanakarataya tan maha-jyotir-mandalam anusandhiyatam ity arthas tadvat. jivasya tatha tad-amsatvam ca tad-acintya-sakti-visesa-siddhatvenaiva paramatma-sandarbhe sthapayisyamah. The following analogy helps clarify the above idea. Suppose a person has been kept in a dark room from birth and has never seen the sun. When he wants to know what the sun is, someone points to a ray of sunlight passing through a window grating and says, “That is the sun. Try to understand that the sun is a great orb of light, of the same substance as this ray, which is a portion of it.” In the Paramatma-sandarbha we will establish that the jiva is similarly a fractional portion of the Supreme Brahman, manifested by one of His inconceivable potencies.

TEXT 52.3

tad-etaj-jivadi-laksanamsa-visistatayaivopanisadas tasya samsatvam api kvacid upadisanti. niramsatvopadesika srutis tu kevala-tan-nistha. atra kaivalyaika-prayojanam iti caturtha-padas ca kaivalya-padasya suddhatva-matra-vacanatvena suddhatvasya ca suddha-bhaktitvena paryavasanena priti-sandarbhe vyakhyasyate. Sri-sutah. Thus when the Upanisads say that the Supreme Brahman has parts, they mean that one of His characteristics is to be endowed with the part-and-parcel living beings and other energies. Conversely, when the srutis speak of Him as having no parts, they are focusing on His exclusive essence. In the fourth line [of Bhagavatam 12.13.12], namely kaivalyaika-prayojanam, the word kaivalya (“oneness”) simply means “purity.” Later, in the Priti-sandarbha, we will demonstrate that this purity is none other than pure devotional service. The verse under discussion [Bhag. 12.13.12] was spoken by Sri Suta Gosvami.

COMMENTARY The Meaning of Monistic Statements In the last TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami established that the Absolute Truth is eternal, nondual consciousness. One sect of Buddhists, the Ksanika-vijïana-vadis, raise an objection to this conclusion. Their doctrine states that there is only one reality, consciousness, which is changing at every moment, and that there is no difference between knowledge and the object of knowledge. Just as in our dreams the things we see do not exist outside our consciousness, so also in our waking life distinctions between knowledge and the object of knowledge are not real. When we see a blue object our consciousness is blue. If we next see a yellow object, the blue consciousness is destroyed and our consciousness changes to yellow. How, then, can consciousness be called eternal? This is their objection to Jiva Gosvami’s conclusion that the Absolute Truth is eternal. The Vijïana-vadis reason that an eternal object cannot be the cause of anything since in general a cause transforms into its effect. For example, since milk transforms into yogurt, it cannot be eternal. Similarly, the nondual consciousness, being the cause of everything, must undergo transformation and therefore cannot be eternal. Further, they say, everything is changing at every moment, although we may not notice the moment-by-moment change, just as we do not notice the moment-by-moment growth of plants or our bodies. To the Vijïana-vadis’ argument Srila Jiva Gosvami replies not with a logical refutation but by quoting Srimad-Bhagavatam, the supreme pramana. The Bhagavatam verse given here (12.13.12) explains that the nondual reality is characterized by oneness of the Supreme with the individual selves. Thus the oneness of reality is not the Buddhists’ oneness of momentary consciousness and its objects. This reality is advaya-jïana, the essence of all the Upanisads and the subject matter of Srimad-Bhagavatam; it is not momentary but eternal, conscious, and blissful by nature; it is the cause of everything in this universe; and it can achieve everything simply by its will. All this implies that the advaya-jïana is endowed with multifarious potencies. It is called Brahman because it is the greatest and because it can make others great: brhattvad brmhanatvac ca yad brahma paramam viduh (Visnu Pur. 3.3.21). The various sruti statements cited in this TEXT describe all these characteristics of Brahman. So the theory of consciousness of the Ksanika-vijïana-vadis does not agree with either sruti or Srimad-Bhagavatam. The Vijïana-vadis’ theory of reality is based on their assumption that there is no absolute, pure consciousness. The Vijïana-vadis do not know that the absolute reality is a person possessing acintya-sakti, inconceivable potencies, through which He causes everything while remaining unaffected. As the Isopanisad declares in its opening verse, 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.” The Vijïana-vadis’ view is based on a material conception of changing consciousness. Their understanding does not apply to the absolute realm. While in our ordinary experience material energy is in a constant state of flux, the Lord and His internal energies are not under the same system of natural laws that govern material nature. The example of the spider cited in the previous TEXT also applies here: from within itself the spider produces a special substance and then weaves its web with it, and later it draws the substance back within itself, all without undergoing any transformation. To understand the Absolute Truth, we must first shed all our misconceptions based on material conditioning and simply hear from authentic spiritual authorities in disciplic succession. The Vedic literature therefore recommends that even if a person is highly qualified by good birth, good education, and so forth, he still should present himself as ignorant and foolish at the feet of a bona fide spiritual master, inquire from him submissively, and render service to him. This is the correct process for cleansing one’s heart and mind of material contamination, and a sincere candidate for spiritual life who follows this process can gradually gain full realization of the Absolute Truth. The Vijïana-vadis, being followers of Lord Buddha, reject the Vedas, but as seen from the above discussion, they end up with a hopelessly muddled explanation of reality beyond our sensual inspection. They say consciousness is momentary. If this were true, then consciousness could not be the cause of anything, because according to the Nyaya school of logic a cause has to exist for at least two moments. It must exist as the cause for the first moment and then transform or produce the result in the next moment. And if our consciousness were existing for only one moment at a time, we could not remember our past experiences, since there would be no continuity from one moment’s consciousness to another moment’s consciousness. A person who has experienced something can recall it later on, but if consciousness were momentary there would be nothing to recall in the next moment’s consciousness. This is certainly contrary to everyone’s experience. Nor can the Vijïana-vadis’ idea of the external world withstand the test of logic. They say that the external world is a manifestation of momentary consciousness. Here a question may be asked: Are things perceived as external one with momentary consciousness or different from it? If the Vijïana-vadis claim that the external objects are separately real, then they are agreeing with our Vaisnava opinion and are contradicting their own statement that the apparently external objects are only a manifestation of internal consciousness. On the other hand, if they say that the external objects are one with internal consciousness, in practice there would be no way to distinguish between the momentary, internal consciousness and the objects it perceives. Also, there would be no standard to separate, say, blue consciousness from yellow consciousness, and thus our perceptions would be rife with confusion. As is known from both reason and direct experience, consciousness always has a subject (one who is conscious) and an object (what one is conscious of). If momentary consciousness alone were real, where would its subject and object be? To this the vijïana-vadis offer no satisfactory answer. If neither external objects nor such internal objects as happiness and distress are different from the perceiver, then who is doing the perceiving? Everyone’s common experience is that the perceiver, the perceived, and the perception are distinct. In this TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami again clarifies that the oneness of the jiva and Brahman spoken of in sruti should not be understood as absolute oneness. After all, sruti contains such statements as anena jivenatmananupravisya nama-rupe vyakaravani: “Along with this jiva I shall enter as Paramatma and create name and form” (Chandogya Up. 6.3.2). Here the pronoun anena (“this”), referring to the jiva, implies that the jiva is different from “I,” the speaker (God). Nonetheless, elsewhere the jiva is described as part and parcel of Brahman, a conclusion confirmed by Srila Vyasa’s trance. The reconciliation of this apparent contradiction is that, as we have discussed before, the jiva and Brahman are one in the sense of their sharing the common characteristic of consciousness but are different in their individual identities and potencies. When someone says that Texans and New Yorkers are one, we understand him to mean they are from the same country, the United States, not that they have no separate identities. The jivas are parts of Brahman, the whole. This is the oneness of Brahman with its parts, its energies, which is the fundamental teaching of the Upanisads and also of Srimad-Bhagavatam. The idea is that in general the part is dependent on the whole and helps it function. When separated from the whole, the part becomes useless, just as a finger lopped off a hand becomes useless. In the same way, the relation between the jivas and the Supreme Lord, who is known as Brahman in the Upanisads, is that of the servants and the served. The jivas have no independent existence. All their problems begin when t hey start considering themselves independent of the Supreme Lord. Correctly understanding the oneness between Brahman and the jivas is a fundamental step in understanding the nature of Brahman. Every jiva directly experiences his own consciousness, and the Upanisads, on the basis of the oneness of Brahman and the jivas, instruct the jivas to extrapolate from that experience some idea of the nature of Brahman. To illustrate this process, Srila Jiva Gosvami gives the analogy of a man born and bred in a cavelike room who has never seen the sun. To educate this man about the sun, someone may point to a ray of sunlight shining into his dark room through a tiny opening and tell him, “This single ray of light is from the sun, an enormous sphere that emanates countless similar rays.” From this information the man can get some idea of what the sun is like. The Upanisads use this same method to instruct the jivas about Brahman’s status as pure consciousness. Indeed, the jivas are like atomic rays emanating from the sunlike Brahman. The sun’s rays are not completely different from the sun, for they originate from the sun, nor are they absolutely one with the sun, since they can be seen apart from the sun and they lack the complete potency of the sun. Similarly, the jivas are neither completely one with Brahman nor completely different from Brahman. In his Sarva-samvadini, Srila Jiva Gosvami calls this relationship between the jiva and Brahman acintya-bhedabheda, “inconceivable, simultaneous oneness and difference.” Owing to this relationship, Brahman is described as advaya-jïana, or nondual consciousness, which is the subject of Srimad-Bhagavatam. Thus the word Brahman—as the Upanisads and also Srimad-Bhagavatam use it—should not be misunderstood to mean impersonal Brahman without qualities. The Mayavadis insist on this wrong understanding, but according to logic such an impersonal Brahman cannot exist, because if it did it would possess the attribute of existence, which implies potency, which in turn implies duality—Brahman plus attributes. But Mayavadis abhor duality in the absolute realm. Therefore in no Vedic scripture does the word Brahman mean impersonal Brahman in the sense that the Mayavadis intend. The true conception of Brahman is stated by Suta Gosvami in Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.2.11): brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdyate. “This nondual consciousness is called Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan” Here Suta Gosvami does not say that the Absolute Truth is also called jiva. He includes only the above-mentioned three designations—three names of the same nondual consciousness, which Srimad-Bhagavatam identifies as Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Absolute Truth appears differently to the practitioners of various spiritual processes, but the Absolute Truth itself does not change. This is the significance of the word sabdyate (“is designated”) here. The Brahman described in the Vedic scriptures is Bhagavan, the Supreme Person, Krsna. In the sruti we find two types of statements concerning the relationship between the jivas and Brahman: those statements designating the jiva as part of Brahman and those indicating his oneness with Brahman. The real distinction between these kinds of statements is only one of emphasis on either difference (bheda) or nondifference (abheda). Statements in the Vedic scripture such as nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam (“That one eternal conscious being is the support for the many eternal conscious beings”; Katha Up. 2.2.13) belong to the bheda class. Statements such as sarvam khalv idam brahma (“Indeed, all this is Brahman”) belong to the abheda class. The word kaivalya in Bhagavatam 12.13.12 properly means “pure devotion.” Although impersonalists commonly use this term to mean final emancipation, or merging into Brahman, Brahman is not ultimately impersonal, as the Mayavadis claim. Their usage of kaivalya is therefore absurd. Kaivalya means liberation, but the real mark of liberation is pure devotional service, not merging into Brahman. Srila Jiva Gosvami will explain this more fully in the Priti-sandarbha. To summarize, each statement in the Vedic scriptures describing the oneness of Brahman and the jivas serves one or more of the following purposes: 1. To distinguish both Brahman and the jivas from inert matter by pointing to consciousness as their common quality. 2. To show that the jivas are fractional parts of the Supersoul. 3. To teach that the jivas are dependent on the Supersoul. 4. To indicate that by becoming an unalloyed devotee of the Lord a jiva can become powerful like the Supreme Lord. 5. To show that living in the material world is not the natural, healthy condition of the jiva. 6. To show that the jiva, whether in conditioned life or in liberation, is dependent on the Lord. 7. To establish that Brahman is the only self-existent reality. One should not think that any statement in the Vedic scriptures about the oneness of Brahman and the jivas asserts their absolute oneness. To know the Supersoul, one must first understand the nature of the individual self, the jiva. Thus in the next TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami begins explaining the characteristics of the self.

