 #div class="mw-parser-output"#
When Lord Chaitanya met Sarbabhouma Bhattacharya at Jagannath Puri, Bhattacharya, as the great logician of the day, also wanted to teach Him Vedanta. Bhattacharya was an elderly man of the age of Lord Chaitanya' s father, and therefore he took compassion on the young Sannyasi; he requested that He should learn Vedanta Sutra from him, otherwise it would be difficult to continue as a young Sannyasi. When the Lord agreed to learn Vedanta philosophy from Bhattacharya, he began to teach Him in the temple of Jagannath. Bhattacharya spoke to the Lord about Vedanta Sutra continually for seven days, and the Lord silently heard him without speaking a word. On the eighth day of teaching, Sarbabhouma Bhattacharya enquired from the Lord, "You are hearing Vedanta Sutra from me for the last week, but You do not inquire or say anything as to whether I am explaining it nicely. So I cannot tell whether You understand me or not."
#$p#The Lord replied as follows: "I am a fool, I have no study of Vedanta Sutra, but you asked Me to hear you, and therefore I am trying to hear you. You said that it is the duty of every Sannyasi to hear Vedanta Sutra, so I simply hear; but the meaning which you create—that I cannot understand." In other words, the Lord was explaining that in the Mayavadi Sampradaya there are many so-called Sannyasis who are even illiterate and have not sufficient intelligence but just as a matter of formality they hear Vedanta Sutra from their Spiritual Master, although they do not understand anything. So far as Lord Chaitanya was concerned, He did not understand the explanation of Bhattacharya because He did not approve of the explanation of Mayavadi philosophy.
#$p#When He said that He was an uneducated fool Who could not follow, Bhattacharya replied to Him, "If You do not follow what I am saying, how is it that You do not inquire, but simply sit down silently? It appears that You do have something to say about my explanation."
#$p#Then the Lord replied, "My dear sir, so far as the Vedanta Sutra or the codes of the Vedanta are concerned, I can understand the meaning very nicely, but the explanation which you are promoting is not understandable by Me. There is nothing difficult about the meaning of the original codes of Vedanta Sutra. But the way you were explaining them appears to be obscuring the real meaning of the codes. You do not elucidate the direct meaning of the Vedanta Sutra, but you imagine something and hide the true meaning. I think you have a particular doctrine, and you are trying to expound it through the codes."
#$p#According to Mukti Upanishad, there are 108 Upanishads. Some of them are: 1. Iso, 2. Kena, 3. Katha, 4. Prasna, 5. Mund, 6. Mandukya, 7. Tittirih, 8. Aitriya, 9. Chhandogya, 10. Brihadaranoyakam, 11. Brahma, 12. Jaivalya, 13. Javala, 14. Svetsva, 15. Hansa, 16. Arunih, 17. Garbha, 18. Narayana, etc. These 108 Upanishads contain all knowledge about the Absolute Truth. Sometimes people inquire about the meaning of these 108 prayer beads, but we think because there are 108 Upanishads which contain full knowledge of the Absolute Truth, therefore 108 beads are accepted. Sometimes, on the other hand, the Vaishnava transcendentalists think there are 108 companions of Lord Krishna in His Rasa Dance, and therefore 108 beads are accepted.
#$p#Lord Chaitanya protested against misinterpretations of the statements of the Upanishads, and so any explanation which did not follow the direct meaning of the Upanishad He did not accept. The direct interpretation is called Abhidavritti, whereas the indirect method is called Lakshnavritti. The indirect meaning, or Lakshnavritti, serves no purpose. There are four kinds of understanding, called: (1) direct understanding, (2) hypothetical understanding, (3) historical understanding, and (4) sound understanding. Out of these four kinds of understanding, to receive knowledge by sound understanding, the understanding from the Vedic Scriptures (which are the sound representation of the Absolute Truth), is the best. The traditional Vedic students accept this sound understanding as the best.
