Shastra Quiz 42

In the vadanti tat verse, Sūta Gosvāmī explains that Absolute Reality is referred to by three names — Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān.

According to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, these three different nomenclatures indicate three degrees of competence in the worshipers. In Bhagavad Gītā Śrī Kṛṣṇa says, “I reveal Myself to all who surrender unto Me, exactly in accordance with the essential nature of their surrender.” Yathā, or “in accordance with the essential nature,” in this statement signifies the inner disposition of the devotee, the mode of worship, the devotee’s conceptual outlook in regard to Bhagavān’s form, and similar factors that contribute to and define the nature of the surrender undertaken.

Taking this into consideration, the words brahma, paramātmā, and bhagavān in Sūta’s verse denote not only the one non-dual Absolute in three degrees of completion but also three degrees of completion in surrender. The same nondual Absolute is revealed, and thus interpreted, either as Brahman, Paramātmā, or Bhagavān in accordance with the core disposition of surrender, shaped in no small measure by the theory and praxis adopted by the adherents of different paths.

This implies that if a worshiper has a non-personal concept of the Absolute and cultivates a legitimate process to realize it, then the Absolute will manifest to him as unqualified Brahman. If the worshiper has a personal concept of the Absolute, then he will realize the Absolute as Paramātmā or Bhagavān, depending on his specific understanding and the means employed. The adherents of jñāna-yoga realize the Absolute as Brahman, those of aṣṭāṅga-yoga as Paramātmā, and those of bhakti-yoga as Bhagavān.

This is confirmed by Śrī Brahmā in his prayers:

tvaṁ bhakti-yoga-paribhāvita-hṛt-saroja āsse śrutekṣita-patho nanu nātha puṁsām
yad-yad-dhiyā ta urugāya vibhāvayanti tat-tad-vapuḥ praṇayase sad-anugrahāya

O Master! You take Your seat in the lotus heart that has been made worthy of You through love, prema. Even so, the way to reach You can be understood through hearing. Out of kindness toward Your devotees, O greatly glorified Lord, You take the very form they meditate on and appear to them in that way. (SB 3.9.11)

In the vadanti tat verse, Sūta Gosvāmī explains that Absolute Reality is referred to by three names — Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān.

The specific order of the three names given — Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān — implies that Paramātmā is a realization of the Absolute superior to Brahman and that Bhagavān is the ultimate stage of realization.

One may object that since Brahman is mentioned first, it should be considered superior to Paramātmā and so on, but this objection is refuted by the hermeneutic principle stating that a sequence ordered by meaning takes precedence over the sequence as read (pāṭha-kramād artha-kramo balīyān, Arthasaṅgraha 39).

For example, in the Vedas one will find the statement agni-hotraṁ juhoti, “He performs the Agnihotra sacrifice.” Later, however, it says yavāgūṁ pacati, “He cooks yavāgū (a special preparation used in the sacrifice).” Although here the cooking of yavāgū is mentioned after the performance of the sacrifice, such cooking naturally has to be done before the sacrifice; otherwise, preparing it serves no purpose and the sacrifice itself would be futile due to not having any yavāgū.

In this case, the sequence of events should be understood in accordance with the meaning rather than the order in which the texts appear. The same applies in the case of Sūta Gosvāmī’s listing of Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān.

Every substance, dravya, has three aspects: its state as an unqualified object (viśeṣya), its qualifying attributes (viśeṣaṇa), and the same object qualified with its attributes (viśiṣṭa).

In the phrase, “white cow,” for example, “white” is the quality (viśeṣaṇa) that distinguishes one particular cow from others, which may be grey, brown, or some other color. The word “cow” refers to the animal in general, without its quality of being white. Here, we are calling this the object without attributes (viśeṣya), for “cow” does not stand for any particular cow and so makes no distinction between one cow and another. This does not imply, however, that cows in general have no qualities, such as color. It is just that by saying only “cow,” the speaker does not convey any attributes that are specific to a particular cow. The general attributes, however, are understood from the very definition of the word “cow” itself.

In the phrase “white cow,” both the substance and its attributes are stated together, resulting in “cow” becoming the qualified object or substantive (viśiṣṭa). The quality, “white,” and its object, “cow,” when stated separately do not convey a complete unit of information; whereas, when stated together, they describe the qualified substantive.

Learn more: The Nature of Absolute Nondual Reality

All literature, including the Veda, is composed of words. Every Sanskrit word (pada) has a meaning (artha), and there is a relation between the two. A word has a potency by which it conveys its meaning, which is called vṛtti.

All literature, including the Veda, is composed of words. Every Sanskrit word (pada) has a meaning (artha), and there is a relation between the two. A word has a potency by which it conveys its meaning, which is called vṛtti.

Primarily the vṛttis of all words can be divided into three groups, called abhidhā (primary or direct), lakṣaṇā (secondary or indicative), and vyañjanā (suggestive).

Learn more: The Meaning of the word Anādi

All literature, including the Veda, is composed of words. Every Sanskrit word (pada) has a meaning (artha), and there is a relation between the two. A word has a potency by which it conveys its meaning, which is called vṛtti.

Primarily the vṛttis of all words can be divided into three groups, called abhidhā (primary or direct), lakṣaṇā (secondary or indicative), and vyañjanā (suggestive).

When deriving the meaning of a word based on abhidhā-vṛtti or mukhyā-vṛtti, one does not have to resort to any other help, such as logic. The meaning comes directly and naturally from the word. Therefore, the meaning conveyed by the abhidhā-vṛtti is self-authoritative.

When, however, one takes the meaning based on the lakṣaṇā-vṛtti or vyañjanā-vṛtti, one has to look to something other than the primary meaning of the word. Though such a meaning is not self-authoritative, it does not imply that such interpretations or explanations are without value.

Without recourse to them, it would be impossible to understand the intent of the Vedic literature or to reconcile the contradictions found therein.

Lakṣaṇā-vṛtti is used only when the primary meaning fails to convey a proper sense. When, however, a word directly conveys its sense adequately, it is considered a deviation from the author’s or speaker’s intent to put forth a secondary meaning instead.

A crucial point to be borne in mind is that without having a primary meaning, there is no possibility that a word could have a secondary or implied meaning either (i.e., lakṣaṇā-vṛtti or vyañjanā-vṛtti)

When the abhidhā-vṛtti and lakṣaṇā-vṛtti have made their respective contributions and yet more meaning is needed to complete the sense, then one looks to the vyañjanā-vṛtti.

Of all the vṛttis, vyañjanā is also the most difficult to comprehend. It is used by most learned Sanskrit scholars in their writings. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, especially the Tenth Canto, is a masterpiece based on vyañjanā-vṛtti.

Learn more: The Meaning of the word Anādi

Although Bhagavān is endowed with infinite potencies, these potencies are categorized in three groups: internal (antaraṅga or svarūpa-śakti), intermediary (taṭastha or jīva-śakti), and external (bahiraṅga or māyā-śakti).

In the final section of Bhagavat Sandarbha, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī explains Bhagavān's energies have distinct personalities, names, and forms. This is why in almost all Indian temples dedicated to Bhagavān as Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu, Bhagavān is accompanied by His consort, Śrī Rādhā or Śrī Lakṣmī, the personification of His internal potency.

No and yes. No, because he is not Hari. He is Hari’s devotee. Yes, because he passes on Hari’s teachings in the parampara.

Because he does the function of Hari, he is considered Hari.