TLC 24 (1968)
CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR
Talks with Sarbabhouma Battacharya
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."
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
- Hiranmayena patrena satysya apihitam mukhm
- Jat tvam pusan, apavrinu satya dharmaya dri staye
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."
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.
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.
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.
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, and in all that literature it is found that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.