Section
3
The
meaning of Bhagavän
and Paramätmä
From this it is concluded that bliss, or änanda, is the unqualified object, viçeñya, all the energies are the qualifications viseñaëa and Bhagavän is the qualified object. In this way, being qualified with all potencies, Bhagavän is the undifferentiated reality because it is the complete manifestation of the Absolute Truth. From this it is concluded that because Brahman exhibits no specific qualities, It is the incomplete manifestation of Bhagavän. This will be explained in detail later on.
The meaning of the word Bhagavän is described by Sage Paräçara in the Viñëu Puräëa (6.5.66-69):
That which is unmanifest, un-ageing, inconceivable, unborn, un-decaying, undefinable, and formless; and thus is devoid of hands, legs, and other such bodily limbs; which is supreme, all-pervading, eternal, the cause of all beings yet without any cause; which is all-encompassing, but un-encompassed, the source of everything and is realized by the learned is called Brahman. It is the ultimate basis of everything and the object of meditation for the seekers of liberation. It is described in the words of the Vedas, It is the subtle spirit, the Supreme seat of Lord Viñëu. This Brahman, is the nature of Paramätmä, and is the meaning of the word 'Bhagavat'. The word Bhagavat represents that original imperishable Lord. "
After stating this the sage Paräçara further states:
O sage, the letter bha has two meanings--nourisher and supporter. The letter ga has three meanings--leader, carrier, and creator. The six qualities of controlling potency, inconceivable power, fame, wealth, knowledge, and renunciation in their fullness are called bhaga. All the living entities exist in the Lord who is the SuperSoul of all living entities and He, resides in all living entities. This is the meaning of the letter va. Therefore He is the imperishable Reality. "[V.P.6.5.73-75]
After saying this he further said [V.P.6.5.79]:
The word Bhagavän means knowledge, sense power, bodily strength, controlling power, inconceivable power and effulgence or beauty, devoid of any repelling qualities.
Up to this verse, the meaning of the word Bhagavän is explained (in the Viñëu Puräëa).
As before here also the Absolute must be understood with the divisions of the object without qualities, quality, and qualified. It will be explained later that even the qualities are transcendental. The phrase, arupaà päëi-pädädi-asàyutam "formless and thus devoid of hands and legs" explains the manifestation of Reality called Brahman which has no manifest qualities. The six words beginning with aiçvaryasya samagrasya, "the six qualities of controlling potency" explain the manifest qualities of the Absolute. The words Vibhum, bhagavat, and so on indicate the qualified Reality.
Or the words like Arüpam, or formless, deny His form to be material. Therefore it should be known that the phrase päëi-pädädi-asàyutam denies only the relation of contact (saàyoga) and not the relation of inherence (samaväya).
Vibhum implies that the Absolute is endowed with all opulence and sarvagatam means unlimited. Vyapi means all-pervading and avyäpyam means that nothing else can pervade it. The nature of Brahman as explained here is directly expressed and not indicated by the word bhagavat. To establish this, the verse says that the word bhagavat is the väcaka, or the direct expression, just as the word Gaìgä is a direct expression for the specific river ; it is not an indicative expression like the word taöa or the riverbank. This being the case, by the rule of Nirukta (2.1.1)(There is a footnote on this page[1])--that one should give the meaning of a word based on the similarity of a consonant in the word with a root--and on the basis of conventional usage, the meaning of the words bha, ga and va are given in the verse beginning with sambharttä [V.P. 6.5.77].
Sambharttä--nourisher of His devotee; bharttä--supporter, maintainer; netä--one who grants love, the fruit of His devotion; gamayita--one who grants His abode; såñöä--one who makes divine qualities manifest in His devotees. It should be known that the activities such as maintaining the universe are not performed by Him directly but indirectly. aiçvayyam--all-controlling feature, the qualifier samagrasya (complete) is to be applied to all the six qualities; viryyam--inconceivable influence, as found in gems and mantras. yaçaù--fame, due to the all-good qualities of speech, mind, and body; çré--prosperity of all kinds; jïänam-omnisciency; vairägyam--detachment from all material products and phenomena, iìganä--designation.
