Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 3 - Shloka (Verse) 15

व्याख्या--'अन्नाद्भवन्ति भूतानि'--प्राणोंको धारण करनेके लिये जो खाया जाता है, वह 'अन्न' (टिप्पणी प0 136.2) कहलाता है। जिस प्राणीका जो खाद्य है, जिसे ग्रहण करनेसे उसके शरीरकी उत्पत्ति, भरण और पुष्टि होती है, उसे ही यहाँ 'अन्न' नामसे कहा गया है; जैसे--मिट्टीका कीड़ा मिट्टी खाकर जीता है तो मिट्टी ही उसके लिये अन्न है।जरायुज (मनुष्य, पशु आदि), उद्भिज्ज (वृक्षादि), अण्डज (पक्षी सर्प चींटी आदि) और स्वेदज (जूँ आदि)--ये चारों प्रकारके प्राणी अन्नसे ही उत्पन्न होते हैं और उत्पन्न होकर अन्नसे ही जीवित रहते हैं (टिप्पणी प0 137.1)।

और उस क्रियारूप कर्मको तू वेदरूप ब्रह्मसे उत्पन्न हुआ जान अर्थात् कर्मकी उत्पत्तिका कारण वेद है ऐसे जान और वेदरूप ब्रह्म अक्षरसे उत्पन्न हुआ है अर्थात् अविनाशी परब्रह्म परमात्मा वेदकी उत्पत्तिका कारण है। वेदरूप ब्रह्म साक्षात् परमात्मा नामक अक्षरसे पुरुषके निःश्वासकी भाँति उत्पन्न हुआ है इसलिये वह सब अर्थोंको प्रकाशित करनेवाला होनेके कारण सर्वगत है। तथा यज्ञविधिमें वेदकी प्रधानता होनेके कारण वह सर्वगत होता हुआ ही सदा यज्ञमें प्रतिष्ठित है।

Regarding the action mentioned as the cause of 'Apūrva' (unseen merit), to one doubting whether it refers to 'Caitya-vandana' (worship at shrines) etc. or to 'Agnihotra' etc., He answers with "Karma" (Action) etc.

Objection: Why is action said to be "born of Brahma," given that the origin of everything from That is indistinct (common to all)? Anticipating this doubt, he says "Brahma Veda" (Brahma means Veda).

Objection: Then is Brahma, named the Veda, without beginning or end (eternal)? Regarding this, he says "Brahma punar" (Brahma, however...) [indicating it has an origin].

Objection: It is not possible for the Veda, which is of the nature of syllables (akṣara), to originate merely from syllables again? Anticipating this doubt, he says "Akṣaram" (Imperishable) etc. [Meaning Akshara here refers to the Supreme Self].

Objection: "Brahma" is indeed stated to be the Imperishable (Akshara) [in other contexts]; so how can it originate from that very source? Anticipating this doubt, he reminds us of the meaning of the word Brahma already stated: "Brahma Veda" (Brahma is the Veda).

Objection: Since the Veda, denoted by the word Brahma, would be of human origin (pauruṣeya) [if it has an origin], and thus there is doubt regarding its authority, how can the action like Agnihotra etc. mentioned by you be determined [as the duty]? To this, he says "Yasmāt" (Because...).

Objection: How then is it "established in sacrifice"? For if it is all-pervading, a specific association is not appropriate. Anticipating this doubt, he says "Sarvagatam api" (Even though all-pervading).

Know that "Karma" (Action) is that whose origin (cause) is "Brahma," i.e., the Veda. Know that "Brahma," meaning the Veda, is that whose origin (cause) is "Akṣara," i.e., the Imperishable Supreme Self; as per the Śruti: "Of this Great Being, this is the breath: Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda, Atharvāṅgirasa," and so on.

Because it is so, therefore, being the illuminator of all meanings, the "Brahma" called Veda—even though being "sarvagatam" (all-pervading)—is eternally "established in sacrifice" (yajñe pratiṣṭhitam) because it is preponderant in the injunctions of sacrifice.

However, the explanation of others—that "the Imperishable Brahman (God) is always established in sacrifice, meaning He is attained by sacrifice which serves as the means"—is plagued by unsatisfactoriness. The seed of this unsatisfactoriness is that if the two "Brahma" words in the first half are taken as referring to the Veda, and here [in the second half] as referring to something else [God], it contradicts the maxim/logic "Or the Veda, because of frequent usage" (implying consistency of the term 'Brahma' as Veda).

Action is born from Brahman, (for) 'He indeed causes him to perform good action' (Kaushitaki Upanishad 3.9), 'Intellect, knowledge...' (Gita 10.4), and other such texts. And when the primary meaning is possible, it is not proper to imagine a figurative meaning through a continuous tradition. Nor is independent activity possible for inanimate objects; due to the scripture mentioning the ordering of everything [by the Imperishable] in 'Under the mighty rule of this Imperishable...' (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.8.9); and due to texts like 'Substance, action, and time [follow the nature of God].' And His inconceivable power has been stated. And the Jiva (soul) is a reflection; its movement is indeed preceded by the Bimba (the Original/God), it has no [independent] agency; due to negations in texts like 'The soul deluded by ego...' (Gita 5.14).