English witness · section(s) 53

TEXT 53.1

tatra yadi tvam-padarthasya jivatmano jïanatvam nityatvam ca prathamato vicara-gocarah syat tadaiva tat-padarthasya tadrsatvam su-bodham syad iti tad bodhayitum `anyarthas ca paramarsah' iti nyayena jivatmanas tad-rupatvam aha. @VL1 = natma jajana na marisyati naidhate ’sau @VL2 = na ksiyate savana-vid vyabhicarinam hi @VL1 = sarvatra sasvad anapayy upalabdhi-matram @VL2PLUS = prano yathendriya-balena vikalpitam sat The jiva is designated tvam (“you”) in the statement tat tvam asi (“You are that.”). If one first understands that this “you” is conscious and eternal, then one can easily understand how the Supreme Brahman (tat) has a similar nature. To make just this point, in accordance with the reasoning of Vedanta-sutra [1.3.20]—“One contemplates the jiva in order to know the other, the Supreme”—sage Pippalayana describes the jiva as having the same nature as tat when he says to King Nimi [Bhagavatam 11.3.38]: “The soul was never born and will never die, nor does it grow or decay. It is actually the knower of the youth, middle age, and death of the material body. It can thus be understood to be pure consciousness, existing everywhere at all times and never being destroyed. Just as the life air within the body, although one, becomes as many in contact with the various material senses, so the soul appears to assume various material designations in contact with its material bodies.”

TEXT 53.2

atma suddho jivo na jajana na jato janmabhavad eva tad-anantarastita-laksano vikaro ’pi nasti. naidhate na vardhate vrddhy-abhavad eva viparinamo ’pi nirastah. hi yasmat. vyabhicarinam agamapayinam bala-yuvadi-dehanam deva-manusyady-akara-dehanam va. savana-vit tat-tat-kala-drasta. na hy avastha-vatam drasta tad-avastho bhavatity arthah. niravasthah ko ’sav atma. ata aha upalabdhi-matram jïanaika-rupam. katham-bhutam. sarvatra dehe sasvat sarvada anuvartamanam iti. Here atma means “the pure self,” and na jajana means “he was never born.” Since he has no birth, the self is also free from the next transformation, sustained existence. Naidhate means “he does not increase”; since he does not increase, he does not undergo transformation. The word hi means “because,” the idea of logical reason. Vyabhicarinam means “of all impermanent things,” namely the living entity’s various bodies in childhood, adolescence, and so on, or else the living entity’s bodies in the various species of life—demigods, humans, and others. The self is the savana-vit, the witness of each of these stages of life. Certainly this witness is not subject to the varying conditions of what he merely observes. In answer to the question “Who is this unchanging self?” Pippalayana says, “He is pure consciousness, nothing but awareness.” How does he exist? “He is eternally present everywhere throughout the body.”

TEXT 53.3

nanu nila-jïanam nastam pita-jïanam jatam iti pratiter na jïanasyanapayitvam. tatraha indriya-baleneti. sad eva jïanam ekam indriya-balena vividham kalpitam. nilady-akara vrttaya eva jayante nasyanti ca na jïanam iti bhavah. ayam agamapayi-tad-avadhi-bhedena prathamas tarkah. drastr-drsya-bhedena dvitiyo ’pi tarko jïeyah. vyabhicarisv avasthitasyavyabhicare drstantah prano yatheti. “But how can we consider consciousness ever-present, since we experience that after our consciousness of something blue disappears our consciousness of something yellow appears?” Pippalayana answers, indriya-balena (“by the power of the senses”), indicating that although consciousness is always present and is one, the power of the senses causes it to appear variegated. In other words, it is not consciousness itself that appears and disappears; rather, what appear and disappear are the various mental states in the form of perceptions of something blue and so on. Thus the first argument [presented to help identify the Absolute Reality] is based on the difference between the things that appear and disappear and that which is not subject to such changes. The second argument is based on the difference between the observer and the objects he observes. The example of the life air shows how something unchanging can exist in the midst of ephemeral objects.