By using the nirukta rule of giving meaning according to the consonants when these letters (bha, ga, and va) are put together and the suffix matup is added, then Bhägavatam is formed. By the rules of Sanskrit grammar va is dropped giving the word Bhagavän. Here the words such as sambharttä (nourisher) signify sambharttåtva, the act of nourishing, as in the rule, "the combination of words ending in the suffixes sup and tiì constitute a sentence" [Amarakoña 1.6.2.]. The statement pacati bhavati "cooks becomes" actually means that cooking occurs. Or as in the usage sattäyäm asti bhavati, what the speaker intends is that the verb asti and bhavati, which indicate existence, actually mean 'to be'. Only in this way the word Bhagavän can be said to have the meaning of the suffix matup.
The verse beginning with jïäna-çakti (V.P.6.5.79) explains the six opulences in a different way. Jïänam--the characteristic of the internal sense (knowledge); çakti-- sensory power, balam--bodily strength. The terms aisvarya and vérya were explained before. Tejas-effulgence or beauty; açeñataù--in completeness. The phrase bhagavacchabda väcyäni means that these are the qualities of the Lord; they are not just indicatives (upalakñaëa). In this verse in the word Bhagavän, the suffix matup has been applied in the sense of eternal relationship (between the qualities and the qualified).
When this tattva in the form of Bhagavän which has all the above stated qualities and is the complete manifestation of the Absolute Reality, is described or realized as the controller of the living entities by the process described before, He is called Paramätmä, or the Supersoul. Although generally each of these three words Brahman, Paramätmä, and Bhagavän carry the meaning of the other two, still the distinction is made to point out their respective predominant meaning.
Commentary
Before we can deal with any object we have to know it properly. If the object is not understood properly there is a possibility of getting mislead. Therefore before speaking anything about Bhagavän, a proper definition of Bhagavän must be stated. For this reason Çréla Jéva Gosvämé gives a definition of Bhagavän in this Text. A definition serves two functions--it helps us to separate the object from other object and it allows us to deal with the object. The dealing could be in word or in experiencing it.
Every real substance, dravya, has three aspects to it unqualified object, its qualities, and the qualified object. In the phrase white cow, for example, white is the quality (viçeñaëa) that distinguishes this particular cow from other cows, which may be grey, brown and so on. The word cow refers to the animal in general, without its quality of being white. This is called object without qualities (viçeñya) for "cow" does not stand for a particular color cow and so does not make any distinction form one cow to another. This does not imply, however, that a cow has no qualities, such as color. It is just that the speaker does not convey any specific qualities of the object. The general qualities are understood from the very definition of the word cow.
In the phrase "white cow" both the substance and its qualities are stated together making cow the qualified object or substance (viçiñöa). The quality, white, and its object, cow, when stated seperately does not convey complete information, whereas, when stated together, they describe the qualified substance.
The quality cannot exist without its object, nor is there any substance without any *qualities,[2]although it is possible to perceive just the quality without knowing the object. Though it is impossible to perceive an object without its qualities, sometimes the perception may be so hazy that the perceiver is unable to clearly distinguish the qualities and the qualified or strike a relation between them. This experience is called an indeterminate perception, or nirvikalpaka pratyakña.
According to Vedic logic, the initial moment of perception of an object is always indeterminate.*[3] It is in the second moment that we get clear perception of a perceptible object under favorable conditions with the suitable sensory organ. This perception is termed as determinate, or savikalpaka pratyakña. In this process of indeterminate to determinate perception the object is same but the perception undergoes the change.