The 'Aksharas' (syllables/Vedas) are well-known; from them, indeed, the Supreme Brahman is manifested. Otherwise, who could know Brahman, who is without beginning or end, inconceivable, and even though perfect? Nor is it proper to accept an etymological meaning without usage/convention (rudhi), and due to the reference [in Brahma Sutras]; therefore, 'Brahman is all-pervading.'

Nor are two distinct objects ever spoken of by a single word repeated twice without a scripture indicating difference. And those 'Aksharas' are eternal—'With speech that is eternal and varied...' (Rig Veda Samhita 6.5.25); 'The eternal speech emitted by the Self-born...' (Mahabharata 12.232.24); therefore, indeed, there is eternality; from scriptural texts, Smritis, and the Lord's words like 'And therefore eternality [of the Vedas]' (Brahma Sutra 1.3.29). And a defect has been stated if there is [human] authorship (Mahabhasya 2.13).

Nor were they produced unintentionally, due to the absence of proof for that. The word 'breath' (nihshvasita), however, is intended to convey the lack of exertion, not the lack of intelligence. Due to texts like 'He desired...' (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.2.45), and due to the mention along with the manifold universe of sacrifices and oblations, and due to contradiction with the Great Purport; and that has been stated earlier.

Nor is there pre-eminence for a creator of origin who acts without independence. And lack of independence arises from it being unintentional, just as in the case of diseases etc. originating from a person [where the person is not the independent creator]. Statements regarding origin are for the purpose of manifestation and refer to the presiding deities, because of the statement 'eternally emitted.' The word denoting agency is used regarding the manifester, as in 'Astikritsna made the Shatapatha.' How can the Vedas existing in the Sun be created by that very Sun? The decisive Shastra stated in the Shariraka (Brahma Sutras) is stronger than mere statements—'[Brahman] is the source of Scripture' (Brahma Sutra 1.1.3);

when it is said 'From whom is the birth, etc., of this [universe]' (Brahma Sutra 1.1.2), proof is indeed expected there, not His being born or being the cause of the Vedas; nor is being the cause of the Vedas the reason for being the cause of the world. Nor is the creation of the Vedas impossible in the creation of the variegated world, if it were a created object. Nor regarding omniscience. If the creator of the Vedas is omniscient, why is the creator of the world not omniscient? Therefore, the validity of the Vedas is indeed intended here; hence the 'Aksharas' are eternal.

Since, in this way, Brahman is to be manifested indirectly through Yajna (sacrifice), therefore, It is eternally established in Yajna.

Karma brahmodbhavam means born of the Veda; the Veda alone is the authority regarding Dharma (righteousness), not the scriptures composed by heretics (pākhaṇḍa) and the like. "Brahma"—meaning the Veda—is also "akṣarasamudbhavam" (born of the Imperishable).

As per the scripture "Of this Great Being, this is the breath: Rigveda, Yajurveda...", it has arisen directly from the Supreme Lord Himself. Therefore, the idea is that there is no suspicion of invalidity in it, unlike the sentences of heretics which are plagued by defects like delusion and deception.

Because it is so, therefore "Brahma"—the Veda—is present in all places and times. By this, the eternality of the Veda and the omnipresence of Sound are demonstrated.

It is eternally—meaning by rule—"established in sacrifice," meaning it finds its culmination (ultimate purport) in sacrifice.

"Karma brahmodbhavam" (Action is born of Brahma). And here, what is denoted by the word "Brahma" is the body, which is a modification of Nature (Prakṛti). In the text "From Him this Brahma, name, form, and food are born" (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.9), Nature is denoted by the word "Brahma". Here too (in Gita 14.3), it will be said "My womb is the great Brahma." Therefore, "Karma brahmodbhavam" means that action is born of the body which is a modification of Nature.

Regarding "Brahma akṣarasamudbhavam": Here, the individual soul (Jīvātmā) is denoted by the word "Akṣara". The body, presided over by the "Akṣara" (soul) satisfied by food and drink etc., becomes capable of action; thus the body, which is the instrument of action, is "born of the Akṣara".

Therefore, "sarvagatam brahma"—meaning the body present in all qualified agents—is eternally "established in sacrifice," meaning it has sacrifice as its root (source).

Similarly, regarding "Karma brahmodbhavam" etc. Know that action, which is of the nature of the activity of the sacrificer and others, is "Brahmodbhavam"; know it to have proceeded from "Brahma," i.e., the Veda. And know that "Brahma," called the Veda, to have originated from the "Akṣara," the Supreme Brahman. As per the scripture: "Of this Great Being, this is the breath: Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda."

Since, in this way, the trend of sacrifice proceeds from the Imperishable One (Akṣara) Himself, sacrifice is extremely intended (desired) by Him; therefore, the Imperishable "Brahma" (God), though all-pervading, is eternally established in sacrifice. It is said to be "established in sacrifice" because He is attained through sacrifice which serves as the means. This is like saying "Lakshmi always resides in effort" [meaning She is attained by effort].