#$p#For example, the stool and bone of any living entity is considered the most impure thing by the Vedic literature; but, at the same time, the Vedic literature asserts that cow dung and the conch shell are the purest of all. Apparently these statements are contradictory, but because cow dung and the conch shell have been called pure in the Vedic literature, although they are the stool and bone of living entities, they are accepted as pure without any argument. They cannot be changed by our mundane arguments added to the statements of the Vedas. If we want to understand the statements by indirect interpretation under some hypothesis, then we challenge the evidential quality of the Vedic statement. In other words, Vedic statements cannot be accepted by our imperfect interpretation; they must be accepted as they are. Otherwise there is no authority in the Vedic statement.
#$p#According to Lord Chaitanya, persons who try to always find some interpretation of the Vedic statements are not at all intelligent. They mislead their followers by some innovation of their own interpretation. In India there is a class who are known as Aryasamajist, who say that they accept only the original Vedas and no other Vedic literature. But their purpose is only to make their own interpretation, and according to Lord Chaitanya such interpretation is not accepted. Neither are they Vedic. Lord Chaitanya then said that the Vedic statements of the Upanishads are just like sunlight; as in the sunlight everything is clear and very distinct, so the statements in the Vedas are distinct and clear. The Mayavadi philosophers cover the sunlight with the cloud of their misinterpretation.
#$p#He then said that all Vedic statements of the Upanishads aim at the truth, known as Brahman. The meaning of the word Brahman is "the greatest," and when you speak of the greatest we must immediately understand that greatest means the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Source of all emanations. Unless the greatest is filled with six opulences it cannot be the greatest; therefore the greatest, with the fullness of six opulences, means the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In other words, the Supreme Brahman is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the Bhagavad Gita also, in the Tenth Chapter, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, is accepted as the Supreme Brahman. The conceptions of the impersonal Brahman and the localized Supersoul are contained within the understanding of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
#$p#Whenever we speak of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, we add the word "Sri": this means that He is full with six opulences, and, in other words, He is eternally a Person. Otherwise the six opulences cannot be present in fullness. Therefore, if we say that the Supreme Absolute Truth is impersonal, it means that He is not a Person of this material world. To distinguish His transcendental Body from the material body, some have explained Him as materially impersonal. In other words, material personality has been denied and Spiritual Personality has been established. In the Svetasvatara Upanishad, Third Chapter, 19th verse, it has been clearly explained that the Absolute Truth has no material legs and hands, but still He has spiritual hands by which He accepts everything which we offer to Him. He has no material eyes, but He has spiritual eyes by which He can see everything and anything. He has no material ears but He can hear everything and anything. He has perfect senses—therefore He knows past, future and present. He knows everything, but nobody can understand Him, because by material senses He cannot be understood. He is the Origin of all emanations and therefore He is the Supreme, the greatest, the Personality of Godhead.
#$p#There are many such Vedic hymns which definitely establish that the Supreme Absolute Truth is a Person, but that He is not a Person of this material world. In the Hayasirsa Pancharatra there is a nice verse which explains that, in each and every Upanishad the Supreme Brahman is first viewed as impersonal, but at the end there is acceptance of the Personal Form of the Supreme Lord. Another example, in the Isa Upanishad—the 15th Mantra runs as follows:
#dl##dd#Hiranmayena patrena satysya apihitam mukhm#/dd#
#dd#Jat tvam pusan, apavrinu satya dharmaya dri staye#/dd##/dl#
This verse indicates that everyone should be engaged in devotional service to the Supreme Lord; "O my Lord, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, You are the Maintainer of the whole Universe. Everyone is sustained by Your mercy. Therefore, devotional service unto You is the true religion of life. I am therefore engaged in such devotional service, and I expect that You will please maintain me, and ever increasingly engage me in Your transcendental service. For the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the eternal Form of Sat-Chit-Ananda, and Your effulgence is spread all over the Creation, just like the sunshine. Where the sun disc is covered by the glaring sunshine, similarly Your transcendental Form is covered by the Brahmajyoti. I desire to find You within the Brahmajyoti—therefore please remove this glaring effulgence."
