Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.87.36
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
-
andha-paramparayā
—
by a succession of blind men
Compound: andha (blind) + paramparā (succession). Vivid image. Gauḍīyas: this is the false paramparā — one blind man leading another. The genuine paramparā (śiṣya-paramparā) is the line of those whose eyes were opened by their gurus. CC distinguishes the two repeatedly.
-
bhāratī
—
the words of wisdom (the Vedas, as the goddess Sarasvatī's speech)
Feminine of bhārata — speech. Sarasvatī personified. Gauḍīyas: the Vedas as Bhāratī can either bewilder (those stuck in karma) or liberate (those who reach Bhagavān). Same speech, opposite effects.
-
uktha-jaḍān
—
those dulled by ritual utterances
Compound: uktha (Vedic hymn for ritual) + jaḍa (dull). Even the recitation of Vedic ukthas, divorced from devotion to Bhagavān, makes the mind dull. Gauḍīyas: ritualism without sambandha-jñāna is spiritually deadening.
-
vikalpaḥ
—
an imaginary situation
From vi + √kalp (to arrange, to imagine). The phenomenal world is a useful vikalpa — a working arrangement, not an ultimate reality. Gauḍīyas distinguish: vikalpa as imagined-construction vs. vāstava (factual), and the latter is the Lord and His līlā.
-
vyavahṛtaye
—
for the sake of ordinary affairs
Dative of vyavahāra (transaction, business). The world has vyavahārika reality. Gauḍīyas read this differently from Śaṅkara: not three levels of reality (vyavahārika, pāramārthika, prātibhāsika) but one tiered reality, all rooted in Bhagavān.
According to Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, the Upaniṣads teach that this created world is real but temporary. This is the understanding that devotees of Lord Viṣṇu adhere to. But there are also materialistic philosophers, like the proponents of Jaimini Ṛṣi’s Karma mīmāṁsā, who claim that this world is the only reality and exists eternally. For Jaimini, the cycle of karmic action and reaction is perpetual, with no possibility of liberation into a different, transcendental realm. This viewpoint, however, is shown to be fallacious by a careful examination of the Upaniṣadic mantras, which contain many descriptions of a higher, spiritual existence. For example, sad eva saumyedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyam: “My dear boy, the Absolute Truth alone existed prior to this creation, one without a second.” ( Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.1) Also, vijñānam ānandaṁ brahma: “The supreme reality is divine knowledge and bliss.” ( Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.9.34) In this prayer of the personified Vedas, the materialists’ argument is summed up in the words sata idam utthitaṁ sat: “The visible world is permanently real because it is generated from the permanent reality.” In general, this argument goes, that which is produced from a certain thing is composed of that thing. For example, earrings and other ornaments made from gold share gold’s substance. Thus, the Mīmāṁsā logicians conclude, since the world as we know it is a manifestation of an eternal reality, it is also eternally real. But the Sanskrit ablative expression sataḥ, “from the eternal reality,” implies a definite separation of cause and effect. Therefore, what is created from sat, the permanent reality, must be significantly different from it — in other words, temporary. In this way the argument of the materialists is flawed because it proves just the opposite of what it is intended to prove ( tarka-hatam ), namely that the world as we know it is all that exists, that it is eternal, and that there is no separate, transcendental reality. In defense, the Mīmāṁsakas may claim that they are not trying to prove nondifference per se, but rather trying to disprove the possibility of difference, or in other words, the possibility of any reality separate from the known world. This attempt to support the Mīmāṁsā argument is easily refuted by the phrase vyabhicarati kva ca: that is to say, there are counterexamples that deviate from the general rule. Sometimes, indeed, the source is very different from what it produces, as in the case of a man and his young son, or of a hammer and the destruction of a clay pot. But, the Mīmāṁsakas reply, the creation of the universe is not the same kind of causation as your counterexamples: the father and the hammer are only efficient causes, whereas the sat is also this universe’s ingredient cause. This reply is anticipated by the words kva ca mṛṣā (“and sometimes the effect is illusory”). In the case of the false perception of a snake where there is a rope on the ground, the rope is the snake-illusion’s ingredient cause, differing in many respects from the imagined snake, most obviously in its being real. The Mīmāṁsakas once