Alternatively: Since action is the root of the cosmic wheel, therefore, "sarvagatam" (all-pervading)—meaning the "Brahma" called Veda, though "gone" (present) in mantras, arthavādas (eulogies), and narratives of past events which propound various established meanings—is always established in sacrifice as its ultimate purport. Therefore, actions like sacrifice must be performed; this is the meaning.

Objection: How can "Karma" (action), which is of the nature of the agent's activity, be born of "Brahma"? It would be appropriate to designate it as born of the individual self (Pratyagātmā) or born of the body and senses. Nor is it appropriate here to designate the general causality of Brahman (the Absolute) which is common to all things. Furthermore, "Brahma" being born of "Akṣara" is inexplicable; whether the word "Brahma" refers to the Supreme Self or the individual self, since both are eternal, there is no "Akṣara" that can be the cause [of their origin]. Even Shankara's explanation—taking Brahma and Akshara as Veda and Supreme Self respectively—is inconsistent because the "Cycle" (Chakra) does not fit. The view of Yadavaprakasha and others—that Brahma refers to Sphota etc. and Akshara to the syllables revealing it—is refuted simply by the refutation of those respective theories.

Anticipating such objections, he says "atra ca" (and here) etc. The word "ca" implies the removal of doubt. By "atra" (here), it is intended that although the word "Brahma" is primary in the sense of the direct Supreme Person, yet due to the force of the context etc., it is figurative here in referring to something else that possesses a trace of His qualities. Since action like acquiring materials is accomplished by the embodied soul (śarīri), and since the portion of the embodied soul (Jiva) will be distinguished later by the word "Akṣara," this word "Brahma" is intended for the portion of the body—thus it is stated [in the Bhashya]: "the body which is a modification of Nature (Prakṛti)."

To show the usage of the word "Brahma" for Prakṛti—since the body, being a modification of Prakṛti, is a substance of that—he first cites "tasmādetat" (From Him this...). The meaning of the text "From Him this Brahma..." (Mundaka 1.1.9) is that this Brahma named Pradhāna (Nature), differentiated by name and form in the shape of effects and being the object of enjoyment for sentient beings, is born. And there, the word "Brahma" does not refer to the Supreme Self, because He is distinguished separately in "He who is all-knowing, all-wise... from Him this Brahma" (Mundaka 1.1.9). Nor does it refer to the individual self, because there is no direct connection with "name, form, and food" (mentioned in the verse), and [the Jiva's] being "food" would be extremely secondary. By the designation "Yoni" (womb) and by the separate mention of the Supreme Self as "Mama" (My), in "Mama yonir mahad brahma" (Gita 14.3), the reference of the word "Brahma" to Prakṛti is established. "Ataḥ" (Therefore)—because the word "Brahma" is used for Prakṛti, because the body is a modification of that, because activities like acquiring materials are accomplished by the body, and because the Supreme Self cannot be "born"—the meaning is [Action is born of the Body].

Thus, the word "Brahma" here being established as referring to the body, the word "Akṣara" is appropriate for the individual self (Pratyagātmā) who is proximate/presiding over it; with this intention, he says regarding "Brahma akṣarasamudbhavam...". And that the Jiva is denoted by the word "Akṣara" is established by texts like "The Perishable is Pradhāna, the Immortal Akṣara is Hara (Jiva)" (Svetasvatara 1.10) and "The Kūṭastha is Akṣara" (Gita 15.16). Objection: Even so, saying "Brahma (Body) is born of Akṣara (Jiva)" is improper, because one's entire body is not preceded by (created by) one's own intelligence. Nor is the "Cycle" visible here; for even if there is a cause-effect relationship from Food up to the Body, the "Akṣara" (Jiva), which is the cause of the body [in your interpretation], is not born of food etc. Nor is the Jiva indicated in "From food beings are born" (3.14), because there the word "Bhūta" refers only to the body which is a modification of food? To this, he answers with "annapānādinā" (by food and drink etc.).

The intention is this: It is not just the "body" alone that is designated here as born of the Akṣara, but rather by "Action is born of Brahma," action is the instrument; and that instrumentality belongs to the body only when presided over by the individual self; and that [Jiva's] power of presiding is dependent on the satisfaction generated by food and drink etc. And such being the case, it is indeed proper to say that the body, qualified by its instrumentality for action, is "born of Akṣara" because its presiding agent (Jiva) is the cause. And the "Cycle" is also consistent, because even the Akṣara (Jiva) depends on food and drink etc. for presiding over the body. It is not that dependence in origin is the only cause for a cycle; [dependence for function is sufficient]. Alternatively, action is born of the body presided by the Jiva; and the body presided by the Jiva is born of food—according to the statement "From food beings are born." And the word "Bhūta" here refers to the ensouled body (sajīva-śarīra), as in "causing all beings (bhūtāni) to revolve" (Gita 18.61). Therefore, the "Cycle" is consistent here. He will explain this method later as well.

Thus, regarding the conclusion of the duty of the person subject to scripture when this cycle is to be followed, he says "tasmāt" (Therefore). Since the limited body cannot be all-pervading, and the "Akṣara" (Jiva) which is its support has been mentioned, the word "Sarva" (all) is intended to include all specific variations [of bodies/agents]; with this intention, he explains [Sarvagatam] as "present in all qualified agents." The meaning is that not only the body of one qualified for Karma Yoga is dependent on sacrifice, but also that of one qualified for Jnana Yoga. Regarding "established in sacrifice," since being a location/container is not appropriate, he explains it as "rooted in sacrifice."

विश्व में चल रहे सामूहिक यज्ञ कर्म के चक्र का वेदों की परिचित भाषा में यहाँ वर्णन किया गया है। प्राणियों की उत्पत्ति एवं पोषण का कारण अन्न है। पृथ्वी में स्थित खनिज सम्पत्ति पोषक अन्न का रूप तभी लेती है जब जल वृष्टि होती है। वर्षा के बिना न तो वनस्पति जीवन की वृद्धि होगी और न पशुओं का जीवन ही सम्भव होगा। यज्ञ के फलस्वरूप वर्षा होती है तथा यज्ञ का सम्पादन मनुष्य के कर्मों द्वारा होता है।सूक्ष्म विचार के अभाव में यह श्लोक विचित्र ही प्रतीत होता है। आधुनिक शिक्षित व्यक्ति अन्न (पदार्थ) से प्राणियों की तथा वर्षा से पोषक अन्न की उत्पत्ति होने को तो समझ पाता है परन्तु उसे यह समझने में कठिनाई होती है कि यज्ञ से वर्षा की उत्पत्ति किस प्रकार होती है।भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण के शब्दों में हम यह मानने को बाध्य नहीं हैं कि वे अर्जुन को कर्मकाण्ड के अनुष्ठान का उपदेश दे रहे हैं। गीता में अनेक स्थानों पर वेद काल में प्रचलित और परिचित शब्दों को नये अर्थों में प्रयुक्त किया गया है। यहाँ भी पर्जन्य से केवल जलवृष्टि ही समझना उचित नहीं। पर्जन्य से तात्पर्य उस स्थिति से है जो पृथ्वी में स्थित तत्त्वों का भक्षण योग्य पोषक अन्न में रूपान्तर करने के लिए आवश्यक है। इसी प्रकार प्रत्येक कार्य क्षेत्र में उपभोग्य लाभ (अन्न) विद्यमान होता है जिसकी प्राप्ति तभी संभव है जब उसके अनुकूल परिस्थितियाँ निर्मित होती हैं। इस प्रकार की अनुकूल परिस्थिति (पर्जन्य) का निर्माण सब लोगों के निस्वार्थ सेवाभाव से किये गये कर्मोंे (यज्ञ) से ही संभव होकर समाज के उपभोग्य वस्तुओं (अन्न) की उत्पत्ति होती है।उदाहरणार्थ नदी के व्यर्थ ही बहते हुये पानी को रोक कर बांध के निर्माण से उसका उपयोग नदी के तट की उपजाऊ किन्तु अब तक नहीं जोती गई भूमि की सिंचाई के लिये किया जा सकता है। त्याग और परिश्रम से ही बांध का निर्माण संभव होगा। उसके पूर्ण होने पर नदी के दोनों किनारों की भूमि को जोतने के लिये अनुकूल परिस्थिति बन जायेगी। सींची हुई भूमि से अन्न प्राप्त करने के लिये निरन्तर परिश्रम की आवश्यकता है जैस भूमि जोतना बीजारोपण सिंचन और रक्षण आदि।यहाँ हमें बताया गया है कि इस कर्म चक्र का सम्बन्ध परम सत्य (ब्रह्म) से किस प्रकार है और कैसे वह ब्रह्म यज्ञ में प्रतिष्ठित है। सम्यक् कर्म का सिद्धांत (यज्ञ) तथा कर्म की क्षमता भी सृष्टिकर्त्ता ब्रह्माजी से ही सबको प्राप्त हुई और स्वयं ब्रह्माजी अक्षरअविनाशी परम तत्त्व ब्रह्म से ही प्रगट हुये हैं। नवजात शिशु में कर्म की क्षमता है और वह क्षमता सृष्टिकर्त्ता का दिया हुआ उपहार है इसलिये सर्वगत ब्रह्म सदैव व्यक्ति के अथवा समूह के उन कर्मों में (यज्ञ) प्रतिष्ठित है जो विश्व के कल्याण के लिये सेवाभाव से किये गये हों।इस कर्मचक्र का पालन करने वाला पुरुष प्रकृति के सामंजस्य में अपना योगदान देता है। इसका उल्लंघन करने वाले के विषय में भगवान् कहते हैं

