BY: SUN STAFF
Mar 28, CANADA (SUN) —
Bhagavat Sandarbha
by Srila Jiva Goswami
SECTION FIFTY
The opposing Vedic statements about Lord's name and form are reconciled.
Sri Daksha established the Lord's name and form to the people who argue among each other using the Vedic statements which deny and accept the Lord's name and form. (S.B. 6.4.32): "'The followers of Yoga say that the Lord has a form, and the followers of Sankhya say that He is formless. They attribute opposing characteristics to the same object. However, there is no contradiction in their statements. You are the Supreme Brahman, equananimous, the shelter of both positive and negative logic."
The system which affirms that the Lord has form (astiti) is Yoga or the scriptural statements which prescribe worship of gross objects. The description of name and form of the Lord in this system is of all names such as a pot or a cloth and also of His form such as Patala planet which is considered His feet. This is because of the simplicity in imagining the visible objects.
The system which states that Lord has no form (nastiti) is Sankhya or the jnana-sastra. In this system the name and form of the Lord are denied using the negative statements of the Vedas. Because the names and forms in this material world are imaginary it is concluded that the Absolute has no names and forms what so ever.
The two opinions referred to in this verse were explained earlier such as in (S.B. 6.4.28) "He has all names and all forms", and also in (S.B. 6.4.29) "Whatever is described in words and ascertained by intelligence, whatever is perceived by the senses and conceived by the mind, is all a product of Maya and is not the Absolute Reality. Therefore both philosophies of astiti and nastiti have Lord as the common subject. The contention is clarified--of the two systems who describe opposing attributes of astiti and nastiti.
A doubt is raised: Why not assume that these two systems describe different objects? That is not true as the verse says ekasthayoh, they have a common subject. Under the controversy only that object which appears to synthesize will be acceptable to both of them. What is that synthesis? That which is param, or distinct from both and their absolute lack. In which simultaneously it is possible to say that it has and does not have name and form. The meaning is that such a distinct object is certainly characterized with name and form.
This is to be stated: By the meaning of the positive and negative statements of the Vedas regarding name and form, the Vedas would be contradictory, if applied to the same subject. But because the Lord is transcendental, then by the previously stated logic, the Srutis are synthesized by considering the name and form as transcendental. This is established by the import of both the positive and negative statements of the Vedas. Thus the contention between two systems is only apparent.
Dhruva Maharaj also speaks of this lack of controversy in the same manner (4.9.13) "O unborn Supreme Lord, I am able to know only this gross universal form which is full of animals, trees, mountains, birds, reptiles, demigods, demons, human beings and so on, having elements like mahat well knit in a series of cause and effect. But I do not know Your Supreme form which is beyond this and where all controversies meet their end."
In this verse, because the word "form" (rupam) is applicable to both known and unknown forms and also according to the statement from the Vishnu Purana (6.7.47) "O King, His form and no form, transcendental and material..." the form "Beyond this" (atah param) means the body characterized with four hands and so on. This will be proven later on. "I do not know" (navedmi from S.B. 4.9.13) means I did not know until now.
Daksha enlightens us in this very principle (S.B. 6.4.33): "The unlimited Lord, who is complete with the six opulences has no material name and form. Yet to show mercy to His devotees, who worship His Lotus feet, He manifests His transcendental name, form, birth and pastimes. May He be gracious upon me."
One who manifested name and form while being devoid of name and form. The meaning is that He manifested name and form along with birth and pastimes. Otherwise He would be imperfect so Daksha said unlimited, (ananta). If He has no name, form and so on then His power will become limited. So the Pracetas sang, "Your magnificence has no end thus You are called unlimited, (ananta)."
The cause behind their manifestation is that He is Bhagavan, possessor of power in the form of opulences. His power is not a product of Maya and thus the verse says paramah--one who possesses Lakshmi, the personification of transcendental energy called para. The import is that otherwise He will not be called transcendental or parama. So it is said: "Therefore His attributes and pastimes are not manifest by Maya but from His opulence. Because the Lord is free from Maya, amayi, He is known as the transcendental parama." A doubt is raised: The only proof in whether or not the Lord has all names, possesses universal form, or has neither, are the respective worshipers of these two features. But who are they, with respect to name and form? Expecting this Daksha said: To bless those who worship Your feet.
The Absolute reality does not become completely manifest to those who take to the process of Yoga or Sankhya. This occurs only by the process of devotion. This is confirmed by the Sruti (Brahma Sutra, Madhva Bhashya 3.3.54 Mathara-Srutih) "Only Bhakti leads to Him, only bhakti reveals Him." So it is properly said that their dispute is only apparent. This is the import.
Therefore just afterwards Sri Sukadeva Gosvami said (6.4.35,36):
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Hari, who is extremely affectionate to His devotees, was very pleased by the prayers offered by Daksha, and thus He appeared at that holy place known as Aghamarshana. O Maharaja Parikshit, best of the Kuru dynasty, the Lord's lotus feet rested on the shoulders of His carrier, Garuda and so on.
The phrase "those who are worshiping His feet" (padamulam bhajatam S.B.6.4.33) implies that His form existed even before He manifested it. As the Sruti says, "His primeval lotus foot spread around." The past tense in the term bheje, manifested, strengthens the above conclusion and indicates that His name and form are beginningless. The term ananta unlimited also implies that His name and form are also unlimited. Sridhara Swami also comments (on verse 6.4.33) "Although devoid of material name and form..."
COMMENTARY
In the last few Texts Lord's name and form have been established as spiritual. In the Vedas and Vedic literature there are both types of statements--Lord has name and form, He has no name and form. This is contradictory. In this Text Jiva Gosvami shows how both types of Vedic statements--that grant or deny the Lord's name and form--describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead. To accomplish this he refers to the Hamsaguhya prayers of Daksha.
The ten sons of King Pracinbarhi known as the Pracetas, performed austerities under the ocean for an extended period. When they came out and saw the earth overrun by tall trees, they were incensed and in anger ignited the trees with fire and wind generated from their mouths. The moon-god, who is the presiding deity of the trees, pacified the Pracetas by offering them the beautiful daughter of Pramloca Apsara named Varkshi, in marriage. Daksha Maharaja was born from her and later went to a holy place called Aghamarshana to perform severe penance for the purpose of increasing the population. There he recited the Hamsaguhya stotra for the glorification of Lord Vishnu.
In the verse under discussion (S.B. 6.4.32) Daksha reconciles the apparent contradiction between the teachings of yoga and that of sankhya. Here the word yoga, according to Srila Jiva Gosvami, refers to the upasana bhakti scriptures, which prescribe that neophytes should meditate on the universal form of the Lord. Neophyte means one who is attached to gross objects and have not developed a spiritual vision. It is difficult for such people to conceive about Lord' spiritual form. By the principle that an item which causes the disease can also cure it (S.B.1.6.33) such people are advised to meditate on material names and forms as names and forms of the Lord. This way they learn to see Lord in everything and their consciousness becomes elevated. Sri Sukadeva describes this process to Parikshita Maharaja in the second canto (S.B. 2.1.23, 24, 25):
"One should control the sitting posture, regulate the breathing process by the yogic pranayama and thus control the mind and senses and with intelligence apply the mind to the gross potencies of the Lord (called the virat-rupa)."
"This gigantic manifestation of the phenomenal material world as a whole is the personal body of the Absolute Truth, wherein the universal resultant past, present and future of material time is experienced."
"The gigantic universal form of the Personality of Godhead, within the body of the universal shell, which is covered by sevenfold material elements, is the subject for the virat conception."
After this Sukadeva explains how one should meditate on the various planetary systems beginning from Patala loka which is considered the sole of the Lord's foot. In this way the yoga sastra accepts that the Lord has name and form. But these are not the real name and form of the Lord.
Sankhya scriptures, however, deny name and form in the Absolute. Sankhya means knowledge, samyak khyayate iti sankhyam--"that which properly defines or explains is called sankhya." This refers to the path of jnana yoga, which is based on the process of determining the Absolute Truth by elimination, neti neti, not this, not this.' While teaching Gargi, the Sage Yajnavalkya said, acaksushkamsrotramavagamanas, "Brahman has no name, ears, mind, or organ of speech." This process concludes that Brahman is beyond the visible material world. Since it denies Brahman all material qualities, it hints that He has transcendental features. That is the purpose of denial although less intelligent people take these denial Absolute.
Through the yoga system one is trained to constantly remember the Lord by perceiving all material elements as parts of the universal body of the Lord. When the yogi advances, however, he meditates on the Supersoul within his heart. Through the Sankhya system one is trained to constantly think of the Lord by remembering that He is unlike any material object perceived by the senses. Sankhya philosophy holds that the Lord cannot have material name, form, or qualities and thus encourages one to fix his mind on the Absolute Truth. Real purpose of both the systems is to attain the same goal, which is to remember the Personality of Godhead and thus there is no contradiction between the accepting process of Yoga (astiti) and the rejecting process of the Sankhya (nastiti). This is the meaning of the words avekshitam (when analyzed) and anukulam (no opposition).
