View source for When there was such question raised in Jaipur that the Gaudiya Vaisnava has no commentary on the Vedanta-sutra, at that time, Baladeva Vidyabhusana, he wrote Govinda-bhasya on Vedanta-sutra

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Baladeva Vidyabhusana, with the order of Govindaji at Jaipur, he wrote the commentary on Brahma-sutra"|"Where is your commentary on the Vedanta-sutra"|"when there was such question raised in Jaipur that the Gaudiya Vaisnava has no commentary on the Vedanta-sutra, at that time, Baladeva Vidyabhusana, he wrote Govinda-bhasya on Vedanta-sutra"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Labangalatika}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|26Jan11}}
{{last|26Jan11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=2|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|2}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:When]]
[[Category:There Was]]
[[Category:Question]]
[[Category:Raise]]
[[Category:Jaipur]]
[[Category:Gaudiya Vaisnava - Devotees of God]]
[[Category:Does Not Have]]
[[Category:Commentary on the Vedanta-sutra]]
[[Category:At That Time]]
[[Category:Baladeva Vidyabhusana]]
[[Category:Write]]
[[Category:Govinda-bhasya]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="0" parent="Lectures" text="Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures"><h3>Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG13812BombaySeptember301973_0" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="357" link="Lecture on BG 13.8-12 -- Bombay, September 30, 1973" link_text="Lecture on BG 13.8-12 -- Bombay, September 30, 1973">
<div class="heading">There was no need, but people are demanding, "Where is your commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra?" So Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana, with the order of Govindaji at Jaipur, he wrote the commentary on Brahma-sūtra.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 13.8-12 -- Bombay, September 30, 1973|Lecture on BG 13.8-12 -- Bombay, September 30, 1973]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So far we are concerned, Madhva-Gauḍīya Sampradāya, our ācāryas, they took it, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, as the right commentary on Brahma-sūtra. Bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrānāṁ vedārtha-paribṛṁhitam. This Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the real bhāṣya of Brahma-sūtra. So the Gauḍīya Sampradāya did not make any commentary on the Brahma-sūtra because they took it, Caitanya Mahāprabhu took it as, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, as a natural commentary, because Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is also made by Vyāsadeva and Vyāsadeva is the original author of Brahma-sūtra. So author made his own commentary; so there was no need of another commentary. This is the Gauḍīya-siddhānta, Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇava-siddhānta.</p>
<p>But sometimes back, in Jaipur, there was a challenge that "The Gauḍīya Sampradāya has no commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra." So at that time Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura was requested... Because he was grand scholar, grand old man scholar, at that time living in Vṛndāvana... So he was very old at that time; so he authorized Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana, that "You do it." There was no need, but people are demanding, "Where is your commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra?" So Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana, with the order of Govindaji at Jaipur, he wrote the commentary on Brahma-sūtra. That name is Govinda-bhāṣya. So the Gauḍīya-Brahmā Sampradāya, they have got also commentary on Brahma-sūtra. That is required.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="1" parent="Lectures" text="Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures"><h3>Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB1225VrndavanaNovember51972_0" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="94" link="Lecture on SB 1.2.25 -- Vrndavana, November 5, 1972" link_text="Lecture on SB 1.2.25 -- Vrndavana, November 5, 1972">
<div class="heading">Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, Gosvāmīs, they did not write any comment on the Vedānta-sūtra because they accept Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. So why they should write again? But still, when there was such question raised in Jaipur that the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava has no commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra, at that time, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, he wrote Govinda-bhāṣya on Vedānta-sūtra.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 1.2.25 -- Vrndavana, November 5, 1972|Lecture on SB 1.2.25 -- Vrndavana, November 5, 1972]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Now, the most authentic śāstra is Vedānta. Vedānta is accepted by all classes of men. Because without accepting Vedānta, nobody will be bona fide. Generally they think that the impersonalists are Vedantists. Generally they think, but that's a wrong conception. They... All the Vaiṣṇava—Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya—they are also Vedantists. Caitanya Mahāprabhu is Vedantist. We are also Vedantist. It is not that Vedānta is the monopoly of the impersonalists. No.</p>
<p>Now, the Vedānta, in the beginning it is, the first sūtra is: athāto brahma jijñāsā. So to inquire about Brahman, the Absolute. Now, the next answer is janmādy asya yataḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]). Brahman, the Absolute Truth, is that from whom everything emanates. Janmādy asya yataḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]). Now, this janmādy asya yataḥ is explained in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Therefore Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is explained by Vyāsadeva himself. Vyāsadeva is explaining Vedānta-sūtra in his book, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām. Śrī Vyāsadeva says, "This is the real comment, or bhāṣya, of Vedānta-sūtra, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam." Therefore Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, Gosvāmīs, they did not write any comment on the Vedānta-sūtra because they accept Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. So why they should write again? But still, when there was such question raised in Jaipur that the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava has no commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra, at that time, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, he wrote Govinda-bhāṣya on Vedānta-sūtra. But still, Vedānta-sūtra does not mean to understand impersonalism. No. That's not the fact.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>