'From Food' (annat). 'Karma'. From 'Food'—meaning from that which has the nature of indivisible object-of-enjoyment, described somehow by many other synonyms such as Maya, Vidya, Kala (Time), etc.—the variegated beings come into existence. And that 'Food' comes from 'Parjanya'—meaning from the Self whose nature is unbroken Consciousness—because the state of being an object-of-enjoyment attains its self-hood (existence) only by being dependent on the enjoyer. And that 'Parjanya', meaning the enjoyer, comes from 'Yajna'—meaning from the nature of the act of enjoyment—because the state of being an enjoyer is dependent on the act of enjoyment. And the act of enjoyment comes from 'Karma'—meaning from the force of the Freedom (Svatantrya) of the Power of Action (Kriya-shakti). And that Freedom—even though unbroken—is due to the contact of the Supreme Self, Brahman, whose nature is the feeling of the Great Lord (Maheshvara) surging up, full of unlimited and infinite Freedom. And that surging Brahman, whose sovereignty is not covered by desire, comes from the 'Akshara'—meaning from pure Consciousness alone, where the waves of entire sovereignty have become tranquil. In this way, this well-established Yajna, driving the wheel with six spokes, orchestrates liberation (apavarga) there through the union of the three spokes, and orchestrates worldly existence (vyavahara) through the binding of the three spokes; thus Brahman, beautiful with the waves of the joy of Vidya (knowledge) and Avidya (ignorance), is established in Yajna alone.

Others, however, [say]—Food is the cause of beings through the sequence of semen and blood; and Food comes from Parjanya (rain-cloud) through rain; that [rain] also is the oblation cast into the fire which duly reaches the Sun; from that comes rain; from Yajna; Yajna from action; and that [action] is preceded by knowledge; knowledge from the Akshara (Veda)—thus.

Others [say]—Food is the group of five objects being eaten; relying on that, the beings—the senses and the objects—are manifested forms of the Self. Therefore, the Self alone is nourished by the enjoyment of objects. And for this reason, the all-pervading Brahman is established in action, because it consists of that—thus.

'Action is born from Brahma, meaning revealed by Brahma i.e., the Veda'—this explanation of others is incorrect; with this intent, he says 'Karma' etc. 'Brahmanah' means from the Supreme Brahman. 'Why so?'—to this, he says 'Esha hi' (For He indeed...). He refutes the incorrect explanation saying 'Na cha' (And not). When the primary meaning of the word 'udbhava' (origin/birth) is possible, it is not proper to imagine a figurative meaning like 'revelation'. Similarly, when the primary meaning of the word 'Brahma', i.e., Supreme Brahman, is possible, it is not proper to imagine the figurative and secondary meaning 'Veda' as the meaning of the word 'Brahma'. Moreover, even by one explaining it this way, the Veda's capacity to reveal action must be accepted indirectly through the Inner Controller. And thus, when ultimately the Supreme Brahman must be accepted, it is not logical to abandon Him when He is obtained directly by the word itself.

Objection: The Veda reveals action by itself, so what is the need for Supreme Brahman? Therefore there is no indirectness—to this, he says 'Na cha'. Not only is the Veda dependent on another because of being insentient, but also its dependence on Vishnu is well-known from Agama (scripture); thus he says 'Etasya' (Of this). 'Of Vishnu' is the remainder (to be supplied). Objection: Revealing meaning is the nature of a word, not an adventitious operation, like heat of fire; therefore, even if insentient, it does not depend on another—to this, stating proof that even 'nature' is dependent on the Lord, he says 'Dravyam' (Substance etc.). If it is argued that the regulation of nature by Vishnu, though established by proof, is impossible, he says 'Achintya' (Inconceivable).

If insentient matter has no independent activity, then let it be through the presiding deity; and thus, ultimately, there is no need to accept Supreme Brahman—to this, he says 'Jivasya cha' (And of the Jiva). And thus, the indirectness would be even greater; this is the idea. Not only is there absence of independent activity for the Jiva because of being a reflection, but also because of Agama; thus he says 'Na' (No).

Regarding 'brahma aksharasamudbhavam', the explanation of others that 'Brahma means Veda, born from Akshara (Supreme Brahman)' is incorrect; with this intent, he says 'Aksharani' (The syllables). The well-known 'a' etc., characterized by a fixed sequence, implying the Vedas. Objection: What hinders accepting the primary meaning of the word 'samudbhava' (origin), due to which the secondary meaning 'is manifested' is accepted? Moreover, since the manifestation of Brahman is possible by other proofs too, why is it said 'from them'?—to this, he says 'Anyatha' (Otherwise). If the meaning of manifestation is not accepted, how can the beginningless and endless Brahman be born?—This is the completion. Similarly, if the Veda is not accepted as the manifester of That, who would know the Brahman which is inconceivable due to being perfect? The word 'api' (also/even) conjoins the two sentence meanings.

Since the word 'samudbhava' lacks primary meaning (here), why not accept the meaning stated by others?—to this, he says 'Na cha'. For the word 'Brahma' is fixed (rudha) in Supreme Brahman, but applies to the Veda by the etymology (yoga) of 'greatness' (brihatva). Similarly, the word 'Akshara' is fixed in syllables/letters, but applies to Supreme Brahman by the etymology of 'imperishable' (aksharana). And thus, by one explaining otherwise, the fixed meaning would be abandoned and the etymological meaning accepted; and that is outside the rules of logic.