#$p#In this verse of Isa Upanishad it is clearly stated that the eternal, blissful, cognizant Form of the Supreme Lord is to be found within the glaring effulgence of Brahmajyoti. Brahmajyoti is the emanation from the Personal Body of the Supreme Lord. Therefore the Personal Body of the Personality of Godhead is the source of the Brahmajyoti as it is described in the Bhagavad Gita. The impersonal Brahman is dependent on the Supreme Personality. This is stated in the Hayasirsa Pancharatra; and, in any Upanishad or Vedic Scripture, wherever there is talk first of the impersonal Brahman, the Supreme Personality is finally established at the end. Just as we have quoted above from the Isa Upanishad, the Supreme Absolute Truth is both impersonal and Personal eternally, but His Personal aspect is more important than the impersonal concept.
#$p#The Mantra in the Taetreia Upanishad is: Yato va imani bhutani jayante. According to this Mantra this cosmic manifestation is an emanation from the Supreme Absolute Truth, and it rests also in the Supreme Absolute Truth. So the Absolute Truth becomes the ablative and causative and locative Performer. Therefore, as Performer, He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. These are the symptoms of Personality. This Absolute Truth being ablative Performer of this cosmic manifestation, it is to be concluded that He has thinking, feeling and willing. Without these three psychic symptoms there is no possibility of such a nice arrangement and design of the cosmic manifestation. Then again He is causative: He is the Original Designer of the cosmic manifestation. And He is locative: everything is resting in His energy. These are the clear symptoms of His Personality.
#$p#Then again, in the Chandyago Upanishad, when the Supreme Personality of Godhead desires to become many, He turns over the material Nature. As it is confirmed in the Taiitariya Upanishad, "The Lord glanced over the material Nature." There was no existence of the cosmic manifestation before His glancing, and therefore this glancing does not mean that He has a glancing or seeing power which is materially contaminated. His seeing power existed before the material Creation, and therefore His body is also not material. His thinking, feeling and acting are transcendental. In other words it is to be concluded that the mind by which the Lord thinks, feels and wills, is transcendental; the eyes by which He glances over the material Nature are also transcendental. All of His senses existed before the material Creation, and so He has His transcendental Body, transcendental Mind, and transcendental thinking, feeling and willing, This conclusion is the purpose of all the Vedic literature. In all the Upanishads, the word Brahman is found everywhere. In the Srimad Bhagwatam, Brahman, Paramatma and the Supreme Personality of Godhead are together calculated as the Absolute Truth. Therefore the Brahman conception and Paramatma realization also are grades or stages, and when ultimate realization is reached, that realization is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is the conclusion of all Vedic literature.
#$p#So, by the evidences of the different Vedic Scriptures, the Supreme Lord Krishna is accepted as the ultimate Goal of Brahman realization. Bhagavad Gita confirms that there is nothing superior to Krishna. The great Acharya of Brahma's disciplic succession, Madhva Acharya, has described—in connection with his explanation of the Vedanta Sutra—that everything can be seen through the authorities of the Scriptures. He has quoted a verse from the Bhobishya Purana in which it is stated that Rig Veda, Sam Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahabharata, Pancharatracum, and the original Ramayan, are actually evidential Vedic literature, and the Puranas which are accepted by the Vaishnavas are also accepted as evidential Vedic literature. Whatever is spoken in that literaute should be taken without any argument as the ultimate conclusion, #i#and in all that literature it is found that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead#/i#.
#/div# |
#div class="mw-parser-output"#
When Lord Caitanya met Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya at Jagannātha Purī, the Bhaṭṭācārya, being the greatest logician of the day, wanted to teach the Lord Vedānta philosophy. Since the Bhaṭṭācārya was an elderly man, the age of Lord Caitanya’s father, He took compassion on the young #i#sannyāsī#/i# and requested Him to learn the #i#Vedānta-sūtra#/i# from him. Otherwise, the Bhaṭṭācārya maintained, it would be difficult for the youthful Lord Caitanya to continue as a #i#sannyāsī#/i#. When the Lord agreed, the Bhaṭṭācārya began to teach Him in the temple of Jagannātha. The Bhaṭṭācārya spoke to the Lord about the #i#Vedānta-sūtra#/i# continually for seven days, and the Lord heard him without speaking a word. On the eighth day the Bhaṭṭācārya said, “You have been hearing the #i#Vedānta-sūtra#/i# from me for the past week, but You have not asked any questions, nor have You indicated whether I am explaining it nicely. So I cannot tell whether You are understanding me or not.”
