Tattva Sūtra

SŪTRA 41

jñāna-sūryasya hi raśmayaḥ śāstrāṇi

(Indeed, the śāstras are rays of the sun of knowledge)

Sanskrit Commentary by Śrī Gopīnātha Paṇḍita

nānu nānā-śāstreṣu nānā-matavādināṁ nānā-vidha siddhānta sambhāvena kamapyekaṁ siddhāntam-āśritya tac-chāstrādhīnatayā yatatāṁ jīvānāṁ avaśyaṁ śreyaḥ syāt kim anena tattva-sūtra parāmarśa pariśrameṇa iti cet na, svataḥ-siddha-jñānāvalambanamṛte jīvānām aikantika śreyaḥ siddhir iti pratipādayituṁ pañcamaṁ prakaraṇam ārabhate śrī-sūtrakāraḥ “jñāna-sūryasya iti.” hi-padaṁ niścaya-vācakaṁ hetu-vācakaṁ vā. jīvānāṁ svataḥ-siddha-jñānam eva sūryaḥ brahma-svarūpatvāt sva-prakāśatvāt ajñāna-dhvānta-dhvaṁsakatvāt sarvārtha-prakāśakatvāc ca. tasya raśmayas tad-aṁśa-bhūtāni tat-sambhūtāni sarvāṇi śāstrāṇīty arthaḥ. ‘ṛcaḥ sāmāni jajñire chandāṁsi jajñire tasmāt yajus tasmād ajāyata’ iti śruteḥ, ‘śāstra-yonitvāt’ iti brahma-sūtra-kāreṇa vyāsenāpy etad eva nirṇītam.

“Now, there are different śāstras by various philosophers with diverse conclusions – were one to adopt any one of these conclusions on the authority of these śāstras, would that not necessarily lead to the supreme welfare sought by the jīvas? What is the need of endeavouring for further advice from the Tattva Sūtra?” If this is said, then the answer is, “It is not so.” Thus, to explain that the exclusive welfare of the jīvas is attained through self-evident knowledge and not through relying upon mere jñāna, the esteemed author of the sūtras begins the fifth section with jñāna-sūryasya etc.

The word hi is indicative of certainty or of a reason. For the jīvas, self-evident knowledge itself is like the sun, because it is of the nature of Brahman, self-luminous, dispels the darkness of ignorance, and reveals all things. Its rays are its expansions (aṁśas), and all śāstras have originated from it – this is the meaning. The śruti states, ‘The Ṛg Veda, the Sāma Veda, the metres and the Yajur Veda manifested from Him’(Ṛg Veda 10.90.9) The author of the Brahma Sūtras has also established this same conclusion by stating, ‘Because He is the source of śāstra’ (Brahma Sūtra 1.1.3)

Commentary by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura

nārāyaṇaṁ namaskṛtya brāhmāṇaṁ ca svayambhuvam
nāradaṁ tattva-sāra-jñaṁ kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyanaṁ munim

I offer my respects unto Nārāyaṇa, the self-born Brahmā, to Nārada, the knower of the essence of spiritual reality, and to the muni, Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana.

madhvācāryaṁ tato vande tac-chiṣyān sampradāyinaḥ
kalau yasmin sampradāye sākṣāc caitanya-vigrahaḥ

I offer my respects unto Madhvācārya, and then to his disciples in his sampradāya. In this age of Kali, the Lord in the form of Śrī Caitanya is directly present in this sampradāya.

āvirāsīn navadvīpe sarva-siddhānta-sāgaraḥ
sāragrāhi-gaṇā yasya sainya-bhūtāḥ kṣitau mataḥ

He appeared in Navadvīpa as the ocean of all perfect conclusions, and His followers, who are sāragrāhīs (expert in seeking that which is essential), are regarded as His army on this earth.

na bāhyaṁ lakṣaṇaṁ teṣāṁ vinā kṛṣṇānuśīlanam
sampradāya-svapakṣatve sāra-tyāgo bhaved dhruvam

They do not possess any external characteristics except for those that cultivate devotion to Kṛṣṇa, Blindly favouring one’s own sampradāya will certainly result in abandoning that which is essential.

sāragrāhi-janas tasmāt sampradāya-ratā na hi
yat-sampradāye yat-satyaṁ tat-sāram iti tan-matam

Therefore, those persons who are sāragrāhīs and are devoted to the sampradāya do not say that the essence of truth in any sampradāya is different – this is their view.

tatra teṣāṁ pramodo hi tad-dharmiṣu ca mitratā
bahu-saj-jana-sahayyād duḥsādhyam api sidhyati

In such a situation, their joy arises from friendship with those who follow the same dharma, and through the help of many devotees, even difficult tasks become achievable.

mithaḥ sāra-rasālāpo mithaś cānanda-kāraṇam
sarveṣāṁ sampradāyānāṁ edad vai phalam adbhutam

Mutual discussions concerning the essence of the truth which creates reciprocal bliss, is indeed the astonishing result of all sampradāyas.

tasmāc chrī-gaura-dasānāṁ mādhvīya-jana-saṅgrahaḥ
tatrāpi bahavaḥ santi bāhya-cihnāvalambinaḥ

Thus, among the servants of Śrī Gaura, there are many who adhere to the Madhva tradition, yet even among many of them, there are those who cling to external characteristics.

sampradāyānurodhād vā tat-tattva-jñānato’pi vā
|kecit tac-cihna-śūnyāś ca sāragrāhitayā matā

Some, in accordance with the sampradāya, or understanding the truth within it, are considered to be sāragrāhīs, even if they are devoid of external characteristics.

lābha-pūrṇā doṣa-muktāḥ sañcaranty avadhūta-vat
teṣāṁ viśuddha-buddhīnāṁ kṛṣṇa-tattva-vivekinām
namāmi caraṇāmbhojaṁ yukta-vairāgya-dhāriṇām

I offer my respects into the lotus feet of those who are fully satisfied, free from faults, who roam around like an avadhūta, possessing pure intellect and the ability to discern the truth about Kṛṣṇa, who maintain proper renunciation (yukta-vairāgya).

Knowledge is in the form of the sun, and all śāstras are simply its rays. By this statement it is conveyed that no śāstra can contain all knowledge. The self-evident knowledge of the jīva is the basis of all śāstra, and that knowledge must be understood as given by the Lord. The kind-hearted ṛṣis, having received that self-evident knowledge from the Supreme Reality, wrote it down for the benefit of other jīvas. In this way, the original knowledge has been partially revealed in the form of the Vedas. All the mantras and the Brāhmaṇas that are spoken and written down can be said to be the Vedas. Sometimes they are referred to as jñāna. Just as in certain śāstras the jīva’s nature of consciousness and bliss is referred to as Brahman, similarly, the entire Vedas in the form of jñāna can also be called Brahman. That Vedic knowledge is of two types, as mentioned in the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad:

dve vidye veditavya iti ha sma yad brahma-vido vadanti parā caivāparā ca
tatrāparā ṛg-vedo yajur-vedaḥ sama-vedo’tharva-vedaḥ
śikṣā kalpo vyākaraṇaṃ niruktaṃ chando jyotiṣamiti
atha parā yayā tadakṣaram adhigamyate

The knowers of the Absolute say that there are two kinds of knowledge that must be known – parā (higher) and apara (lower). The lower knowledge is the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sāma Veda, the Atharva Veda, śikṣā (phonetics), kalpa (rituals), vyākaraṇam (grammar), nirukta (etymology), chandas (metre) and jyotiṣa (astronomy). Thus, higher knowledge is that by which the imperishable Supreme is attained. (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.4-5)

From this beginningless knowledge, first the praṇava (oṁkāra), then the gāyatrī, then the singular Veda, and finally the four Vedas were revealed. Over time, in all those Vedas, different opinions have been incorporated according to the various qualities of the writers. Bhagāvan states in the Eleventh Canto of the Bhāgavata:

kālena naṣṭā pralaye vāṇīyaṁ veda-samjñitā
mayādau brāhmaṇe proktā dharmo yasyāṁ mad-ātmakaḥ

tena proktā sva-putrāya manave pūrva-jāyasā
tato bhṛgv-ādayo gṛhṇan sapta-brahma-maharṣayaḥ

tebhyaḥ pitṛbhyas tat-putrā deva-dānava-guhyakāḥ
manuṣyāḥ siddha-gandharvāḥ sa-vidyādhara-cāraṇāḥ

kindevāḥ kinnarā nāgā rakṣā kimpuruṣādayaḥ
bahvyas teṣāṁ prkṛtayo rajaḥ-sattva-tamo-bhuvaḥ

yābhir bhūtāni bhidyante bhūtānāṁ patayas tathā
yathā prakṛtiḥ sarveṣāṁ citrāvacaḥ sravanti hi

evaṁ prakṛti-vaicitryād bhidyante matayo nṛṇām
pāramparyeṇa keṣāñcit pāṣaṇḍa-matayo ‘pare

During cosmic annihilation, the instructions of the entire Vedas almost vanished at that time. Within these Vedas, the nature of being attached to the ātmā was described. At the beginning of the kalpa, I spoke the Vedas to Brahmā. Brahmā gave these teachings to his first son, Manu. The seven sages headed by Bhṛgu attained it form Manu. From them, all their sons such as the Devas, Dānavas, Guhyakas, men, Siddhas, Gandharvas, Vidyādharas, Cāraṇas, Kiṁdevas, Kinnaras, Nāgas, Rakṣasas and Kimpuruṣas all received it. They were influenced by their multifarious natures, born from the modes of goodness, passion and ignorance. Through these various natures, it was observed that all these species became distinct from their masters. According to the natures, all kinds of diverse statements came from them. In this way, due to the differentiation of nature, various types of philosophies amongst humans also emerged. Some of these philosophies gradually continued through the guru-paramparā. Moreover, some persons propagated atheistic philosophies. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.14.3-8)

Therefore, gradually, many atheistic doctrines all began to be referred to as śāstra. Thus, self-evident knowledge alone, which is the inherent property of all jīvas, should be the sole criterion when analysing the śāstra. This has been stated in the Eleventh Canto:

aṇubhyaś ca bṛhadbhyaś ca śāstrebhyaḥ kuśalo naraḥ
sarvataḥ sāram ādadyāt puṣpebhya iva ṣaṭpadaḥ

Just as a honeybee takes the essence from all flowers, an intelligent man should take it from all the śāstra, whether they are big or small. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.8.10)

In order to determine the true meaning of the Vedic statements, ṛṣis such as Yājñavalkya, Śātātapa, Vasiṣṭha, Vāmadeva, and others have composed many texts, which are known as dharma-śāstras. Ṛṣis like Vedavyāsa etc. have also propagated many śāstras such as the Purāṇas. Śrī Mahādeva has explained many Tantras. It is the duty of people in this material world to analyse the Vedas along with their explanations. However, even if all this is done, the discussion of one’s own inherent self-evident knowledge is also necessary, since the commentators and their annotators are not clear in all places. In some places, even the annotators’ doubts can be seen – therefore, the rule of the Vedas is as stated in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad:

avidyāyām antare vartamānāḥ
svayaṁ dhīrā paṇḍitaṁ manyamānāḥ
dandramyamāṇāḥ pariyānti mūḍhā
andhenaiva nīyamānā yathāndhāḥ

Dwelling in the midst of ignorance, but thinking themselves to be wise and learned scholars, fools stagger around here and there, like blind men led by the blind. (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.5)

Therefore, the discussion of self-evident, independent knowledge is necessary everywhere; this is the conclusion regarding the analysis of śāstra. Knowledge is at the root of the śāstra, therefore, how can all those persons who neglect the root and rely upon the branches achieve any type of auspiciousness? If it is said that the entire conclusion is established by self-evident knowledge, then is there any necessity to honour the śāstra? The answer is this – in the subjugated state, the knowledge of the jīva is covered by the darkness of ignorance. Gradually, through the practice of withdrawing the senses and the cultivation of bhakti, concealed truths are gradually revealed with the emergence of samādhi. Since the beginning of creation, countless truths have been discovered, and it is impossible to enumerate them all. But the ṛṣis, from time to time, continue to reveal many new subjects through samādhi. All the truths that they discover can be called śāstra. One truth becomes the revealer of another doctrine, thus, it is absolutely necessary to carefully record all these discovered truths. If it is not done in this way, no truth can achieve its ultimate result. A simple example is this – if the tasks of making bricks, preparing mortar, constructing tools, etc., had to be discovered by one single person alone, then the work of house construction would never have been accomplished by them.

Brahmā, the original creator of the śāstra, instructs Nārada to expand his self-discovered knowledge by discovering other various truths. Thus, the Bhāgavata says:

saṅgraho’yaṁ vibhūtīnāṁ tvam etat vipulī-kuru

This is the accumulation of the Lord’s diverse potencies. Expand this knowledge yourself. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 2.7.51)

All truths that are revealed eventually become śāstras and benefit any future activities. Therefore, those who believe in self-evident knowledge, if they are skilled in analysis, will never be able to criticise the śāstra. However, for those who do not analyse bhakti-tattva which is the explanation of the śāstra, carrying the śāstra is merely a laborious task. Therefore, in the third section of the Yoga Vāsiṣṭha, Vālmīki makes this statement to Bharadvāja:

dṛśyaṁ nāstīti bodhena manaso dṛśya-mārjanam
sampannaṁ cet tad-utpannā parā nirvāṇa-nirvṛtiḥ

Through the understanding that those things that are perceptible do not exist, the mind becomes purified of the perceptible, If this is accomplished, then the highest liberation and bliss arises. (Yoga Vāsiṣṭha 1.3.6)

Śrīmad Ānanda Bodhendra Sarasvatī writes in his commentary to this śloka:

natāvadanyaḥ cidvyatiriktasya jaḍatayā ca anubhavattva-yogāt. ātmeva cet sa pūrvamevāsīd iti kiṁ śāstreṇa ity-āśaṅkyāha ha dṛśyam iti. satyam ātmaivānubhavaḥ tathāpyasau dṛśya-sahakṛtona tadanubhavaḥ. kintu manaso vṛttirūpeṇātmatattva sākṣātkāra bodhana-vidyā nāśāt tadu pānaka dṛśya-mārjanaṁ dṛśyāṁ kālatrayojñā nāstītyeva rūpaṁ sampannaṁ cen nitya siddhānta-rūpāpi parā nirvāṇa nirvṛttis tamāt tattva-jñānād utpannair bhavatīti kevalas tad vā svarūpa-bhūtopy’ānubhavaḥ. śāstra-phalam ity-arthaḥ.

Hence, there is no other principle distinct from consciousness, because anything separate from consciousness would be inert and incapable of being experienced. If the ātmā alone truly existed and was always there, then what is the need for śāstra? To address this question, it is said, dṛśya (‘what is perceived externally’). It is true that the ātmā alone is the basis of experience. However, this experience is influenced by dṛśya and thus, is not a direct realisation of the ātmā in its purest form. However, when the modifications of the mind are dissolved through that knowledge which reveals the essence of the ātmā, the dṛśya is removed, and one realises that it does not exist in the past, present, or future. If this understanding is attained, it culminates in the state of supreme liberation, which is of the nature of eternal truths. This liberation arises through knowledge of the ultimate reality, and it is solely the pure experience of one’s essential nature. The meaning is that this is the result of the śāstra. (Yoga Vāsiṣṭha Ṭīkā Tātparya Prakāśa 1.3.6)

It is also stated there:

anyathā śāstra-garteṣu luthaṭāṁ bhavatām iha
bhavaty akṛtrima-jñānaṁ kalair api na nirvṛtiḥ

Otherwise, in this world, you may continue to struggle in the abyss of śāstra. For the ignorant who are unacquainted with true knowledge, there is no liberation for many kalpas. (Yoga Vāsiṣṭha 1.3.7)

Therefore, the conclusion of the sāragrāhīs is this – all matters should be determined through jñāna, but all śāstras should be accepted with the help of pure knowledge. However, this rule does not apply to those whose self-evident knowledge is unrefined. The next sūtra explains the binding injuctions of śāstra.

SŪTRA 42

śāstram akṣameṣu balīyo vivekināṁ naitat-tan-mūla prāpteḥ

(Śāstra is powerful for those who are incapable. It is not for those who possess discrimination because they have achieved the source)

Sanskrit Commentary by Śrī Gopīnātha Paṇḍita

nanu yaḥ śāstra-vidhim-utsṛjya vartate kāma-cārataḥ – ‘na sa siddhim vāpnoti na sukhaṁ na parāṁ gatiṁ’ iti gītā vacana prāmāṇyena śāsanāt śāstram iti vyutpattīyā jīvānāṁ pravṛtteḥ śāstrīya niyama-ādhīnattvāt kathaṁ śāstra-vidhiṁ vinā śreyaḥ syād ity-apekṣāyāmāha śāstram akṣameṣviti. akṣameṣu svataḥ-siddha jñānodaya hīneṣu ataeva vidhi racanayāṁ svayaṁ asamartheṣu jīveṣu śāstraṁ balīyaṁ balavattaraṁ niyāmakam. vivekināṁ svataḥ-siddha-jñāna-sampannānāṁ ataeva tattva śreyaḥ-kara-vidhi racanāyāṁ svayaṁ sāmartya-viśiṣṭānāṁ naitat. etat śāstraṁ na niyāmakaṁ na śāsana samarthaṁ tan-mūla-prāpteḥ. teṣāṁ śāstrāṇāṁ mūla-bhūtasya svataḥ-siddha-jñānasyā prāptatvāt.

etad eva sarvāṇi śāstrāṇi avidyā vad viṣayakānīti śārīraka-mīmāṁsā bhāṣye spaṣṭī-kṛtaṁ ‘yat tu yaḥ śāstra-vidhim utsṛjyeti’ – bhagavad-vacanaṁ tat sva-śreyaḥ jñāna-śūnyānāṁ sva-cchandatayā niṣiddha-karmāśaktānāṁ śāstrīya-vidhyadhīnatayā niyāmānurūpa pravṛttyartham iti draṣṭavyaṁ śāstram api aśāsita jīvānāṁ śāsanārtham ity-avadheyaṁ anyathā ‘yadā te moha-kalilaṁ buddhir-vyatītariyati tadā gantāsi nirvedam śrotavyasya śrutasya ca.’ ‘traiguṇya-viṣayā vedā nistraiguṇye bhavārjunātyādiṣu bhagavad-śikṣāyā vaiphalyāpatteḥ. alamati-vistaraṇe.

Indeed, according to the authoritative statement of the Gītā, one who abandons the injunctions of the śāstra and pursues the path of desire, ‘never attains perfection, happiness, or the Supreme Abode’(Bhagavad-gītā 16.23). It is understood that the activities of the jīvas are governed by the regulations of śāstra. How can one achieve true welfare without following śāstrika injunctions? Thus, it is said that the śāstra is indispensable for those who are incapable (of attaining self-realisation). For those jīvas who are incapable, within whom self-evident knowledge has not yet arisen, following the rules of the śāstra is more powerful and authoritative, and acts as a guide for such incapable jīvas. Hence, those endowed with discrimination and self-evident knowledge, need not follow the prescribed rules for the attainment of truth and auspicious results, since they are already distinguished by their capability. That śāstra is not their regulator nor governor since they are capable of achieving its source. This is because the attainment of self-evident knowledge is the root cause of such śāstras. Indeed, all śāstras are directed towards those who are subject to ignorance, as is made clear in the commentary on the Śārīraka Mīmāṁsā (Vedānta). Bhagavān has stated, ‘Whoever abandons the rules of śāstra’ (Bhagavad-gītā 16.23) – this refers to those who are devoid of knowledge concerning their own welfare, acting according to their own whims, and attached to performing prohibited activities. Dependence on śāstrika injunctions creates a tendency to follow the rules. Śāstra is also for the purpose of governing those jīvas who are uncontrolled. This should be understood.
‘In this way, by practicing niṣkāma-karma and offering the results to the Supreme, when your mind completely abandons the forest of illusion, then you will become impartial towards all the śāstra that are to be heard and have been heard, and you will be inclined towards pure bhakti-sādhana.’(Bhagavad-gītā 2.52) and ‘The Vedas deal with subjects in the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna’ (Bhagavad-gītā 2.45) etc. Otherwise, Bhagavān’s instructions in those ślokas would be fruitless. Enough with excessive elaboration!

Commentary by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura

The authority of the śāstra can be established through many arguments. In the commentary on the previous sūtra, several arguments have been presented. In the śāstra also, numerous evidences regarding this subject are found, such as in the Sixteenth Chapter of the Gītā, where the words of Śrī Bhagavān are stated:

yaḥ śāstra-vidhim utsṛjya vartate kāma-kārataḥ
na sa siddhim avāpnoti na sukhaṁ na parāṁ gatim

tasmāc-chāstraṁ pramāṇaṁ te kāryākārya-vyavasthitau
jñātvā śāstra-vidhānoktaṁ karma kartum ihārhasi

He that neglects the rules of the Vedas in order to satisfy his material desires, never attains perfection, happiness, or the Supreme Abode. The Vedic injunctions are your authority pertaining to what is to be done and what is not to be done. Thus, realising your duty in this world, you should act accordingly. (Bhagavad-gītā 16.23-24)

Then, in the Twelfth Chapter of the Manu Saṁhitā:

bibharti sarva-bhūtāni veda-śāstraṁ sanātanam
tasmād etat paraṁ manye yaj jantor asya sādhanam

The eternal Veda-śāstra upholds all living beings. Therefore, I consider it supreme, as it is the means for the attainment of the highest goal for the living entities. (Manu Saṁhitā 12.99)

In the śloka spoken by Bhagavān, it is seen that a person who abandons śāstrika injunctions and acts according to his desires finds no auspiciousness. Hearing this statement, Arjuna inquired:

ye śāstra-vidhim utsṛjya yajante śraddhayānvitāḥ
teṣāṁ niṣṭhā tu kā kṛṣṇa sattvam āho rajas tamaḥ

Arjuna said: O Kṛṣṇa, what is the position of those that neglect the rules of the Vedas, yet worship with faith. Is such worship considered to be in the mode of goodness, passion or ignorance? (Bhagavad-gītā 17.1)

It is necessary to fully analyse the answer that Bhagavān gave to this question. Even after reading the entire Seventeenth Chapter, many may feel that no clear answer to this question has been provided. Actually, the entire chapter itself is the answer to this question. The explanation of the answer is that if someone abandons śāstrika injunctions but acts with sāttvika śraddhā, their conviction is commendable. This is because activities prescribed in the śāstra such as homas, charity, and austerities are only governed by śraddhā. Therefore, actions performed with sāttvika śraddhā can be considered suitable for pleasing Bhagavān. The last śloka in that chapter is:

aśraddhayā hutaṁ dattaṁ tapas taptaṁ kṛtaṁ ca yat
asad ity-ucyate pārtha na ca tat pretya no iha

O Pārtha, any sacrifice, austerity, charity or activity that is performed without faith is known as asat – false. Such activities bear no auspicious results in this world or the next. (Bhagavad-gītā 17.28)

Similarly, Manu also elaborately explained the supremacy of the śāstras and has concluded by saying the following:

ajñebhyo granthinaḥ śreṣṭhā granthibhyo dhāriṇo varāḥ
dhāribhyo jñāninaḥ śreṣṭhā jñānibhyo vyavasāyinaḥ

Those who possess books are superior to the ignorant, and those who memorise the books are superior to them. Amongst those memorise, those who have true knowledge are best, and those practice are the best among the knowledgeable. (Manu Saṁhitā 12.103)

In this way, the glories of the śāstra is seen in all śāstrika statements, yet at the conclusive stage, the inferiority of the śāstra is evident in comparison to knowledge. However, the authors of the śāstras do not express this matter clearly. The reason for this is that all capable people who can abandon dependence on the śāstra, by their own knowledge, will naturally free themselves from the śāstra by following the indications given by their authors. They will accept the śāstras simply as a guide and, using their own intelligence, will perform faultless actions in accordance with the instructions of the śāstras. On the other hand, those who, due to ignorance, are incapable of engaging in their prescribed duties with the power of their own self-evident knowledge, and are unable to discern right from wrong, may suffer by becoming driven by desires. For them, rules in regards to dependence on the śāstra are necessary. In other words, they should not know any path which is independent of the śāstra in any sense because once they become qualified in that matter, they will be able to understand it through indirect indications.

Knowledge alone is the basis of the śāstra, therefore a discerning individual who has attained knowledge will not be governed by the śāstra, but will only be given advice by it. However, if the śāstra governs incapable persons, that will be auspicious for them. Otherwise, by engaging in their own desires, they may incur great misfortune.

If it is said that, “The śāstra can guide incapable persons towards auspiciousness through its instructions, so what is the necessity of disciplining them?” then please listen. Due to their lack of knowledge, incapable people are unable to understand their own auspiciousness or inauspiciousness. However, they act according to their natural tendencies. Their nature generally tends towards the satisfaction of the senses, thus, the śāstra, through various means, tricks, and strategies, makes an endeavour to guide them towards their welfare. Sometimes they display the fear of hell, and sometimes they show the temptations of enjoying in Svarga. Sometimes they purify through actions in accordance with one’s nature. In many śāstras, rules are seen concerning the consumption of intoxicants, association with multiple wives, and the killing of animals. such rules are specifically designed to gradually bring those who engage in improper conduct under the control of the śāstra through actions in accordance with their tendencies, and to eventually guide them towards the path of renunciation in future. The results mentioned along with those rules are merely there to attract.

Thus, Bhagavān states in the Eleventh Canto:

phala-śrutir iyaṁ nṛṇāṁ na śreyo rocanaṁ param
śreyo vivakṣayā proktā yathā bhaiṣajya-rocanam

The results promised in the śruti are not for man’s ultimate benefit, but are simply there to charm. They are like promises spoken to induce someone to take beneficial medicine. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.21.23)

If you say that this unparalleled Tattva Sūtra is also śāstra, so why has its esoteric purport been revealed here in the form of a commentary, then the answer is that this Tattva Sūtra has been revealed for those persons who are self-realised Bhagavatas. Thus, they alone are qualified to understand all these deliberations. By the power of these sūtras, their intellect will become resolute. The revered author of the sūtras has clearly written about this point.

Regulations concerning rules of conduct, their practical application, and the purity or impurity of objects are also all based upon reason. Persons possessing discrimination have śraddhā in the statements of the śāstra regarding such things, but they are not bound by them. It is the duty of those persons who are incapable to accept the statements of śāstra. In the Eleventh Canto, Bhagavān says:

śuddhy-āśuddhī vidhīyete samāneṣv api vastuṣu
dravyasya vicikitsārthaṁ guṇa-doṣau śubhāśubhau

dharmārthaṁ vyavahārārthaṁ yātrārtham iti cānagha
darśito ‘yaṁ mayācāro dharmaṁ udvahatāṁ dhuram

Rules of purity and impurity are established even for objects that belong to a similar category. To resolve doubts regarding an object, its qualities and faults, as well as auspiciousness and inauspiciousness, are considered. This is for dharma, for proper conduct, and for the sake of self-preservation. O pure one, I have revealed this code of conduct for those who bear the burden of mundane dharma. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.21.3-4)

deśa-kālādi-bhāvānāṁ vastūnāṁ mama sattama
guṇa-doṣau vidhīyeta niyamārtham hi karmaṇām

O pure one, in order to restrict mundane activities, I have established that which is proper and improper amongst all objects, including time, space and all physical states of existence. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.2.7)

Bhagavān Manu has not failed to express the purport of the śāstra in this manner. A comprehensive description of all the regulations and decisions regarding karma-kāṇḍa and varṇāśrama–kāṇḍa has been written, along with a confidential conclusion concerning the ultimate welfare of the jīvas.

pravṛttaṁ karma saṁsevya devānām eti sāmyatām
nivṛttaṁ sevyamānas tu bhūtāny atyeti pañca vai
sarva-bhūteṣu cātmānaṁ sarva-bhūtāni cātmani
samaḥ paśyann ātma-yājī svarājyam adhigacchati
yathoktāny api karmāṇi parihāya dvijottamāḥ
ātma-jñāne śame ca syād vedābhyāse ca yatnavān
etad dhi janma-sāphalyaṁ brāhmaṇasya viśeṣataḥ
prāptyaitat kṛta-kṛtyo hi dvijo bhavati nānyathā

By engaging in prescribed activities, one becomes equal to the Devas. Yet by engaging in renunciation, one transcends the five material elements. Seeing the Supreme Ātmā in all beings and all beings in the Supreme Ātmā, one who is equipoised and worships the Supreme Ātmā achieves sovereignty over the self. By renouncing even one’s prescribed actions, one becomes the best amongst the twice-born. He should strive diligently for self-realisation, tranquillity, and the study of the Vedas. Indeed, this is the true fulfilment of one’s birth, especially for a brāhmaṇa. By achieving this, a twice-born becomes one who has accomplished all things; otherwise, it is not so. (Manu Saṁhitā 12.90-93)

In the third śloka, the word dvijottama should be understood as a person whose knowledge is purified and who possesses equal vision. Otherwise, in the fourth śloka, the success of human birth would have been stated so generally, and there would not have been a specific mention of the brāhmaṇa. In Kulluka Bhaṭṭa’s commentary, the success of birth has been confined only to the three higher varṇas. Actually, Bhaṭṭa Mahāśaya could not comprehend its broader meaning, as he has shown contempt for the fourth śloka by employing logical disputation. It is said in the Mahābhārata:

purāṇaṁ manavo dharmaḥ saṅgo vedaś cikitsitam
ajña-siddhāni catvāri na hantavyāni hetubhiḥ

The Purāṇas, the laws of Manu, the Vedas, and the texts on medical science – these four are perfect instructions and should not be disregarded by mundane logical disputation.

Accepting Kulluka Bhaṭṭa’s explanation leads to disrespecting the statements of the Gītā, which is the essence of all smṛti. Thus, Bhagavān states:

māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśritya ye’pi syuḥ pāpa-yonayaḥ
striyo vaiśyās tathā śūdrās te’pi yānti parāṁ gatim
kiṁ punar brāhmaṇāḥ puṇyā bhaktā rājarṣayas tathā

O Pārtha, even if persons of impious birth, women, merchants (vaiśyas) and labourers (śūdras) take shelter of Me, they will also reach the highest destination. What to say of the pure brāhmaṇas and pious kings? (Bhagavad-gītā 9.32-33)

The author of the sūtras has clearly explained this topic in Sūtra 44. Now he will explain the relationship between the devotees and the śāstra.

SŪTRA 43

bhakter na śāstraṁ tad-vidher jñānāvirodhitvāt

(The rules of the śāstra do not apply to devotees when devotees do not contradict divine knowledge)

Sanskrit Commentary by Śrī Gopīnātha Paṇḍita

jñāni-sāmānye śāstrasyā-niyamakatayām uktvā bhakta-pekṣe viśeṣamāha. bhakteḥ na śāstraṁ bhakte antaḥ-śuddhi-jñāna-vairāgya-viśeṣa-viśiṣṭatayā bhakty-adhikāriṇi jīve śāstraṁ karma-vidhi-pratipādakaṁ na niyāmakaṁ, tad-vidheḥ tena bhaktena kṛtasya parānuśīlanādi-vidher jñānāvirodhitva-bhāvāt. tatrāyam abhiprāyaḥ. sva-kṛta-parānuśīlanādi-vidhinā svasya kṛtārthatvāt na para-kṛta-vidhi-prāpaka-śāstrāpekṣā bhaktasyeti. ‘kim ahaṁ puṇyaṁ nākaravaṁ kim ahaṁ pāpam akaravaṁ,’ ‘tatra kaḥ śokaḥ ko mohaḥ’ iti śruteḥ. ‘yadā te moha-kalilaṁ buddhir vyatitariṣyati tadā gantāsi nirvedaṁ śrotavyasya śrutasya ca’ iti gītā-vacanāt.

Having spoken about the general rule of the śāstra’s restrictive nature for the jñānī, the author now explains a distinction in regards to the devotee. The śāstra does not apply to a devotee who possesses the specific characteristics of internal purity, knowledge, and renunciation. The śāstra, which promotes injunctions for karma, does not govern a jīva who is eligible for bhakti. Activities executed by devotees, such as parānuśīlana (cultivation of bhakti to the Supreme), are not contrary to transcendental knowledge. This is the point. Due to the fulfilment attained through his own actions, such as parānuśīlana etc, a devotee does not need to depend on śāstras prescribed by others. The śruti states, ‘Why have I not engaged in piety? Why have I engaged in evil deeds?’(Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.9.1) and ‘How can there be illusion or misery for that wise man who sees with equal vision?’(Īśopaniṣad 7). The Gītā says, ‘In this way, by practicing niṣkāma-karma and offering the results to the Supreme, when your mind completely abandons the forest of illusion, then you will become impartial towards all the śāstra that are to be heard and have been heard, and you will be inclined towards pure bhakti-sādhana.’ (Bhagavad-gītā 2.52)

Commentary by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura

In the previous sūtra, it was shown that the śāstra does not exert authority over those who possess discrimination, but the relationship between śāstra and bhakti was not shown. By examining the commentaries on sūtras 35 and 36, it will be understood that discrimination is merely pratyāhāra (withdrawal of the senses from the sense-objects) and therefore a division of upāya-bhakti (bhakti as the means). When it cannot be accepted that the śāstra governs a person of discrimination, it also cannot be accepted that the śāstra has the power to subjugate a devotee. Rāga, transcendental attachment, is itself the inherent nature of bhakti; therefore, in rāgātmikā-bhakti, there is no necessity for śāstra. However, in vaidhi-bhakti, the support of śāstra and favourable logic is necessary.

Śrī Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu states:

nātra śāstraṁ na yuktiṁ ca tal-lobhotpatti-lakṣaṇam

Here, neither śāstra nor logic are required; it is characterised by the awakening of lobha, transcendental greed. (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.293)

vaidha-bhakty-adhikārī tu bhāvāvirbhāvanāvadhi
atra śāstraṁ tathā tarkaṁ anukūlam apekṣate

Until the appearance of bhāva-bhakti, those who are qualified for vidhi-bhakti must depend upon the śāstra and logic. (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.293)

The conclusion is this – as long as even the slightest awakening of bhakti has not occurred, the sādhaka should analyse the instructions of the śāstra using his power of discrimination. Thus, he will engage in some activities in accordance with the statements of śāstra. As soon as the slightest bhakti awakens, he will begin to formulate practices according to his own sāttvikī-śraddhā (pure faith). In order to strengthen their own practices, devotees will study and follow the śāstra in all situations. The surprising thing in this, is that the practices that a devotee forms according to his own pure śraddhā will never contradict śāstra, because both the devotee and the creator of śāstra compose rules through the help of knowledge. Although a particular practice of a devotee may appear to contradict a specific śāstra, still, at the conclusion of that śāstra, both will certainly be reconciled. Because a devotee naturally refrains from licentious behaviour with women and violence towards other living beings, his practices often appear to be in conflict with many tantras and dharma-śāstras. However, at the conclusion of those śāstras, abstinence is observed. For example, in the Tenth Chapter of Manu Saṁhitā:

ahiṁsā satyam asteyaṁ śaucam indriya-nigrahaḥ
etaṁ sāmāsikaṁ dharmaṁ catur-varṇo’bravīn manuḥ

Manu has stated that non-violence, truthfulness, not coveting the property of others, cleanliness, and control of the senses are general dharma for all four varṇas. (Manu Saṁhitā 10.63)

A person who understands the principles of supreme reality (tattva), even after being freed from the śāstrika bindings of the āśrama system, does not commit any transgression. Manu states:

veda-śāstrārtha-tattva-jño yatra tatrāśrame vasan
ihaiva loke tiṣṭhan sa brahma-bhūyāya kalpate

In whatever āśrama he resides in, one who understands the truth of the Veda-śāstra, is eligible to attain the state of Brahman even while remaining in this world. (Manu Saṁhitā 12.102)

If a devotee who understands tattva establishes a new system, even if that system is not explicitly written about in the śāstra by the previous ṛṣis, it must still be regarded as śāstra. This is endorsed by Manu:

anāmnāteṣu dharmeṣu kathaṁ syād iti ced bhavet
yaṁ śiṣṭā brāhmaṇā brūyuḥ sa dharmaḥ syād asaṅkitaḥ

If there is a doubt regarding dharma which is not mentioned in the śāstra, then what the virtuous brāhmaṇas declare should be accepted as dharma without hesitation. (Manu Saṁhitā 12.108)

Furthermore, it is said:

eko’pi veda-vid dharmaṁ yaṁ vyavasthed dvijottamaḥ
sa vijñeyaḥ paro dharmo najñānamudito’yutaiḥ

Even that which one brāhmaṇa who knows the Vedas declares to be dharma, must be recognised as the highest dharma – not that which is proclaimed by thousands of ignorant men. (Manu Saṁhitā 12.113)

Manu has said that the appearance of knowledge in relation to the Supreme Truth is the very cause of being twice-born:

avratānām amantrāṇāṁ jāti-matropajīvinam
sahasraśaḥ sametānāṁ parisattvaṁ na vidyate

Even if there are thousands of brāhmaṇas who do not follow vows, do not chant mantras, and live only by their caste, they cannot form a learned assembly. (Manu Saṁhitā 12.114)

The ancient and ongoing debate regarding the twice-born (brāhmaṇas), in relation to viveka–saṁskāras (the process of purifying one’s discriminatory faculties) and birth, is addressed and resolved in the following sūtra.

SŪTRA 44

bhaktau na varṇāśrama-vidhiḥ sa tasyājñāna-paratvāt

(The rules of varṇāśrama do not apply to devotees as they are beyond ignorance)

Sanskrit Commentary by Śrī Gopīnātha Paṇḍita

bhaktair-varṇāśrama-dharma ācaraṇīyonaveti saṁśayaṁ nirākaroti. bhaktau na varṇāśrama-vidhiḥ prākṛtā vaidha-bhaktā vidhim ācarantu nāma. kintu aprākṛta-nirguṇa-turīya-bhaktau sampannānāṁ varṇāśrama-vidhir nācaraṇīyo nādaraṇīyaś ca, yataḥ tasyāḥ śuddha-bhakter jñānāntara-jāyamānatvaṁ ‘jñānavān māṁ prapadyate’, ‘teṣāṁ jñānī nitya-yukta eka-bhaktir viśiṣyate’ ity-ādau śrī-bhagavatā nirdhāritaḥ. atra jñāne sati karma-tyāgaḥ sarvatra siddhāntito’sti kim uta tad uttara-kālīna parama-bhaktau jātāyām iti kaimutika-nyāyo’pi sūtrakāreṇa saṁsūcitaḥ. ‘jñāna-niṣṭha-virakto vā mad-bhakto vānapekṣakaḥ svaliṅgānāśramāṁ nas tyaktvā cared avidhi-gocarāḥ’ ‘sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇa vraja’ ity-ādau bhagavad-upadeśo’pi tathā-vidhaḥ. na ca tatra dharma-tyāgena pātitya-śaṅkā – ‘ahaṁ tvā sarva-pāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ‘ iti tatraiva satya pratijñasya śrī-bhagavataḥ pratijñā dārḍhyāt.

