Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana counters Śaṅkarācārya

Many of the arguments raised by Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa in his Govinda-bhāṣya are offered to counter the Śārīraka-bhāṣya of Śaṅkarācārya, and thus offer the correct conclusions of the Vedanta

In the Īśopaniṣad, Prabhupada mentions that "We Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas have our commentary on Vedānta philosophy, called Govinda-bhāṣya, by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. Similarly, Rāmānujācārya has a commentary, and Madhvācārya has one. The version of Śaṅkarācārya is not the only commentary. There are many Vedānta commentaries, but because the Vaiṣṇavas did not present the first Vedānta commentary, people are under the wrong impression that Śaṅkarācārya’s is the only Vedānta commentary. Besides that, Vyāsadeva himself wrote the perfect Vedānta commentary, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam begins with the first words of the Vedānta-sūtra: janmādy asya yataḥ. And that janmādy asya yataḥ is fully explained in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. The Vedānta-sūtra simply hints at what is Brahman, the Absolute Truth: “The Absolute Truth is that from whom everything emanates.” This is a summary, but it is explained in detail in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. If everything is emanating from the Absolute Truth, then what is the nature of the Absolute Truth? That is explained in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. The Absolute Truth must be consciousness. He is self-effulgent (sva-rāṭ). We develop our consciousness and knowledge by receiving knowledge from others, but for Him it is said that He is self-effulgent. The whole summary of Vedic knowledge is the Vedānta-sūtra, and the Vedānta-sūtra is explained by the writer himself in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam."

Many of the arguments raised by Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa in his Govinda-bhāṣya are offered to counter conclusions given by Śaṅkarācārya in the Śārīraka-bhāṣya, and thus offer the correct conclusions of the Vedanta-sutra, as envisioned by Vyāsadeva. We can understand that these conclusions are correct, because they are confirmed in the text of the Srimad Bhagavatam, which was composed by Vyāsadeva himself as the authorized commentary of the Vedanta-sutra. Śaṅkarācārya, on the other hand,d often contradicts the conclusions of Vyāsadeva in order to promote monism.

In the first sutra, athāto brahma-jijñāsā (Now, therefore, it's time to enquire about Brahman), both interpret the words atha and atah as meaning that after achieving certain qualifications, one starts the process of inquiring about Brahman. However, Śaṅkarācārya conditions the start of transcendental inquiry in attaining material qualifications such as discrimination, renunciation, etc., while Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa points to coming to the association of devotees as the crucial point. Another difference is the object to be inquired about. Śaṅkara defines Brahman as nirguṇa (qualityless) and points to jñana as the process of realization, while Baladeva defines Brahman as the Supreme Person, the abode of all spiritual qualities, who can be approached through bhakti practiced in the association of devotees, under the guidance of the sastras.

In the second sutra, janmādy asya yataḥ (Brahman is He, from whom everything emanates), both accept the basic meaning that everything emanates from the Supreme Brahman, but there is a crucial divergence. Śaṅkara negates the transcendental potencies of the Lord, promoting instead his Vivarta-vada, the theory of illusion. In this way, he contradicts Vyāsadeva, whom he politely accuses of being mistaken. Baladeva, on the other hand, follows the conclusion given by Vyāsadeva on the first verse of the Srimad-Bhagavatam, explaining it according to Pariṇāma-vāda (the Lord is full of transcendental potencies and creates the universe through them). According to Śaṅkara, the material creation is false, while Baladeva concludes it is not false, but illusory, confirming the conclusion given by Krsna in the catuḥ-ślokī Bhāgavatam (SB 2.9.34)

In the third sutra, śāstra-yonitvāt (He can't be known by reasoning, He may be known only through the sastras), Śaṅkara emphasizes that Brahman is the source of the sastras, and that the sastras point us to Brahman, but again he insists that the goal of this sastric study is to realize the nirguna (qualityless) Brahman. Baladeva, on the other hand, emphasizes that the Supreme Lord can't be understood by dry logic, he can be known only through the proper understanding of the scriptures, which conduct one to the process of devotional service. In other words, Śaṅkara uses the sutra to emphasize the impersonal aspect, while Baladeva brings us to the proper personal and theistic interpretation, where Sri Krsna personally reveals the sastras, and bhakti is the highest goal.

In the 4th sutra, tat tu samanvayāt (The goal of the Vedas is not fruitive activities, this is the agreement of all Vedic scriptures), both agree on the basic meaning of rejecting fruitive activities and establishing the Supreme Brahman as the goal of the scriptures, but Śaṅkara tries to establish his idea if a qualityless Brahman as the goal of the scriptures, going through a series of logical arguments to try to prove that all sastras agree on a formless and qualityless Brahman as the ultimate conclusion. Baladeva, on the other hand, establishes the proper conclusion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, with qualities, form, pastimes, etc. as the ultimate conclusion of the scriptures, refuting the logical fallacy of Śaṅkara in the process.

This process of systematic philosophical objection continues on the 5th sutra,

īkṣater nāśabdam. Śaṅkarācārya interprets this sutra as a refutation of the idea that pradhāna is the origin of the universe from the atheistic Sāṅkhya, establishing instead that Brahman is the ultimate cause. He does that through the argument that pradhāna is unconscious and inert, while the Vedas describe a conscious creator in verses such as "tad aikṣata bahu syāṁ prajāyeyeti, tat tejaḥ asṛjata" (Sat deliberated, “Let me I become many. Let me manifest in a remarkable way.” He then created fire. Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.1–3).

He then tries to reconcile the idea of Brahman being conscious and intelligent with the idea of being formless and qualityless. These ideas are contradictory, but he tries to establish them using intellectual arguments, hiding these points under the fallacy that Brahman is ultimately indescribable by words. In this way, he takes the points of the scriptures that support his theory, while tactfully ignoring the rest. Baladeva, however, breaks this interpretation by countering the idea that Brahman is indescribable by words. Brahman is not indescribable by words, because it is seen He is vividly described in the scriptures.

By breaking this central point in Śaṅkara's argumentation, the whole construction cracks, because once the Vedas are accepted as the authoritative scriptures that describe the Supreme Brahman, it's very difficult to escape the conclusion that the conscious creator described in the scriptures is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and not a qualityless Brahman.