#$p#“I am a fool,” the Lord replied. “I have no capacity to study the #i#Vedānta-sūtra#/i#, but since you asked Me to hear you, I am trying to listen. I am simply listening to you because you said that it is the duty of every #i#sannyāsī#/i# to hear the #i#Vedānta-sūtra#/i#. But as far as your explanation is concerned—that I cannot understand.” Thus the Lord indicated that in the Māyāvādī #i#sampradāya#/i# there are many so-called #i#sannyāsīs#/i# who, even though illiterate and unintelligent, hear the #i#Vedānta-sūtra#/i# from their spiritual master just as a matter of formality. Although they listen, they do not understand anything. As far as Lord Caitanya was concerned, the reason He said He did not understand the explanation of the Bhaṭṭācārya was not because it was too difficult for Him to understand but because He did not approve of the Māyāvādī interpretation.
#$p#When the Lord said that He was an uneducated fool and could not follow the expositions, the Bhaṭṭācārya replied: “If You do not follow what I am saying, why don’t You inquire? Why do You simply sit silently? It appears that You do have something to say about my explanations.”
#$p#“My dear sir,” the Lord replied, “as far as the #i#Vedānta-sūtra#/i# itself is concerned, I can understand the meaning quite well. But I cannot understand your explanations. There is nothing difficult about understanding the meaning of the original aphorisms of the #i#Vedānta-sūtra#/i#, but the way you explain them obscures the real meaning. You do not elucidate the direct meaning but imagine something and thus obscure the true meaning. I think that you have a particular doctrine you are trying to expound through the aphorisms of the #i#Vedānta-sūtra#/i#.”
#$p#According to the #i#Muktikā Upaniṣad#/i#, there are 108 #i#Upaniṣads#/i#. Among these are the (1) #i#Īśa#/i#, (2) #i#Kena#/i#, (3) #i#Kaṭha#/i#, (4) #i#Praśna#/i#, (5) #i#Muṇḍaka#/i#, (6) #i#Māṇḍūkya#/i#, (7) #i#Taittirīya#/i#, (8) #i#Aitareya#/i#, (9) #i#Chāndogya#/i#, (10) #i#Bṛhad-āraṇyaka#/i#, (11) #i#Brahma#/i#, (12) #i#Kaivalya#/i#, (13) #i#Jābāla#/i#, (14) #i#Śvetāśvatara#/i#, (15) #i#Haṁsa#/i#, (16) #i#Āruṇeya#/i#, (17) #i#Garbha#/i# and (18) #i#Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad#/i#. The 108 #i#Upaniṣads#/i# contain all knowledge about the Absolute Truth. Sometimes people ask why Vaiṣṇavas use 108 prayer beads for chanting the holy names. We think it is because there are 108 #i#Upaniṣads#/i# containing full knowledge of the Absolute Truth. On the other hand, some Vaiṣṇava transcendentalists think that the 108 beads represent the 108 companions of Lord Kṛṣṇa in His #i#rāsa#/i# dance.
#$p#Lord Caitanya protested against misinterpretations of the #i#Upaniṣads#/i#, rejecting any explanation which did not give their direct meaning. The direct interpretation is called #i#abhidhā-vṛtti#/i#, whereas the indirect interpretation is called #i#lakṣaṇā-vṛtti#/i#. The indirect interpretation serves no purpose. There are four kinds of understanding: (1) direct understanding (#i#pratyakṣa#/i#), (2) hypothetical understanding (#i#anumāna#/i#), (3) historical understanding (#i#aitihya#/i#) and (4) understanding through sound (#i#śabda#/i#). Of these four, understanding from the Vedic scriptures, the sound representations of the Absolute Truth, is the best method. Traditional Vedic students accept understanding through sound to be the best.
