The flow of arguments of the Vedanta-sutra
The commentary of Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa is divided into adhikaraṇas, or sections, each composed of a few sutras that discuss a particular topic. How these ideas are organized in the book.
« Vedānta-sūtra: The Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The flow of arguments
The commentary of Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa is divided into adhikaraṇas, or sections, each composed of a few sūtras that discuss a particular topic. The system he follows is to start with a viṣaya (thesis, or statement), where some passages from the scriptures are discussed. This thesis is followed by a samśaya (a description of doubts one may have about the meaning of the passages or the validity of the argument) and a pūrvapakṣa (contrary arguments by an imaginary philosophical opponent). Finally, there is siddhanta, the establishment of the truth, counteracting the arguments, and reinforcing the original thesis, which includes the respective sūtras written by Vyāsadeva. Two topics are often connected by a sangati, which establishes the logical or thematic connection between one topic and the next.
You can imagine a four-way discussion: Two friends, a philosopher from a particular school (Mīmāmsā, Nyāya, Sānkhya, Advaita, etc.), who holds mistaken views, and Vyāsadeva himself, who explains the correct understanding of the scriptures. The first friend makes a statement based on the scriptures, the second friend expresses doubt, the philosopher offers some incorrect or partially incorrect conclusion, and Vyāsadeva corrects it by explaining the correct meaning of the passages being discussed. Each adhikaraṇa is thus a distinct discussion between a different set of friends and philosophers, with Vyāsadeva interjecting and giving the siddhānta, the correct conclusion for each philosophical point.
In this way, by studying one section after the other, we become familiar with different ideas propounded in the Vedas as well as different passages from the scriptures (especially from the different Upaniṣads), as well as the way these different ideas are misinterpreted by different philosophies and the correct conclusions of the scriptures that defeat these arguments.
Let’s take the 8th adhikaraṇa of the 4th pāda of the Govinda-bhāṣya as an example. This is one of the shortest ones, with just one sūtra.
The viṣaya or thesis discussed in this adhikaraṇa is that certain passages of the scriptures appear to indicate Lord Śiva or others as being supreme instead of Lord Viṣṇu.
For example, the Śvetāśvatara Upanisad mentions that:
ksaram pradhanam amrtaksarah harah
“Pradhāna, the material nature, is in a constant state of flux. While Hara, the Supreme, is eternal and unchanging.” (1.10)
eko rudro na dvitiyaya tasthuh
“Lord Rudra is the Supreme. He has no rival.” (3.2)
yo devanam prabhavac codbhavac ca/ vicvadhiko rudrah civo maharsih
“Lord Śiva, who is known as Rudra, is the omniscient ruler of the universe. He is the father of all the demigods. He gives the demigods all their powers and opulences. He is greater than all.” (3.4)
yada tamas tan na diva na ratrir, na san na casac chiva eva kevalah
“When the final darkness comes and there is no longer light or darkness, when there is no longer being and non-being, then only Lord Śiva exists.” (4.18)
Other verses of the scriptures point to others as supreme:
pradhanad idam utpannam, pradhanam adhigacchati
pradhane layam abhyeti, na hy anyat karanam matam
“From pradhāna this material world has arisen, and into pradhāna it merges at the time of annihilation. Nothing else is the cause of this world.”
jivad bhavanti bhutani, jive tisthanty acaycalah
jive ca layam icchanti, na jivat karanam param
“From the jīva all beings arise. By the jīva they are supported, and into the jīva they find dissolution. Nothing else is the cause of this world.”
The samsaya (doubt) then appears: “Should Hara and the other names given in these quotes be understood in their ordinary senses, as names of Lord Siva, pradhana, and jiva, or should they all be understood to be names of the Supreme Brahman?”
This is followed by the pūrvapakṣa (contrary arguments): “The names should all be understood in their ordinary senses, as names of Lord Siva, pradhana, and jiva.”
This brings us to siddhanta, which includes both the sūtra written by Vyāsadeva (in this case, the sūtra 28 of the 4th pāda of the first chapter) and the commentary by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa:
Sūtra: etena sarve vyakhyata vyakhyatah
Meaning: The Supreme Lord is the original cause of everything. All words of the scriptures should be interpreted according to this explanation.
Commentary: In this sūtra, the word etena means “according to the explanations already given,” sarve means “Hara and the other names,” and vyakhyatah means “should be understood to be names of the Supreme Brahman because all names are originally names of the Supreme Brahman.”
The Bhalvaveya-sruti explains:
namani vicvani na santi loke, yad avirasit purusasya sarvam
namani sarvani yam avicanti, tam vai visnum paramam udaharanti
“The names of this world are not different from Him. All names in this world are names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All names refer to Him, Lord Viṣṇu, whom the wise declare is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
Vaicampayana Muni explains that all these names are names of Lord Kṛṣṇa. The Skanda Purana also explains:
śrī-nārāyaṇādīni nāmāni vinānyāni rudrādibhyo harir dattavān
“Except for Nārāyaṇa and some other names, Lord Hari gave away His names to Lord Śiva and the other demigods.”
This is the rule that should be followed: When the ordinary sense of these names does not contradict the essential teaching of the Vedas, the ordinary meaning should be accepted. When the ordinary sense of these names does contradict the teaching of the Vedas, these names should be understood to be names of Lord Visnu.
To make it easier to understand, I have chosen to follow the same structure of verse, translation, and meaning that Śrīla Prabhupāda uses in his books, with which we are all familiar. In this way, I start with the sūtra itself, including the Sanskrit, word-for-word, and translation, followed by an explanation that includes all the different arguments presented in the viṣaya, samśaya, pūrvapakṣa, siddhanta, and sangati, organized into a single explanation, which includes the context, the arguments, and counterarguments as well as relevant passages from the scriptures. Often, I also add passages from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books, where he elucidates different ideas discussed in the text.
Thus, in this book, I try to explain the arguments raised by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa under the light of the teachings of Śrīla Prabhupāda, enriching the explanations with ideas and examples given by him, as well as passages from his books. You may notice that some of these explanations are much longer than the original purports by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, because I’m also including points made by Śrīla Prabhupāda, as well as trying to make the ideas clear and explain potential unfamiliar philosophical points that are mentioned.
At the end of each section, I include a practice session, with some contrary arguments based on the purvāpakṣa, that you may try to defeat using the passages and arguments learned in the section.
The explanation of the same adhikaraṇa 8 of the 4th pāda, for example, becomes like this:
etena sarve vyākhyātā vyākhyātāḥ
etena: by this (by the method of interpretation indicated previously); sarve: all (names and words of the scriptures); vyākhyātāḥ: explained, accounted for.
The Supreme Lord is the original cause of everything. All words of the scriptures should be interpreted according to this explanation.
Commentary: An argument could be raised against the arguments offered in the previous topics: different verses in the scriptures appear to indicate a different supreme cause instead of Lord Viṣnu.
The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, for example, appears to indicate Lord Śiva as the supreme cause:
kṣaram pradhānam amṛtākṣaraḥ haraḥ
“Pradhāna, the material nature, is in a constant state of flux. While Hara, the Supreme, is eternal and unchanging.” (1.10)
eko rudro na dvitīyāya tasthuḥ
“Lord Rudra is the Supreme. He has no rival.” (3.2)
yo devānām prabhavaś codbhavaś ca, viśvādhiko rudraḥ śivo maharṣiḥ
“Lord Śiva, who is known as Rudra, is the omniscient ruler of the universe. He is the father of all the demigods. He gives the demigods all their powers and opulences. He is greater than all.” (3.4)
yadā tamas tan na divā na rātrir, na san na cāsac chiva eva kevalaḥ
“When the final darkness comes and there is no longer light or darkness, when there is no longer being and non-being, then only Lord Śiva exists.” (4.18)
Other passages mention the pradhāna or even jīva as the supreme:
pradhānād idam utpannam, pradhānam adhigacchati
pradhāne layam abhyeti, na hy anyat kāranam matam
“From pradhāna this material world has arisen, and into pradhāna it merges at the time of annihilation. Nothing else is the cause of this world.”
jīvād bhavanti bhūtāni, jīve tiṣṭhanty acañcalāḥ
jīve ca layam icchanti, na jīvāt kāraṇam param
“From the jīva all beings arise. By the jīva they are supported, and into the jīva they find dissolution. Nothing else is the cause of this world.”
In all these references, the usage of the words haraḥ, rudra, śiva, pradhānā, and jīvā makes it unequivocal that the passages in fact define the supreme cause using these terms. How can such passages be understood?
Some will argue that the words in these passages must be accepted in the original sense, and Lord Śiva, pradhāna, or the jīva should be accepted as the ultimate cause. However, this doesn’t make any sense, since in most passages Lord Viṣnu is indicated as the Supreme cause. Unless we accept the Māyāvāda theory that everything is one and all variety is due to material illusion, it’s not possible to accept the idea that different passages from the scriptures contradict each other by indicating several different supreme causes.
To this doubt, Vyāsadeva answers: etena sarve vyākhyātā vyākhyātāḥ. As concluded previously, the Supreme Lord is the original cause of everything. All words of the scriptures should be interpreted according to this explanation.
Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa explains that the word “etena” is used in the meaning of explanations previously given (the Lord is the origin of everything, etc.), and “sarve” refers to all different names mentioned in the scriptures (such as haraḥ, rudra, śiva, pradhānā, etc). The word vyākhyātā indicates an explanation, indicating that “sarve” (all names) should be explained according to “etena” (the conclusion that the Lord is the origin of everything, which was previously given).
What is the evidence? The Bhālvaveya-śruti explains:
nāmāni viśvāni na santi loke, yad āvirāsīt puruṣasya sarvam
nāmāni sarvāṇi yam āviśanti, tam vai viṣṇum paramam udāharanti
“The names of this world are not different from Him. All names in this world are names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All names refer to Him, Lord Viṣṇu, whom the wise declare is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
Vyāsadeva mentions that this conclusion is also upheld by Vaiśampāyana, who concludes that all names are names of Kṛṣṇa. This is also sustained in the Skanda Purāṇa:
śrī-nārāyaṇādīni nāmāni vinānyāni rudrādibhyo harir dattavān
“Except for Nārāyaṇa and some other names, Lord Hari gave away His names to Lord Śiva and the other demigods.”
All names mentioned in the scriptures come originally from the Lord. These names, which belong to the Lord, are just loaned to demigods and other beings. Therefore, the rule is that when the ordinary sense of the names mentioned in passages of the scriptures doesn’t contradict the general teachings of the Vedas, the ordinary meaning should be accepted. However, when the ordinary meaning of the names contradicts the teachings, then the names should be understood to be names of Lord Viṣnu. That’s how the meaning of these different passages can be understood.
Take, for example, SB 4.2.29:
naṣṭa-śaucā mūḍha-dhiyo, jaṭā-bhasmāsthi-dhāriṇaḥ
viśantu śiva-dīkṣāyām, yatra daivam surāsavam
“Those who vow to worship Lord Śiva are so foolish that they imitate him by keeping long hair on their heads. When initiated into the worship of Lord Śiva, they prefer to live on wine, flesh, and other such things.”
Here we can understand that the word “Śiva” refers to Lord Śiva, acting as Bhūta-nātha, the Lord of the ghosts and spirits, since this understanding is consistent with the teachings given in other verses from the scriptures.
However, when it’s said:
yadā tamas tan na divā na rātrir, na san na cāsac chiva eva kevalaḥ
“When the final darkness comes and there is no longer day or night, when there is no longer being and non-being, then only Lord Śiva exists.”