And for this reason too, the word 'Brahma' denotes Supreme Brahman; he says 'Paramarshat cha' (And due to reference). Because Supreme Brahman is referred to by the word 'Brahma' in the subsequent sentence, the word 'Brahma' in the preceding sentence is known to mean Supreme Brahman. And likewise, the word 'Akshara' also, by implication, will denote the Veda; this is the remainder. Objection: The Supreme Brahman mentioned earlier by the word 'Akshara' is now referred to by the word 'Brahma'; therefore, the previously mentioned word 'Brahma' indeed means Veda—to this, he says 'Na hi'. In the very same context—this is the remainder. To exclude cases like 'From food, man; that verily is this man made of food essence' (Taittiriya Upanishad 2.1.1), it is said 'without a scripture indicating difference'. The word 'Shruti' implies valid means of knowledge (Pramana). If it is said that here too there is the adjective 'sarvagatam' (all-pervading) [indicating difference], no, because letters/syllables are also all-pervading. If it is said 'no, because they are modifications', no, because that is refuted immediately after. And this is said in reply to Bhaskara.

But since the Mayavadin accepts that this is a reference to the Veda mentioned earlier by the word 'Brahma', the idea that 'in the other explanation, the primary meaning of the word samudbhava is gained' is also mere false hope; thus he says 'Tani cha'. By this, the counter-argument that 'due to the force of designation etc., both words Brahma and Akshara are yoga-rudha (etymological-conventional) in both places' regarding what we have explained as well-known, is also defeated. Because the reference and the eternality of letters are unavoidable.

Not only is the eternality of the Veda established from Shruti etc., but also from the defect in the opposite view; thus he says 'Doshash cha'. In the text 'And if the authority on Dharma were created...' (Mahabhashya 2.13). Objection: The syllables of the Veda are produced by Brahma intentionally (with intelligence), so there is no doubt of them being based on error etc.—to this, he says 'Na cha'.

If it is said that the Shruti 'This Rig Veda, Yajur Veda is the breath...' (Brihadaranyaka 2.4.10) is proof of Vedas being produced by Brahma unintentionally, does this word 'breath' denote 'unintentional production'? Or is it 'breath-like is breath', and the meaning of 'like' is unintentional production, thus implying it through secondary function? Not the first, due to lack of proof. He refutes the second, saying 'Nishshvasita' etc. Since the meaning of 'like' can also be 'coming forth effortlessly', and the word 'breath' can be explained with that intent, there is no certainty that it intends 'unintentional origin'—this is the meaning. And it is not that for us too there is lack of certainty as there is for the opponent; with this intent, he says 'Sa' (He). 'He desired... He created all this' (Brihadaranyaka 1.2.45)—thus it is stated that Brahma's creation of everything is preceded by desire. And desire is invariably concomitant with intelligence. Therefore, nothing of Brahma is produced unintentionally.

Objection: The Shruti 'This is the breath' speaks of the unintentional origin of the 'world of names', and 'He desired' speaks of the intentional origin of the 'world of forms'; therefore there is no contradiction—to this, he says 'Ishtam'. If this were so, in the 'Breath' Shruti, the world of names is mentioned along with the world of forms in 'Sacrifices, oblations, food, drink, this world and the other world'. If the world of forms also obtained unintentional origin by the word 'breath', the Shruti 'He desired' would become objectless (void); this is the idea.

For this reason too, Brahma's creation is not unintentional; he says 'Maha-tatparya'. Because of the contradiction with the Great Purport of all Vedas which is in the supremacy of Supreme Brahman—this is the meaning. Why is that so? He says 'Tach cha'. Stated means established. How is there contradiction? He says 'Na hi'. Pre-eminence means supremacy. Even if being a creator of origin without independence contradicts supremacy, what does that have to do with being an unintentional producer? He says 'Asvatantryam cha'. When an effect is not preceded by a person's intelligence/intention, the person has lack of independence regarding it; he gives an example 'Yatha'—just as even though diseases etc. are born of a person, due to lack of intention, the person has no independence there; so it means. And thus, from unintentional production comes lack of independence, and from lack of independence, lack of supremacy would follow. And thus, contradiction with the Great Purport is stated. Even though direct connection is possible, this is said for the sake of elucidation.

Objection: Just like (texts for) eternality of Vedas, there are also texts for their origin like 'The Riks and Samans were born' (Rig Veda 10.90.9), so how is the decision made? Therefore, since the texts on eternality are stronger because they are supported by reasoning (blocking the opposite view), the texts on origin must be explained otherwise; thus he says 'Utpatti'. Where is a word denoting origin seen in the sense of manifestation? He says 'Nitya'. Having stated primary eternality as 'eternal due to being without beginning or end' and not figuratively, it is again said 'emitted'; there, due to lack of another recourse, manifestation alone must be grasped—this is the meaning.

He shows usage elsewhere too—'Abhivyanjaka'. Meaning, the word for agent/creator exists regarding Yajnavalkya who is determined to be the manifester of Shatapatha. Why could Yajnavalkya not be the creator of Shatapatha? He says 'Katham'. Meaning, it is established that they existed previously in the Sun and were then studied by Yajnavalkya. For this reason also, the view of eternality is stronger; he says 'Vachana'. 'Riks and Samans' etc. is mere statement. But the sentence stated in Shariraka (Brahma Sutras) 'And therefore eternality' (1.3.29) is decisive. And a statement is possible through another function (secondary meaning), but a decision which determines the sentence meaning is not figurative. Therefore, this is stronger—this is the meaning.