COMMENTARY Characteristics of the Soul As mentioned above, the Vedic statements that describe nondifference between the jiva and Brahman do so in reference to the common attributes of both. One popular example of such a statement is tat tvam asi, “You are that.” Here the word tat and tvam signify Brahman the jiva, respectively, who both possess the attribute of consciousness. The idea behind this statement is that one who clearly understands the jiva’s spiritual nature can easily grasp the nature of Brahman. The same idea lies behind the analogy Srila Jiva Gosvami gave in the previous Text, in which a man in a cave learns about the sun by being instructed about a sun-ray. This technique has also been used in the Vedanta-sutra (1.3.20): anyarthas ca paramarsah. “One reflects [on the jiva] for the sake of understanding the other [Paramatma].” Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana comments: “This sutra refers to the dahara-vidya portion of the Chandogya Upanisad (8.1), which describes meditation on the Supersoul in the small space (dahara) within the heart. The body of the worshiper is considered the city of Brahman, in which lies the Supersoul, the worshipable Lord within the dahara. The worshiper is supposed to meditate on the eightfold qualities belonging to the Supersoul. These eight qualities are listed in the Chandogya Upanisad (8.7.1): `The Supersoul is free from sin, old age, death, sorrow, hunger, and thirst. He has unfailing desires and unfailing determination.’ But further along (Chandogya Up. 8.12.13), mention is made of a blissful one who rises out of the body, attains to the light, and becomes situated in his own real nature. He is called the purusottama.” This purusottama, according to Baladeva Vidyabhusana, is the jiva who has attained perfection by acquiring transcendental knowledge of the Supreme Lord. This raises an obvious doubt: Why in the midst of this description of the dahara, dealing with meditation on the Supersoul, is the jiva mentioned? To answer this doubt, the above sutra (V.s. 1.3.20) is quoted. The reference to the jiva in the dahara-vidya is not simply to convey knowledge about the jiva but to lead to knowledge about the Supersoul, and by knowing the Supersoul the jiva attains his real nature. In Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.3.38, Pippalayana Yogendra similarly instructs King Nimi about the jiva to educate him about the nature of the Lord. The purpose of the above-mentioned verse spoken by Pippalayana is to distinguish the self from the body. The body undergoes six types of changes. These are listed in the Nirukta (1.1.2): jayate ’sti vardhate viparinamate ’paksiyate nasyati ca. “The body takes birth, exists for some time, grows, undergoes changes, dwindles, and finally dies.” The soul, however, does not undergo any of these changes, as Lord Krsna confirms in Chapter Two of the Bhagavad-gita. The argument for the soul not undergoing these changes is that he is their continuous observer. A man sitting in a moving airplane and unable to look out the window cannot understand how fast it is going, but an observer on the ground can easily understand. Similarly, we do not feel the earth rotating because we are riding on it, but the astronauts can easily see this from their space vehicles. The objection of the Ksanika-vijïana-vadis discussed in the previous Text—namely, that consciousness is only momentary—is repeated here (in TEXT 53.3) and answered differently. The momentary consciousness of which they speak actually consists of changes in one’s mental state. It is produced by the senses interacting with the external world. Consciousness itself is constant. The Vedanta explains that when a person looks at an object there arises a particular mental state, called a vrtti, which the soul perceives. The mental state itself is not the perceiver. But the Buddhists, who are totally ignorant about the soul, mistake this temporary, ever-changing vrtti for the real consciousness. This point is further clarified with the analogy of the life air. Air is one, but air within the body has various names, such as prana, apana, and samana, according to the function it performs. Similarly, the soul is one, but on account of the senses, the consciousness the soul manifests while in the body appears many-branched and ever-changing. This phenomenon is similar to the way in which sweetened milk gives rise to different mental states when perceived with different senses: to the eyes it is white, to the tongue sweet, and so on. So it is not the self but only the mental state affected by varieties of sense perception that appears and disappears, or undergoes changes. The living entity is a fractional part of the Supreme Lord, and since the Lord is conscious and eternal the living entity must share these qualities, just as a tiny gold nugget shares the qualities of the mother lode. And the purpose of explaining the conscious and eternal quality of the soul with logic and personal experience is to help us develop an understanding of the Supersoul. Srila Jiva Gosvami derives two arguments from the words of Pippalayana (Bhag. 11.3.38), both of which serve to distinguish the soul from the material body. The first argument is based on the changes that occur in the material body. We see these changes as time progresses, but with some reflection we can understand that we ourselves have not changed but are the same person. Since the attributes of changelessness and transformation cannot be attributed to the same object, the unchanging soul must be distinct from the changing body. Sri Jiva’s second argument is based on the distinction between the perceiver and the perceived. The body and mind cannot be the observer, because they are objects of perception. Thus the perceiver, the soul, must be different from them. In the next TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami presents further logic to help distinguish the self from the body.

English witness · section(s) 54

TEXT 54.1

drstantam vivrnvann indriyadi-layena nirvikaratmopalabdhim darsayati @VL1 = andesu pesisu tarusv aviniscitesu @VL2 = prano hi jivam upadhavati tatra tatra @VL1 = sanne yad indriya-gane ’hami ca prasupte @VL2 = kuta-stha asayam rte tad-anusmrtir nah j @VCONTINUE = andesu anda-jesu. pesisu jarayu-jesu. tarusu udbhij-jesu. aviniscitesu sveda-jesu. upadhavati anuvartate. Expanding further on this example, Pippalayana Rsi uses the analogy of the senses’ dissolution to demonstrate the soul’s changelessness: “The spirit soul is born in many different species of life within the material world. Some species are born from eggs, others from embryos, others from the seeds of plants and trees, and others from perspiration. But in all species of life the prana, or vital air, remains unchanging and follows the spirit soul from one body to another. Similarly, the spirit soul is eternally the same despite its material condition of life. We have practical experience of this. When we are absorbed in deep sleep without dreaming, the material senses become inactive, and even the mind and false ego are merged into a dormant condition. But although the senses, mind, and false ego are inactive, one remembers upon waking that he, the soul, was peacefully sleeping” [Bhag. 11.3.39]. Here andesu means “among those born from eggs,” pesisu means “among those born from wombs,” tarusu means “among those born from plants,” aviniscitesu means “among those born from perspiration or heat,” and upadhavati means “follows.”

TEXT 54.2

evam drstante nirvikaratvam pradarsya darstantike ’pi darsayati. katham. tadaivatma sa-vikara iva pratiyate yada jagare indriya-gano yada ca svapne tat-samskara-van ahankarah. yada tu prasuptam tada tasmin prasupta indriya-gane sanne lina ahami ahankare ca sanne line kuta-stho nirvikara atma. kutah. asayam rte linga-sariram upadhim vina vikara-hetor upadher abhavad ity arthah. Having thus shown the changeless quality of the life air, sage Pippalayana now compares the soul to it and in this way demonstrates that the soul is also changeless. How is this? The soul appears to be changing either when he is in contact with his senses during waking consciousness or when he is connected only with his ego while sleeping and dreaming, at which time his ego is filled with impressions from the waking state. But when the soul is in deep sleep, the senses and ego become temporarily submerged or dissolved, and only the changeless, essential soul remains. How does he remain? Asayam rte: without the “containing vessel,” the limitation of the subtle body. That is to say, he is free from the upadhis that impose changes upon him.

TEXT 54.3

nanv ahankara-paryantasya sarvasya laye sunyam evavasisyate kva tada kuta-stha atma. ata aha tad-anusmrtir nas tasyakhandatmanah susupti-saksinah smrtir no 'smakam jagrad-drastènam jayate `etavantam kalam sukham aham asvapam na kiïcid avedisam' iti. ato ’nanubhutasya tasyasmaranad asty eva susuptau tadrg-atmanubhavo visaya-sambandhabhavac ca na spasta iti bhavah. But, one may object, when everything up to and including the ego is dissolved, only a void should remain. Why then is it said that even at this time the changeless soul is present? Pippalayana answers, tad-anusmrtir nah: “We remember it.” When we, the perceivers of waking life, wake up from deep sleep, we each remember our self as the constantly existing soul who witnessed the condition of deep sleep. We say, “I slept happily for so long and was not aware of anything.” Since a person cannot remember what he has not experienced, the soul must perceive the experience of deep sleep, though this experience is indistinct because he is cut off from the objects of external sensation.

TEXT 54.4

atah sva-prakasa-matra-vastunah suryadeh prakasa-vad upalabdhi-matrasyapy atmana uplabdhih svasraye ’sty evety ayatam. tatha ca srutih `yad vai tan na pasyati pasyan vai drastavyan na pasyati na hi drastur drster viparilopo vidyate' iti. ayam saksi-saksya-vibhagena trtiyas tarkah. duhkhi-premaspadatva-vibhagena caturtho ’pi tarko ’vagantavyah. We can therefore conclude that the soul, who is pure awareness, is also aware of itself, just as an entity such as the sun, which is in substance pure light, also reveals itself by that light. We find the following confirmation in sruti: “It is true that he [the soul] is not seeing—or rather that although seeing, he does not see externally visible objects. But it is not possible to remove the seer’s sight altogether” [Brhad-aranyaka Up. 4.3.23]. This [idea that the soul is aware even during deep sleep] constitutes the third argument [presented to help us identify the Absolute Reality]; it is based on the distinction between the witness and the objects witnessed. We can also understand the fourth argument, which is based on the distinction between the unhappy sufferer and the focus of ecstatic love.

COMMENTARY The Soul Is Distinct from the Body In the previous TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami cited the analogy of the life air given in Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.3.38 to show the changeless nature of the soul. The following verse (Bhag. 11.3.39) develops this analogy further. There Sage Pippalayana explains that the life air continuously follows the soul into various species of life, which fall into four categories based on their source of birth. The life air enters the various bodies and seems to undergo transformations, but in fact it remains unchanged. For example, the soul’s life air may occupy the body of an ant in one life and that of an elephant in a different life, yet all the while the life air remains unchanged. Similarly, the soul appears to undergo changes in association with the many states and shapes of his successive bodies, but in fact he remains unchanged. The soul experiences three states of consciousness while in the body: the waking state, the dreaming state, and the state of deep, dreamless sleep. During the waking state a jiva is conscious of his gross body, gross senses, and mind, and his consciousness seems divided and channeled by the mind and senses. In the dreaming state the gross senses become inactive, or, to be more precise, the mind loses contact with them, and thus the jiva is also not aware of the gross senses or the gross body. Through dreams the jiva in this state perceives the various impressions created in the subconscious mind during the waking state, and because of the jiva’s attachment to these impressions, his consciousness seems to undergo transformation. In the state of deep, dreamless sleep the soul loses contact even with the mind, and thus he is not conscious of either his gross or subtle body. According to sruti, in the state of dreamless sleep the mind enters into the puritat nerve in the heart: atha yada susupto bhavati yada na kasyacana veda hita nama nadyo dva-saptatih sahsrani hrdayat puritatam abhipratisthante, tabhih pratyavasrpya puritati sete. “When [the soul] is fast asleep, he does not know anything. At that time the mind removes itself from the seventy-two thousand nerves (hita) spreading out from the heart and enters into the nerve called puritat, where it rests.” (Brhad-aranyaka Up. 2.1.19). Feelings of happiness and distress are states of the mind and therefore part of the “field” of the subtle body. This is described in Bhagavad-gita (13.7): “Desire, hatred, happiness, distress, the aggregate [the physical body], the life symptoms, and convictions— these are considered, in summary, to be the field of activities and its interactions.” As mentioned above, in deep sleep the soul loses contact with the mind and feels no material happiness or distress, no desires or hatred. He tastes only the bliss of the self. But this does not mean the soul becomes liberated in deep sleep. He is still bound by his subtle desires, which return him to the dreaming and waking states. From the Buddhists comes an objection that the soul cannot exist in deep sleep. When there is no experience of the senses or the mind, why not assume that only the “void” remains during deep sleep? The answer is “Because we recollect the experience of deep sleep.” After waking from deep sleep a person may declare, “I have slept happily and wasn’t aware of anything.” Since someone cannot recollect something without having experiencing it, the person who perceived himself in deep sleep and the person who remembers this experience must be identical. Thus the happiness of deep sleep was experienced by the same person who recalls it upon awakening, but his recollection is hazy because during deep sleep his link with the mind and senses was broken. The implication here is that although there is no false ego manifest during deep sleep, the soul’s real ego remains, for this is his true and inseparable identity. So there is no possibility of voidness during deep sleep, as the Buddhists claim, nor is it possible that the soul becomes mere consciousness without individuality, as the Mayavadis claim. This argument establishes that the soul’s quality of cognition is an essential aspect of its nature. It is thus not true that the soul acquires cognition only when conditioned, nor that he remains solely as pure consciousness in the unconditioned state. As the sun illuminates both itself and other things as well, the soul can always know both himself and other things. The soul does not need help from the gross external senses to know itself, just as one does not need a lamp to see the sun. This quality of cognition stays with the soul throughout all his states of existence, even when he inhabits lower species, just as a light bulb continues to emit light even when enveloped by a nearly opaque covering. The covering simply limits and distorts the light’s diffusion. Of course, it is the Supreme Lord who grants the soul his self-luminous nature, and so from the above we should not wrongly conclude that the jiva is a completely independent entity. The passage from the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad quoted in this TEXT states, “He [the soul] certainly does not see.” This statement refers to the soul in deep sleep. At that time the soul does not perceive anything because he is detached from the mind and senses; this does not mean, however, that his power of perception is lost. Thus the passage further says, “Although seeing, he does not see externally visible objects.” In the previous TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami showed that the soul is distinct from the body. He substantiated this conclusion by citing the analogy of the life air. Here he has further shown that the soul is distinct both from the body and from the Supersoul. He presented four arguments. We have discussed the first two in our COMMENTARY on TEXT 53. The third argument is based on the difference between the witness and the witnessed. During deep sleep, when the soul ceases to identify with the mind and senses, he witnesses his own self, and he can recollect this experience upon awakening. This phenomenon demonstrates the changeless nature of the soul by showing that it is distinct from the ever-changing body and senses. The fourth argument is based on the fact that it is not the Supersoul but the jiva who suffers material tribulations, although both dwell in the same body. The Supersoul is the witness of both the soul and the activities of the soul’s material body. As we have pointed out, in the state of dreamless sleep the soul becomes temporarily dissociated from his subtle and gross body, but still the body does not die. This indicates that the breathing, heartbeat, blood circulation, and other vital functions continue by the grace of the Supersoul. Another inference we can draw is that the soul is dependent on the Supersoul, because if the soul were completely independent he would not choose to revert to a state beset with suffering. But in fact he cannot stop this reversion, being caught up in the states of material existence—waking consciousness, dreaming, and deep sleep. Therefore, Srila Jiva Gosvami concludes, the Supreme Lord is the fitting object of love, since he is totally free from material bondage. In the next TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami summarizes these points.

TATTVA SANDARBHA

BY SRILA JIVA GOSWAMI

[PART 10]

English witness · section(s) 55

TEXT 55

tad uktam anvaya-vyatirekakhyas tarkah syac catur-atmakah agamapayi-tad-avadhi-bhedena prathamo matah

drastr-drsya-vibhagena dvitiyo ’pi matas tatha saksi-saksya-vibhagena trtiyah sammatah satam duhkhi-premasapadatvena caturthah sukha-bodhakah @VCONTINUE = iti. Sri-pippalayano nimim. [These arguments] can be summed up as follows: Here we have four kinds of arguments in the modes of both exclusion and inclusion. The first argument is based on the difference between what takes birth and dies and {tad-avadhi}. The second is based on the difference between the seer and the seen. The third is based on the difference between the witness and the witnessed. The fourth argument, given to aid our understanding, is based on the difference between the miserable sufferer and the focus of pure love. The verse under discussion [Bhag. 11.3.39] is spoken by Sri Pippalayana to King Nimi.

COMMENTARY Summary of Sri Pippalayana’s Teachings Here Srila Jiva Gosvami summarizes the conclusions of the last two Texts. According to Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana, in this TEXT the word tarka (literally “reasoning” or “logic”) means “ inference,” which is one topic of epistemology. In the reasoning presented in this Text, Jiva Gosvami uses inference both positively and negatively. Positively, there is the general principle that when a soul and a body combine, changes occur that the soul perceives. Negatively, one never perceives changes in the soul or changelessness in the body. Thus by both positive and negative analysis we can infer that the body and the soul are distinct. We can apply a similar analysis to the other three arguments set forth in this Text. Here we use logic to infer the difference between the body and the soul; understanding this difference is the first rung on the ladder of transcendental realization. We can also use logic to infer the difference between the soul and the Supersoul; understanding this difference is the necessary foundation of bhakti-yoga. Here we are not employing dry logic, which is based on a limited mortal’s mental wrangling, but rather transcendental logic, which is founded on the authority of Srimad-Bhagavatam’s statements and is designed to help raise one to a complete understanding of the Absolute Truth. The scriptures and saintly sages encourage sincere souls who seek to distinguish reality from illusion to use their intellect for this purpose. Only the body takes birth, grows old, becomes diseased, and dies. The soul perceives all these changes, and when he identifies himself with his body he experiences them as miseries. Although distinct from his body, because of false ego the jiva becomes attached to his body and its by-products and thus experiences the body’s happiness and distress. The Supersoul witnesses the soul’s miseries in his material body but does not experience them as His own. Unperturbed by the actions and reactions of material bodies, He is always distinct from the jiva souls and is the suitable object of their love. We can infer the existence of the Supersoul from the fact that the soul does not create the elements needed for the maintenance of his body and that material nature, being inert, cannot create anything without the help of a sentient being. What’s more, the soul takes no part in maintaining the material body during deep sleep, when he is completely aloof from it. In this way, knowing the characteristics of the jiva and his relationship to the body can help us understand something of the Supersoul, Brahman. And taking into account the common quality of consciousness shared by the jiva and Brahman, the latter can be identified as the nondual reality, the subject of Srimad-Bhagavatam. All these conclusions are based on an analysis of the individual jiva’s situation. Now Srila Jiva Gosvami begins a new analysis, one based on the total situation of the universe.