more rejoin: But the ingredient cause of the illusory snake is not just the rope by itself: it is the rope plus the observer’s ignorance ( avidyā ). Since avidyā is not a substance, the snake it produces is called an illusion. Yet the same is true, the personified Vedas reply, in the case of the universe’s creation from sat in conjunction with ignorance ( tathobhaya-yuk ); here the unreal element of illusion, Māyā, is the living beings’ misconception that their own bodies and other changing material forms are permanent. But, rejoin the Mīmāṁsakas, our experience of this world is valid because the things we experience are useful for practical activity. If our experience were not valid, we could never be sure that our perceptions corresponded to the facts. We would be like a man who, despite exhaustive examination, would still have to suspect that a rope might be a snake. No, the śrutis here answer, the temporary configurations of matter are nonetheless an illusory imitation of the eternal spiritual reality, cleverly concocted to fulfill the conditioned living entities’ desire for material activity ( vyavahṛtaye vikalpa iṣitaḥ ). The illusion of this world’s permanence is sustained by a succession of blind men who learn the materialistic idea from their predecessors and pass on this illusion to their descendants. Anyone can see that an illusion often continues by the momentum of lingering mental impressions, even when its basis is no longer present. Thus throughout history blind philosophers have misled other blind men by convincing them of the absurd idea that they can reach perfection by engaging in mundane rituals. Foolish people may be willing to exchange counterfeit coins among one another, but a wise man knows that such money is useless for the practical business of buying food, medicine and other necessities. And if given in charity, counterfeit money will earn no pious credit. But, say the Mīmāṁsakas, how can the sincere performer of Vedic rituals be a deluded fool, since the Saṁhitās and Brāhmaṇas of the Vedic scriptures establish that the fruits of karma are eternal? For example, akṣayyaṁ ha vai cāturmāsya-yājinaḥ su-kṛtaṁ bhavati: “For one who observes the Cāturmāsya vows there arises inexhaustible good karma, ” and apāma somam amṛta babhūma: “We have drunk the soma and become immortal.” ( Ṛg Veda 8.43.3) The śrutis reply by pointing out that the Personality of Godhead’s learned words, comprising the Vedas, bewilder those whose weak intelligence has been crushed by the weight of too much faith in karma. The specific word used here is uru-vṛttibhiḥ, which indicates that the Vedic mantras, with their confusing variety of meanings in the semantic modes of gauṇa, lakṣaṇā and so on, protect their sublime mysteries from all but those who have faith in Lord Viṣṇu. The Vedas do not truly mean to say in their injunctions that the fruits of karma are eternal, but only indirectly describe in metaphors the praiseworthiness of regulated sacrifices. The Chāndogya Upaniṣad states in no uncertain terms that the results of ritual karma are impermanent: tad yatheha karma-cito lokaḥ kṣīyate evam evāmutra puṇya-cito lokaḥ kṣīyate. “Just as whatever benefit one works hard to attain in this world is eventually depleted, so whatever life one earns for oneself in the next world by his piety will also eventually end.” ( Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.1.16) According to the testimony of numerous śruti-mantras, the entire material universe is but a temporary emanation of the Supreme Truth; the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad, for one, says: yathorṇa-nābhiḥ sṛjate gṛhṇate ca yathā pṛthivyām oṣadhayaḥ sambhavanti yathā sataḥ puruṣāt keśa-lomāni tathākṣarāt sambhavatīha viśvam “As a web is expanded and withdrawn by a spider, as plants grow from the earth, and as hair grows from a living person’s head and body, so this universe is generated from the inexhaustible Supreme.” ( Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.7) Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī prays: udbhūtaṁ bhavataḥ sato ’pi bhuvanaṁ san naiva sarpaḥ srajaḥ kurvat kāryaṁ apīha kūta-kanakaṁ vedo ’pi naivaṁ paraḥ advaitaṁ tava sat paraṁ tu paramānandaṁ padaṁ tan mudā vande sundaram indirānuta hare mā muñca mām ānatam “Although this world has arisen from You, who are the very substance of reality, it is not eternally real. The illusory snake appearing from a rope is not permanent reality, nor are the transformations produced from gold. The Vedas never say that they are. The actual, transcendental, nondual reality is Your supremely blissful personal kingdom. To that beautiful abode I offer my obeisances. O Lord Hari, to whom Goddess Indirā always bows down, I also bow to You. Therefore please never release me.”
"But how can you criticize the dwelling place for taking away the good qualities of men (verse 34) and at the same time praise the residence for giving men good qualities ( verse 35)? It cannot be said that a mirage of water can be either thirst quenching or throat parching." This is discussed by the srutis propounding sat karya vad (the effect is inherent in the cause: sankhya philosophy) with the srtis propounding asat karyavad (the effect is non existent in the cause before production: nyaya philosophy) in this verse. "This world is sat because it arises from sat. It is not sat in itself. Just as a pot when resolved to its cause is not a pot, but merely the real expressing itself through the pot." " If you maintain the non difference of the effect from the cause, then because there is perception of difference just by your indication of one comeing from the other, there is contradiction in your reasoning. It is defeated by logic (nanu tarkahatah). The proposition of spiritual and material being non different is denied by all the sources of proof." "We do not propose that they are the same. But we are denying their difference, since they are produced from the sat, just as earrings arise from gold. Effects can never exist without existence of a cause. They cannot be separated, as seen in the difference between father and sons." (vyabhicarati kva ca) "But just as the illusion of silver has no existence apart from the shell, so the world has no existence separate from the existence of the Lord, its support." "No, you cannot say that just as the silver in the shell is unreal, so the world is unreal. The real is in both (ubhaya yuk). The sruti says, "That is real (tat satyam)": both the world and the Lord are real. But, the existence of the cause is eternal and the existence of effect is temporary. This can be seen: without the reality of the effect (this world), no dealings of this world could take place (vyavahrtaye vikalpah isita). The world is real and by real objects such as pots actions can take place. By unreal pots, water could not be taken up." "But we see that business can be carried on with fake wealth." "That is effected by mutual ignorance, not by mutual knowledge (ajna paramparaya). Buying and selling is not carried out by the intelligent people using false coins, as it is with the ignorant. One cannot use counterfeit money to get good effect from medicine or to gain effects of charities. Therefore the world is real, according to the wise men such as Narada and Dattatreya, because of the execution of useful actions. If the world were not real, the actions would also be unreal, just like the illusory silver of the shell. By this teaching, the world is real, but, being changeable, it is non eternal." "But the karma vadis say that the results of karm are eternal and therefore the world is eternal, and will never be otherwise, raising such veres as "apamasomam amrta abhuma" (drinking soma we become immortal.) They do not accept the creation and destruction of the world." "This proposition is invalid. O Lord, your message in the form of Vedas (bharati) bewilders those holding opinions contaminated with material rituals because of the possibility of interpreting them in many ways , either literally or metaphorically." The meaning is this. The Vedas never claim that the results of karma are eternal. However, by non-literal words the Vedas praise karma. Otherwise there would be a contradiction between one statement and another. Such statements as the following show there is contradicton between them and with the srutis supported by logic. Tad yatheha karma jito lokah ksiyate evam evamutra punyajito lokah ksiyate Just as the karmic reactions of this world are destroyed so the pious credits of the next world also get destroyed. Chandogya Upanisad 8.1.6 Therefore, the philosophy of those intoxicated with karma is erroneous. The srutis say. Yathornanabhih srjate grhnate ca Yatha prthivyam osadahayh sambhavanti Yatha satah puruosat kesa lomani Tathaksarat sambhavantiha visvam Just as the spider creates and withdraws its web, just as the herbs appear in the earth, ust as the hairs spring from the body of a man, so this world appears from the indestuructible Lord. Mundaka 1.1.7 The word aksara indicates the eternality of the cause, the subject of the examples given before it, and the reality of the effect. The effect is real, not false, but temporary. Here the srutis state the opinion of the vaisnavas.
“Why do relatives’ houses steal away human goals since the world should be filled with eternity, knowledge and bliss? Since it has arisen from you, it is like the transformation of gold into ornaments. It should be the same as you. The scriptures say the world arose from you. Yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante: the living beings are born from the Lord. The world is not some imposition (falsity). The meaning of the word jan is well known. It means “to give birth to.” It cannot mean the world is some changed object (vivarta). If one were to take a secondary meaning of the word using some other logic, according to vivarata-vāda, since the world is false and only Brahman is true, the śruti could not make statements like “They hold your lotus feet in their hearts” (verse 35) since the Lord with form would be detestable. They could not say “They do not care for liberation (verse 21), since such persons would be detestable.” With this doubt raised, the śrutis say there is not just one entity, and the world is not a false imposition on Brahman, but simply a temporary manifestation. They illustrate what was previously stated by other śrutis. In response to the point raised, the śrutis deny absolute monism in their first words. Sataḥ refers to the first cause as in sad eva saumyedam agre āsīt: the cause existed before the world, O gentle one! (Chāndogya Upaniṣad) This world (idam) arose from you, the first cause (sataḥ), the form of eternity knowledge and bliss. If you say it is identical (sat) with the Lord, that cannot be. It is only similar. Nu indicates conjecture. That proposition is refuted by logic. There is difference because one can see different states in the form of the cause and effect. For instance a gold nugget has a different form than a gold ring. Nor can one say that the Lord transformed into the world, since this contradicts the eternal existence of the Lord. Therefore the world arose from the Lord like various objects arise from the cintāmaṇi stone. This being so, the different nature of the world is then described. It is different from you (vyabhicarati), since it does not have your qualities. The world does not have a form of eternity, knowledge and bliss. “Why can we not say that the world is like a transformation of Brahman like seeing the rope as a snake by mistake?” The snake is false, an imposition on a rope. Therefore it does not arise from the rope. The universe arises from the Lord. He is the source of qualities (utthitam). This is stated in the scriptures. “One could say that scripture also arises from the Lord in the same way and is thus different from him or illusory.” It cannot be said that the Lord is either a false imposition or the cause of false imposition (ubhaya-yuk) since he is not a material object. Vivarta-vāda logic itself becomes illusory like the snake according to its general application of false imposition. In particular application, this idea becomes the object of ridicule by its very manifestation. And it cannot be accepted that all difference is finally destroyed. The universe is not just an appearance since it is useful. It is not like the mirage of water in the desert. This conception of the world is imaginary. Illusory objects are not like gold which can be used in transactions or in making medicines; illusory objects cannot be used for donation for gaining piety. From the perspective of persons with knowledge, such an imaginary world is like a series of blind men. Or, for accomplishing tasks in the world, vivarta-vāda should have a succession of real objects (rather than illusions based on illusions), but this becomes a fault for the advaita-vādī, since it would destroy advaita-vāda. This is mentioned in Śārīraka-bhāṣya in the section refuting vijṣāna-vāda. Vivarta-vāda creates insubstantiality because of the defective series of illusions reaching to infinity, and it destroys dealings in the world. Intentions could never be fulfilled (since everything would be illusion.) “Who purchased this gold?” In answer to this, one may answer, it was purchased by a blind man. How did he know about gold? He knew from another blind man. How did he know? He knew from another blind man. In this way there is an infinite regression of blind men. If in the series of blind men there is one person with sight, he can be the first to know about the gold. Thus the action can be resolved. The issue is resolved by one man with sight among them all. Similarly, if one object is real, then false conception of that object can be explained. Without a real object one cannot see an illusion of that object or deal with it. In this manner illusion in the world can be resolved. Like an eternal object, the object which was source of illusion exists, with real variety as with shell and silver. One cannot see real falsity anywhere since it is impossible to produce false things from the mind or other elements. One can only see falsity related to real objects. Then it is called an illusion. Thus there is an illusion of silver on seeing a shining seashell. Atheists then rise up, supporting their argument that the material world is eternal with śruti statements like apāma somam amṛtā abhūma: we drank soma and became immortal. (Ṛg Veda 8.18.3) The śrutis then answer as follows. Such words bewilder persons whose minds are dulled by sacrificial mantras (uktha). However the Mīmāṁsa scholar Bhaṭta accepts the creation of the universe by the Lord. Creation and destruction are accepted because they are stated in the histories and Purāṇas. Therefore the world is not a form of eternity, knowledge and bliss, nor is it illusory. It is a temporary form only. yathorṇa-nābhiḥ sṛjate gṛhṇate ca yathā pṛthivyām oṣadhayaḥ sambhavanti yathā sataḥ puruṣāt keśa-lomāni tathākṣarāt sambhavatīha viśvam As a web is expanded and withdrawn by a spider, as plants grow from the earth, and as hair grows from a living person’s head and body, so this universe is generated from the inexhaustible Supreme Lord. Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.7 The word akṣarāt (from the inexhaustible, unchanging Lord) indicates that the world produced from the Lord is different from him.
Serving holy places to gain detachment was described. This vsing verse teached detachment using logic, saying the world is false. This universe is real (sat) because it has arisen from the real Lord, your avatāra (sataḥ). One sees a real object which has arisen from the real Lord, as a web arises from a spider. “But the world is negated by logic.” It is sometimes temporary (vyabhicarati). When an object appears from what is real, by magic, it disappears in an instant. “What arises from the indirect cause (nimitta) is temporary. The example of the spider and web was creation from a material cause (upādānā). What arises from a material cause is sometimes illusory, like water (illusion) in a desert (material cause). “Because of ignorance one sees water in the desert. With destruction of ignorance one sees what is real.” This is not logical (na). What is seen here in the world has a dual nature. Arising from the Lord (and therefore real like the Lord) by a relationship with māyā, the world is illusory because of being made of māyā. “In the example of the desert and water there is illusion. Examples are used to show similarity. The example is not appropriate because there is great difference between the two. The universe has great variety. That is not so in the desert causing illusion of water.” Real objects are used in transactions (vyavahṛtaye). Blind men do not see. A world of illusory objects is insubstantial, like blind men leading other blind men. “Why do persons knowing the Vedas become attached to karmas, dealing with objects used in transactions?” They act in error. Or the world is real because it has arisen from the real. “The world is negated by logic.” No, it does not disappear completely. It is not false at any time. It is endowed with qualities of eternal and temporary (ubhaya-yuk). The real sometimes appears unreal. When the jīva becomes liberated, the coverings on the ātmā are merged into the elements because the covering is temporary. The elements however remain since they are eternal. The world has eternal and temporary natures. “Some consider the word real, since it is an eternal flow. Others consider it temporary. And others consider it false with an appearance of being real. Why is there such variety of opinions?” A series of blind men, people who do not know the meaning of scriptures, is created simply to carry on worldly functions. They are in error. The Vedas bewilder them since they do not see the context of scriptural statements because they are fixed on maintain their own ideas. Though Sarasvatī appears in their hearts with much exchange (bharatī), she bewilders them concerning the meaning of the words. The Vaiṣṇavas know the conclusion of the scriptures. (verse 26) The Vaiṣṇavas following satkārya-vada say the world is real since it arises from the inconceivable śakti of Lord. There is no worry then that the Lord will be transformed. In the material world one sees the cintāmaṇi which produces gold and jewels and does not change. That is its inconceivable power. What can be said of the spiritual inconceivable śakti of the Lord? Sannidhānād yathākāśa-kālādyāḥ kāraṇaṁ taroḥ Tathaiva pariṇāmena viśvasya bhagavān hariḥ Just as space and time by their very presence are causes of a tree, though they themselves don’t change, so the Lord by his very presence creates the universe without transforming himself. The vivartavādīs and Buddhists say the world is false. This is not approved by Bhāgavatam. It should be ignored since it is akin to asuras’ ideas. asatyam apratiṣṭhaṁ te jagad āhur anīśvaram | aparaspara-saṁbhūtaṁ kim anyat kāma-haitukam || They say the world is false, without a foundation, without a creator, having arisen without cause. What else can be said? Its cause is just some speculation according to one’s desire. BG 16.8 Some say it is a production of ignorance willed by the Lord. Śaṅkarācārya hid this by the orlder of the Lord. “The Lord’s control, omniscience and possession of all powers are not spiritual but are caused by dividing and covering Brahman with ignorance.” Śārīrka-bhāṣya Sāṅkhya, Vaiśeṣika, Buddhist and other philosophies are considered aetheistic because they do not accept the Lord. But they maintain the falsity of the world to create detachment only. By understanding the illusion nature of everything, the jīva becomes detached from everything and can become favorable for worshipping the Lord.
Arguers say: 'The world is permanent because the Permanent gave birth to it.' But sometimes a cause and its effect differ, and sometimes a true cause produces a false product. The world is neither simply real nor simply unreal — it is a relative arrangement for ordinary affairs, like a chain of blind men leading each other. Your Vedic words, ringing with sacrificial rituals, bewilder those whose minds are dulled by hearing only the karma-kāṇḍa.
My note
Source: vedabase.io