The doubt as to whether devotees follow varṇāśrama-dharma is resolved. For the devotee, the rules of varṇāśrama do not apply. Let the materialistic devotees practicing vaidhi-bhakti follows such rules. However, for the transcendental devotees who are beyond the material modes that are in the fourth stage of turīya (transcendence), the rules of varṇāśrama should neither be followed nor given any regard, because a different type of knowledge arises in a pure devotee. Śrī Bhagavān has ascertained thus – ‘One who possesses knowledge surrenders unto Me’ (Bhagavad-gītā 7.19) and ‘Of these, the jñānī is superior. He is always absorbed in thoughts of Me and engaged in bhakti’ (Bhagavad-gītā 7.17). Here, the renunciation of action is universally established as a conclusion when jñāna is present. How much more so, then, would this apply to the supreme devotee, when it arises at a later stage? Thus, the principle of kaimutika-nyāya (the logic of ‘if this, then even more so that’), is also indicated by the author of the sūtras.* Even the teachings of Bhagavān state similar points – ‘Both the one who is fixed in jñāna and renunciation, and My devotee, who does not even desire liberation, abandon their duties related to varṇāśrama and conduct themselves beyond the rules and regulations.’(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.18.28) and ‘Abandon all types of dharma – come and surrender unto Me alone! (Bhagavad-gītā 18.66). And in that case, there is no fear of falldown because of renouncing dharma, since Śrī Bhagavān, whose promise is true, has firmly declared, ‘I will free you from all pāpa, Do not fear.’

*Translator’s Note: The point being made here is that when a jñānī renounces action, he is no longer bound to the wheel of karma (action-reaction). This applies even more so to a devotee who gradually renounces all activities such as varṇāśrama-dharma and eventually achieves supreme bhakti.

Commentary by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura

Persons of Āryan community have divided themselves into four varṇas and the social system into four āśramas. Brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras are the four varṇas, and brahmacārīs, gṛhasthas, vānaprasthas and sannyāsīs are the four āśramas. Manu has explained the characteristics of the four varṇas:

adhyāpanam adhyayanaṁ yajanaṁ yājanaṁ tathā
dānaṁ pratigrahaṁ caiva brāhmaṇānām akalpayat

prajānāṁ rakṣaṇaṁ dānaṁ ijyādhyāyanam eva ca
viṣayeṣv aprasaktiṁ ca kṣatriyasya samāsataḥ

paśūnāṁ rakṣaṇaṁ dānaṁ ijyādhyāyanam eva ca
vaṇik-pathaṁ kusīdaṁ ca vaiśyasya kṛṣim eva ca

ekam eva tu śūdrasya prabhuḥ karma samādiśat
eteṣām eva varnānāṁ śuśrūṣām anasūyayā

Teaching, studying, performing sacrifices, officiating in sacrifices for others, offering gifts, and accepting gifts – these are the duties designated for the brāhmaṇas. Protecting his subjects, giving in charity, performing sacrifices, worshipping the Supreme, and remaining unattached to sense-objects – in brief, these are the duties of a kṣatriya. Protecting cattle, giving in charity, performing sacrifices, worshipping the Supreme, engaging in trade and commerce, moneylending, and agriculture – these are the duties of the vaiśya. The Lord has prescribed only one duty for the śūdra – to serve the other varṇas without envy. (Manu Saṁhitā 1.88-91)

All other human beings excluded from these four varṇas are considered to be antyaja (outcastes) and are not regarded as part of the Āryan community. In regards to the creation of these four varṇas, the statement of Manu is as follows:

lokānāṁ tu vivṛddhy-arthaṁ mukha-bāhūru-pādataḥ
brāhmaṇaṁ kṣatriyaṁ vaiśyaṁ śūdraṁ ca niravartayat

In order to increase the welfare of the people, the Lord created the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, and śūdra from His mouth, arms, thighs, and feet, respectively (Manu Saṁhitā 1.31)

A true brāhmaṇa is the role model for all jīvas, and thus, this classification is determined solely by the guṇas (qualities) of each individual, whether high or low. As Śrī Bhagavān says in the Gītā:

brāhmaṇa-kṣatriya-viśāṁ śūdrāṇāṁ ca parantapa
karmāṇi pravibhaktāni svabhāva-prabhavair guṇaiḥ

śamo damas tapaḥ śaucaṁ kṣāntir ārjavam eva ca
jñānaṁ vijñānam āstikyaṁ brahma-karma svabhāva-jam

śauryaṁ tejo dhṛtir dākṣyaṁ yuddhe cāpy-apalāyanam
dānam īśvara-bhāvaś ca kṣātraṁ karma svabhāva-jam

kṛṣi-gorakṣya-vāṇijyaṁ vaiśya-karma svabhāva-jam
paricaryātmakaṁ karma śūdrasyāpi svabhāva-jam

O conqueror of the enemy, O Arjuna, know that brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras are classified according to the quality of their work in the three modes of material nature. Calmness, self-control, austerity, cleanliness, clemency, honesty, knowledge, wisdom and faith in the Supreme – these are the natural activities of a brāhmaṇa. Heroism, power, steadfastness, dexterity, never fleeing from battle, generosity and social administration – these are the natural activities of a kṣatriya. Farming, cow protection and business are the natural activities of a vaiśya. For the śūdra there is service to others. (Bhagavad-gītā 18.41-44)

This natural duty determined by one’s inherent qualities is referred to as svadharma, and striving for progress in that svadharma is the duty of every jīva. As stated in the Gītā:

śreyān sva-dharmo viguṇaḥ para-dharmāt svanuṣṭhitāt
svabhāva-niyataṁ karma kurvan nāpnoti kilbiṣam

It is better to perform one’s own dharma imperfectly than to perform another’s duty perfectly. One is never subject to bad karma by performing one’s prescribed duties according to one’s own nature. (Bhagavad-gītā 18.47)

The tendency that manifests strongly, without any kind of education, is called svabhāva, as stated in the Gītā:

tatra taṁ buddhi-saṁyogaṁ labhate paurva-dehikam
yatate ca tato bhūyaḥ saṁsiddhau kuru-nandana

pūrvābhyāsena tenaiva hriyate hy-avaśo’pi saḥ
jijñāsur api yogasya śabda-brahmātivartate

O descendant of Kuru, regaining their knowledge of yoga from previous births, they again endeavour to attain success. Due to the practices of their previous life, they are automatically attracted to the yoga process. Simply by inquiring about this system of yoga, one transcends the rituals of the Vedas. (Bhagavad-gītā 6.43-44)

The svabhāva of a child can be determined by observing its tendencies from the very moment the first awakening of knowledge occurs. The detection of a person’s varṇa according to their svabhāva is the confidential teaching of śāstras on philosophy. In other words, the practice of determining varṇa based on birth is simply a worldly matter, not a spiritual one. There is ample proof of this in the śāstra. In considering varṇāśrama, there are two types – namely, one which is suitable for worldly life and another which leads to the supreme goal. Spiritual varṇa is the rightful domain of the devotees, while the prevalent system of classification (based on birth) is only valid for persons who are incapable. This confidential truth is accepted by all the śāstras and is hinted at in them. Thus, in the Dana Dharma of the Śānti-parva in the Mahābhārata, the words of Sadā-Śiva are as follows:

brahmaḥ svabhāvaḥ su-śroṇi samaḥ sarvatra me matiḥ
nirguṇaṁ nirmalaṁ brahma yatra tiṣṭhati sa dvijaḥ

O lady with beautiful thighs, the inherent nature of Brahman is equal everywhere. This is my opinion. Indeed, one is a twice-born brāhmaṇa in whom the transcendental pure status of Brahman exists. (Mahābhārata, Śanti-parva 143.51)

karmabhiḥ śucibhir devi viśuddhātmā jitendriyaḥ
śūdro’pi dvija-vat sevya iti brahmābravīt svayam

svabhāvaḥ karma ca śubhaṁ yatra śūdro’pi tiṣṭhati
viśiṣṭaḥ sa dvijāter vai vijñeya iti me matiḥ

na yonir nāpi saṁskāro na śrutaṁ na ca santatiḥ
kāraṇāni dvijatvasya vṛttam eva tu kāraṇam

O goddess, even a śūdra who has purified himself by pure deeds and has controlled his senses should be served as a dvija. This has been stated by Brahmā himself. When the svabhāva and activities of a śūdra remain auspicious, such a distinguished person should be regarded as a true dvija. This is my opinion. Neither birth, nor purificatory rituals, nor knowledge of the Vedas, nor pedigree are the causes of being a dvija. The only true cause is one’s conduct. (Mahābhārata, Śanti-parva 143.58-60)

jyāyāṁsam api śīlena vihīnaṁ naiva pūjyate
api śūdraṁ ca dharmajñaṁ yad-vṛttam api pūjayet

One should not honour a superior if they are devoid of good conduct. However, if a śūdra is knowledgeable in dharma and follows proper conduct, he should certainly be respected. (Mahābhārata, Anuśāsana-parva 48.48)

Śrī Manu has stated:

japyenaiva tu saṁsiddhyed brāhmaṇo nātra saṁśayaḥ
kuryād anyān na vā kuryān maitro brāhmaṇa ucyate

Undoubtedly, it is by japa that a brāhmaṇa attains perfection. He may, or may not, do anything else, Such a brāhmaṇa is a true friend. (Manu Saṁhitā 2.87)

The four varṇas and other similar arrangements, which are prescribed by the Vedas, are accepted by Manu.

cātur-varṇyaṁ trayo lokāṁs cāśramaś ca prthak prthak
bhūtaṁ bhāvyaṁ bhaviṣyaṁ ca sarvaṁ vedāt prasidhyati

The four varṇas, the three worlds, the various āśramas, and all that was, is, and will be are all explained in the Vedas. (Manu Saṁhitā 12.97)

In this regard, the entire conclusion has been stated in the words of the Bhagavad-gītā, as follows:

traiguṇya-viṣayā vedā nistraiguṇyo bhavārjuna

The Vedas deal with subjects in the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna. (Bhagavad-gītā 2.45)

And also, in the Seventh Canto, Eleventh Chapter of the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, Nārada explains the essence of this topic to Yudhiṣṭhira:

yasya yal-lakṣaṇaṁ proktaṁ puṁso varnābhivyañjakam
yad anyatrāpi dṛśyeta tat tenaiva vinirdiśet

One who exhibits the characteristics of a particular varṇa as described, even if he has appeared in a different class, should be accepted according to those symptoms (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 7.11.35)

In other words, if a person born in a home of a śūdra etc, possesses qualities such as śama and dama (tranquillity and self-control), then they should be designated as a brāhmaṇa. That is, no person is truly a brāhmaṇa or a śūdra by birth alone; they merely attain a conventional designation. On the other hand, the sons of brāhmaṇas who lack tattva-jñāna (knowledge of the Supreme Truth) and qualities such as self-control etc., can be classified as kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, or śūdras according to their qualities and actions, and this is clearly accepted by Manu also.

yo’nadhītya dvijo vedaṁ anyatra kurute śramam
sa jīvann eva śūdratvaṁ āśu gacchati sānvayaḥ

A dvija who has not studied the Vedas and performs other types of labour, quickly attains the position of a śūdra, even while living, along with his descendants. (Manu Saṁhitā 2.168)

All those persons who, due to misfortune, cannot understand this confidential truth and, as a result, simply remain content with carrying the burden of conventional varṇāśrama, are unqualified. Therefore, with compassion towards them, the noble sāragrāhīs will try to uplift them by offering other suitable instructions related to this principle. Firstly, step by step, they will make them listen to historical accounts that are contrary to prevailing traditions. The life of Viśvāmitra, the history of Śaunaka, the division of varṇas among the hundred sons of Ṛṣabhadeva, the division of Kaśyapa’s sons, the emergence of the kṣatriya lineage named Kāruṣa stemming from Karuṣa and the origin of the Dhārṣthi brāhmaṇa dynasty from his brother, Dhṛṣṭa, the origin of the famous brāhmaṇa clan named Agniveśya from the kṣatriya Devadatta, the birth of Jahnu Muni from Hotraka of the Candra Dynasty, the origin of brāhmaṇas such as Praskanna from Medhātithi in the Dynasty of Puru, Bharadvāja from the Bharata Dynasty, the birth of some brāhmaṇas and some kṣatriyas in the lineage of Ajamiḍha – through all these and other various accounts, when the doubtful mind is made calm, gradually the fundamental principle of varṇāśrama can be taught to them. Otherwise, if a unqualified person is fully entrusted with esoteric knowledge, it will simply lead to their own misfortune. Thus, the Gītā states:

na buddhi-bhedaṁ janayed ajñānāṁ karma-saṅginām

The wise should not disturb the minds of the ignorant who are attached to their selfish activities. (Bhagavad-gītā 3.26)

According to this advice, Bādarāyaṇa Ṛṣi has also carefully considered the topic concerning the rights of a śūdra to study the Vedas. Thus, in the First Chapter, Third Section of the Brahma Sūtras, it is said:

śugāsya tad-anādara śravaṇāt tadādravaṇāt sūyate hi

That grief in him (arose). This is intimated by his resorting to him on hearing a disrespectful speech about himself. (Brahma Sūtras 1.3.34)

And also in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad:

jānaśrutir hi pautrāyanaḥ

There was a person named Jānaśruti Pautrayana…(Chāndogya Upaniṣad 4.1.1)

Although Jānaśruti Pautrayana was not born into a śūdra family, in other words, he was not born in the lineage of a śūdra, his position as a śūdra was established due to his display of grief. Seeing his philanthropy, his kṣatriya status was once again established by Brahma-jña Raikva. Through this Vedic narration, the conclusion is observed that spiritual varṇa is determined by one’s svabhāva. Therefore, following that, Vyāsa’s sūtra appears as follows:

kṣatriyatvāvagateś cottaratra caitrarathena liṅgāt

(Jānaśruti) is understood to be a kṣatriya due to the later example of a descendant of Citraratha. (Brahma Sūtras 1.3.35)*

*Translator’s Note: In the Fourth Part of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (4.3.5), there is the story of the pious king, Jānaśruti Pautrayana who was famous for his philanthropy. Once, some sages took the form of swans and descended to the his palace one night while king sat on his balcony. As they flew above him, the last swan flying behind all the others called out to the swans in front, “Do you not see the effulgence of Jānaśruti, which blazes like the sun in the night sky? Do not pass through that effulgence, as its heat may burn you.”
One of the swans in front replied, “Who are you talking about? You speak as if he is Raikva.”
The first swan inquired, “Who is Raikva?”
The other swan said, “He is a great sage who has attained brahma-jñāna. Nothing can compare to the pious deeds performed by Raikva.”
Hearing the swans dialogue, Jānaśruti became depressed and the next morning, told his minister to find Raikva and bring him to the palace. He searched high and low until finally, he found the sage sitting under an upturned bullock cart. The minister returned the palace and thereafter, Jānaśruti came to see Raikva with gifts of six hundred cows, a golden necklace and a chariot. But when the king tried to present the gifts to the sage, he was rebuffed. Raikva said, “O śūdra! Keep all your gifts!” The king departed in sorrow, and returned sometime later with a thousand cows, more gold ornaments and his own daughter to wed to the sage. Again, Raikva refused and called Jānaśruti a śūdra. He then explained to the king that he had not approached him for the right reasons. He initially came because he was disturbed by the words of the swans and felt depressed and envious of Raikva’s piety. Although Jānaśruti was extremely generous, he grieved that his piety was less than Raikva’s – grief is not the characteristic of a kṣatriya, thus the sage called him a śūdra. Jānaśruti begged forgiveness from Raikva, and then the sage taught him transcendental knowledge.