English witness · section(s) 56

TEXT 56.1

evam-bhutanam jivanam cin-matram yat svarupam tayaivakrtya tad-amsitvena ca tad-abhinnam yat tattvam tad atra vacyam iti vyasti-nirdesa-dvara proktam. tad eva hy asraya-samjïakam. maha-purana-laksana-rupaih sargadibhir arthaih samasti-nirdesa-dvarapi laksyata ity atraha dvabhyam atra sargo visargas ca sthanam posanam utayah manv-antaresanukatha nirodho muktir asrayah

dasamasya visuddhy-artham navanam iha laksanam @V1PLUS = varnayanti mahatmanah srutenarthena caïjasa By describing these characteristics of the jiva souls, whose inner nature is pure consciousness, we have in effect described the Supreme Brahman, the subject of Srimad-Bhagavatam, from the individual (vyasti) viewpoint. This is so because the Supreme Brahman is nondifferent from the jiva souls, being the complete whole from whom they emanate in the form of His individual partial expansions. Indeed, He is called the asraya, the fountainhead of all existence. The same nondual reality, Brahman, is also characterized in aggregate (samasti) cosmic terms in the list of a major Purana’s ten topics, beginning with primary creation. This list is given in the following two verses: “This Srimad-Bhagavatam describes ten subjects: sarga (primary creation), visarga (secondary creation), sthana (maintenance), posana (mercy), uti (desires), manv-antara (reigns of Manus), isanukatha (pastimes of the Lord and His devotees), nirodha (annihilation), mukti (liberation), and asraya (the substratum or ultimate shelter). To clarify the meaning of the tenth subject, the great souls describe the characteristics of the first nine subjects by prayers, and also by indirect and direct explanations” [Bhag. 2.10.1–2].

TEXT 56.2

manv-antarani cesanukathas ca manv-antaresanukathah. atra sargadayo dasartha laksyanta ity arthah. tatra ca dasamasyasrayasya visuddhy-artham tattva-jïanartham navanam laksanam svarupam varnayanti. nanv atra naivam pratiyate. ata aha srutena srutya kanthoktyaiva stuty-adi-sthanesv aïjasa saksad varnayanti arthena tatparya-vrttya ca tad-tad-akhyanesu. Manv-antaresanukathah is a compound of manv-antara (“periods of Manus”) and isa-anukathah (“narrations of the Lord’s pastimes”). This Srimad-Bhagavatam discusses ten topics, beginning with creation, but the sages’ real purpose in describing the characteristics of the first nine is to give us systematic, lucid knowledge of the tenth topic. One might object here that the presentation of the other nine topics does not seem to explain the tenth topic; we reply that in the Bhagavatam the sages explain the tenth topic both directly, by the explicit utterance of prayers and other statements, and also indirectly, through the implied purport of various historical accounts.

COMMENTARY The Purpose of the Ten Topics of Srimad-Bhagavatam Is to Describe the Supreme Lord In previous Texts Srila Jiva Gosvami defined the central focus of Srimad-Bhagavatam by examining the faith and spiritual experiences of Suta Gosvami, Sukadeva Gosvami, and Srila Vyasadeva. In the course of this exposition he explained the nature of the jiva. He then went on to analyze the second verse of Srimad- Bhagavatam, which declares that the Absolute Reality is the Bhagavatam’s subject matter. To further define that reality he also referred to the Bhagavatam verse beginning vadanti tat tattva-vidah (1.2.11), which names the three main aspects of the one nondual, supreme consciousness (advaya-jïana). He proposed that to understand this nondual consciousness we should first understand the individual jiva, and therefore he discussed the jiva’s position on the basis of two Bhagavatam verses spoken by Pippalayana Rsi. The basic ideas established so far concerning the jiva are that he is conscious, able to know himself and other things, distinct from the material energy, and free of the six types of bodily transformations. The analysis up to this point has thus been from the vyasti perspective, focusing on the situation of the individual jivas. Now Jiva Gosvami begins explaining the Absolute Reality from the viewpoint of the aggregate—the samasti perspective—and he bases his explanation on the ten topics treated in the Bhagavatam’s twelve cantos. First he quotes two verses spoken by Sukadeva Gosvami (2.10.1–2), the second of which states that the reason why scripture describes such topics as creation, maintenance, annihilation, and liberation is to help us understand the ultimate topic, the Supreme Lord. Indeed, these other topics are but descriptions of the Supreme Lord’s manifold potencies. The Lord is the fountainhead of all these phenomena, and Srimad-Bhagavatam explains them just to illustrate His special characteristics. In some places the Bhagavatam introduces prayers to the Supreme Lord in the course of describing one or more of the other nine topics, and in these prayers the Supreme Person Himself is the object of description. In other places the Lord is described directly, as in the dialogue between Vidura and Maitreya and that between Kapila and Devahuti. In yet other places, the Bhagavatam glorifies the Lord indirectly through historical episodes, such as the accounts of how the Lord saved Pariksit Maharaja from Asvatthama’s atomic weapon and of how Sukadeva Gosvami was captivated when he heard verses about Lord Krsna’s attributes. In this way Srila Jiva Gosvami shows that the purpose of the nine preliminary subjects discussed in the Bhagavatam is to explain the tenth subject, the advaya-jïana, which is also called the asraya and is the fountainhead of everything. Every person has two types of characteristics—svarupa (personal) and tata-stha (marginal)—and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is no exception. In our present conditioned state we have no experience of His personal features, and so if we hear these described without proper COMMENTARY we may misconstrue them owing to our strong material conditioning. But whether we adopt the aggregate or the individual viewpoint, we can more easily understand the Lord’s marginal characteristics manifested within the material nature, for they are within the scope our of our personal experience. Srila Vyasadeva uses the same approach in the Vedanta-sutra. After designating Brahman the subject of the book in the first sutra—athato brahma-jijïasa: “Now, therefore, inquire into Brahman”—he begins discussing the Lord’s marginal characteristics in the next sutra—janmady asya yatah: “From Him come the creation, maintenance, and destruction of the universe.” Srimad-Bhagavatam similarly discusses ten topics, presenting the first nine to help us understand the tenth topic, the asraya. (Later in the Sandarbhas this asraya will be identified more fully as Lord Sri Krsna.) The first nine topics of Srimad-Bhagavatam deal with various potencies of the Lord, such as His creative potency, sarga-sakti. Understanding these topics helps us appreciate the Supreme Lord as the possessor of these potencies. Then we can come to properly apprehend His personal features and pastimes, which are narrated in the Bhagavatam’s Tenth Canto. Without studying the nine preliminary topics of the Bhagavatam, we run the risk of viewing His form and pastimes superficially, of concluding that Krsna is an ordinary human being endowed with some extraordinary powers. But this is far from the truth. Lord Krsna therefore says in the Bhagavad-gita (9.11): avajananti mam mudha manusim tanum asritam param bhavam ajananto mama bhuta-mahesvaram “Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.” By contrast, those who do understand the Lord’s transcendental nature are described as follows: janma karma ca me divyam evam yo vetti tattvatah tyaktva deham punar janma naiti mam eti so ’rjuna “One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna” (Bg. 4.9). Therefore, wishing to lead us to the highest plane of transcendence through a proper understanding of the Bhagavatam’s tenth subject, the summum bonum, Sukadeva Gosvami first explains the first nine subjects. Clearly, then, we should study Srimad-Bhagavatam in the order Sukadeva Gosvami presented it, from the first verse onward. Unfortunately, unscrupulous persons do not study the Bhagavatam verse by verse, canto by canto, but rather jump to the Tenth Canto. Yet they pose themselves as learned scholars of the Bhagavatam. Another failing of these false Bhagavatam scholars is their neglect of the mandatory requirement that one must hear the Bhagavatam at the feet of a bona fide guru coming in Vaisnava disciplic succession. Because of this omission they cannot properly relish the ripened fruit of the Vedic tree of knowledge. To all such persons Lord Krsna declares in the Bhagavad-gita (7.25): naham prakasah sarvasya yoga-maya-samavrtah mudho ’yam nabhijanati loko mam ajam avyayam “I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My Yogamaya, and therefore they do not know that I am unborn and infallible.” The most basic requirement for spiritual study, stipulated in all the Vedic scriptures, is that one must respectfully approach a bona fide spiritual master, humbly serve him, and submissively inquire from him. Then all the secrets of the Vedic teachings will be revealed. This injunction applies to every student, even those who are great intellectuals. The Svetasvatara Upanisad (6.28) therefore states: yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deve tatha gurau tasyaite kathita hy arthah prakasante mahatmanah “Only unto those great souls who have implicit faith in and devotion to both the Supreme Lord and the spiritual master are all the imports of Vedic knowledge revealed.” Nothing is revealed to the student without the grace of the spiritual master. Therefore to disregard the principle that one must approach a spiritual master to understand the Absolute Truth is to disrespect the Vedic teachings from the outset and ensure failure. Lord Krsna confirms this in the Bhagavad-gita (16.23): yah sastra-vidhim utsrjya vartate kama-karatah na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukham na param gatim “He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination.” Therefore, to unravel the mystery of Srimad-Bhagavatam one should follow in the footsteps of the previous acaryas and refrain from jumping to the esoteric pastimes described in the Tenth Canto. In the next TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami begins explaining each of the ten topics by quoting their definitions from Srimad-Bhagavatam.

English witness · section(s) 57

TEXT 57.1

tam eva dasamam vispastayitum tesam dasanam vyutpadikam sapta-slokim aha bhuta-matrendriya-dhiyam janma sarga udahrtah brahmano guna-vaisamyad visargah paurusah smrtah @VCONTINUE = bhutani khadini matrani ca sabdadini indriyani ca. dhi-sabdena mahad-ahankarau. gunanam vaisamyat parinamat. brahmanah paramesvarat kartur bhutadinam janma sargah. puruso vairajo brahma tat-krtah paurusas caracara-sargo visarga ity arthah. To elucidate the tenth subject, Sri Sukadeva Gosvami speaks seven verses defining each of the ten subjects. [Four of the seven verses are as follows:] “The primary creation of the five gross elements, the five subtle sense objects, the five senses, the mahat-tattva, and the false ego, resulting from the disturbance in the material modes’ equilibrium caused by the Supreme Lord, is known as sarga. The secondary creation, effected by Lord Brahma, is called visarga” [Bhag. 2.10.3]. The bhutas mentioned here are the five gross material elements, beginning with ether. The matras are the subtle elements—sound and so on. The indriyas are the perceptive senses. The word dhi (“intelligence”) indicates the totality of unmanifest matter, together with false ego. Brahman, the supreme controller, generates these physical and nonphysical elements by causing the modes of material nature to become unbalanced and produce transformations. This is called sarga (“creation.”) The secondary creation, by Lord Brahma, is called visarga. Since he is the vairaja-purusa, or “universal person,” his creation is also called paurusa. Visarga is the sending forth of moving and nonmoving living beings.

TEXT 57.2

sthitir vaikuntha-vijayah posanam tad-anugrahah manv-antarani sad-dharma utayah karma-vasanah

avataranucaritam hares casyanuvartinam pumsam isa-kathah prokta nanakhyanopabrmhitah @VCONTINUE = vaikunthasya bhagavato vijayah srstanam tat-tan-maryada-palanenotkarsah sthitih sthanam. tatah sthitesu sva-bhaktesu tasyanugrahah posanam. manv-antarani tat-tan-manv-antara-sthitanam manv-adinam tad-anugrhitanam satam caritani tany eva dharmas tad-upasanakhyah sad-dharmah. tatraiva sthitau nana-karma-vasana utayah. sthitav eva harer avataranucaritam asyanuvartinam ca katha isanukathah prokta ity arthah. “Sthiti is the victory of Lord Visnu, and posana is the grace He bestows on His devotees. The word manv-antara indicates the principles of transcendental religion, while uti refers to desires for material activities. Isanukatha indicates the various descriptions of the Lord’s pastimes in His incarnations, and also the descriptions of His faithful devotees’ activities” [Bhag. 2.10.4–5]. Sthiti (“maintenance”) is vaikuntha-vijaya, the victory of Lord Vaikuntha, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In other words, sthiti indicates the supreme glory of the Lord shown by His maintaining all created beings in their respective situations under His laws. Posanam (“sustenance”) indicates how He maintains His devotees by bestowing His grace on them. Manv-antarani (“periods of Manus”) indicates the histories of the Manus and other saintly kings who ruled during the Manus’ reigns, and also the histories of other saintly people who lived during those periods and received the Supreme Lord’s special favor. The deeds of these saints are themselves religious standards, establishing the sad-dharma (“transcendental religion”) of worshiping the Lord. With regard to universal maintenance, uti (“impetuses for action”) are desires for various fruitive activities. Isanukathah (“narrations about the Lord”) are historical accounts of the Lord’s pastimes in His various incarnations, as well as accounts of His faithful followers’ activities.

TEXT 57.3

nirodho ’syanusayanam atmanah saha saktibhih muktir hitvanyatha-rupam svarupena vyavasthitih @VCONTINUE = sthity-anantaram catmano jivasya saktibhih svopadhibhih sahasya harer anusayanam hari-sayananugatatvena sayanam nirodha ity arthah. tatra harer sayanam prapaïcam prati drsti-nimilanam jivanam sayanam tatra laya iti jïeyam. tatraiva nirodhe ’nyatha-rupam avidyadhyastam ajïatvadikam hitva svarupena vyavasthitir muktih. “The merging of the living entity, along with his conditioning, with the mystic lying down of the Maha-Visnu is called the winding up of the cosmic manifestation (nirodha). Liberation (mukti) is the permanent situation of the form of the living entity after he gives up the changeable gross and subtle material bodies” [Bhag. 2.10.6]. When annihilation occurs after a period of universal maintenance, Lord Hari goes to sleep and the jivas follow Him along with their energies, their upadhis. This is called nirodha (“winding up”). Lord Hari’s “going to sleep” consists of His closing His eyes to the material creation, and the jivas’ “going to sleep” consists of their merging into Lord Hari. If a jiva in that merged state has freed himself from his false, acquired nature—the ignorance and other qualities superimposed on him by material illusion—he attains his original nature; this is called mukti (“liberation”).

COMMENTARY Definition of Srimad-Bhagavatam’s First Nine Topics Understanding the Supreme Lord means knowing Him along with His potencies, just as understanding the sun means knowing it along with its potency, sunshine. According to the Second Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam, tenth chapter, the material world is a creation of the Lord and reflects His personality. This world perpetually goes through cycles of creation, maintenance, and annihilation. During annihilation all the material elements are unmanifest because they have merged into the original, dormant state of material nature, called prakrti or pradhana. In this phase the three modes of nature are in balance and thus inactive. At the end of the period of annihilation the Supreme Lord agitates the modes of nature by glancing upon them, and then the next stage of creation begins. This agitated state of the material modes is called the mahat-tattva, which, when further activated by the time factor, gives rise to material ego, ahankara. From ahankara come the five gross material elements (earth, water, fire, air, and ether), the five subtle elements (smell, taste, form, tactility, and sound), and the five perceptive senses (the senses of smell, taste, vision, touch, and hearing). This phase of creation is called sarga, or the primary creation. The subsequent creation is conducted by Lord Brahma and is called visarga, or the secondary creation. Brahma is also called Purusa or Vairaja. Lord Visnu oversees the maintenance of the rules and regulations governing universal affairs, and this maintenance is called sthiti or sthana. The maintenance function shows Visnu’s preeminence over Lord Brahma and Lord Siva, who are in charge of the secondary creation and of destruction, respectively. To carry out the function of sthiti the Lord incarnates in every millennium, as He states in the Bhagavad-gita (4.8): paritranaya sadhunam vinasaya ca duskrtam dharma-samsthapanarthaya sambhavami yuge yuge “To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to re-establish the principles of religion, I advent myself millennium after millennium.” And the grace the Lord showers on the pious is called posana. Each day of Lord Brahma contains fourteen periods, each of which is ruled over by a Manu. The Manus are godly persons empowered to look after the welfare of all human beings. The activities of each Manu, along with the deeds saintly people perform during the Manus’ reigns, constitute manv-antara. How these saintly persons behave and worship is called sad-dharma. Impelled by their karma, living beings perform various material activities during the sthiti, or maintenance, of the creation, and these activities give rise to various desires for further material activities. These desires, in the form of impressions within the mind, are called uti. The descriptions of the Lord’s pastimes with His associates during His incarnations in this material world are called isanukatha. The creation cycle begins when the Lord glances at material nature: sa iksata lokan nu srjeti, sa imal lokan asrjata. “He glanced and desired to create people. Indeed, He created them” (Aitareya Up. 1.1).