#$p#The stool and bone of any living entity are considered to be impure according to the Vedic literature, yet the same Vedic literature asserts that cow dung and conch shells are very pure. Apparently these statements are contradictory, but because cow dung and conch shells are considered pure by the #i#Vedas#/i#, they are accepted as pure by the followers of the #i#Vedas#/i#, without argument. If we try to understand the statements by indirect interpretation, creating some hypothesis, then we challenge the evidential authority of the Vedic statements. In other words, Vedic statements cannot be accepted according to our imperfect interpretations; they must be accepted as they are. If they are not accepted in this way, there is no authority in the Vedic statements.
#$p#According to Lord Caitanya, those who try to give some personal interpretation to Vedic statements are not at all intelligent. They mislead their followers by inventing their own interpretations. In India there is a class of men known as Ārya-samājists, who say that they accept the original #i#Vedas#/i# only and reject all other Vedic literature. The motive of these people, however, is to give their own interpretation. According to Lord Caitanya, such interpretations are not to be accepted. They are simply not Vedic. Lord Caitanya said that the Vedic statements of the #i#Upaniṣads#/i# are like sunlight. Everything is clear and very distinct when it is seen in the sunlight; the statements of the #i#Vedas#/i# are similarly clear and distinct. The Māyāvādī philosophers simply cover the sunlight with the cloud of their misinterpretation.
#$p#Lord Caitanya then said that all the Vedic statements of the #i#Upaniṣads#/i# aim at the ultimate truth, known as Brahman. The word Brahman means “the greatest,” and “the greatest” should immediately be understood to refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the source of all emanations. Unless the greatest possesses six opulences in full, he cannot be called the greatest. The greatest is therefore the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In other words, the Supreme Brahman is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the #i#Bhagavad-gītā#/i# (10.12), the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, is accepted by Arjuna as the Supreme Brahman. The conceptions of the impersonal Brahman and the localized Supersoul are contained within the understanding of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
#$p#Whenever we speak of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, we add the word #i#śrī#/i#, indicating that He is full with six opulences. This means that He is eternally a person; if He were not a person, the six opulences could not be present in fullness. Therefore, whenever it is said that the Supreme Absolute Truth is impersonal, what is meant is that His personality is not material. To distinguish His transcendental body from material bodies, some philosophers have explained Him as having no material personality. In other words, His material personality is denied and His spiritual personality is established. In the #i#Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad#/i# (3.19) this is clearly explained:
#dl##dd##i#apāṇi-pādo javano grahītā#/i# #i#paśyaty acakṣuḥ sa śṛṇoty akarṇaḥ#/i##/dd#
#dd##i#sa vetti vedyaṁ na ca tasyāsti vettā#/i# #i#tam āhur agryaṁ puruṣaṁ mahāntam#/i##/dd##/dl#
“The Absolute Truth has no material legs and hands, but He has spiritual hands by which He accepts everything offered to Him. He has no material eyes, but He has spiritual eyes by which He can see everything and anything. He has no material ears, but He can hear everything and anything with His spiritual ears. Having perfect senses, He knows past, future and present. Indeed, He knows everything, but no one can understand Him, for by material senses He cannot be understood. Being the origin of all emanations, He is the supreme, the greatest, the Personality of Godhead.”
#$p#There are many similar Vedic hymns which definitely establish that the Supreme Absolute Truth is a person who is not of this material world. The #i#Hayaśīrṣa-pañcarātra#/i# explains that although in each and every #i#Upaniṣad#/i# the Supreme Brahman is first viewed as impersonal, at the end the personal form of the Supreme Lord is accepted. Another example is #i#Śrī Īśopaniṣad#/i#, the fifteenth mantra of which runs as follows:
#dl##dd##i#hiraṇmayena pātreṇa#/i# #i#satyasyāpihitaṁ mukham#/i##/dd#
#dd##i#tat tvaṁ pūṣann apāvṛṇu#/i# #i#satya-dharmāya dṛṣṭaye#/i##/dd##/dl#
“O my Lord, O Supreme Personality of Godhead, You are the maintainer of the whole universe. Everyone is sustained by Your mercy. Therefore devotional service unto You is the true religion of life. I am engaged in such devotional service, and so I request You to please maintain me and ever-increasingly engage me in Your transcendental service. You are the eternal form of #i#sac-cid-ānanda#/i#, and Your effulgence is spread all over the creation, just like the sunshine. As the sun disc is covered by the glaring sunshine, so Your transcendental form is covered by the #i#brahma-jyoti#/i#. I desire to find You within that #i#brahma-jyoti#/i#. Therefore please remove this glaring effulgence.”