In the Second Canto, Sri Suka says that yogis reject the gross and subtle material forms to meditate on the Lord (S.B. 2.10.35):
"I have explained to you the subtle and gross forms of the Lord. Both of these are manifestations of the Lord's external energy. The devotees who know the reality, however, do not accept them as objects of meditation."
Regarding the process of neti neti Sri Suka says (S.B. 2.2.18):
"The transcendentalists desire to avoid everything godless by the process of 'not this, not this'. They give up crookedness of heart by abandoning the sense of proprietorship in respect to body and possessions. They develop friendship with the Lord by always embracing His form within their heart. Thus Lord Vishnu is considered the Supreme destination."
Since the goal is the same, there is no contradiction between the two paths, only the means is different. One cannot envision the universal form without accepting the substratum just as one cannot compose a painting without a canvas, sati kudye citram nyaya. Imagination needs a basis in reality. One sees water in a mirage only because he is familiar with the real substance. One can imagine horns on a rabbit because he has experienced both independently. Similarly one can imagine the universal form of the Lord, because the universe and the Lord's form exist separately as tangible realities.
In the same way, denial has a basis and limit. For example, suppose twenty students are sitting in a row and someone is searching for Krishna dasa. The basis of this example is that Krishna dasa exists somewhere, so pointing to the first student he asks, "Is this Krishna dasa?" The teacher replies "not him, not him". The same question is posed regarding the next student and the teacher again replies "not him, not him". This process is repeated until the investigator finds Krishna dasa. Thus the process of neti neti is only limited denial; it is not Absolute. Its purpose is to deny that the Lord has material qualities.
Moreover, according to Vedic logic, one cannot deny that which does not exist, aprasiddha-pratiyogino'bhavo manyante naiva tarkikah. If something has never existed, does not exist at present, and will never exist in the future, then one cannot say anything about it. Hence denial of the Lord's name and form is not absolute, but refers only to certain names and forms, because to deny His name and form means that name and form exist somewhere.
The Lord is the source of all names and forms, aham sarvasy aprabhavah, then He also must have names and forms. Thus there are Vedic mantras that simultaneously deny and accept qualities in the Lord such as in the Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.11, sakshi ceta devalo nirgunasca,"He is the witness, the bestower of intelligence, the Absolute and yet He is devoid of qualities." And in the Bhagavad-gita Sri Krishna confirms that there is no conflict between Sankhya and Yoga (B.g. 5.5):
"One who knows that the position reached by means of sankhya can also be attained by yoga, and who therefore sees both on the same level, sees things as they are."
Daksha referred to these two processes earlier in verses (S.B. 6.4.28, 29). First he says all names and forms belong to the Lord (the process of yoga), then he says that all names and forms perceived by the senses, including the mind, are products of Maya (the process of sankhya). Since the Lord has name and form, which are not produced by Maya, it means they are manifestations of His svarupa sakti.
Therefore, after expressing these seemingly opposite opinions, Daksha, reconciles them (S.B. 6.4.32) by stating that the Lord's name and form are param, transcendental. This means that the Lord's name and form are different from those accepted by the followers of yoga, and those rejected by the followers of Sankhya.
To confirm this Daksha speaks the next verse (S.B. 6.4.33). He says that the Lord does not have name and form (anama rupa) but manifests transcendental name and form out of mercy on His devotees. He does not have a name in the ordinary sense therefore, He is called anama. In the material world a person is different from his name. Thus a blind man may be named Padmalocana, "lotus-eyed". But Lord and His name are non-different.
Anama can also mean that no mortal can exhibit the power of the Lord's name. For example, the Lord is called Mukunda, "the giver of liberation", or Madana Mohana, "one who deludes cupid by His beauty." Though a mortal can have these names, he cannot live up to their meanings like the Lord can.
Furthermore, the Lord is called Ananta, unlimited. If it is said that He cannot have name and form, this imposes a limitation, and thus He cannot be truly unlimited. And by the same logic, if it is said that He cannot be denied names and forms, this imposes another limitation. He is called Ananta therefore, He possesses, and yet does not possess name and form and thus perfectly lives up to His name, Ananta. No one can limit Him positively or negatively. Thus He is rightly called Bhagavan, the master of unlimited inconceivable opulences. But this fact can be properly understood only by devotees. It is behind Yoga and Sankhya systems. Therefore Dhruva Maharaja said that everything is properly reconciled in the person of the Lord which is the highest manifestation of the Absolute--natah param parama vedmi na yatra vadah.
In the next Text Srila Jiva Gosvami relates the experience of Brahma about the form of the Lord.
Go to Section Fifty-one
Return to Section Forty-nine