When it is time for annihilation, the Lord turns His eyes away from the creation, and this turning away is called His sleep, or cosmic rest. Next all the material elements become unmanifest in the reverse order in which they appeared, and the material nature then exists in equilibrium. At that time the jivas give up their gross bodies, but they remain conditioned by their subtle bodies, which are composed of their karmic impressions. This inactive state of the jivas is called sleep, corresponding to the Lord’s sleep, and this phase of existence is called nirodha. When the time comes for the creation cycle, the jivas receive bodies according to part of the karma they accrued in the previous cycle. During the maintenance period, if a living being takes to the devotional service of the Lord and attains perfection he is freed from both his subtle and gross bodies and is situated in his original nature. This condition is called mukti, which is also a type of nirodha. However, in contrast to the nirodha that occurs at the time of universal annihilation, when the jiva attains mukti he is not compelled to take birth again in the material world. Rather, all his miseries come to an end and he enters the spiritual planets, where he eternally resides in his original, spiritual form. One can attain this state of eternal liberation only by practicing devotional service to Lord Krsna, as Srila Vyasadeva saw in His trance. The Supreme Lord, the tenth topic discussed in Srimad-Bhagavatam, is the foundation of the other nine topics. The events that occur under the headings of these topics all take place by His potency; indeed, the very reason why the Srimad-Bhagavatam describes these topics is to help us come to know the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for a person is known by His works and attributes. In the next TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami defines the asraya-tattva, the fountainhead of all existence, who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

English witness · section(s) 58

TEXT 58

abhasas ca nirodhas ca yato ’sty adhyavasiyate sa asrayah param brahma paramatmeti sabdyate @VCONTINUE = abhasah srstir nirodho layas ca yato bhavaty adhyavasiyata upalabhyate jivanam jïanendriyesu prakasate ca sa brahmeti paramatmeti prasiddha asrayah kathyate. iti-sabdah prakararthas tena bhagavan iti ca. asya vivrttir agre vidheya. “The supreme one, who is celebrated as the Supreme Being or the Supreme Soul, is the supreme source of the cosmic manifestation, as well as its reservoir and winding up. Thus He is the Supreme Fountainhead, the Absolute Truth” (Bhag. 2.10.7). In this verse the abhasa (“appearance”) is material creation, and the nirodha (“cessation”) is its dissolution. The word yatah refers to the one from whom the creation emanates, by whom it is made perceivable to the jivas’ senses (adhyavasiyate), and in whom it is dissolved. That renowned fountainhead of existence—the asraya—is known as Brahman (the Supreme Truth) and Paramatma (the Supersoul). Here the word iti expresses the idea of a complete category, thus implying that Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is included as well. Later we shall explain the asraya in detail.

COMMENTARY Defining Srimad-Bhagavatam’s Tenth Topic Srimad-Bhagavatam’s description of the aforementioned ten topics culminates in the description of the asraya-tattva. A book that treats too many subjects will bewilder the reader and make it difficult for him to ascertain its ultimate purpose. This is clearly not the case with the Bhagavatam, however, for as stated here, the shelter of all the topics is the Supreme Lord. None of the other topics can be described without reference to the Lord, and indeed the whole reason why Srila Vyasadeva included them was to throw light on the Lord’s energies and activities. In other words, Srimad-Bhagavatam is really about only one topic—the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Lord creates the world, maintains it, and supplies the living beings with the senses and intelligence to perceive it. He blesses these suffering jivas with the Vedic instructions so that the seriously inquisitive can understand Him, and also with the association of His devotees to guide them. Despite these blessings, most jivas remain engaged in material activities, but some develop a desire to know the Lord. These can receive His grace and eventually attain mukti, liberation, which entails becoming situated in one’s own svarupa, or original nature. This is possible only by the Lord’s mercy, which is available to one who understands in truth the asraya- tattva described in Srimad-Bhagavatam. Thus it is rightly said that the purpose of the other nine topics is to explain the tenth topic, the asraya, who is the source of creation and annihilation. (The asraya is called Brahman by followers of jïana-yoga, and Paramatma by followers of astanga-yoga.) The word ca (“and”) in this verse (Bhag. 2.10.7) indicates the topics of the Bhagavatam not explicitly mentioned in the verse, such as posana. The word iti indicates Bhagavan, the term that the followers of bhakti-yoga use to designate the asraya. Thus this verse echoes one quoted earlier, namely the verse which includes the words brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdyate (Bhag. 1.2.11), which states that the nondual supreme consciousness is called Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan. In the next TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami gives further arguments to support the proposition that the Supreme Lord is the asraya, or shelter of everything.

English witness · section(s) 59

TEXT 59.1

sthitau ca tatrasraya-svarupam aparoksanubhavena vyasti-dvarapi spastam darsayitum adhyatmadi-vibhagam aha yo ’dhyatmiko ’yam purusah so ’sav evadhidaivikah yas tatrobhaya-vicchedah puruso hy adhibhautikah

ekam ekatarabhave yada nopalabhamahe @V1PLUS = tritayam tatra yo veda sa atma svasrayasrayah Sukadeva Gosvami next discusses the divisions of adhyatmika, adhidaivika, and adhibhautika. He does this to clarify the nature of the asraya, which he describes by referring to the direct, common experience of the individual microcosm: “This adhyatmika-purusa is the same as the adhidaivika-purusa, and he who creates the differentiation between these two is called the adhibhautika-purusa. In the absence of any one of these we do not perceive the other two. He who knows these three is the Lord, who, being independent of everything else, is the support of His own self and is the true asraya” [Bhag. 2.10.8–9].

TEXT 59.2

yo ’yam adhyatmikah purusas caksur-adi-karanabhimani drasta jivah sa evadhidaivikas caksur-ady-adhisthata suryadih. deha-srsteh purvam karananam adhisthanabhavenaksamataya karana-prakasa-kartrtvabhimani-tat-sahayayor ubhayor api tayor vrtti-bhedanudayena jivatva-matravisesat. tatas cobhayah karanabhimani-tad-adhisthatr-devata-rupo dvi-rupo vicchedo yasmat sa adhibhautikas caksur-golakady-upalaksito drsyo dehah purusa iti purusasya jivasyopadhih `sa va esa puruso ’nna-rasa-mayah' ity-adi-sruteh. The jiva, the seer, who identifies himself as the owner of his eyes and other senses, is the adhyatmika person. He is indeed also the adhidaivika person, the sun and other deities presiding over the eyes and other senses. Before the physical body is created, the senses have nowhere to reside and so cannot act. Consequently at this point the adhyatmika and adhidaivika persons are indistinguishable, since there has yet to appear a distinction between the functions of the ordinary jivas, who consider themselves independent actors and the illuminators of their senses, and the deities who help them. And that person because of whom there arises the conception of duality between the presumed owner of the senses and their presiding deities is called adhibhautika, the visible body consisting of the eyeball and other physical sense organs. This physical body is said to be a “person” because it is an upadhi superimposed upon the real person, the jiva. The sruti states, “This [adhibhautika] person consists of food and vital fluids” [Taittiriya Up. 2.1.1].

