406 Sri Caitanya-caritamrta

Therefore Sankaracarya says that Sarikarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha must be
creations of that original cause.

Great souls assert that Narayana, who is known as Paramatma, the Supersoul, is
beyond material nature, and this is in accordance with the statements of the Vedic
literature. Mayavadis also agree that Narayana can expand Himself in various forms.
Sarikara says that he does not attempt to argue that portion of the devotees’ under-
standing, but he must protest the idea that Sahkarsana is produced from Vasudeva,
Pradyumna is produced from Sankarsana, and Aniruddha is produced from
Pradyumna, for if Safikarsana is understood to represent the living entities created
from the body of Vasudeva, the living entities would have to be noneternal. The
living entities. are supposed to be freed from material contamination by engaging
in prolonged temple worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, reading
Vedic literature and performing yoga and pious activities to attain the Supreme
Lord. But if the living entities had been created from material nature at a certain
point, they would be noneternal and would have no chance to be liberated and
associate with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. When a cause is nullified, its
results are nullified. In the Second Chapter of Vedanta-siitra, Acarya Vedavyasa has
also refuted the conception that the living beings were ever born (ndtmd@ sruter
nityatvdc ca tabhyah). Because there is no creation for the living entities, they must
be eternal.

Satikaracarya says (verse 43) that devotees think that Pradyumna, who is con-
sidered to represent the senses, has sprung from Sankarsana, who is considered to
represent the living entities. But we cannot actually experience that a person can
produce senses. Devotees also say that from Pradyumna has sprung Aniruddha,
who is considered to represent the ego. But Safikaracarya says that unless the devotees
can show how ego and the means of knowledge can generate from a person, such an
explanation of the Veddnta-sitra cannot be accepted, for no other philosophers
accept the s@#tras in that way.

Safikaracarya also says (verse 44) that he cannot accept the devotees’ idea that
Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha are equally as powerful as the absolute
Personality of Godhead, full in the six opulences of knowledge, wealth, strength,
fame, beauty and renunciation, and free from the flaw of generation at a certain
point. Even if They are full expansions, the flaw of generation remains. Vasudeva,
Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha, being distinct individual persons, cannot
be one. Therefore if They are accepted as absolute, full and equal, there would have
to be many Personalities of Godhead. But there is no need to accept that there are
many Personalities of Godhead, because acceptance of one omnipotent God is
sufficient for all purposes. The acceptance of more than one God is contradictory
to the conclusion that Lord Vasudeva, the absolute Personality of Godhead, is one
without a second. Even if we agree to accept that the quadruple forms of Godhead
are all identical, we cannot avoid the incongruous flaw of noneternity. Unless we
accept that there are some differences among the personalities, there is no meaning
to the idea that Sankarsana is an expansion of Vasudeva, Pradyumna is an expansion
of Safnkarsana, and Aniruddha is an expansion of Pradyumna. There must be a
distinction between cause and effect. For example, a pot is distinct from the earth
from which it is made, and therefore we can ascertain that the earth is the cause and