Before we get determinate knowledge such as "this is a book" we get the indeterminate knowledge "this is something". The knowledge "This is a book" is a qualified knowledge. It has the knowledge to of the book, the class of book (bookness) and the relation between book and its class. A qualified knowledge can only be obtained if one has a prior knowledge of the quality by which it is qualified. For example in the statement "This is a tridaëòi sannyäsi ( a renounced man with his staff, the sign insignia of his renounced (order), the sannyäsi is the unqualified noun, tridaëòa is the qualification and they have a relation of contact. Unless one knows what a tridaëòa is he can never have the knowledge "This is a tridaëòé sannyäsé." Similarly the knowledge "This is a book" is acquired by first knowing the class bookness which is the quality or Viçeñaëa for the unqualified object (viñeñya) book. Without the knowledge of bookness the book cannot be understood. Therefore we are forced to accept that first we get knowledge of bookness and book without the knowledge of their relation. This is called indeterminate knowledge because it cannot be described to others. Then we get the determinate knowledge of the book with bookness being its inherent quality. Çré Kumärila Bhaöö describes this in his Çloka Värtika (4.112):
asti hyälocanaà jïänaà prathamaà nirvikalpakam
bäla-mükädivijïäna-sadåçaà çuddha-vastujam
In the beginning of perception certainly there is indeterminate knowledge in the form of mere observation. It is like the cognition of an infant or the dumb, arising purely out of the object without any distinction of the quality and the qualified. Similarly the Absolute Reality is one but it is perceived as indeterminate and determinate. The pecularity of the Absolute Reality is that the worshiper can remain at indetermiante and not proceed to the determinate level. This is because of his own disqualification. And as described in the previous Text. The Absolute Reality manifests itself according to the qualification of the worshiper. This indeterminate realization or description is called Brahman.
Similarly, the Absolute Reality is one, but its perception varies according to the qualification of the worshiper. In the verse 4.11.30 cited at the end of the last anuccheda the word änandamätra (pure bliss) refers to the viçeñya. The various energies denoted by the word samasta-çaktau refer to the viçeñaëa and Bhagavän is the qualified object, replete with his energies. So Bhagavän is the complete manifestation and realization of the Absolute Reality and thus Çréla Jéva Gosvämé calls Him akhaëòa-tattva-rüpaù, or the indivisible reality. Nothing exists outside Him because all energies are in Him. He and His qualities cannot be separated, yet it is possible to realize Him without His energies. Such a partial realization asamyagävirbhäva of the Absolute is called Brahman. From this it is clear that Brahman is same as Bhagavän just as when one sees a mountain from distance his view is homogeneously green object but he sees variety when he comes close to it. In both cases the object is same.
In this regard it should be noted that according to Çréla Jéva Gosvämé the energies of the Lord are not exactly related as qualities and qualified. He uses the words viçiñöa, viçeñaëa, and viçeñya only to convey the idea that the energies belong to the Lord, and Brahman is not an independent manifestation. According to him the real relationship between the Lord and His energies is that of an inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference, acintyabhedäbheda. This will be explained in Text 16. The import of viçeñaëa here is energy and not quality. Çré Rämänujäcärya taught viñiñöädvaita, or qualified Absolute Reality in which he describes the material world as a adjective of the Lord. Çréla Jéva Gosvämé offers some refutations to it in Sarva-saàvädiné and shows that acintyabhedabheda of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu is a more thorough explanation of the relationship between the Supreme Lord and His energies.
After explaining that Bhagavän is the complete, indivisible manifestation of the Absolute, replete with energies, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé cites scriptural evidence to substantiate his doctrine. This is the Vedic system. Among educated men no discussion of transcendental knowledge is taken seriously without scriptural evidence, or çästra pramäëa, to back up every conclusion. So for the meaning of Bhagavän Jéva Gosvämé cites the Viñëu Puräëa. Paräçara Muni, the father of Veda Vyäsa spoke these verses to Maitreya.
The verses can be analysed from the three aspects—viçeñaëa, viçeñya, and viçiñöa. Descriptions like formless, without bodily limbs, and so on explain the Brahman feature. And descriptions like knowledge, beauty, and so on explain the qualities of the Lord. The words like supreme, nourisher refer to the qualified Lord. Or these verses are only speaking about Bhagavan and phrases like "no form" means that He has no material form. As is stated in the Uttarakhanda of Padma Puräëa:
yo'sau nirguëa ityuktaù çästreñu jagadéçvaraù
präkåtairhaiyasaàyuktairguëairhénatvamucyate
When the scriptures describe the Lord as nirguëa, or devoid of qualities, it means that he is free from material qualities, which are inferior in nature.
Çré-Väsudevädhyätma states (L.B.1.248):
aprasiddhastad guëänämanämä'sau prakértitaù
apräkåtatväd rüpasyapayarupo'sävudéryte
Because the Lord's qualities are not known to people He is called anämä (lit. one who has no name) and because His form is not material He is called arupaù (lit. one who has no form).