COMMENTARY The Lord Is the Ultimate Shelter In the previous TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami showed that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the asraya-tattva, the support of everything, even from the macrocosmic viewpoint. Now he further explains that the Lord is the support of each individual in his day- to-day sensory experiences. The originally pure living being who misidentifies himself with the senses is called the adhyatmika-purusa, the presiding deities of the senses are called the adhidaivika-purusa, and the visible physical body, along with the sense objects, is called the adhibhautika-purusa. The adhibhautika-purusa creates the distinction between the adhyatmika-purusa and the adhidaivika-purusa. Before the birth of one’s body, one cannot distinguish the latter two purusas because they are merged as if they are the same jiva. In this regard Sripada Baladeva Vidyabhusana writes, dehotpatteh purvam api jivena sardham indriyani tad-devatas ca santy eva: “Even before the creation of the gross body, the senses and their presiding deities are present with the jiva.” At this stage there is no distinction between the deities and the jivas, because no physical body exists yet. When the physical body comes into existence the senses come and sit in it, and their respective presiding deities take charge of them. At that time one can distinctly perceive the activities of the presiding deities. The eyes, ears, and other senses that we see in the physical body are not the real senses: rather, they are the seats for the actual senses, which are subtle. Lord Krsna confirms this in the fifteenth chapter of the Bhagavad-gita. After asserting that the living entity is His eternal fragmental part, the Lord states that the jiva attracts the mind and five senses, which are situated in material nature, meaning that the jiva accepts them as his own. Krsna then says that when the soul quits his body he carries his five senses and his mind from their seats into his next body, just as the air carries aromas. Obviously, at the time of death the visible ears and eyes do not disappear. Rather, the subtle senses situated in them, along with the mind, are carried away by the soul. Another reason why the physical body is called purusa, or “person,” is that the soul identifies himself with it. This illusion prompts a person to say “I am sick” when actually his body is sick. All bodily designations, such as “small man,” “tall man,” “American,” “Indian,” “boy,” and “girl,” are based on the jiva’s illusion that he is the material body. The Vedic statement Srila Jiva Gosvami quotes in this TEXT confirms the usage of the term purusa for the body. In the next TEXT Jiva Gosvami explains the second of the two Bhagavatam verses he quoted in TEXT 59.1, namely 2.10.9.

English witness · section(s) 60

TEXT 60.1

`ekam ekatarabhave' ity esam anyonya-sapeksa-siddhatvena anasrayatvam darsayati. tatha hi drsyam vina tat-pratity-anumeyam karanam na sidhyati napi drasta na ca tad vina karana-pravrtty-anumeyas tad-adhisthata suryadir na ca tam vina karanam pravartate na ca tad vina drsyam ity ekatarasyabhava ekam nopalabhamahe. tatra tada tat tritayam alocanatmakena pratyayena yo veda saksitaya pasyati sa paramatma asrayah. tesam api parasparam asrayatvam astiti tad-vyavacchedartham visesanam svasrayo ’nanyasrayah, sa casav anyesam asrayas ceti. tatramsamsinoh suddha-jiva-paramatmanor abhedamsa-svikarenaivasraya uktah. The verse beginning ekam ekatarabhave [Bhag. 2.10.9] shows how the fact that all of these [purusas] are mutually dependent in effect means that none of them is the asraya. The explanation is as follows: Without the presence of the visible object there is no basis for the existence of either the sense organ (whose presence is inferred from perception of the object) or the seer. And without the seer, the sun-god and other presiding deities of perception also have no basis for existing. Without the presiding deity of sight, the sense of sight cannot act, and without the sense of sight there can be no perception. Thus in the absence of any one [of the three purusas] we cannot find either of the others. Such being the case, the one who knows all three of these, perceiving them visually as their witness—namely the Supersoul—is indeed the actual asraya, or shelter. In refutation of the idea that the three purusas are shelters for one another, the Supersoul is specifically characterized as svasraya, His own shelter, meaning that He has no other shelter and is consequently the shelter of all others. In this con TEXT the living entity is also called asraya, but only in the sense of emphasizing the partial nondifference between the pure jiva and the Supersoul, who are related as part and whole, respectively.

TEXT 60.2

atah `paro ’pi manute ’nartham’ iti jagrat-svapna-susuptam ca gunato buddhi-vrttayah tasam vilaksano jivah saksitvena viniscitah @VCONTINUE = iti `suddho vicaste hy avisuddha-kartuh' ity-ady-uktasya saksi-samjïinah suddha-jivasyasrayatvam na sankaniyam. atha va nanv adhyatmikadinam apy asrayatvam asty eva. satyam tathapi parasparasrayatvan na tatrasrayata-kaivalyam iti te tv asraya-sabdena mukhyataya nocyanta ity aha, ekam iti. The pure jiva is designated as the witness in such statements as “Although transcendental, he considers himself a material product” [Bhag. 1.7.5]; “Waking awareness, dream, and deep sleep are the functions of the mind, caused by the modes of material nature. The individual soul has been ascertained to be distinct from these functions, as their witness” [Bhag. 11.13.27]; and “The pure one witnesses the actions of the impure agent, the mind” [Bhag. 5.11.12]. The pure jiva being characterized thus, it cannot reasonably be proposed that this jiva, known as the witness, is the asraya. Alternatively, one might propose that the aspects of adhyatmika and so on are also asrayas. We answer that this is true, but still, since they are dependent on one another, none of them is exclusively the asraya; as the verse beginning ekam states, it is not in the direct, literal sense that they are referred to as asrayas .

TEXT 60.3

tarhi saksina evastam asrayatvam tatraha tritayam iti. sa atma saksi jivas tu yah svasrayo ’nanyasrayah paramatma sa evasrayo yasya tatha-bhuta ity anayor bhedah. vaksyate ca hamsa-guhya-stave @VL1 = sarvam puman veda gunams ca taj-jïo @VL2 = na veda sarva-jïam anantam ide @VCONTINUE = iti. tasmad abhasas cety-adinoktah paramatmaivasraya iti. Sri-sukah. “Then let the witness (the jiva) be the shelter.” In answer the words beginning tritayam are spoken: The witnessing self, the jiva, is called svasraya (“his own shelter”), but in fact his asraya is the Supersoul, who has no other asraya; this is the difference between the two. Thus the Hamsa-guhya prayers [Bhag. 6.4.25] say, “A person who knows the modes of nature may know everything about them, but he does not know the all-knowing one. I worship that unlimited Lord.” Thus it is that the Supersoul, described in such statements as the one beginning abhasas ca [Bhag. 2.10.7], is alone the asraya. The verse under discussion [Bhag. 2.10.9] was spoken by Sri Suka.

COMMENTARY The Jiva Is Not the Ultimate Shelter Srila Jiva Gosvami shows here that except for the Supreme Lord none can be the asraya, Srimad-Bhagavatam’s tenth topic. From a cursory look, the jivas and presiding deities appear to be the asrayas. The jiva, or conditioned soul, is the asraya for his gross body, and the presiding deities are the asraya for the senses. But none of them can be asrayas independent of the others. For example, without a gross body the conditioned jiva would be unable to see a flower because the distinction between the presiding deity of the eyes and the jiva would not then be manifest. Conversely, when the body is manifest, then the senses come and sit in their respective seats and are presided over by their respective demigods. Still, if the demigods do not provide support, the senses cannot perceive. The presiding deity of the eye, for example, is the sun. Without the sun’s light the eye cannot perceive visible objects, even with the jiva’s support. For proper perception all three supports must be present: the jiva (the adhyatmika-purusa), the gross body (the adhibhautika-purusa), and the demigods (the adhidaivika-purusa). The one who witnesses all the activities of these three purusas is the Paramatma, who is the asraya for Himself as well as the jiva. He is the ultimate asraya. Although the jiva witnesses his own various mental states, he is not their ultimate basis. Sometimes the jiva is referred to as the asraya in consideration of his being a minute fraction of the Lord and thus nondifferent from Him, but the jiva is never the asraya in the primary sense. The jiva is the marginal energy of the Supreme Lord, the energetic, and as such the jiva is always dependent on Him. Still, because the jiva is part and parcel of the Lord he has some of His characteristics in very minute degree, just as a drop of ocean water has some of the ocean’s qualities. But only some: The ocean has waves, tides, and storms, none of which a single drop can accommodate. Also, unlike the drop of ocean water, the ocean shelters the whole oceanic world and is suitable for sailing or surfing. Similarly, the Supreme Lord is the shelter and source of happiness for all existence, a position no sane jiva can claim. Thus the jiva, although one with the Lord in some respects, should not be considered the object of worship independent of the Lord, the basis of all existence. The Lord is the Supreme substratum or shelter for Himself as well as others. This is the import of Sukadeva Gosvami’s statements explaining the various topics treated in Srimad- Bhagavatam. Jiva Gosvami will now quote Srila Suta Gosvami as the latter draws the same conclusion from a slightly different angle while explaining the characteristics of a Maha-purana.