SB 6.4.32 · Srimad-Bhagavatam

Devanagari

अस्तीति नास्तीति च वस्तुनिष्ठयो- रेकस्थयोर्भिन्नविरुद्धधर्मणो: । अवेक्षितं किञ्चन योगसाङ्ख्ययो: समं परं ह्यनुकूलं बृहत्तत् ॥ ३२ ॥

Verse text

astīti nāstīti ca vastu-niṣṭhayor eka-sthayor bhinna-viruddha-dharmaṇoḥ avekṣitaṁ kiṣcana yoga-sāṅkhyayoḥ samaṁ paraṁ hy anukūlaṁ bṛhat tat

Synonyms

asti — there is ; iti — thus ; na — not ; asti — there is ; iti — thus ; ca — and ; vastu — niṣṭhayoḥ — professing knowledge of the ultimate cause ; eka — sthayoḥ — with one and the same subject matter, establishing Brahman ; bhinna — demonstrating different ; viruddha — dharmaṇoḥ — and opposing characteristics ; avekṣitam — perceived ; kiṣcana — that something which ; yoga — sāṅkhyayoḥ — of mystic yoga and the Sāṅkhya philosophy (analysis of the ways of nature) ; samam — the same ; param — transcendental ; hi — indeed ; anukūlam — dwelling place ; bṛhat tat — that ultimate cause .

Translation

There are two parties — namely, the theists and the atheists. The theist, who accepts the Supersoul, finds the spiritual cause through mystic yoga. The Sāṅkhyite, however, who merely analyzes the material elements, comes to a conclusion of impersonalism and does not accept a supreme cause — whether Bhagavān, Paramātmā or even Brahman. Instead, he is preoccupied with the superfluous, external activities of material nature. Ultimately, however, both parties demonstrate the Absolute Truth because although they offer opposing statements, their object is the same ultimate cause. They are both approaching the same Supreme Brahman, to whom I offer my respectful obeisances.

Translation (Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura)

The same supreme Brahman without contradiction is perceived by bhakti and jṣāna with contrary qualities because the followers are fixed in a particular faith directed to the same object. “Why do you criticize the knowers of scripture? They argue because there are different opinions stated in the scriptures.” That is not so. Both bhakti (yoga) and jṣāna (sāṅkhya) perceive the same brahman (bṛhat) without disagreement. In studying these two different scriptures there is no disagreement. They seem to have contrary ideas concerning what exists and what does not exist. In the bhakti scriptures the object of worship is described as a person with dark complexion, with yellow cloth, lotus eyes, four arms, holding a bow, club and other weapons. He has forms, qualities, limbs, associates and abodes. In the jṣāna scriptures the object of attainment has no name form, qualities, hands, feet, eyes, ears. It alone exists. But there is no contradiction in these two different objects with different qualities. They both exist within one Brahman. Both processes have Brahman as their object of perception. “But how can there be no contradiction or disagreement?” The particular qualities of each realization arise from fixing one’s faith in the same real object. The form with qualities promoted in bhakti scriptures is a real form, not a false object. The form without qualities promoted in jṣāna scriptures is a real form. The names and forms of the Lord such as Kṛṣṇa and Rāma described in the bhakti scriptures are not forbidden in the jṣāna scriptures even though a person may be fixed in that particular realization of Brahman. Only the material forms are rejected. The bhakti scriptures also do not worship the universal form, which is also forbidden in the jṣāna scriptures. amunī bhagavad-rūpe mayā te hy anuvarṇite | ubhe api na gṛhṇanti māyā-sṛṣṭe vipaścitaḥ || The wise do not accept these two forms of the Lord described by me since they are composed of matter. SB 2.10.25 Meditation on this form is recommended only for some persons in the initial state for purification of the heart, and not for all types of worship. Thus the bhakti and jṣāna scriptures are not contradictory. Those who argue over differences in scripture, not knowing the real conclusion, are condemned.

Purport

Actually there are two sides to this argument. Some say that the Absolute has no form ( nirākāra ), and others say that the Absolute has a form ( sākāra ). Therefore the word form is the common factor, although some accept it ( asti or astika ) whereas others try to negate it ( nāsti or nāstika ). Since the devotee considers the word “form” ( ākāra ) the common factor for both, he offers his respectful obeisances to the form, although others may go on arguing about whether the Absolute has a form or not. In this verse the word yoga-sāṅkhyayoḥ is very important. Yoga means bhakti-yoga because yogīs also accept the existence of the all-pervading Supreme Soul and try to see that Supreme Soul within their hearts. As stated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (12.13.1) , dhyānāvasthita-tad-gatena manasā paśyanti yaṁ yoginaḥ. The devotee tries to come directly in touch with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whereas the yogī tries to find the Supersoul within the heart by meditation. Thus, both directly and indirectly, yoga means bhakti-yoga. Sāṅkhya, however, means physical study of the cosmic situation through speculative knowledge. This is generally known as jṣāna-śāstra. The Sāṅkhyites are attached to the impersonal Brahman, but the Absolute Truth is known in three ways. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate: the Absolute Truth is one, but some accept Him as impersonal Brahman, some as the Supersoul existing everywhere, and some as Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The central point is the Absolute Truth. Although the impersonalists and personalists fight with one another, they focus upon the same Parabrahman, the same Absolute Truth. In the yoga-śāstras, Kṛṣṇa is described as follows: kṛṣṇaṁ piśaṅgāmbaram ambujekṣaṇaṁ catur-bhujaṁ śaṅkha-gadādy-udāyudham. Thus the pleasing appearance of the Supreme Personality of Godhead’s bodily features, His limbs and His dress are described. The sāṅkhya-śāstra, however, denies the existence of the Lord’s transcendental form. The sāṅkhya-śāstra says that the Supreme Absolute Truth has no hands, no legs and no name: hy anāma-rūpa-guṇa-pāṇi-pādam acakṣur aśrotram ekam advitīyam api nāma-rūpādikaṁ nāsti. The Vedic mantras say, apāṇi-pādo javano grahītā: the Supreme Lord has no legs and hands, but He can accept whatever is offered to Him. Actually such statements accept that the Supreme has hands and legs, but deny that He has material hands and legs. This is why the Absolute is called aprākṛta. Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has a sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha, a form of eternity, knowledge and bliss, not a material form. The Sāṅkhyites, or jṣānīs, deny the material form, and the devotees also know very well that the Absolute Truth, Bhagavān, has no material form. īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ anādir ādir govindaḥ sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam “Kṛṣṇa, who is known as Govinda, is the supreme controller. He has an eternal, blissful, spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin, for He is the prime cause of all causes.” The conception of the Absolute without hands and legs and the conception of the Absolute with hands and legs are apparently contradictory, but they both coincide with the same truth about the Supreme Absolute Person. Therefore the word vastu-niṣṭhayoḥ, which is used herein, indicates that both the yogīs and Sāṅkhyites have faith in the reality, but are arguing about it from the different viewpoints of material and spiritual identities. Parabrahman, or bṛhat, is the common point. The Sāṅkhyites and yogīs are both situated in that same Brahman, but they differ because of different angles of vision. The directions given by the bhakti-śāstra point one in the perfect direction because the Supreme Personality of Godhead says in Bhagavad-gītā, bhaktyā mām abhijānāti: “Only by devotional service am I to be known.” The bhaktas know that the Supreme Person has no material form, whereas the jṣānīs simply deny the material form. One should therefore take shelter of the bhakti-mārga, the path of devotion; then everything will be clear. Jṣānīs concentrate on the virāṭ-rūpa, the gigantic universal form of the Lord. This is a good system in the beginning for those who are extremely materialistic, but there is no need to think continuously of the virāṭ-rūpa. When Arjuna was shown the virāṭ-rūpa of Kṛṣṇa, he saw it, but he did not want to see it perpetually. He therefore requested the Lord to return to His original form as two-armed Kṛṣṇa. In conclusion, learned scholars find no contradictions in the devotees’ concentration upon the spiritual form of the Lord ( īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ ). In this regard, Śrīla Madhvācārya says that less intelligent nondevotees think that their conclusion is the ultimate, but because devotees are completely learned, they can understand that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ultimate goal.