#$p#In this verse it is clearly stated that the eternal, blissful, cognizant form of the Supreme Lord is to be found within the glaring effulgence of the #i#brahma-jyoti#/i#, which emanates from the body of the Supreme Lord. Thus the personal body of the Lord is the source of the #i#brahma-jyoti#/i#, as confirmed in the #i#Bhagavad-gītā#/i# (14.27). That the impersonal Brahman is dependent on the Supreme Personality is also stated in the #i#Hayaśīrṣa-pañcarātra#/i#. In every other Vedic scripture, such as the #i#Upaniṣads#/i#, whenever there is talk of the impersonal Brahman in the beginning, the Supreme Personality is finally established at the end. The #i#Īśopaniṣad#/i# mantra we cited above indicates that the Supreme Absolute Truth is both impersonal and personal eternally, but that His personal aspect is more important than the impersonal one.
#$p#According to a mantra in the #i#Taittirīya Upaniṣad#/i#—#i#yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante#/i#—this cosmic manifestation is an emanation from the Supreme Absolute Truth and it rests in the Supreme Absolute Truth. Thus the Absolute Truth has been called the ablative, causative and locative performer, and as such He must be the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for these are symptoms of personality. As the ablative performer, He is the source of all thinking, feeling and willing in this cosmic manifestation. Without thinking, feeling and willing, there is no possibility of the arrangement and design of the cosmic manifestation. Then again, He is causative, for He is the original designer of the cosmos. And He is also locative: that is, everything is resting in His energy. These attributes are all clearly attributes of His personality.
#$p#In the #i#Chāndogya Upaniṣad#/i# (6.2.3), it is said that when the Supreme Personality of Godhead desires to become many, He glances over material nature. As also confirmed in #i#Aitareya Upaniṣad#/i# (1.1.1), #i#sa aikṣata#/i#: “The Lord glanced at material nature.” The cosmic manifestation did not exist before His glance; therefore His glance is not materially contaminated. His seeing power existed before the material creation; therefore His body is not material. His thinking, feeling and acting are all transcendental. In other words, it should be concluded that the mind by which the Lord thinks, feels and wills is transcendental, and that the eyes by which He glances over material nature are also transcendental. Since His transcendental body and all His senses existed before the material creation, the Lord also has a transcendental mind and transcendental thinking, feeling and willing. This is the conclusion of all Vedic literature.
#$p#The word Brahman is found everywhere throughout the #i#Upaniṣads#/i#. In #i#Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam#/i#, Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, are all taken together as the Absolute Truth. Brahman and Paramātmā realization are considered stages toward the ultimate realization, which is realization of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is the real conclusion of all Vedic literature.
#$p#Thus according to the evidences afforded by various Vedic scriptures, the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the ultimate goal of Brahman realization. The #i#Bhagavad-gītā#/i# (7.7) confirms that there is nothing superior to Kṛṣṇa. Madhvācārya, one of the greatest #i#ācāryas#/i# in Brahmā’s disciplic succession, has stated in his explanation of the #i#Vedānta-sūtra#/i# that everything can be seen through the authorities of the scriptures. He has quoted a verse from the #i#Bhaviṣya Purāṇa#/i# in which it is stated that the #i#Ṛg Veda#/i#, #i#Yajur Veda#/i#, #i#Sāma Veda#/i#, #i#Atharva Veda#/i#, #i#Mahābhārata#/i#, #i#Pañcarātra#/i# and the original #i#Rāmāyaṇa#/i# are actually Vedic evidence. The #i#Purāṇas#/i# accepted by the Vaiṣṇavas are also considered Vedic evidence. Indeed, whatever is contained in that literature should be taken without argument as the ultimate conclusion, and all these literatures proclaim Kṛṣṇa to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
#/div# |
Compare previous verse
|
Compare next verse 