In the section from the Brahma Sūtra cited above (1.3.34), Vyāsadeva explains that because Jānaśruti heard the swans speaking disrespectfully about him, he lamented. Lamentation is the sign of a śūdra. When Raikva explained his position to him, Jānaśruti eventually regained his position as a kṣatriya. Brahma Sūtra 1.3.35 states that Jānaśruti was understood to be a kṣatriya due to the example of a Caitraratha. The Candogya Upaniṣad also gives a narration concerning Abhipratari, a king of the Caitraratha dynasty. Both Abhipratari and Jānaśruti attained the same type of knowledge from their gurus, thus, by inference, we can understand that Jānaśruti was actually a kṣatriya according to his svabhāva.

The next sūtra states:

saṁskārā parāmarṣāt tad-abhāvābhilapāc ca

Because saṁskāras (purificatory ceremonies) are mentioned (in the case of brāhmaṇas) and their absence is declared (in the case of śūdras). (Brahma Sūtras 1.3.36)

Following that, Vyāsa shows that the basis of varṇa lies only in svabhāva and saṁskāras:

tad-abhāva-nirdharaṇe ca pravṛtteḥ

And because of the inclination (of Gautama to impart knowledge) on the ascertainment of the absence of śūdra-hood (in Satyakama Jabala). (Brahma Sūtras 1.3.37)

It is said in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad:

nāham etad veda bho yad-gotro’ham asmi

Indeed, I do not know which gotra I belong to. (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 4.4.4)

By the truth of Jābāli’s words, though his gotra was unknown, he was accepted as a brāhmaṇa by Gautama, and his initiation into that varṇa was carried out.* Therefore, from a spiritual perspective, those who are śūdras cannot be accepted as having the right to study the Vedas. However, the designations of birth are merely social constructs which have no relation to transcendental truth. This is the conclusion of the Vedānta.

*Translator’s Note: The Chāndogya Upaniṣad narrates the story of the boy Satyakāma who approached Gautama Muni desiring to live in his āśrama as a brahmacārī. Gautama asked Satyakāma his gotra (lineage), but the boy replied that his mother had been a maidservant and was wandering around in her youth. Thus, he did not know who his father was. Her name was Jābala, so his name was Satyakāma Jābala. Hearing this, Gautama said to him, “Only a brāhmaṇa could speak such truth. Thus, you are a brāhmaṇa, and I accept you.”

SŪTRA 45

ajña-hitārthaṁ grāhyaṁ karma na virodhi

(Activities for the benefit of the ignorant are acceptable, since they are not contradictory)

Sanskrit Commentary by Śrī Gopīnātha Paṇḍita

nanu kiṁ bhaktaiḥ sarvathaiva karma-tyājyam ityāśaṅkāyāṁ karmaṇi heyopādeyāṁśa vibhāgaṁ vidhatte śrī-sūtrakāraḥ ajña-hitārtham iti. ajñānāṁ ajñāna-malina-sattvānāṁ ataeva jñāna-bhakty-anadhikāriṇyāṁ hitārthaṁ vihita-karmasu aśraddhā-nivṛttyarthaṁ varṇāśramādi-vihitaṁ nitya-naimittikākhyaṁ karma kiñcit grāhyaṁ karuṇayā kartavyam ity-arthaḥ. anyathā, ‘yad yad ācarati śreṣṭhaḥ’ iti nyāyena karma-tyāgaṁ paramārthāprāptaś ca ubhaya-vibhrāṁśena teṣāṁ sarvārtha-nāśaḥ syāt. ataeva ‘loka-saṅgraham evāpi sampaśyan kartum arhasi’ iti śrī-bhagavad-ājñāpi tathā-vidhaiva kintu na virodhi. bhakti-virodhi-citta-vikṣepa-phala-bandhanaṁ para-dveṣādi doṣa-janakaṁ kāmyā niṣiddhādikaṁ karma na kartavyam ity-arthaḥ.

yasmān nodvijate loko lokān nodvijate ca yaḥ
harṣāmarṣa-bhayodvegair mukto yaḥ sa ca me priyaḥ

karśayantaḥ śarīra–sthaṁ bhūta-grāmam acetasaḥ
māṁ caivāntaḥ-śarīra-sthaṁ tān viddhy āsura-niścayān – iti gītokteḥ

In response to the doubt, ‘Should devotees entirely renounce all actions?’ – the revered author of the sūtras establishes a distinction between those aspects of action to be rejected and those to be accepted, stating that (certain actions are performed) for the welfare of the ignorant. For those whose existence is polluted by ignorance, and are therefore not qualified for knowledge or bhakti, certain prescribed actions are recommended for their welfare. These activities, such as those prescribed within the varṇāśrama system and involving obligatory or occasional activities, aim to remove their lack of śraddhā. Such actions should be accepted and performed out of compassion. This is the intended meaning. Otherwise, according to the verse, ‘Whatever a great person does, others follow’ (Bhagavad-gītā 3.21), renunciation of action by one who has not yet achieved the highest truth would lead to ruin in both (action and renunciation), and all purposes will be completely destroyed. Therefore, the instruction of Śrī Bhagavān – ‘In order to set a proper example to the people in general, you should also act appropriately,’ (Bhagavad-gītā 3.20) – is in the same mood; however, it is not contradictory. The meaning is that actions which are opposed to bhakti, cause disturbances in the mind, lead to subjugation through the results, create faults such as envy towards others, and involve prohibited, selfish activities should not be performed. Thus, the Gītā states:

One who does not cause distress to anyone and who is never distressed by anyone, who is free from happiness, anger, fear and anxiety, is very dear to Me. (Bhagavad-gītā 12.15)

They torture the body and thus they also torture Me who resides within the body – know that such persons are of the nature of Asuras. (Bhagavad-gītā 17.6)

Commentary by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura

Scholars divide action into two categories, namely nitya (obligatory) and naimittika (occasional). Those actions which, if not performed, result in adverse consequences, are called nitya, and actions that are mostly occasional are naimittika. Many scholars who have established conclusions based on the śāstra have classified selfless worship of the Deity and specific vows such as Ekādaśī etc. as nitya-karma. All Vedic rites such as śrāddhas etc. are called naimittika-karma. They state that all the practices given in the Vedas are karma, among which some are nitya and some are naimittika.

Nitya and naimittika karma are divided in another way. If one considers the jīva’s liberated state, the tendency in that state is of the nature of divine attachment (rāga) – the cultivation of which can be called the jīva’s nitya-karma and in that state, there is no naimittika–karma. In the conditioned state, actions in the form of yukta-vairāgya and devotion to the Supreme that are suitable for tattva-jijñāsā, inquiry into the Absolute Truth, are called nitya-karma. In reality, they are only suitable for the present – they are not actually eternal. That is because only those activities that are observed to be with the jīva in all conditions are considered eternal. Nevertheless, there is no fault in calling yukta-vairāgya and parānuśīlana eternal, since they also remain in the state of liberation in a form without material designations. Furthermore, in the conditioned state, actions that are driven by a desire for enjoyment are considered as kāmyā. Such kāmya-karma is also of two kinds, namely selfish and selfless, depending on the qualification. This sūtra only mentions selfless kāmya-karma. The nitya-karma of all the devotees, while employing full discrimination, is certainly vast, as is explained in the Gītā:

na hi kaścit kṣaṇam api jātu tiṣṭhaty-akarmakṛt
kāryate hy-avaśaḥ karma sarvaḥ prakṛti-jair guṇaiḥ

karmendriyāṇi saṁyamya ya āste manasā smaran
indriyārthān vimūḍhātmā mithyācāraḥ sa ucyate

yas tv-indriyāṇi manasā niyamyārabhate’rjuna
karmendriyaiḥ karma-yogam asaktaḥ sa viśiṣyate

niyataṁ kuru karma tvaṁ karma jyāyo hy-akarmaṇaḥ
śarīra-yātrāpi ca te na prasiddhyed akarmaṇaḥ

tad-arthaṁ karma kaunteya mukta-saṅgaḥ samācara

One cannot abstain from activities even for a moment. Indeed, all living beings are forced to engage in activities due to the influence of the modes of material nature. One who controls the external senses yet mentally dwells upon the sense-objects is said to be foolish and hypocritical. However, that person who controls the senses with the mind and engages them in karma-yoga without attachment is superior, O Arjuna. You should perform your prescribed duties, since action is better than inaction. You cannot maintain your existence without action. O son of Kuntī, work for Him alone and be free from any attachment. (Bhagavad-gītā 3.5-9)

In the commentaries on sūtras 35, 36, 37, and 38, the nitya-karma of the devotee has been fully explained. Here, in this sūtra, it is revealed that there is no obstruction for a devotee in performing the naimittika-karma, in other words selfless kāmya-karma. Although all devotees are entitled to engage in selfless kāmya-karma, still, at the time of performing all such activities, special consideration is necessary. Any naimittika-karma which is seen to obstruct nitya-karma should be completely avoided. Any naimittika-karma that benefits the ignorant and does not oppose nitya-karma is the duty of a devotee. The Gītā states:

karmaṇaiva hi saṁsiddhim āsthitā janakādayaḥ
loka-saṅgraham evāpi sampaśyan kartum arhasi

yad yad ācarati śreṣṭhas tat tad evetaro janaḥ
sa yat pramāṇaṁ kurute lokas tad anuvartate

In the past, kings such as Janaka and others attained perfection by performing their prescribed duties. In order to set a proper example to the people in general, you should also act appropriately. However a great man conducts himself, common men will follow. Accordingly, whatever standards he sets by his actions, others will follow in his footsteps. (Bhagavad-gītā 3.20-21)

prakṛter guṇa-saṁmūḍhāḥ sajjante guṇa-karmasu
tān akṛtsna-vido mandān kṛtsna-vin na vicālayet

Those bewildered by the modes of material nature are engrossed in material activities conducted by those modes. The wise should not disturb the ignorant who are bereft of proper knowledge. (Bhagavad-gītā 3.29)

Foolish people fully engage in kāmya-karma for the purpose of fulfilling their own self-interests, but the devotees, selflessly and for the welfare of others, should engage in actions that do not oppose bhakti with a gracious heart. This is the independent advice for them.

SŪTRA 46

yathādhikāram avasthitir nopary-adhastvāt

(One should accept a position according to one’s qualification – not above or below it)

Sanskrit Commentary by Śrī Gopīnātha Paṇḍita

nanu yadi karmānuṣṭhānāt karma-tyāgaḥ śreyān tarhi ajñā api karma-tyāgena kṛtārthā bhaveyuḥ kiṁ karmācaraṇena ityāśaṅkāyāmāha yathādhikāram avasthitir iti. jīvānāṁ sva-svādhikārānurūpā avasthitirucitā, na tu upari nādhastāt svadharmād-utkṛṣṭaṁ nikṛṣṭaṁ vā nācaraṇīyam ity-arthaḥ.

sve sve’dhikāre yā niṣṭhā sa guṇaḥ parikīrtitaḥ
viparyayas tu doṣaḥ syād ubhayor eva niścayaḥ

sva-dharme nidhanaṁ śreyaḥ para-dharmo bhayāvahaḥ – iti bhagavad-vākyaṁ

If it is argued that renunciation of action is superior to the performance of prescribed duties, then even the ignorant would attain success simply by renouncing action. Why then should they engage in any action at all? To address this doubt, it is stated, ‘One should accept a position according to one’s qualification – not above or below it.’It is proper for the jīvas to remain in accordance with their respective qualifications. They should not act above or below their svadharma. The meaning is that actions superior or inferior to one’s own nature should not be undertaken. Bhagavān has stated:

Steadiness in one’s own eligibility is stated to be a great quality. The opposite is a fault. This is how both are ascertained. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.20.26)

It is better to perform one’s own prescribed duties imperfectly rather than perform another’s duties perfectly. It is better to die while performing one’s own duties, for executing the duties of another is fraught with uncertainty. (Bhagavad-gītā 3.35)

Commentary by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura

Performing activities in accordance with one’s qualification is the duty of every human being. Due to a lack of proper analysis concerning this topic, all sorts of worldly anarthas arise. All actions determine the future svabhāva of the performer. The svabhāva formed by past habits constitutes one’s present nature, and by steadiness in that nature and through sattvika progress, one can attain a higher svabhāva in this very lifetime and become eligible for all things. In this, events like birth etc. are not capable of causing obstruction. Thus, Bhagavān says in the Eleventh Canto of the Bhāgavata:

bhaktyāham ekayā grāhyaḥ śraddhayātmā priyaḥ satām
bhaktiḥ punāti man-niṣṭhā śva-pākān api sambhavāt

Only by exclusive bhakti and complete śraddhā can one obtain Me, who is loved by the devotees. Bhakti fixed on Me purifies even a dog-eater of his inferior birth. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.14.21)

It is further stated:

sve sve’dhikāre ya niṣṭhā saguṇaḥ parikīrtitaḥ
viparyayas tu doṣaḥ syād ubhayor esa niścayaḥ

Steadiness in one’s own eligibility is stated to be a great quality. The opposite is a fault. This is how both are ascertained. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.21.2)

The explanation of the entire Bhagavad-gītā is this – one’s present svabhāva is not abandoned all at once. For Arjuna, who specifically possesses a kṣatriya svabhāva, renunciation (i.e. tranquillity, self-control, and tolerance) and its resulting disapassion cannot be achieved all at once (i.e., before first acquiring the qualities of a brāhmaṇa by improving his own svabhāva through other suitable practices). Therefore, the entire teaching of the Gītā is this – no matter how inferior one’s present svadharma may be, one should follow it, gradually practicing renunciation within it, and diligently strive for improvement in accordance with natural principles. If one suddenly abandons their svadharma without proper discipline, it will be renunciation either in the mode of passion or ignorance, and the results of renunciation will not be achieved. If anyone has doubts concerning the explanation of this meaning, they should consider the instruction given by the Bhagavān to Uddhava in the Eleventh Canto. Both Uddhava and Arjuna are born into kṣatriya dynasties, and both heard the same kind of instruction from the lips of Bhagavān, yet Arjuna, upon reciting the following śloka, became engaged in kṣatriya-dharma:

naṣṭa-mohaḥ smṛtir labdhā tvat-prasādān mayācyuta
sthito’smi gata-sandehaḥ kariṣye vacanaṁ tava

O infallible one, O Kṛṣṇa, by Your mercy my delusion has been dispelled and my mental equilibrium has been restored. Now that my doubts have been removed I am steady once more and will follow Your advice. (Bhagavad-gītā 18.73)

But Uddhava, upon uttering the following words, went on to take the path of renunciation:

namo’stu te mahā-yogin prapannam anuśādhi mām
yathā tvac-caraṇāmbhoje ratiḥ syād anapāyinī

My respects unto You, O greatest of yogīs. I am surrendered unto You – please instruct me in how I may have constant loving attachment to Your lotus feet. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.29.40)

By this example, it is understood that Uddhava, being endowed with the svabhāva of a brāhmaṇa, was qualified to follow that nature. Therefore, the esteemed author of the sūtras is prescribing that all jīvas perform their duties by analysing their respective qualifications. If Uddhava had engaged in the occupation of a kṣatriya, it would have created anarthas, and it would never have been suitable if Arjuna had adopted the occupation of a brāhmaṇa. Upon deep analysis, it is also understood that a person born in a brāhmaṇa family who lacks the qualities of self-control, patience etc. should not engage in the occupation of a brāhmaṇa, and whoever accepts them as followers of that dharma also falls down.

In his conclusion, Manu has stated:

yaṁ vadanti tamo-bhūtā mūrkhādharmam atad-vidaḥ
tat-pāpaṁ śatadhā bhūtvā tad-vaktṛn anugacchati

The sins of those who are in a state of ignorance, who foolishly speak of that which is opposed to dharma, are a hundred times greater than they who agree with such words. (Manu Saṁhitā 12.115)

On the other hand, a person who lacks qualities such as calmness, self-control etc, and who is born in a low family, and adopts renunciation and other such practices inappropriately – in other words, who acts contrary to his inherent svadharma – finds no auspiciousness. And all those persons who, by observing the external signs of such deceivers, still accept them as possessing the qualities of a brāhmaṇa or as being naturally advanced, are also polluted by the same defect.

śreyān sva-dharmo viguṇaḥ para-dharmāt svanuṣṭhitāt
svabhāva-niyataṁ karma kurvan nāpnoti kilbiṣam

It is better to perform one’s own dharma imperfectly than to perform another’s duty perfectly. One is never subject to bad karma by performing one’s prescribed duties according to one’s own nature. (Bhagavad-gītā 18.47)

In this way, Manu has spoken about those who argue against the svadharma prescribed in all the Vedas, that is, against the duties established by the śruti and smṛti.

yo’vamānyeta te mūle hetu-śāstrāśrayād dvijaḥ
sa sādhubhir bahiṣ-kāryo nāstiko veda-nindakaḥ

A brāhmaṇa who neglects the śruti and smṛti and takes refuge in the texts on logic is an atheist, an offender to the Vedas, and should be driven out by sādhus, (Manu Saṁhitā 2.11)

Therefore, those who respect such opposers of their own svadharma and blaspheme the Vedas, are also not be worthy of the position of a Vaiṣṇava. However, the method of observing both pious and impious persons equally is seen in the words of Bhagavān as follows:

vidyā-vinaya-sampanne brāhmaṇe gavi hastini
śuni caiva śvapāke ca paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ

A wise man sees a learned and humble brāhmaṇa, a cow, an elephant, a dog, a lowborn person and all other living beings as equal. (Bhagavad-gītā 5.18)

When such equal vision is mentioned, there arises a concern that both the pious and impious will be treated equally, but in the Third Canto of the Bhāgavata, Bhagavān Kapiladeva has defined the principle of equality of vision thus:

jīvāḥ śreṣṭha hy ajīvānāṁ tataḥ prāṇa-bhṛtaḥ śubhe
tataḥ sa-cittāḥ pravarās tataś cendriya-vṛttayaḥ

tatrāpi sparśa-vedibhyaḥ pravarā rasa-vedinaḥ
tebhyo gandha-vidaḥ śreṣṭhās tataḥ sabda-vido varāḥ

rūpa-bheda-vidas tatra tataś cobhayatodataḥ
teṣāṁ bahu-padāḥ śreṣṭhās catuṣ-pādas tato dvi-pāt

tato varṇāś ca catvāras teṣāṁ brāhmaṇa uttamaḥ
brāhmaṇeṣv api veda-jño hy artha-jño’bhyadhikas tataḥ

artha-jñāt saṁśaya-cchettā tataḥ śreyān sva-dharma-kṛt
mukta-saṅgas tato bhūyān adogdhā dharmam ātmanaḥ

tasmān mayy arpitāśeṣa-kriyārthātmā nirantaraḥ
mayy arpitātmanaḥ puṁso mayi sannyasta-karmaṇaḥ

na paśyāmi paraṁ bhūtam akartuḥ sama-darśanāt
manasaitāni bhūtāni praṇamed bahu-mānayan

 

O auspicious one, a jīva is indeed superior to unconscious matter, and those who display greater symptoms of life are more superior. Those with a consciousness are better than them, and those who have developed sense-perception are even greater. Superior to those with sense-perception are those who possess the sense of taste. Superior to them are those with a sense of smell, and greater than them are those that can hear. Those who can distinguish form are superior, and those that possess two sets of teeth are greater. Still better are those with many legs. Quadrupeds are greater than them, and better still are those with two legs. Amongst them, those with varṇas are superior and among them, the brāhmaṇas are the best. Amongst the brāhmaṇas, those who have knowledge of the Vedas are superior. Better still are those who know the meaning of the Vedas. Superior to those who know the meaning of the Vedas are those who can remove doubts, and better than them are those who execute their prescribed duties. Greater than those are those who are liberated and do not enjoy the results of their previous dharma. Superior to him is that person who completely dedicates his actions, his wealth, his very self, his mind and his intelligence unto Me. I do not see anyone greater than such a person who does not engage in mundane activities and who sees all equally. In his mind, he offers respect and shows great regard to all living beings. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.29.28-34)

One who has no understanding of qualification should never trusted, because they may become absorbed in all kinds of irregular activities. If someone is unable to determine their own qualification, Bhagavān has given this instruction to them:

tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā
upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ

Just try to understand this knowledge by approaching a self-realised person who has seen the truth. Make submissive inquiry and render service unto him. The tattva-darśī, the seer of the truth, will instruct you and give you initiation into this sacred path. (Bhagavad-gītā 4.34)

A doubt may arise whether there are such obstacles related to qualification in the worship of the Supreme Lord. A response to this is seen in the following sūtra.

SŪTRA 47

kāmyetara-bhaktir na śastā citta-vikṣepatvād anitya-phalatvāc ca

(Devotion to anything else for fulfilling material desires is not approved, due to mental agitation and the temporary nature of the results.)

Sanskrit Commentary by Śrī Gopīnātha Paṇḍita

nanu karma-mārge’pi pitṛ-devādy-upāsanasyāpi bahu-vidha śreya-sampādakatvāt kathaṁ sarvathaiva karmaṇo’śreyastvam ucyate ity-āśaṅkāyām āha kāmyeti. kāmyā kāma-phala-nimittakā itara-bhakti-parameśvarād itareṣu jīva-koṭy-antargateṣu bhaktir bhagavad-bhaktānāṁ na praśastā citta-vikṣepatvāt bahu-vidha-devatā-kāṇḍa-śruti-smṛti-paryālocanayā tat-tat-pitṛ-devādināṁ tat-tat-vidhi-niyamānusāreṇa yajana-pūjanātmaka-gurutara-nānā-karmānuṣṭhānena citta-vikṣepa-kāraṇatvāt bahu-vitta-vyāyāyāsaṁ rājasaṁ karma tanyate.‘bahu-śākhā hy anantāś ca buddhayo’vyavasāyināṁ’ iti gītā-vākyāt. anitya-phalatvāc ca kṛṣi-vāṇijyadivat alpa-kālopabhogya-sukha-pradatvāt aihika-dhana-putrādi-pāralaukika-pitṛ-deva-lokādi-vinaśvara-phala-pradatvāt iti bhāvaḥ. ‘agniṣṭomena svarga-kāmo yajeta.’ ‘tad yatheha karmajito lokaḥ kṣīyata evam evāmutra puṇya-cito lokaḥ kṣīyate’ – ity-ādi-śruteḥ.

yānti deva-vratā devān pitṝn yānti pitṛ-vratāḥ
bhūtāni yānti bhūtejyā yānti mad-yājino’pi mām – iti smṛteḥ

“But even on the path of karma, the worship of ancestors, Devas etc., leads to many kinds of beneficial accomplishments. How is it that all such actions are said to be inferior?” Thus, to resolve this doubt, the word kāmya (with desires) is used. Kāmya-karma, which is motivated by the desire for material results, and devotion to others amongst the innumerable jīvas, besides the Supreme Lord, is not approved for the devotees of Bhagavān because it causes mental agitation. Pondering over the sections in the śruti and smṛti that describe various Devatās, and performing actions such as worshiping the ancestors and Devas according to their injunctions with intense and complicated rituals, causes agitation to the mind and a wasteful expenditure of wealth. These are actions driven by passion. The Gītā states, ‘The intelligence of those that desire mundane enjoyment is many branched’ (Bhagavad-gītā 2.41)

Anitya-phalatvāc ca – due to the impermanence of the results, such as those from agriculture or trade, which only provide pleasure for a short time – and also due to granting perishable results such as worldly wealth, sons, and destinations in the next life such as the realms of the ancestors or Devas. This is the intended meaning. The śruti says, ‘Desiring Svarga, one should perform the Agniṣṭoma sacrifice’ (Āpastamba Śrauta Sūtra 19.10.14). ‘Just as in this world, whatever is earned through pious acts is destroyed, and in the next world also, whatever is gained through piety perishes. (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.1.6). The smṛti says: ‘The worshippers of the Devas attain the realm of the Devas. The worshippers of the ancestors reach the domain of the ancestors. The worshippers of ghosts and spirits go to the world of the ghosts and spirits. But those who worship Me come to Me.’ (Bhagavad-gītā 9.25)

Commentary by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura

In the context of the section concerning bhagavat-tattva, it was observed that Bhagavān alone is the singular Reality, however subordinate to Him are two substances – cit (consciousness) and acit (matter). In this sūtra, the word itara has been used to denote the substances cit and acit. Bhakti is of the nature of rāga, and although one of its subsidiary functions pervades all conscious substances, it must be understood that its primary function is dependent on the Supreme Truth. If the principal function of bhakti manifests in any conscious substance due to the influence of illusory bliss, it is then referred to as kāmya and itara-bhakti (devotion for something other than the Supreme). Such kāmya and itara-bhakti are not approved because they causes mental disturbance and give rise to impermanent results. In this regard, the jīva should always remain careful. Therefore, the Gītopaniṣad states:

ananyāś cintayanto māṁ ye janāḥ paryupāsate
teṣāṁ nityābhiyuktānāṁ yoga-kṣemaṁ vahāmy-aham

ye’pyanya-devatā bhaktā yajante śraddhayānvitāḥ
te’pi mām eva kaunteya yajanty-avidhi-pūrvakam

ahaṁ hi sarva-yajñānāṁ bhoktā ca prabhureva ca
na tu mām abhijānanti tattvenātaś cyavanti te

yānti deva-vratā devān pitṛn yānti pitṛ-vratāḥ
bhūtāni yānti bhūtejyā yānti mad yājino’pi mām

But for those who are always absorbed in thoughts of Me, who worship Me and who are always associated with Me, I carry what they lack and preserve what they have. O Kaunteya, those that worship other Devas with faith actually worship Me, but they do so improperly. It is I who am the enjoyer and object of all sacrifices. But those who are ignorant of My true nature fall down from the path of self-realisation. The worshippers of the Devas attain the realm of the Devas. The worshippers of the ancestors reach the domain of the ancestors. The worshippers of ghosts and spirits go to the world of the ghosts and spirits. But those who worship Me come to Me. (Bhagavad-gītā 9.22-25)

Whether one worships conscious or non-conscious substances, the ultimate object of all worship is Bhagavān, because only Bhagavān possesses the power to fulfil all the desires of those persons who possess mundane desires. Therefore, through all such worship, ultimately it is Bhagavān alone who is being adored. However, the worship of Bhagavān is nirguṇa, beyond the modes of nature; therefore, when worship of Bhagavān is performed improperly with material conditions, it does not yield the result of unconditional prema. Instead, it leads only to limited results, such as attaining the realms of the Devas, the ancestors, and other ordinary results. In this way, it is one’s duty to engage in bhagavat-bhajana after abandoning all kinds of kāmya-bhakti.

All jīvas have the right to engage in bhajana of the Supreme Lord. Bhagavān is well-known to appear in five ways, due to the impurity of the sādhaka’s consciousness. The five types of worship of Bhagavān – Śākta (worship of the Mother Goddess), Sāura (worship of the Sun), Gāṇapatya (worship of Lord Gaṇeśa), Śaiva (worship of Śiva), and Vaiṣṇava (worship of Viṣṇu and His avatāras) – are formed in the sādhaka’s heart according to their conditioning. In other words, first, one worships inert matter; then, within that matter, the active power in the form of heat, which is the Sun. Next, one worships Gaṇeśa, characterised as the man/elephant Devatā, the manifestation of consciousness. After that, one worships Śiva, the superior, pervading ātmā, and ultimately, one worships Viṣṇu, the Paramātmā, who possesses a form of sac-cit-ānanda, who incomparably transcends both the jīvas and non-jīvas. From those who are doubtful to those who are knowers of the Supreme Truth, everyone is eligible to engage in bhajana of the Supreme Lord.

The purity and progress of rāga is a symptom of worship. Thus, all jīvas should worship the independent sac-cit-ānanda Supreme Lord. If one remains engaged in other kinds of worship, such as kāmya and itara, one will never attain the ultimate good. At no time does one become unqualified for the supreme virtue of worshiping Kṛṣṇa, even if one engages in improper conduct such as the worship of other Devas. The Gītā says:

api cet sudurācāro bhajate mām ananya-bhāk
sādhur eva sa mantavyaḥ samyag vyavasito hi saḥ

Even if one is impious and has committed abominable acts, if he worships Me with one-pointed devotion, such a person should be considered saintly because his determination is perfect. (Bhagavad-gītā 9.30)

There are infinite stages to kṛṣṇa-bhajana. From the initial sprouting of śraddhā to the boundless state of mahā-bhāva, the stages are unlimited. In all these stages, gradual advancement is achieved through parānuśīlana and pratyāhāra. One should understand that there are considerations of qualification regarding advancement in these stages. Everyone has the qualification to engage in kṛṣṇa-bhajana. Rūpa Gosvāmī has said as follows:

śāstrataḥ śruyate bhaktau nṛ-mātrasyādhikāritā

According to the śāstra, it is heard that eligibility for bhakti is awarded to human beings alone. (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.60)

It is not that it should be taken lightly, just because it is said that everyone has eligibility. Even knowledge of Brhaman, which is the subject of other śāstras, is considered inferior to unconditional bhagavat-bhakti. It is stated in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu:

brahmānando bhaved eṣa cet parārdha-guṇī-kṛtaḥ
naiti bhakti-sukhāmbodheḥ paramāṇu-tulām api

Even if the bliss derived from Brahman were multiplied according to the number of days in a lifetime of Brahmā, it would still not compare to an atomic particle of pleasure that one attains from the ocean of bhakti. (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.1.38)

Also, in the Tantras, it says:

jñānataḥ sulabhā muktir bhuktir yajñādi-puṇyataḥ
seyaṁ sādhana-sāhasrair hari-bhaktiḥ su-durlabhā

Liberation is easily achieved through jñāna, and bhukti is a result of pious deeds such as yajñas etc. Yet hari-bhakti, which is achieved through thousands of sādhanas, is very difficult to attain. (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.1.36)

With the intention of gradually uplifting those who are incapable in terms of qualification, the authors of the śāstras have resolved that the conclusion of each stage is the highest. To determine which conclusion is considered the highest by the authors of the śāstras, the author of the sūtras speaks thus.

SŪTRA 48

pratyakṣānumānābhyāṁ bhāgavata-siddhānta eva garīyān vijñānamayatvāt sarva-siddhāntāśrayatvāc ca

(Among direct perception and inference, the conclusions of the Bhāgavata are superior since they are replete with realised knowledge and are the foundation of all conclusions.)

Sanskrit Commentary by Śrī Gopīnātha Paṇḍita

namvasmin siddhānta prakaraṇe ko vā siddhānta śreṣṭhatayā vicārita ity-apekṣāyāmāha ‘pratyakṣānumānābhyām iti.’ sarvārtha-nirṇaya-mūla-bhūta-pramāṇābhyāṁ ‘pratyakṣānumānābhyāṁ bhāgavata-siddhānta eva sarva-siddhāntebhyo garīyān’ ity avagamyate. tatra bhāgavata-siddhānto nāma bhagavatā mahābhārate arjunaṁ prati, śrīmad-bhāgavate ekādaśa-skandhe uddhavaṁ prati catuḥślokyā brahmāṇaṁ prati upadiṣṭo yaḥ siddhānta sa eva bhāgavata-śāstrasya ‘janmādy asya yataḥ’ ity-upakramya ‘satyaṁ paraṁ dhīmahity-upasaṁhāreṇa nānopākhyāna praśnottarādibhir nirdhārita so’pi bhāgavatānāṁ bhagavad-bhaktānāṁ svataḥ-siddha-pratyayena niścita-siddhāntaḥ garīyān gurutaraḥ. karma-jñānādi-vādināṁ siddhāntebhyaḥ śreṣṭhatara ity arthaḥ vijñānamayatvāt viśuddha-jñānamayatvāt, sarva-siddhāntāśrayatvāc ca sarvasmin deśe sarveṣām aprākṛta-buddhi-viveka-śālināṁ mahājanānāṁ sarvasmin kāle bhūtābhavanti ca bhāvino vā ye siddhāntās tad-āśrayatvāt tan-mūla-bhūtatvāt bhāgavata-siddhāntasya sarvataḥ śreṣṭhatvam iti bhāva. ataeva – ‘dadāmi buddhi-yogaṁ taṁ yena mām upayānti te’ iti śrī-bhagavatoktam. ‘sarva-vedānta-sāraṁ hi śrī-bhāgavatam iṣyate tad-rasāmṛta-tṛptasya nānyatra syād ratiḥ kvacit – iti purāṇāntarāt.

In regards to the conclusion, it is asked, ‘Which conclusion is considered superior?’ and in response, it is said, pratyakṣānumānābhyām (according to direct perception and inference). By means of the two kinds of knowledge that are the foundation of determining all meanings – namely direct perception and inference – it is understood that the conclusion of the Bhāgavata is superior to all other conclusions. There, the bhāgavata-siddhānta, which is taught by Bhagavān Himself in the Mahābhārata to Arjuna, in the Śrīmad Bhāgavata in the Eleventh Canto to Uddhava, and to Brahmā in the catuḥ-śloki, is the same siddhānta. This siddhānta begins with the verse janmādy asya yataḥ, concluding with satyaṁ paraṁ dhīmahi (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.1.1). It is further explained by various stories, questions, and answers. This conclusion of the Bhāgavata, which is self-evident for the devotees of Bhagavān, is the most authoritative and the greatest. The meaning here is that the bhāgavata-siddhānta is superior to the philosophies of karma, jñāna etc. because it is full of realised knowledge and transcendental wisdom, and it is the foundation of all other conclusions. In every place and at all times, the mahājanas who possess transcendental intelligence and discrimination take refuge in this doctrine because, being the very basis of all conclusions, the bhāgavata-siddhānta is considered the highest in all respects. Thus, Śrī Bhagavān states, ‘I continue to bestow upon them devotional inspiration by which they may come to Me. (Bhagavad-gītā 10.10) and at the end of that Purāṇa, ‘The Śrīmad Bhāgavata is the essence of all the Vedas. One who has found satisfaction in this immortal rasa develops no attachment to anything else’ (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.13.15).

Commentary by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura

The author of the Tattva Sūtra has only accepted two types of pramāṇa (evidences), namely pratyakṣa (direct perception) and anumāna (inference). The perception of the person analysing is called pratyakṣa-pramāṇa, and inference through indicators is called anumāna-pramāṇa. Upamāna (analogy) cannot be considered as pramāṇa, as it is merely a process of reasoning. In the texts of Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Uttara Mīmāṁsā etc, śabda (śāstra) is accepted as a form of pramāṇa. Thus, Manu states:

pratyakṣaṁ cānumānaṁ ca śāstraṁ ca tri-vidhāgamam
trayaṁ su-viditaṁ kāryaṁ dharma-śuddhim abhīpsatā

Direct perception, inference, and śāstra constitute the threefold source of knowledge. One who desires the purity of dharma should thoroughly understand all three. (Manu Saṁhitā 12.105)

However, the author of the Tattva Sūtras does not accept any evidence other than pratyakṣa and anumāna. So does he not accept śāstra as a pramāṇa? The answer is that when he describes knowledge as the sun and śāstra as its rays, it implies that śāstra such as the Vedas etc. are indeed accepted by him (See Sūtra 41). However, he does not mention śabda as a separate form of pramāṇa anywhere. Śabda-pramāṇa is based upon pratyakṣa and anumāna because the ṛṣis and Brahmā have derived certain rules and instructions through pratyakṣa and others through anumāna. Thus, śabda cannot be considered a third, independent form of pramāṇa. One must understand which parts of śabda are based on pratyakṣa and which parts are based on anumāna. Hence, for simplification, two types of pramāṇa have been accepted. However, the analysis of pratyakṣa and anumāna given by the author of the sūtras is contrary to that of other philosophers. The subject of the examiner’s testimony is directly perceivable, therefore all self-evident beliefs are pratyakṣa, and all further conclusions are anumāna. Such types of conclusions, established through pratyakṣa and anumāna, are indeed bhagavata-siddhānta. They are considered to be the basis of analysis throughout all places, times, and circumstances, and are therefore superior to all other conclusions. Thus, in the Seventh Chapter of the Eleventh Canto, Bhagavān states:

ātmano gurur ātmaiva puruṣasya viśeṣataḥ
yat-pratyakṣānumānābhyāṁ śreyo’sāv anuvindate

An wise person, acting as his own guru, can eventually achieve great benefit through pratyakṣa and anumāna. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.7.20)

And also in the Gītā:

uddhared ātmanātmānaṁ nātmānam avasādayet
ātmaiva hy-ātmano bandhur ātmaiva ripur ātmanaḥ

Living beings must elevate themselves by the mind – they must not degrade themselves. Certainly, the mind is the friend of the living beings as well as their worst enemy. (Bhagavad-gītā 6.5)

The term ‘bhāgavata-siddhānta’ has three meanings – the teachings stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavata, the instructions given by Bhagavān, and the conclusions of all discerning bhāgavata personalities. However, independent conclusions that are full of bhakti, derived through the critical analysis of all śāstrika instructions by means of self-evident knowledge, pertain to Bhagavān. Therefore, they are renowned as bhāgavata-siddhānta. Such a conclusion is scientific, meaning that it is free from all prejudices related to place, time, and sectarianism. If in the past, present, or future there is a pure conclusion, the bhāgavata–siddhānta serves as its basis. If one asks who is the originator of this unparalleled conclusion, the following sūtra serves to address it, as follows.

SŪTRA 49

caitanyasya sarvācāryasyāvirbhāve na gurv-antaram

(Due to the appearance of Śri Caitanya, the ācārya of all, there is no need for any other guru)

Sanskrit Commentary by Śrī Gopīnātha Paṇḍita

nanu tādṛśe bhāgavata-siddhānta-jñānaṁ gurūpasattiṁ vinā katham upapadyate ity apekṣāyāmāha ‘caitanyasyeti.’ sarveṣāṁ tattva-jñānādhikāriṇāṁ sāragrāhiṇāṁ vaiṣṇavānām ācāryasya śrī-caitanyasya bhagavata āvirbhāve sati tat prakāśānantaram ity-arthaḥ na gurv-antaraṁ itaro guru na grāhyaḥ nopāsitavya ity-arthaḥ.

yo brahmāṇaṁ vidadhāti pūrvaṁ
yo vai vedāṁś ca prahiṇoti tasmai
taṁ ha devam ātma-buddhi-prakāśaṁ
mumukṣur vai śaraṇam ahaṁ prapadye

– iti śruteḥ

teṣām evānukampārtham aham ajñānajaṁ tamaḥ
nāśayāmy ātma-bhāva-stho jñāna-dīpena bhāsvatā

‘ācāryaṁ māṁ vijānīyāt’ – ity ādi-smṛteś ca.

One may question how such knowledge of bhāgavata-siddhānta is possible without approaching a guru. Thus, to address this concern, it is stated, caitanyasya (‘by Śrī Caitanya’). For all those qualified for knowledge of tattva, who are sāragrāhī Vaiṣṇavas, when Śrī Caitanya, the ācārya and the Bhāgavata have Themselves appeared, it means that after Their manifestation, no other guru is to be accepted by them. The implication is that another guru should neither be accepted nor revered. The śruti states, ‘As a seeker of liberation, I surrender unto that Supreme Lord who in the beginning created Brahmā and imparted the Vedas unto him, who is the divine source of self-revealing knowledge.’ (Gopāla Tāpani Upaniṣad 1.23)And the smṛti says: ‘Out of compassion for them, I appear in their hearts and destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness that is born from ignorance.’ (Bhagavad-gītā 10.11). ‘Know Me to be the ācārya’ (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.17.27).

Commentary by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura

The first division of vaidhi-bhakti is taking refuge at the feet of the guru (guru-pādāśraya). Regarding the glories of the guru, the Nārada Pañcarātra states as follows:

guruś ca jñānodgiraṇāj jñānaṁ syān mantra-tantrayoḥ
tat tantraṁ sa ca mantraś ca kṛṣṇa-bhaktir yato bhavet

The guru imparts knowledge which arises from mantras and tantras, and those tantras and mantras give rise to kṛṣṇa-bhakti. (Nārada Pañcarātra 1.10.10)

sahasra-dala-padmaṁ ca sarveṣāṁ mastake mune
tatraiva tiṣṭhati guruḥ sūkṣma-rūpeṇa santatam

O muni, a lotus with a thousand petals is situated upon everyone’s head. The guru always resides there in a subtle form. (Nārada Pañcarātra 2.8.19)

It is stated in the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa:

kṛpayā kṛṣṇa-devasya tad-bhakta-jana-saṅgataḥ
bhakter māhātmyam ākarṇya tam icchan sad-guruṁ bhajet

By the mercy of Kṛṣṇa and through association with His devotees, one hears the glories of bhakti. Desiring such, one should worship the sad-guru. (Hari-bhakti-vilāsa 1.28)

The Eleventh Canto of the Bhāgavata states:

nṛ-deham ādyaṁ su-labhaṁ su-durlabhaṁ
plavaṁ su-kalpaṁ guru-karṇadhāram
mayānukūlena nabhasvateritaṁ
pumān bhavābdhiṁ na taret sa ātma-hā

The rare human form, which is sometimes attained by good fortune, is like a well-constructed boat. The guru is like the captain, and the boat is propelled by the favourable wind of serving Me. That person who does not endeavour to cross the ocean of material existence is a killer of the self. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.20.17)

And in the words of one of the Yogeśvara:

tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam
śābde pare ca niṣṇātaṁ brahmaṇy upasamāśrayam

Thus, being inquisitive about the highest benefit, one should surrender unto a guru who is learned in the śāstra, has realised the Supreme, and is an abode of peacefulness. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.3.21)

And in the śruti:

tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet
samit-pāṇiḥ śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham

In order to achieve realised knowledge, one should approach a guru who is learned in the śruti and established in the Absolute, with fuel for the sacrificial fire in hand. (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.2.12)

ācāryavān puruṣo veda

One who attains an ācārya attains knowledge. (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.14.2)

To attain knowledge of tattva, taking shelter of a sad-guru is essential. This is established through all these pramāṇas and by rational analysis. However, there is also a consideration of eligibility in relation to approaching the guru, as stated in the words of Śiva in the Tantra.

In the Eleventh Canto, Bhagavān says:

duḥkhodarkeṣu kāmeṣu jāta-nirveda ātmavān
ajijñāsitam adharmo guruṁ munim upavrajet

tāvat paricared bhaktaḥ śraddhāvān anasūyakaḥ
yāvad brahma vijānīyān mām eva gurum ādṛtaḥ

One who wishes to be established in the self and has renounced mundane desires, knowing them to be ultimately distressful, but who has not fully considered Me, should approach a guru who is wise. Until he realises Brahman, a devotee should continue to serve the guru, who is non-different from Me, with faith and respect, and without envy. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.18.38-39)

madhu-lubdho yathā bhrṅgaḥ puṣpāt puṣpāntaraṁ vrajet
jñāna-lubdho tathā dehī guror gurv-antaraṁ vrajet

Just as a bee, greedy for honey, moves from one flower to another, similarly, a person seeking knowledge goes from one guru to another. (Guru-gītā 1.77)

Many examples of this can be found in the śāstra. The narrations of Jaḍa Bharata and Ṛṣabhadeva etc. are always a topic of discussion. In the Nārada Pañcaratra, it is stated that when the caitya-guru, who resides on the thousand-petaled lotus at the crown of the head, manifests, the necessity for other gurus disappears. However, before the manifestation of caitya-guru, inquiry into tattva is necessary, and this inquiry must be directed to other gurus, as stated in the Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta:

jīve sākṣāt nāhi tāte guru caitya-rūpe
śikṣā-guru haya kṛṣṇa-mahānta-svarūpe

The jīva does not directly experience the guru in the form of the caitya-guru. Kṛṣṇa appears in the form of the śikṣā-guru, the topmost devotee. (Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 1.58)

Again, we find within the catuḥślokī of the Bhāgavata:

etāvad eva jijñāsyaṁ tattva-jijñāsunātmanaḥ
anvaya-vyatirekābhyāṁ yat syāt sarvatra sarvadā

That person who is inquisitive about the supreme truth of the self inquires in all circumstances through direct and indirect means of deliberation about that object concerning the Supreme Consciousness. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 2.9.36)

There can be another unparalleled explanation of this sūtra. When Śrī Śrī Caitanyadeva, the prime originator of all sāragrāhīs, has appeared in the universe, then what is the need for other gurus? If someone says, “Caitanyadeva is merely the founder of an insignificant sampradāya called the Gauḍīyas, so in what way can He be sarvācārya (the ācārya of all)?” then the answer is – “O brothers! If the description, teachings, and śāstrika conclusions of Mahāprabhu Caitanyadeva are discussed with careful attention, independent analysis, and impartial reasoning, one will be compelled to accept Him as sarvācārya. Whatever things are written about the various sampradāyika gurus, all of them will be seen as being under His authority. Śrī Śrī Caitanyadeva is the caitya-guru of all the jīvas, yet He has also appeared in His fullest manifestation. Therefore, all jīvas that are entirely freed from bondage, should continue to drink the honey of the lotus feet of Śrī Caitanyadeva, which are the embodiment of freedom.

It is said in Śrī Caitanya-candrodaya Nāṭaka:

brahmānandaṁ ca bhittvā vilasati śikharaṁ yasya yatrātta-nīḍaṁ
rādhā-kṛṣṇakhya-līlāmaya-khaga-mithunaṁ bhinna-bhāvena hīnam
yasya cchāyā bhavābdhi-śrama-śamana-karī bhakta-saṅkalpa-siddher
hetuś caitanya-kalpa-druma iha bhuvane kaścana prādurāsīt

Penetrating the bliss of Brahman where the playful, inseparable pair of birds known as Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa have made their nest, and whose shade removes the weariness of the traveller on the path of saṁsāra and fulfils the desires of the devotee’s heart — that wish-fulfilling tree of Śrī Caitanya has appeared in this world. (Caitanya-candrodaya Nāṭaka 1.7)

What conclusion have the sāragrāhīs gathered from the supreme guru, Śrī Caitanya? That is briefly explained in the final sūtra.

SŪTRA 50

pare pūrṇānuraktir itareṣu tulyā jaḍe yukta-vairāgyaṁ ceti sāragrāhi-matam

(One should have complete attachment to the Supreme, show equality to others, and observe yukta-vairāgya in relation to matter. This is the opinion of the sāragrāhīs.)

Sanskrit Commentary by Śrī Gopīnātha Paṇḍita

siddhānta-prakaraṇasya sāraṁ spaṣṭī karoti pare iti. pare parameśvare pūrṇā akhaṇḍitāvyavadhānānanda-mayī anuraktir jīvasya svābhāvikī vṛttiḥ sva-hṛdaye prakaṭanīyety-arthaḥ. itareṣu parameśvara-bhinneṣu cid-rūpeṣu tulyā tat-tad-avastha-jīvānurūpā anuraktiḥ ayaṁ arthaḥ mati-vaiṣamyāt utkṛṣṭa-madhyama-nikṛṣṭatayā trai-vidhyena pratīyamāneṣu teṣu yathā-kramaṁ gaurava-maitri-karuṇa-rūpā trividhā anuraktiḥ kartavyā aviṣama matīnām tu tathā pratīty-abhāvena teṣu krameṇaiva amatsarāvivādānavajñā-rūpā vā anuraktiḥ kiṁvā sarva-jīvānām īśvarāvirbhūtatvāt sarveṣv api bhrātṛ-snehātmikā vā kartavyety-arthaḥ. jaḍe acit-padārthe vittāpatya-kalatra-mitra-gṛha-kṣetrādiṣu priyatarā pratīyamāneṣu teṣu teṣu jaḍa-vastuṣu yukta-vairāgyaṁ yathopayukta-svīkāra-vyavahārādi-rūpaṁ sampādanīyam ity arthaḥ iti sāragrāhiṇāṁ tat-tat-sāmpradāyika-vivāda-varjitānāṁ vaiṣṇava varyāṇāṁ matam ity-alamati vistareṇa atra pramāṇāni bahūni śruti-smṛti-rūpāṇi tat-tat-prakaraṇeṣu pūrvoktāni draṣṭavyāni.

iti tattva-sūtra-vivaraṇaṁ samāptam

The essence of this section ‘Siddhānta Prakraṇam’ has thus been made clear. The inherent tendency of the jīva is to have complete, unbroken, uninterrupted, blissful attachment to the Supreme Lord, which manifests in his own heart – this is the meaning. One should respect others who are separated from the Supreme Lord with affection according to the manifestation of their consciousness as per the jīva’s particular state. Due to the disparity in mentalities, this affection manifests in three ways – higher, medium, and lower. Thus, respect, friendship, and compassion should be expressed respectively. Those with an equipoised mind should show these three kinds of affection. But for others, due to an absence of such an understanding, it should be cultivated gradually, and may manifest as non-envy, or as a lack of malice. Alternatively, it means that because all jīvas manifest from the Lord, then all should be treated with brotherly affection. In relation to material things such as wealth, children, spouse, friends, home, and land, which are regarded as most dear, one must cultivate an appropriate form of yukta-vairāgya. This should be practiced in the form of accepting and engaging with them as is appropriate, while maintaining proper conduct. This is the opinion of eminent Vaiṣṇavas, who are sāragrāhīs that are free from sectarian disputes. Thus, sufficient evidence from various śrutis and smṛtis has already been mentioned in detail in the relevant chapters and should be considered.

Thus, the explanation of the Tattva-Sūtras is concluded.

hārītānvaya-sambhūto gopīnāthābhidhaḥ kṛtī
vivṛtiṁ tattva-sūtrāṇāṁ cakāra viduṣāṁ mude

The author known as Gopīnātha, who was born in the lineage of Hārīta, composed this explanation of the Tattva Sūtras, bringing joy to the learned.

jagannātha-kṣetra-vāsī mukti-maṇḍapa-paṇḍitaḥ
jagannātha-prasādena tattva-vyākhyām acīkarat

This resident of Jagannātha-kṣetra is a paṇḍita of the mukti-maṇḍapa, and by the mercy of Jagannātha, he has written this explanation on tattva.

grantha-gaurava-bhītyā ca saṁkṣiptaṁ vivṛtaṁ mayā
vistārayantu sudhīyo bahu-vyākhyāna-yuktibhiḥ

Due to the respect I have for this text, I have only given a brief explanation. Let the wise expand on it with numerous logical and detailed explanations.

Commentary by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhakura

The dharma of the sāragrāhīs is very straightforward – in other words, it is not very difficult. In this, two aspects are observed, namely, affection and good character. Affection is given in two places – to the Supreme Lord and to the jīvas. Complete attachment to the Supreme Lord and brotherly love for all jīvas are essential. In this itself, both a particular kind of affection and good character are seen. All material objects require appropriate attachment and use, and for that, yukta-vairāgya is necessary. Upon analysis, there is no other essential dharma like this.

Thus ends Śrī Tattva Sūtra