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 Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa is divided into adhikaraṇas, or sections, each composed of a few sutras 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 saṁśaya (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 sutras written by Vyāsadeva. This is followed by saṅgati, additional arguments, and quotes that confirm the conclusion.

You can imagine a discussion between two friends, a philosopher of a different school who has different 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 conclusion, and Vyāsadeva corrects it by explaining the correct meaning of the passages being discussed. Each adhikaraṇa is thus a different discussion between a different set of friends and philosophers, with Vyāsadeva interjecting and giving 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 adhikaraṇa eight of the 4th pāda of the Vedanta-sutra as an example. This is one of the shortest ones, with just one sutra.

The viṣaya or thesis discussed in this adhikaraṇa is that certain passages of the scriptures appear to indicate Lord Shiva or others as being supreme instead of Lord Viṣṇu.

For example, the Śvetāśvatara Upanisad mentions that:

ksaram pradhanam amrtaksarah harah

"Material nature is in constant flux and the Supreme, Lord Hara 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 Siva, 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." (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 day or night, when there is no longer being and non-being, then only Lord Siva 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 pradhana, this material world was born. This world knows only pradhana. This world merges into pradhana 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 the elements of this world have come. In the jīva, they rest without moving, and they finally merge into the jīva. 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 purvapaksa (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 sutra written by Vyāsadeva (in this case, the sutra 28 of the 4th pāda of the first chapter) and the commentary by Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa:

Sutra: etena sarve vyakhyata vyakhyatah

Meaning: All (words in the scriptures) should be interpreted to agree with the explanation (that the Supreme Brahman is the original cause).

Commentary: In this sutra 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 Visnu, whom the wise declare is the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

Vaicampayana Muni explains that all these names are names of Lord Krsna. The Skanda Purana also explains:

cri-narayanadini namani vinanyani rudradibhyo harir dattavan

"Except for Narayana and some other names, Lord Hari gave away His names to Lord Siva 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 opted to follow the same structure of verse, translation, and meaning that Srila Prabhupada uses in his books, to which we are all used. In this way, I start with the sutra itself, including the Sanskrit, word-for-word, and translation, followed by an explanation that includes all the different arguments presented in the viṣaya, saṁśaya, pūrvapakṣa, siddhanta, and saṅgati, 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 Srila Prabhupada's books, where he elucidates different ideas discussed in the text.

In this book, I try to explain the arguments raised by Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa under the light of the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, 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 Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, because I'm also including points made by Srila Prabhupada, as well as trying to make the ideas clear and explaining 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 we learned in the section.

The explanation of the same adhikaraṇa 8 of the 4th pāda, for example, becomes thus like this:

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 Viṣṇu.

The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, for example, appears to indicate Lord Shiva as the supreme cause:

kṣaraṁ pradhānam amṛtākṣaraḥ haraḥ

"Material nature is in constant flux, and the Supreme, Lord Hara, is eternal and unchanging." (1.10)

eko rudro na dvitīyāya tasthuḥ

"Lord Rudra is the Supreme. He has no rival." (3.2)

yo devānāṁ 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." (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 day or night, when there is no longer being and non-being, then only Lord Śiva exists." (4.18)

Other passages mention pradhāna or even jīva as the supreme:

pradhānād idam utpannam/ pradhānam adhigacchati

pradhāne layam abhyeti/ na hy anyat kāranaṁ matam

“From pradhāna, this material world was born. This world knows only pradhāna. This world merges into pradhāna 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 kāraṇaṁ param

"From the jīva, all the elements of this world have come. In the jīva, they rest without moving, and they finally merge into the jīva. 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 Shiva, or pradhāna, or the jīva should be accepted as the ultimate cause. However, this doesn't make any sense, since in most passages Lord Viṣṇu 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.

Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana 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/ taṁ vai viṣṇuṁ 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."

The Skanda Purāṇa 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."

All names 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 Viṣṇu. That's how the meaning of these different passages can be understood.

Take for exemple SB 4.2.29:

naṣṭa-śaucā mūḍha-dhiyo/ jaṭā-bhasmāsthi-dhāriṇaḥ

viśantu śiva-dīkṣāyāṁ/ yatra daivaṁ 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 Shiva, 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"

There already are a number of translations of the Govinda-Bhāṣya into English, including a translation by Kusakratha Prabhu and another by HH Bhanu Swami, but many readers may find the original text hard to follow without additional explanations. Srila 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 both the context and the arguments offered by Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, combined with explanations on the same points given by Srila Prabhupada in his works, making the flow of ideas easier to understand.

One issue we come upon when trying to offer an explanation of the Brahma-sutras is how to transmit the meaning of the sutras. Each sutra is an extremely compact block of knowledge (some contain a single word!), making their understanding very dependent on the understanding of the context. The understanding of the sutras is also heavily dependent on understanding the meaning of different Sanskrit terms, which have to be learned. More than in other books, it's not really possible to fully understand the sutras without learning some Sanskrit in the process, because the Sanskrit terms are not only mentioned in the sutras but also discussed in the commentary of Sri Baladeva.

In this book, I opted for giving relatively long translations of the sutras, revealing their meaning in detail, followed by explanations, about the topic being discussed, the Sanskrit terms used, the arguments and counter-arguments involved in the discussion, relevant quotes or examples from Srila Prabhupada and so on. By this, I hope you can go deeper into the delicate philosophical points transmitted in the sutras.

With this, I hope to help you understand the flow of logic behind the Vaishnava interpretation of the verses written by Sri Baladeva, under the optics of the teachings of Srila Prabhupada.

« Vedānta-sūtra: The Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa