The Objective of the Purana: Awakening Discrimination of Supreme Purusa

The microcosm operates through a harmonious working of the three entities of kala (time) [Siva], manas (brain) [Brahma] and purusa (spiritual personality) [Visnu]. But, for such harmony to occur out of such disparate-natured entities, there must be some master-mind to ‘string together the trinity,’ as Madhavadeva says in the Nama Ghosa. That master-entity, the lord of all the controlling entities (devas), is the supreme purusa, Lord Krsna himself.
It is to arouse discrimination of supreme purusa alone that the (anatomical) narrative of the Puranas is formulated in the first place. The entire Purana—its every chapter and verse—is designed with this ultimate objective of awakening discrimination in the mind of the (intelligent) reader.
The Puranic narrative is thus a strategy to make the reader realize the sole entity of worship, the sole object of refuge. The intelligent reader will not fail to observe that, among all the entities, it is only Hari that is emerging as supreme; and he will understand that this only is the most powerful entity, worthy of sole-refuge. It is this conclusion that is directly expressed by Sankaradeva and Madhavadeva, in their own works, in the form of upadesas and in chapters such as “The Determination of the Supreme Entity Worthy of Adoration” (Bhakti Ratnakara).
The objective of the author of the Bhagavata—and this ought also to be the objective of the inquisitive and critical reader—is to determine the supreme entity among all the entities, who alone is eligible for worship. In the Bhagavata, the reader has to know this entity by reading intelligently through the passages and piercing the dialogic strategy with the power of his intellect. But in Sankaradeva and Madhavadeva, this meaning is directly expressed.

Discovery of God: The Intellectual Process

If we take the authors of the Puranas such as the Bhagavata as the intellectual heirs of the original Samkhya school, then we will be looking at one unbroken intellectual tradition.

The doing of pure devotion to God, then, would be the culmination of a long intellectual process, comprising, broadly, the following stages:

1. The unconscious entity: Examining and understanding prakrti, its evolutive nature, character and limitations.
2. The conscious entity: Examining and understanding the body of man and its various organs and systems. Understanding especially the nature of the neural entities and the brain. Are they of the same essential characteristics as the external (unconscious) matter? Can the brain give rise to consciousness?
3. The pure personality: Understanding the nature of purusa, its interface with the brain (and, through it, the body), the capabilities of purusa.
4. The supreme pure personality: Relook at the programmed nature of the entities of the body such as the brain. Is their evolving out of prakrti possible in the absence of initiation and control by a superior conscious personality? Comparison with instances from the external world. The discovery of God, the supreme purusa.
5. The revelation of the highest philosophy: The reason behind purusa becoming endowed with a (prakrti-made) body. Motivations of the supreme purusa. Consideration and full accommodation of the higher aspects of consciousness like compassion, grace and joy. Devotion to God, the supreme purusa.

It perhaps needs no reiteration that each one of these stages is huge and could be broken up into several sub-stages and phases but this is only a general outline. The point sought to be made is this:

God may be discovered solely through a (long and exhaustive) intellectual investigation without there being any need of any external revelation.

The Discovery of God through the Intellect of Man

It is possible to discover God solely through the power of intellect. The philosophers of the theistic Samkhya studied the evolutive nature of prakrti but, more importantly, recognized its limitations. In this manner, they worked their way up towards spiritual personality.
Similarly, love and pure devotion to God may not be something completely emotional or blind; it may also be the outcome of an epiphanic realization brought about solely through intellect--the culmination of a long and involved process of rational consideration and meditative contemplation
of hard material facts (such as ones pertaining to the nature of the body and so on). In fact, the "vedantic bhakti" contained in texts such as the Bhagavata, which consists in the singing of the glories of the immanent Lord, may not be something anti-intellectual but may instead have, as the bedrock of its philosophy, a sound and thorough distinction between the tattvas. This kind of a devotion then, in such (intellectual) light, would represent the acme of the process of reasoning and making sound inferences championed by the Samkhya.

For, if our philosophy has a conscious personality at its core, then it must also accord importance to conceptions and feelings such as compassion, empathy, joy and grace. After all, the consciousness of man is not the quiet whirring of a clock. It is alive and effervescent.

Therefore, if the conscious purusa is your core, then your philosophy must give full accommodation to these concepts. Consciousness is not bare thinking or merely the state of being alive (existing). It also means joy. Moreover, our human world also sways to aesthetic ideals.
These may also be regarded as yet another facet of consciousness. Civilization progresses through, nay is propelled by, such motivations as the urge to secure equality and dignity and not simply through calm, undisturbed consciousness. Therefore, a higher philosophy--one that proposes to recognize consciousness in all its aspects, must give recognition and room to these (higher) conceptions. It is not anti-intellectual and contrary to logic.
And this is precisely what the pure devotional philosophy of texts such as the Bhagavata is all about. Here, the doing of pure devotion to God is an expression of the highest level of the (intellectual) purusa-centred philosophy. And this joyous experience is the highest aspect of consciousness.

The Microcosmic Vision of Sankaradeva

The 15^th century in Assam is remarkable for the rise of a unique school of devotion to Krsna (Krishna) that came to be known as the eka sarana (sole-refuge) school. And in the writings of its founder as well as foremost exponent Sankaradeva (1449-1568 CE), we obtain a glimpse of a microcosmic reality that is exciting and which promises to alter our understanding of the foundational texts of Hinduism in radical new ways.

The philosophy of Sankaradeva is a very real philosophy. Here, unlike in some other philosophies, the ‘world’ or the creation is not figmental or a product of one’s imagination. The objects of the senses, as also the senses themselves, are real and products of an undifferentiated mass of material substance known as prakrti, a term which may be translated into English as ‘primal matter’ or ‘Ur-matter’. The pure personalities (purusas), due to non-devotion to God, become forgetful of their own spiritual nature, and fall into this prakrti and become dead and extremely matter-like (jada). God,  who is the supreme purusa, out of His own grace (krpa), then has to rescue the fallen purusas by actuating primal matter to evolve out of itself a microcosm—a body, a psycho-physical frame, equipped with all the necessary senses and organs—which will enable the purusa (now known as jiva or organism) to re-train his consciousness. It is this story of the evolution of the microcosm that forms the cornerstone of the Bhagavata Purana, the text that Sankaradeva chooses as his primary source.

Contrary to popular perception, the story of Krsna in the Purana—and in Sankaradeva, as a corollary,—is not one of an ‘epic hero’ or a historical personality of ancient India but, rather, the ‘story’ of the supreme, immanent pure personality (Paramatma) within the microcosm. Krsna is God Himself seen through the prism of the human body. The seer-devotees of the Vedanta have re-visualized the image of the transcendent Brahman as the immanent Lord; as a child, as it were, stealing the product of the senses! Here, one must remark on a very eye-catching feature of the Sankaradeva movement and it is this that there never has been a centrality of an external geographic conception of a Mathura or a Gokula in the lives of its saints and leading personalities. There is thus an intense paramatmic flavor in all of the Sankaradevite literature.

The mind of the Vedantic seer- devotees erupted in joy on seeing this most wondrous microcosm engineered by the Lord and animated by just a tiny part of His infinite spiritual power. And absorbed in the bliss of the Lord's love, they began to translate, or rather, translocate, the topographical entities of the external world into this inner ‘world’. As a result, what we have in the Bhagavata is a microcosmic narrative woven together with the metaphor of the external world. The material evolution of the (theistic) Samkhya philosophy is set within a ontogenic framework. Science—embryology, to be precise,—philosophy and poetics thus come together in one irresistible combination.

As a side-note, Sankaradeva never viewed the texts such as the Puranas and the Mahabharata as historical texts. This is also a tremendous lesson for today’s interpreters. In the Caturbbimsati Avatara section of his Kirttana, Sankaradeva says that as Vyasa saw that the people had become ‘of extremely dull intellect’, he decided to compose the Puranas. This clearly indicates that these are philosophico-scientific texts containing abstruse concepts and scenarios in a ‘storified’ form.

Now, in order to appreciate fully this microcosmic vision of Sankaradeva—its full philosophical import as well as its practical implication—we have also to consider the strategy of personification that is adopted in the Puranic universe of discourse. There seems to be, as soon as we enter the puranic realm, a sudden profusion of personalities—kings and warriors, devas, asuras, mythical creatures, apsarases, rsis, etc. An overwhelming majority of these characters are the personified forms of the various evolutes of primal matter.

At the grossest level, we have the internal organs residing in the cavities of the nether region of the body; these are known as the bhutas or daityas. Diametrically opposite to these in point of nature, in the ‘heavenly’ or cerebral regions, are the subtle neural entities known as the devas. They are the controllers of the sense organs such as the eyes, the ears, etc. which are likened to sages (rsis) as they remain engaged in ‘knowing’ or acquiring sense-data. Creatures such as Garuda and Hanumana represent the vital airs (pranas). Further, we have two very special entities that are represented by the figures of Brahma and Siva. Brahma is the personification of the microcosmic mind while Siva is kala (‘time’). Kala is an agent of differentiation of the material substance (sakti). It is specially connected to the bhutas or the internal organs. Finally, primal matter itself is personified as Laksmi.     

Apart from these basic categories, there exist numerous organic classes and sub-classes such as the glands, muscles, ligaments, sensors and nerves which may also be personified. There is also, as mentioned above, a microcosmic geography:  venous rivers, arterial trees, neuronal forests, cartilaginous mountains, etc. As we can see, the bewildering material variety within the human body lends itself excellently to personification.   

There are sufficient hints in the writings of Sankaradeva and his disciple and successor Madhavadeva regarding these mappings. In his rendering of the 3^rd book of the Bhagavata entitled Anadi Patana (Cosmogenesis), Sankaradeva says that all the signs of the universe are ‘within this very body’. He mentions that the location of all the devas is the body. His rendering also clearly brings out the material nature of the mind and the devas. Similarly, in the verses of the Nama Ghosa (Namanvaya section), Madhavadeva explains that as the Lord has entered into the category of the indriyas, He is referred to as ‘Hrsikesa’ by all exemplar-devotees. Further, he says, ‘by the term go (cow) is meant the sensory receptors’ (go pade beda indriyaka buli). And, as the Lord preserves these, He is known as ‘Gopala’.

To conclude, given this microcosmic background, it is not difficult to understand why Sankaradeva should exhort the jivas to take refuge solely in Krsna. This is because, among all the entities, only Krsna is conscious personality, the others being mere personifications of matter. The jivas too are essentially conscious and spiritual and ontologically superior to matter. Therefore, it behoves them to do pure devotion only to Krsna, shunning all forms of worship that are a mere emulation of the microcosmic material processes.

The Bhagavata: The Confluence of Science, Philosophy and Poetics

The Bhagavata is a sophisticated text. Here we have a highly complex microcosmic narrative woven together with the metaphor of the external world. The great ontological discourses of the (theistic) Samkhya are set within a ontogenic framework. And, further, in the midst of such a ontogenic milieu blended with metaphor, there is applied an intelligent dialectical strategy. Science (embryology, to be precise), metaphor, philosophy and dialectics thus come together in one irresistible combination.  To interpret the Bhagavata, therefore, is by no means an easy task. A non-intellectual, literal approach means that the entire plan goes haywire.

Sankaradeva’s Philosophy: A Bare Introduction

Sankaradeva’s philosophy is a very real philosophy. By ‘real’ we mean that, here, neither the world is figmental nor is the embodied personality, a mere emergent phenomenon. Both are real. But, there is discussion on the nature of this reality—specifically on what constitutes the essential nature of the entities (tattva) known as unconscious (jada) and conscious (caitanya).  The entities of the jada category are found to be wholly material; the caitanya is purely spiritual. And this difference between them is critical. It determines worship in Sankaradeva. 

There is a search for the supreme entity. This entity is Isvara (God, the Lord). He is caitanya. He is termed as the supreme truth (satya). He is pure personality (purusa). The living beings (jiva) are also, in truth, pure personalities. They are entities in their own right, only they are not the supreme entity. The jivas, it may be mentioned here, although subject to affective influences, have a lot of free will and they can put this free will to whatever use they want. In fact, one of the main reasons behind the troubles of the jiva is that he puts his free will to bad use.  

It is only God, the supreme entity, who is the cause of the world. ‘World’ here refers to the entire material creation and not merely the earth (or even the universe). Perhaps ‘cosmos’ would be a better word than ‘world’ to serve as the analog for the jagat of the text which is also conceptualized as some sort of a ‘cosmic egg’ or, in more literal terms, ‘the egg formed by the supreme spirit’ (brahmanda). We have elaborate passages in the Bhagavata, particularly in the third book—and these are taken up for rendering by Sankaradeva and his community of renderers—, dealing specifically with the creation of this ‘cosmic egg.’ There is a process of material evolution there which would surely appear interesting to the members of the scientific community. What makes the study of this process more exciting is that it seems to have striking microcosmic, i.e. embryological, linkages. 

God is the initiator of this process of material evolution that rolls out to make the creation. The aim of this study is to make the learner aware of the nature of his surrounding reality—both internal as well as external. It is to awaken in him the realization that it is only the entities of the unconscious, jada category that are subject to this evolution and that, being spiritual, he is not subject to such an evolution at all. This paves the way for pure devotion to God, the head of the spiritual family. Naturally, one has to stop emulating the material units and take charge of the microcosm as a spiritual personality.

The Special Created Entity Known as the Mind

Suka said, “Please listen, O king, to this nomenclature of the mind.
Whatever is the name, at what time, of the mind-organ—I now tell you that.
When the embodied spiritual personality desires to do various works,
but is unable to decide on any of them, at that time, the mind-organ is known as ‘the mind’ (manas). 63
When the spiritual personality carefully considers the various alternatives and options and does resolution (niscaya) on one of them,
at that time, know, you call the mind-organ as the ‘intellect’ (buddhi).

When he regards all the works that he does with the feeling of ‘I,’ then, at that moment in time, know for sure, the mind-organ is referred to as ‘ego’ (ahankara). 64

When the spiritual personality—welded to the mind-organ—does several good works and acts regularly in a conscientious manner,

at those times, know certainly, O king, the name of the mind-organ is ‘conscience’ (citta).

Manas, translated as the ‘mind-organ’ (or, in keeping with its device-like functions, the ‘mind-device’), is the organ of the transcendental mind of the spiritual pure personality (purusa). It is connected directly to his faculty of consciousness (cit). It is through this organ that the purusa interfaces with the component-units of the psycho-physical frame such as the different organs of locomotion, grasping, etc.; and also gathers sense-data from the external material creation as well as from within the body. This mind-organ, therefore, is the organ that lies closest to the spiritual personality. It enables him to ‘intelligize,’ or to acquire knowledge from his environment and apply it in ways beneficial to him. The different manifestations of the mind-organ—‘mind,’ ‘intellect,’ ‘ego,’ and ‘conscience’—refer to the one mind-organ only. Sankaradeva has compared these different forms of the one and the same mind-organ with an actor who appears in different roles in different guises. These manifestations of the mind-organ may be seen as reflecting or representing the different manifestations of the consciousness of the spiritual personality immanent, as it were, within this organic-unit. It is the mental activity of the purusa only that is indicated by the different activities of the mind-organ.

Translation of the Third Chapter of the Bhagavata of Sankaradeva Entitled Anadi Patana (Cosmogenesis): The Lord’s Sportive Activity of Creation

|| সৃষ্টি-লীলা || অনেক সহস্ৰ যুগ এহিমতে গৈল | দুনাই ঈশ্বৰৰ সৃষ্টিক ইচ্ছা ভৈল || একেশ্বৰে আছো আমি আদি নিৰঞ্জন | সৃষ্টি নাহি আহ্মাক যে নকৰে শোভন || ৪১ || চৈধ্যয় ভুৱন হৃদয়তে দিলো ঠাই | প্ৰকৃতি দেৱীও আছা গৰ্ভতে লুকাই || জড় হুয়া আছে তাৰ নাহিকে চেতন | আমি মহা চৈতন্য পুৰুষ নিৰঞ্জন || ৪২ || একেশ্বৰে থাকি আমি কৰো কোন কায | শৰীৰৰ পৰা সৱে জীৱ হৌক বাজ || মায়াৰ হাতত কৰাওঁ জগত প্ৰকাশ | কৰো সৃষ্টি-লীলা আৱে বিনোদ বিলাস || ৪৩ || এহি বুলি মেলি পদ্ম নয়ন অনন্তে | মায়াক কটাক্ষে চাহিলন্ত ভগৱন্তে || জড় প্ৰকৃতিতো কৰিলন্ত জীৱ দান | অষ্ট গুণ তেজ ষোহ্ল গুণ ভৈল প্ৰাণ || ৪৪ || সৃষ্টি কৰিবাক ঈশ্বৰৰ ইচ্ছা কায | পুৰুষৰ পৰা মহামায়া ভৈলা বাজ || অনাদি ৰূপিনী ঈশ্বৰৰ অৰ্দ্ধ কায় | ব্যক্ত ভৈলা মহামায়া সৃষ্টিক উপায় || ৪৫ || পৰম সুন্দৰী দেৱী দিব্য নাৰীৱেশ | কটাক্ষতে মোহ যায় জগত নিশেষ || কেয়ুৰ কঙ্কণ ৰত্নময় হেমহাৰ | কিৰীটি কুণ্ডলে আতি কৰে জাতিষ্কাৰ || ৪৬ || ৰুণ ঝুণ কৰি বাজে পাৱত নুপুৰ | ৰূপ দেখি মদনৰো দৰ্প হোৱে চূৰ || চাহন নযায় যে দেৱীৰ মহাজ্যোতি | কোটি এক শশী সম প্ৰকাশে প্ৰকৃতি || ৪৭ || প্ৰণিপাতে পুৰুষক কৰিয়া সেৱলি | আগতে বিনাৱে মায়া কৰি কৃতাঞ্জলি || কোন কৰ্ম্ম কৰো আৱে কৰিয়ো আদেশ | হেন শুনি হাসি বুলিলন্ত হৃষীকেশ || ৪৮ || শুনিয়ো প্ৰকৃতি একো গুণে নোহা হীন | তোহ্মাৰে আহ্মাৰে কিঞ্চিতেকো নাহি ভিন || মোৰ নিজ শকতি সাক্ষাতে দেখো প্ৰাণ | সত্বৰে কৰিয়ো মায়া জগত নিৰ্ম্মাণ || ৪৯ || তোহ্মাক জগাইলো আমি এহি অভিপ্ৰায় | জানিয়োক ভালে তুমি মোৰ অৰ্দ্ধ কায় || তোহ্মাৰে আহ্মাৰে কিছো নাহি ভিন্নাভিন্ন | মোতে যাতো লীন যাহা এহি মাত্ৰ হীন || ৫০ || সত্বৰে কৰিয়ো মায়া জগত প্ৰকাশ | আমিও কৰিবো তাতে বিনোদ বিলাস || হেন শুনি প্ৰকৃতি জুৰিলা যোৰহাত | সৃষ্টিৰ কাৰ্য্যক দাই লাগিল তোহ্মাত || ৫১ || ঈশ্বৰ কটাক্ষে দেৱী ভৈলা গৰ্ভৱতী | প্ৰকৃতিৰ পুত্ৰ ভৈলা মহত্ত্ব উত্‍পত্তি || মহত্ত্বৰো তিনি পুত্ৰ ভৈলা অনুপাম | শুনিয়ো তিনিৰো কহো যাৰ যিবা নাম || ৫২ || তিনি গুণে তিনি তত্ত্ব ভৈলা অৱতাৰ | তামসিক ৰাজস সাত্ত্বিক অহঙ্কাৰ || এহি তিনি পুত্ৰ তান জগতে প্ৰখ্যাত | শুনা যাত হন্তে যিবা সৃষ্টি ভৈলা জাত || ৫৩ || তামসত হন্তে শব্দ গুণৰ প্ৰকাশ | শব্দৰো পুত্ৰ ভৈলা নামত আকাশ || আকাশত হন্তে পৰশৰ ঊতপতি | পৰশৰ পুত্ৰ ভৈলা বায়ু মহামতি || ৫৪ || বায়ু হন্তে ৰূপ নামে পুত্ৰ অৱতাৰ | ৰূপৰ তনয় ভৈলা অগ্নি চমত্‍কাৰ || অগনিৰ পুত্ৰ ভৈলা ৰস মহামতি | ৰস গুণ হন্তে পাচে জল উতপতি || ৫৫ || জলে উতপতি ভৈলা গন্ধ গুণ নাম | গন্ধ গুণ হন্তে বসুমতি অনুপাম || পঞ্চভূত পঞ্চগুণ কহিলো ব্যৱস্থা | আৱে শুনা ৰাজসিক সাত্ত্বিকৰ কথা || ৫৬ || ৰাজসত হন্তে দশেন্দ্ৰিয় ভৈলা জাত | দশোবিধ নাম ৰাজা কহিবো তোহ্মাত || চক্ষু কৰ্ণ নাসা মুখ চৰ্ম্ম জিহ্বা হাত | পদ গুহ্য লিঙ্গ এহি দশৰো প্ৰখ্যাত || ৫৭ || এৱে কহো শুনিয়োক সাত্ত্বিকৰ কথা | যি দেৱ ভৈলা যি ইন্দ্ৰিয়ৰ অধিষ্ঠাতা || সৃষ্টি কথা কহো নকৰিবা আন চিত্ত | ভিন্ন ভিন্ন কৰি কহো শুনা পৰীক্ষিত || ৫৮ || সাত্ত্বিকত হন্তে দশ দেৱ উতপতি | বায়ু বহ্নি বিষ্ণু ইন্দ্ৰ দিশ প্ৰজাপতি || অশ্বিনীকুমাৰ মিত্ৰ আদিত্য বৰুণ | এহি অধিষ্ঠাতা দশ দেৱ সত্ত্ব গুণ || ৫৯ || চক্ষু অধিষ্ঠাতা যে আদিত্য জ্যোতিৰ্ম্ময় | কৰ্ণ অধিষ্ঠাতা দিশ জানিবা নিশ্চয় || নাসিকাৰ অধিষ্ঠাতা অশ্বিনীকুমাৰ | বাক্য অধিষ্ঠাতা ভৈলা বহ্নি নাম যাৰ || ৬০ || চৰ্ম্ম অধিষ্ঠাতা বায়ু ভৈল সত্ত্বগুণ | জিহ্বা অধিষ্ঠাতা যেৱে ভৈলন্ত বৰুণ || হস্ত অধিষ্ঠাতা ভৈল ইন্দ্ৰ সুৰপতি | পদে বিষ্ণু গুহ্যে মিত্ৰ লিঙ্গে প্ৰজাপতি || ৬১ || হৃদয়ত থাকি কৰে ভাল মন্দ কাম | একে মন চাৰি ৰূপ শুনা তাৰ নাম || মন বুদ্ধি অহঙ্কাৰ আৰো জানা চিত | এহি চাৰি নাম শুনা ভৈলন্ত বিদিত || ৬২ ||

The Lord’s Sportive Activity of Creation In this manner passed many thousand great periods of time. Once again, the Lord had a mind for creation. Solitarily, like a lone monarch, I am staying, the original pure personality. There is no creation; I do not look good without it. 41 All fourteen worlds I have accommodated into my heart. Even lady prakrti—the primal matter—lies asleep in my belly. She lies unconscious; she is not in actuated form. Only I am supremely conscious, the spotlessly pure personality who cannot be covered by any material limitation. 42 Staying alone, what purpose do I achieve? Let from my body all the unredeemed personalities (jīwa) come out. At the hands of my tool, primal matter (māẏā), let me make manifest the world. Let me now do the sportive activity of creation; let me have fun. 43 Thinking thus, opening His lotus-like eyes, the one ever present in time and space, cast a sidelong glance at primal matter, maya. The Lord infused life even into the dead material substance! It became endowed, as it were, with eight parts of spirit and sixteen parts of vital-air! 44 In order to fulfill the desire of the Lord—the work of creation— out of the supreme personality, emerged the great maya. Of beginningless form, as if the wife of the Lord[i]! She, the great maya, was thus actuated as a means or device for creation. 45 Supremely beautiful is the ‘lady’; she appears in the manner of a celestial maiden. The entire world is deluded by her charms in an instant. She is putting on, as it were, several armlets and bracelets and other lovely ornaments and necklaces of gold. Her diadem and earrings beautify her quite alluringly. 46 The anklets on her feet make a tinkling sound as she walks. Seeing her form, even the pride of the love-god is shattered. The great luster of the goddess cannot be seen. She—the primal material substance—is shining like ten million moons. 47 Prostrating before the supreme pure personality, doing obeisance to Him, maya stood before the Lord with her palms cupped together in deference and she said respectfully to Him: “My master, what is that work which you now want me to accomplish; please give me your command.” Hearing this, The One Entering into the Category of the Senses (Hrsikesa) laughed; The Lord mirthfully said: 48 Listen, primal matter, you are not inferior to me in any respect[ii]! There is not even an iota of difference between you and me! You are my own tool-substance (śakti); I see you as my life! Now construct quickly for me the illusory material creation! 49 I have awakened you for this purpose only. Know it well that you are my half-body! There is no difference between you and me! As you merge back into me at creation’s end, that is the only point on which you are inferior. 50 Hurry now to manifest the maya-filled creation. I also am eager to do sportive activities there! Hearing this command of the Lord, primal matter folded her hands. “My Lord, the responsibility for evolving the creation has now fallen upon you.” 51 By the sidelong glance of the Lord, the goddess became pregnant. The son named The Eminent One (mahat) of primal matter was born. Mahat, too, begat three sons, of incomparable kind. Please listen, I tell what their names are. 52 Three substances (tattva) with three qualities (guṇa) had their descent— tamasika[iii], rajasa and sattvika ahankara. These three sons of his became famous throughout the world. Listen, from whom originated what evolutes of the creation. 53 From tamasa the attribute of sound (śabda) became manifest. Sound too begat a son named Sky[iv] (ākāśa). From Sky originated the attribute[v] of touch (sparśa). The son of touch became Air (wāẏu), the high-minded one. 54 From Air descended a son named form (rūpa). The offspring of form became Fire (agni), splendorous. The son of Fire became taste (rasa), the noble one. From the taste attribute, afterwards, originated Water (jala). 55 In Water originated the attribute called smell (gandha). And, from the attribute of smell, there emerged Lady Earth (wasumatī), nonpareil. I have told you about the plan of the five great substances and the five attributes. Listen now to the facts relating to the other two substances, rajasika and sattvika. 56 Out of rajasa, the ten gross organs (indriya) of sense and action were born. O king! I will tell you the names of these ten kinds. The eye, the ear, the nose, the mouth[vi], the skin, the tongue, the hand, the foot, the anus and the genitals—by these names these ten are well-known. 57 Now, please listen, I tell the tale of the substance called sattvika— which subtle organic entity (deva) became what gross organ’s indweller[vii] (adhiṣṭhātā). I tell you the facts of the creation; do not set your mind on any other matter. Separately, I tell the correspondences, please listen, O Pariksita! 58 From sattvika originates the ten subtle organic entities (deva). The Wind (Vayu), The Speech-Fire (Vahni), The Strider (Visnu), The King (Indra), The Directions (Dik), The Progenitor (Prajapati), The Twins (Asvins), The Expeller (Mitra), The Sun (Aditya) and The Water-Lord (Varuna). These are the ten indwellers—the devas—mapped to the gross organs; all of these have the quality of subtlety (sattva). 59 The indweller of the eye is The Sun, the brilliant one. The indwellers of the ears, know for sure, are The Directions. The indwellers of the nose are The Twins. The indweller of speech’s gross organ became that which is known as The Speech-Fire. 60 The indweller of skin became The Wind, of subtle quality. And the indweller of the tongue became Varuna, The Water-Lord. The indweller of the hand became Indra, king of the gods. In the feet, The Strider—Visnu, as it were; in the anus, The Expeller; in the genitals, The Progenitor. 61 Staying in the mind-space (hṛdaẏa), it does works, good and bad— the same (gross) mind-organ is known in four forms; hear their names. ‘Mind’ (manas), ‘ego’ (ahaṅkāra), ‘intellect’ (buddhi) and ‘conscience’ (citta)— these four names, know, of the mind-organ became extremely well-known. 62

---

[i] The primal matter, prakrti or maya, is also known—in anthropomorphized form—as ‘Laksmi,’ the wife, as it were, of the Lord. Worship of Laksmi therefore means worship of primal matter or maya. This is the reason why in Sankaradeva’s system, Laksmi is not worshiped. Worship (upasana) must solely be directed to the supremely conscious pure personality, not to dead matter; for, the jiva is, in reality, a part (amsa), as it were, of God (Isvara) and not a part of primal matter (prakrti).

[ii] In the hierarchy of material evolution, the Lord and primal matter are almost on the same level.

[iii] These terms are somewhat difficult to translate accurately. They can stand for a plethora of meanings with normative values of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ assigned to them (e.g. sattva—good, tamasika—bad). However, as we are dealing with substances here, it would be of benefit to us if we were to know the precise nature of these substances. What kind of substances are these? To answer this question, we have to keep in mind that what is being constructed here is a cosmic egg (brahmanda), a body, as it were, for the Cosmic Soul (Visnu). Therefore, here, the Bhagavata must be referring to the development of a (human) embryo. It is utilizing the scientific facts pertaining to the creation of the microcosm to give a description—a largely figmental one, it seems—of the creation of the macrocosm. Ultimately, it appears, it is the development of the microcosm or the human embryo that is the topic of discussion. Of course, the macrocosmic development would also proceed along essentially similar lines—what is true of the microcosm would be equally true, mutatis mutandis, of the macrocosm. If there is a primordial buddhi in the case of the microcosm, there would be a primordial mahat in the case of the macrocosm, if there is a material evolution or unfolding of creation at the level of the human embryo, so would there be a process of evolution for the macrocosmic ‘egg,’ and so on. But, it must be noted, not all correspondences would hold. God, for instance, is not connected to mind and the senses---macrocosmically conceived— in the way the jiva or embodied personality is. Indeed, there is no mind, sense, etc. for God at all; it is all figmental (kalpana). Therefore, the facts of microcosmic evolution would agree with those of the macrocosm on only the most fundamental and general points.

Cosmogenesis thus merges into embryogenesis. Terms like ‘buddhi,’ ‘ahamkara,’ ‘indriya,’ etc. found in the standard samkhya nomenclature attest to this fact. In this model of genesis of an organism or living being, first, there is the evolution of a material limitation known as the manas—also known by other names such as buddhi, etc.—, a term invariably translated into the English language as simply ‘the mind.’ It is, in reality, a purely unconscious, material device which serves to connect the psycho-physical frame of the organism with the pure personality. It links to the jiva’s transcendental mind—to its afferential (knowledge) and efferential (action) capabilities. This mind-device may also have certain other, autonomic functions. It must be emphasized here that this (unconscious) mind-device does not do any thinking at all; it is the (conscious) jiva which does; but, as it (the mind-device) is welded to the faculty of consciousness of the jiva, it is this mind-device which is identified with it.

It is only after this initial evolution of manas—which would enable the jiva to ‘intelligize’ or to acquire knowledge—that there would be the evolution of the organs—subtle as well as gross—of sense and action. This is a conceptual ladder: at the topmost rung, there is the intellect (refers to manas or the mind-device), then the mind (the mind-device again, this time in a different role), then the organs of sense and action, and so on. Finally, at the bottom-most layer, there are the sense-objects. This is the hierarchy of this process of material evolution: there is a gradation of ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ entities and substances. (As a digression, it may be pointed out that it is this hierarchical gradation of material units which seems to be emulated in the case of the dharmic system.)

Now, coming back to our original question, if the Bhagavata is indeed referring to the process of development of

the human embryo, then we can surely, with a certain degree of confidence, go ahead and translate the three technical terms, sattvika, rajasa and tamasika ahankara, as ‘the subtle-organic stuff,’ ‘the gross-organic stuff,’ and ‘internal-organic stuff,’ respectively? For these surely are the organic substances? In fact, the translations of the first and the second terms are already suggested by the narrative; with regard to the third term, I have a hunch that tamasika ahankara refers to the substance out of which the internal organs (the asuras?) like stomach, etc. are forged.

[iv] These terms—like ‘Sky,’ ‘Air,’ etc.—seem to be technical in nature; they may not mean literally sky, air, etc. but may refer only to certain basic substances.

[v] The word used is guṇa, a quality or inherent property. But, as we are talking (theistic) samkhya here—very much a substantial and realist philosophy—these ‘attributes’ seem to be not abstract attributes but substances (attribute-substances?).

[vi] It appears to refer to the apparatus for generating speech.

[vii] The term deva may perhaps also be translated as ‘subtle controlling entity.’ It is also extremely clear from the narrative that the devas are subtle organic substance. They are matter, not spiritual personalities.