If the Absolute had no name and form whatsoever the çruti statements that explain about the form of the Lord will become meaningless, such as the following verse from Muëòaka Upaiñad (3.1.3)
yadä paçyaù pasyateù rukmavarëaà
karttäraméçaà puruñaà brahmayonià
tadä vidvänpuëya päpe vidhüya
niraïjanaù paramaà sämyamupaiti
When the wise living entity sees the golden colored Lord (Caitanya Mahäprabhu), the creator and the Supreme person who is the source of Lord Brahmä then shaking off piety and sin, he becomes free from material bondage and attains the supreme similarity with the Lord (owing to realizing his transcendental nature).
Avyakta (VP.6.5.66) means unmanifest to people's senses which means that He can only be understood from çabda, or the statements of the Vedic literature.
And that's why He is called acintyam, or inconceivable. Ajaram and ajam means free from old age and birth. Since He has no birth there is no death for Him. Akñayaà means no decay or transformation occurs in Him. This means that He is free from the six types of transformations which are seen in the material body. Anirddeçyam means He is beyond speech. As stated in the Taittréya Upaniñad (2.4.1) yato väcä nivartante apräpya manasä saha, "From whom all speech along with the mind turn away, unable to reach Him".
This does not mean, however, that the Lord cannot be defined by words or meditated upon by the mind. The import is that He is not completely expressible by words, being unlimited. There are Vedic statements asserting that the Lord is known from the Vedas as sarve vedä yat padamämananti, "Whom all the Vedas declare" (Kaöha 2.15) and vedaiçca sarvairahameva vedyaù "By all the Vedas I (Lord Kåñëa) am to be known" (Bg.15.15).
The phrase päëi-pädädyasaàyutam-- denies any contact between the Lord and his limbs. According to logic, relation between two objects are of many types out of which two are main--conjunction, saàyoga, and inherence, samaväya. Taträyutasiddhayoù sambandhaù samaväyaù anyayostu saàyoga eva (Takabhäñä 10) "The relation between two inseparable things is one of inherence and that between any other two is conjunction or contact. When a book is on a table the relation between them is that of contact. This is a temporary relation. The relation between milk and its color is inherent. This a lasting relation. Unless the milk is transformed into something else the relation between it and it's color cannot be violated. Çréla Jéva Gosvämé says that when the verse states that the Absolute Reality has no hands and legs it means that the relation between the Lord and His limbs is inherent and not one of contact. That is to say that it is permanent, unlike in the case of mortal beings in whose body the limbs are joined by a relation of contact. In other words the denial is of the ordinary hands and legs and not in the absolute sense.
The Lord is the source of all living beings, bhütayonim. As He states in the Bhagavad-gétä,(10.8) ahaà sarvasya prabhavaù, "I am the source of everything". Therefore He is akaranam, He has no cause or source for Himself. This is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gita, "mattaù parataraà nänyadasti dhanaïjaya, "O Arjuna, there is nothing superior to Me". It means that He has no source for Himself. He pervades everything, vyäpi, but nothing pervades or contains Him. Mäyä tatamidaà sarvam (BG.9.4) It means Lord has contact with everything at all times.
The Vedas describe Brahman with these attributes as stated in the verses spoken by Paräsära. Therefore Brahman is called aupaniñad puruña--the personality known from the Vedas. Tantva aupaniñadaà puruñaà påcchämi (Brhadäraëyaka 3.9.26). This nature of Brahman or the Absolute Reality is the direct expression of the word Bhagavän. Çréla Jéva Gosvämé says that Bhagavän does indicate the nature of Brahman but defines it directly.
According to rhetoriticians a meaningful word or pada has three types of energies which give three types of meanings to it, artho väcyaçca lakñyaçca vyaïgyas ceti tridhä matäù,(Sähitya Darpaëa 2.2) "The meaning of a word is of three types--direct, implied and suggested". The meaning which comes to the mind just immediately upon hearing the word is called the direct or primary meaning. This meaning is due to the power of the word, called abhidhä. For example, as soon as a Vaiñëava hears the word Kåñëa, it immediately reminds him of Lord Kåñëa.
Sometimes, however, the primary meaning is not the suitable meaning because it does not convey the complete sense of the speaker. When this happens one applies the lakñaëä çakti or gauëévåtti which gives a secondary meaning. This is called the lakñyärtha, or the implied meaning. This implied meaning is certainly related with the direct one, but it is of different nature. For example in the statement, "The Kåñëa-Balaräm temple is on the Bhaktivedanta Swämé road," the primary meaning of "on" will be absurd. Certainly the temple cannot be on the road, otherwise there will be no flow of traffic. In such a case we apply the implied meaning: that the temple is "beside" the road.
The third type of meaning, the suggested meaning, or vyaïgyärtha, is defined in the Sähitya darpaëa (2.12):
viratäsvabhidhädyäsu
yayä'rtho bodhyate paraù
sä våttirvyaïjanä näma
çabdasyärthädikasya ca
The vyaïjanä våtti, or suggestive potency of the word and its meaning, is that which gives an altogether different meaning to the word after the abhidhä and lakñaëä potencies have come to rest (having given their direct and implied meanings).
To expand on the above example, the primary meaning of the phrase " on the Bhaktivedänta Swämé road" is impractical so the lakñaëä våtti offers the alternative meaning: that the temple is beside the road.
After this the vyaïjanä våtti, or suggestive potency, will suggest even more meanings, such as the temple is easily approachable by a vehicle, one does not have to walk a great distance after getting down from the vehicle and so on. These meanings are never directly related to the word meanings in the sentence.
Since there is no obstruction in understanding the primary meaning of the words such as avyaktam, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé says that bhagavän is a väcaka--its direct meaning is clear and one need not refer to its secondary or implied meaning. If an implied meaning is to apply then Brahman will be absolutely ineffable by words in its primary sense, which goes against the çruti statements. Also, one will be forced to find a different primary meaning for the word bhagavän, but there are no scriptural injunctions to support another meaning. There is no possibility of an implied meaning without a primary meaning.
The word Gangä refers to a famous river in India. That is its primary meaning, but the word öaöa, or bank (of a river) may have river as one of its implied meaning. When it is said that boat is on the bank of the river it really means that it is inside the water near the bank. Similarly the primary meaning of the word bhagavän is described in the verses of the Viñëu Puräëa. Sometimes bhagavän is used to address great persons, as in verse 1.4.2 of the Bhagavatam where Sukadeva Gosvämé is addressed as Bhagavän. In such usages bhagavän is being used in its secondary meaning, because the primary meaning is improper and does not convey the intent of the speaker. Here Bhagavän means honorable or powerful.
In three verses (6.5.73-75) Paräçara Muni gives the meaning of bhagavän according to the principles of Niruktam, which is a commentary on Nighaëöu, Vedic dictionary. This work gives a list of selected Vedic words. In Niruktam Yäska the writer gives the etymological derivation of the words. He uses many principles to show this etymology usage. One of type is to base the meaning on the similarity of the syllables with the roots. In Bhagavän, the syllable Bha has similarity with the root Bhåï--to support, to nourish; ga with gam--to go and va with vasa--to live. While giving the meaning of bhagavän, Paräçara Muni uses the nirukta rule using the meaning of each syllable, He also gives the conventional meaning, or rüdhyartha along with it. According to logicians, as well as rhetoriticians, primary meaning is of three types--yoga, rüdhi, yoga-rüdhi--or etymological, conventional, and a combination of both etymological-conventional. Out of these three the conventional meaning is superior. The maxim is yogädrüdhébaléyasi, "The conventional meaning is superior to the etymological meaning".
Véryyam means inconceivable power, as is seen in gems and experienced with mantras. According to Vedic astrology gems have an inconceivable power to ward-off the bad influence of the planets, protect health, and bring good fortune. In the olden days the kings had precious gems in their crowns and ornaments according to astrological calculations. The potency of these gems was experienced although it cannot be explained logically. Similarly the Lord has numerous inconceivable potencies such as He depicted in His Våndävan pastimes of Brahma Mohan lélä and Däma bandhan lélä.
Vairägyam means detachment. Although the Lord creates this gigantic universe with innumerable planets yet He is not attached to it. He happily sleeps in the causal ocean and He even annihilates it just like as in a playful mood a baby may crush a toy.
When the letters bha, ga, andva are combined the word bhagava is formed. Then by the päëini sütra (S. 2.94), tadasyästyusminniti matup, the taddhita suffix matup is applied, and because bhagava is ending in "a", the m is changed to v by Päëini sütra (S. 29) "mädupadhäyäsca mator vo'yavädibhyaù to" to form the word bhagavavän. In Vedic usage, the syllable va is dropped to get bhagavän. According to the päëinéyan school of grammar possessive suffixes like matup are applied in seven meanings as stated in the Käçikä (5.2.90):
bhuma-nindä prasaàsäsu
nityayog'tiçäyane
samsarge'sti vivakñäyäà
bhavanti matubädyaù
The suffixes such as matup are applied to imply many, inferiority, superiority, eternal relation, excess, conjunction, and existence.
In the word bhagavän the possessive suffix matup is applied to show the eternal relation between the possessor and possessed. That means the Lord eternally owns the attributes expressed by the word bhagava. Thus bhagavän can never be a word giving an implied meaning.
Followers of Saìkaräcarya do not accept that Brahman or Absolute Reality has any potency in it, otherwise it will contradict their doctrine of monism. Therefore they contend that the words like Brahman or bhagavän do not directly define the Absolute, but only imply or indicate it. In this way they try to protect the Absolute from duality, but in this analysis of the verses of Paraçara Muni, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé conclusively establishes that Bhagavän is a väcaka and not a lakñaka or indicator, because the matup is one of nitya-yoga, or eternal relation.
He further substantiates his explanation by quoting 6.5.79, which gives a different meaning of bhagavän. This verse clearly states that these qualities are väcya, a direct expression of bhagavän, bhagavacchabda-väcyäni and not indicators. And that's why Çréla Jéva Gosvämé concludes that matup is applied in the sense of nitya-yoga or eternal possession.
The words like sambharttä, nourishes and bharttä supporter imply the activity of nourshiment and support. Although they are nouns, their significance is in the activity they describe; This is in accordance with the definition of a sentence as given in Amarkoña (1.6.2) "a sentence is a combination of nouns(tiì) and verbs (sup). The Rämäçramé commentator says that a sentence could be made of only nouns such as prakåti siddhamidaà hi mahätmanäm (Hitopadeça 1.132) or only of verbs such as pacati bhavati or with a combination of both. While commenting on Yoga Sütra (3.17) Çréla Vyäsadeva also writes that every word has the power to form a sentence sarva-padeñu ästi väkya-çaktiù. Thus although the words such as sambharttä are nouns but they mean one who is nourishing. They clearly indicate that the Lord has the quality and energy to act. He is not an impotent abstract principle in that that He has the name sambharttä or nourisher but has no potency to nourish or even after having the potency He does not really nourish. He is not like the modern head of state who may be the commander-in-chief of army but has no expertize in waging war and never personally fights. The suffix matup also carries this sense of activity in bhagavän.
Because bhagavän has all the potencies in their fullness He is the complete manifestation of the Absolute. When He expands Himself as the Purusa, to control the affairs of material nature and the jéva, He is called Paramätmä. Bhagavän has three such Purusa expansions--Käraëodakaçäyi, Garbhodakaçäyé, and Kñérodakaçäyé. The SuperSoul in every living being is an expansion of Kñérodakaçäyé. Since these Paramätmä expansions have a specific function they do not manifest all the potencies of Bhagavän just as a man who has to lift a book does not manifest all his might to do it. Therefore the Paramätmä manifestation is inferior manifestation of Bhagavän.
In Brahman no qualities are manifest hence it is an inferior manifestation to Paramätmä. Thus Çréla Jéva Gosvämé said that the specific order in the Bhägavatam verse 1.2.11 is according to their superiority going from lesser to greater. These words Brahman, Paramätmä, and Bhagavän are generally used interchangeably when talking about the Absolute Truth but in this verse (1.2.11) Süta Gosvämé has used them in the way defined in the previous section (Bhagavän and Brahman) and in this section (Bhagavän and Paramätmä).
Next Çréla Jéva Gosvämé identifies Bhagavän as Näräyaëa and explains the conscious nature of the jévas.
[1]The current editions of Nirukta state the rule as akñara-varëa-samänyän-nirbrüyät--one should give the meaning of a word based on the similarity of a vowel or a consonant of the word with a root.
[2](Footnote-Logicians believe that in the first moment of production an object has no qualities. Qualities come into existence from second moment onwards.)
[3]This view is accepted by most Vedic authorities, the exceptions being grammarians and the tattvavädis