Objection: In the Shariraka, by 'Shastra-yonitvat' (1.1.3), Brahman's being the cause of Veda is stated—to this, he says 'Shastra'. Objection: Abandoning the Tatpurusha compound (Source of Scripture), why is Bahuvrihi (Having Scripture as Source) accepted? And if so, it would follow that Brahman is born from the Veda—to this, he says 'Janmadi'. Decision about a thing is by definition and proof. There, when the definition is stated by the sutra 'Janmadyasya' (1.1.2), the expectation for proof regarding Brahman being the cause of the world's birth etc. arises—'from what proof is this to be known?'—but not His being born from Veda or His being the cause of Veda is expected. And sentence meaning is to be determined by expectation etc. Therefore, accepting the word 'yoni' as denoting 'proof', this must be understood as a Bahuvrihi only, not Tatpurusha.

And (if one argues) that being the cause of Veda is stated here as a reason for being the cause of the world, and thus it is not a statement of something unexpected—to this, he says 'Na hi'. Because of lack of invariable subcomitance (anvaya), and because inferring the cause of the whole by being the cause of a part leads to over-extension (logical fallacy); this is the meaning of 'Hi'. Let this not be a definitive reason; still, it could be a probabilistic reason that 'Brahman, the creator of the Veda which is impossible to create (by others), is capable of being the creator of the world'—to this, he says 'Na hi'. Probability is of the lesser by the greater, like (inferring possession of) a hundred by a thousand. And creation of a part is not greater than the creation of the whole; this is the idea. 'Srijyatve' means in the view that Veda is an effect/created.

By the statement of being the cause of the world, Brahman's omniscience is understood; to clarify that, being the cause of Veda is stated here as the reason; therefore there is no irrelevance—to this, he says 'Na cha'. 'Being the cause of Veda is the reason' continues. Because unintentional production is accepted (by the opponent); this is the idea. Moreover, if the Supreme Lord is established as omniscient being the creator of the Veda which is a part of the world, then being the creator of the world which includes the Veda, He would certainly be established as omniscient. And thus, since omniscience is clearly understood by implication from the 'Janmadi' sutra itself, the irrelevance remains due to lack of expectation for a reason again; with this intent, he says 'Yadi'.

He concludes the meaning of the Sutra—'Tasmat'. 'Of Brahman' is the remainder. He concludes what was said in 'Tani cha' etc. with 'Ata' (Therefore). And thus, one should not interchange the meanings of the words 'Brahma' and 'Akshara' to gain the primary meaning of the word 'samudbhava'. Since the object of reference in 'Tasmat' is not (immediately) apparent, showing it, he explains the sentence. 'Yata' (Since). 'It is said to be established' is the remainder.

That [Action] which produces 'Apūrva' (unseen merit) is "Brahmodbhavam"; "Brahma" is the Veda; that (action) whose "udbhava"—meaning authority/source—is that (Veda), is such (Brahmodbhavam). Know that only action ordained by the Veda is the means to Apūrva, not other (actions) propounded by heretics (Pākhaṇḍa)—this is the meaning.

Objection: What is the distinction of the Veda compared to heretical scriptures, due to which only the Dharma propounded by the Veda is valid, and not others? To this, He says: "Brahma," named the Veda, is "akṣarasamudbhavam." "Akṣarasamudbhavam" is that whose "samudbhava"—meaning manifestation—occurs "abuddhipūrvam" (spontaneously/without mental effort), like the breath of a man, from the "Akṣara," i.e., the faultless Supreme Self. Thus, being "Apauruṣeya" (not of human origin), the Vedic sentence, for which the suspicion of all defects has been refuted, is the authority (Pramāṇa) regarding supersensuous matters because it generates valid knowledge; whereas the heretical statement composed by those possessing defects like delusion, carelessness, inefficiency of senses, and the desire to deceive, generates valid knowledge—this is the idea.

And so the Śruti states: "Of this Great Being, this is the breath: Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda, Atharvāṅgirasa, Itihāsa, Purāṇa, Vidya, Upaniṣads, Shlokas, Sutras, Anuvyākhyānas, Vyākhyānas; all these are His breaths."

Therefore, being directly born of the Supreme Self, the "Brahma" named Veda—which is "sarvagatam" (all-pervading), meaning illuminating everything, and eternal and indestructible—is "established" in "Yajña," i.e., in the supersensuous entity named Dharma, by way of purport. Therefore, by abandoning the quasi-dharma propounded by heretics, one should perform only the Dharma instructed by the Veda—this is the meaning.

Objection: Even if the gods are forms of His glory (Vibhūti), since worshiping them is not the direct worship of Puruṣottama, it is indeed improper? Anticipating this doubt, He says "Karma" etc. Know "Karma" to be "Brahmodbhavam"—manifest from Brahma. Here the sentiment is: The origin of action is from the Veda, and that (Veda) is the breath of Brahma; therefore it is such.

To make known the quality of Puruṣottama in Brahma (Veda), He qualifies it as "akṣarasamudbhavam." That Brahma is "akṣarasamudbhavam"—meaning it is such that from it (or connected to it) is the origin of the Akṣara. [Alternatively: That whose origin is from Akṣara]. Because the Akṣara is of the nature of the feet of Puruṣottama, it is so.

For that reason, the "Brahma" which is "sarvagatam" (all-pervading), all-encompassing, and eternal, is itself "established in sacrifice." Thereby, the previously stated defect (of worship being improper) is not possible—this is the sentiment.

Karma brahmodbhavam" (Action is born of Brahma). "Brahma" means the Veda. That [Action] of which "Sa" (That Veda) is the "Udbhava"—meaning the cause or illuminator—know that Action to be "Brahmodbhavam."

Again, "Brahma"—named the Veda—is "akṣarasamudbhavam." That of which the "Akṣara"—meaning Brahma, the Supreme Self (Paramātmā)—is the "Samudhbhava" (source/origin), is "akṣarasamudbhavam." The meaning is that Brahma is the Veda.

Since "Brahma" (the Veda) has originated like the breath of a man directly from the "Akṣara" called the Supreme Self, therefore, being the illuminator of all objects/meanings, it is "sarvagatam" (all-pervading). Even though existing as all-pervading, it is "nityam"—always—"established in sacrifice" (Yajña) because of the preponderance of injunctions regarding sacrifice.

"Karma brahmodbhavam" (Action is born of Brahma). "Brahma" refers to the Veda or Prajāpati. Their description as "Brahma" is also in accordance with "Brahmavāda" (the doctrine that everything is Brahman). That [Brahma] is "akṣarasamudbhavam"—born of the "Kūṭastha" (Immutable) or born of the "Praṇava" (Om).

Or, it is born of the "Puruṣa." Since Brahman is all-pervading, and since it is demonstrated in the Veda that "All is Brahman," he indicates that Brahmavāda alone is intended here with "Brahma nityam yajñe pratiṣṭhitam" (Brahma is eternally established in sacrifice).

Because of the conceptualization of the requisites of sacrifice within the limbs of the Puruṣa, as per texts like "Puruṣa alone is all this..." (Rig Veda 10.90.2) and "Sacrifice is indeed Vishnu..." (Taittirīya Saṃhitā 1.7.4).

Since the sacrifice, which is non-different from Brahman, was performed and instructed by Prajāpati in the beginning, Brahma is established in sacrifice.

And this is detailed in the Nibandha and the Subodhinī.

कर्म action? ब्रह्मोद्भवम् arisen from Brahma? विद्धि know? ब्रह्म Brahma? अक्षरसमुद्भवम् arisen from the Imperishable? तस्मात् therefore? सर्वगतम् allpervading? ब्रह्म Brahma? नित्यम् ever? यज्ञे in sacrifice? प्रतिष्ठितम् (is) established.Commentary Brahma may mean Veda. Just as the breath comes out of a man? so also the Veda is the breath of the Imperishable or the Omniscient. The Veda ever rests in the sacrifice? i.e.? it deals chiefly with sacrifices and the ways of their performance. (Cf.IV.24 to 32).Karma Action? Brahmodbhavam arisen from the injunctions of the Vedas.

Again, [a different reading in place of this is: 'Tat ca vividham karma kuto jatamityaha, From where did those various kinds of action originate? In reply the Lord says৷৷.' Still another reading is: 'Tat ca karma brahmodbhavam iti aha, And the Lord says: That action has the Vedas as its origin.'-vide A.A., 1936, p. 116).
Astekar's reading is: Tat ca evam vidham karma kuto jatamityaha, And from where has this kind of aciton originated? The answers this.'-Tr.] viddhi, know; that karma, action; is brahmodbhavam, it has Brahma, the Veda, as its udbhavam, origin. [Here Ast. adds 'revealer'-Tr.] Further, Brahma, called the Veda, is aksara-samudbhavam, it has aksara, the Immutable, Brahman, the supreme Self, as its source. This is the meaning. Since the Veda came out, like the breath of a man, from the supreme Self Itself, called the Immutable, therefore the Veda, being the revealer of everything, is sarva-gatam, all pervading. Even though all-pervading, the Veda is nityam, for ever; pratisthitam, based; yajne, on sacrifice, because the injunctions about sacrifices predominate in it.

Here ther term, 'Brahman' connotes the physical body consisting of modifications of the Prakrti; for the Prakrti is denoted here by the term 'Brahman', as in the scriptural text: 'From Him arises, this Brahman and this 'Brahman' becomes name, form and food' (Mun. U., 1.1.9). Here also it will be said by Sri Krsna: 'This great 'Brahman' is my womb' (14.3). Therefore, the words that 'Activity springs from 'Brahman' teaches that activity is produced by the physical body which is of the nature of the modification of Prakrti. The 'Brahman' arises from the imperishable self. Here the term, 'imperishable', indicates the individual self. The physical body, which is inhabited by the self who is satisfied by food and drink, is fit for action; hence the physical body which constitutes the instrument of activity is said to be from the imperishable. Therefore the 'all-pervading Brahman' means here the bodies of all persons of diverse kinds which are the products of Prakrti which comprises all material entities, and is hence all-pervading. They, the bodies, are established in sacrifice. The meanig is that the bodies have roots in sacrifice.