... then the “Śiva” should be taken as the name of the Supreme Lord and not the name of the demigod. In this way, the real meaning of the verse is that “When the final darkness comes and there is no longer day or night when there is no longer being and non-being (at the dissolution of the Universe), then only the Supreme Lord exists.”
The word vyākyātāḥ is repeated in this sūtra to indicate the end of the first adhyāya (chapter): “etena sarve vyākhyātā vyākhyātāḥ”.
You may also notice that I use bold and italics to differentiate the various quotations presented in the commentary. The quotes in bold are translations for verses directly included by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa in his commentary, which are central to understanding the arguments he uses. The quotes in regular letters are translations of other verses I include in the explanation, or verses that were already previously mentioned, while the quotes in italics are quotes from Prabhupāda’s books, with which we are already familiar.
There are already a few translations of the Govinda-bhāṣya into English, including a translation by Kusakratha Prabhu and another by HH Bhanu Swāmī, but many readers may find the original text hard to follow without additional explanations. Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa wrote his commentary aiming at establishing our Sampradāya and debating with great scholars of his time, who understood Sanskrit and were well familiar with the topics discussed, qualifications we often lack. In this presentation, I try to explain the context and the arguments offered by him, combined with explanations and conclusions given by Śrīla Prabhupāda in his works, making the flow of ideas easier to understand. In other words, this book is not a literal translation of the Govinda-bhāṣya, but an attempt to explain the points and arguments made by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa in clear language, in the light of the teachings of Śrīla Prabhupāda. If you would like to see how the text compares with the original commentary of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, you can study it side by side with one of the available translations.
Another concern in this work is to explain the references and verses quoted, not only giving you a translation, but also the whole context of these references. Sri Baladeva frequently quotes verses that conclude different sections from the Upaniṣads. The verses themselves carry important meaning, but the real punch resides in the whole sections behind them. Just like a reference to the theory of relativity makes little sense if one does not know what the theory of relativity is, quotes from the Upaniṣads often make little sense when we are not familiar with the teachings of the passages behind them. Scholars of the time would be well familiar with the talks of Svetaketu and his father from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad or the questionings of Śaunaka Ṛṣi to the sage Angīrasa from the Mundaka Upaniṣad, for example, passages we are often not well familiar with. To ease you into these references, I try as far as possible to explain the whole context, instead of just giving you a direct translation.
Another issue we come upon when trying to offer an explanation of the Brahma-sūtras is how to convey the full meaning of each sūtra. Each sūtra is an extremely compact block of knowledge (some contain a single word!), making their understanding very dependent on the understanding of the context. Each sūtra brings the conclusion of a whole philosophical discussion, and it is not possible to fully grasp the meaning without understanding the whole package behind them, just like “E=mc²” means a lot more than “E equals M times C squared”. Until one understands the whole theory, the three letters and two symbols make little sense.
Apart from the philosophical context, understanding of the sūtras is also heavily dependent on understanding the broader meaning of different Sanskrit terms used, which have to be learned. More than in other books, it’s not really possible to fully understand the sūtras without learning some Sanskrit in the process, because the Sanskrit terms are not only mentioned in the text but also discussed in the commentary of Sri Baladeva. For easing you into the process, I also try to offer detailed word-for-word meanings of the sūtras.
In this book, I opted for giving relatively long translations of the sūtras, revealing their meaning in detail, followed by explanations of the topics being discussed, the Sanskrit terms used, the arguments and counter-arguments involved in the discussion, the context of the references given, relevant quotes and examples from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s works, and so on. By this, I hope we can go deeper into the delicate philosophical points transmitted in the sūtras, understanding the flow of logic behind the Vaiṣnava interpretation of the verses written by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, under the optics of the teachings of Śrīla Prabhupāda.
Your humble servant,
Caitanya Chandra Dasa
Next: The conclusions of the Vedanta-sutra »
You can also donate using Buy Me a Coffee, PayPal, Wise, Revolut, or bank transfers. There is a separate page with all the links. This helps me enormously to have time to write instead of doing other things to make a living. Thanks!
« Vedānta-sūtra: The Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa