Govinda-bhasya, commentary on the Vedanta-sutra by Baladeva Vidyabhusana

Expressions researched:
"Baladeva Vidyabhusana" |"Govinda-bhasya" |"Vedanta"

Notes from the compiler: (1) CC Adi 6.14-15 contains an extensive passage quoted from Baladeva Vidyabhusana's commentary which may be viewed by clicking on the Vanisource reference link. (2) VedaBase research query: "vidyabhusan* comment*"@10

BG Preface and Introduction

Bhagavad-gita As It Is is dedicated to Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūsana.

BG Dedication:

To ŚRĪLA BALADEVA VIDYĀBHŪṢAṆA

who presented so nicely the "Govinda-bhāṣya" commentary on Vedānta philosophy

CC Adi-lila

Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, in his commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra, has tried to nullify this conclusion because he thinks that discrediting these so-called causes of the cosmic manifestation will nullify the entire Sāṅkhya philosophy.

CC Adi 6.14-15, Purport:

"The Sāṅkhya philosopher accepts three kinds of evidences, namely direct perception, hypothesis and traditional authority. When such evidence is complete, everything is perfect. The process of comparison is within such perfection. Beyond such evidence there is no proof. There is not much controversy regarding direct perceptional evidence or authorized traditional evidence. The Sāṅkhya system of philosophy identifies three kinds of procedures—namely, pariṇāmāt (transformation), samanvayāt (adjustment) and śaktitaḥ (performance of energies)—as the causes of the cosmic manifestation."

Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, in his commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra, has tried to nullify this conclusion because he thinks that discrediting these so-called causes of the cosmic manifestation will nullify the entire Sāṅkhya philosophy. Materialistic philosophers accept matter to be the material and efficient cause of creation; for them, matter is the cause of every type of manifestation. Generally they give the example of a waterpot and clay. Clay is the cause of the waterpot, but the clay can be found as both cause and effect. The waterpot is the effect and clay itself is the cause, but clay is visible everywhere. A tree is matter, but a tree produces fruit. Water is matter, but water flows. In this way, say the Sāṅkhyites, matter is the cause of movements and production. As such, matter can be considered the material and efficient cause of everything in the cosmic manifestation.

Renunciation Through Wisdom

Among the Vaiṣṇavas, besides Śrīpāda Rāmānujācārya's commentary, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa's Govinda-bhāṣya is the main commentary in the line of Lord Caitanya, known as the Mādhva-Gauḍīya-sampradāya.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 3.2:

The process of jñāna-yoga has been delineated in the Vedānta-sūtra, the philosophical essence of the Vedas. The Supreme Lord, Kṛṣṇa, accepts the authority of the Vedānta-sūtra and considers the philosophical presentation proper. Up till the present day, every spiritual line, even in the impersonalist school, has based its philosophical authority on the Vedānta-sūtra. And the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural and faultless commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. This is Lord Caitanya's opinion.

Learned circles consider a disciplic line bereft of a commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra to be unauthorized and useless. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya's Vedānta commentary, entitled Śārīraka-bhāṣya, is the main commentary of the impersonal, monistic school. Among the Vaiṣṇavas, besides Śrīpāda Rāmānujācārya's commentary, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa's Govinda-bhāṣya is the main commentary in the line of Lord Caitanya, known as the Mādhva-Gauḍīya-sampradāya.

Sri Isopanisad

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.

Sri Isopanisad Introduction:

Vyāsadeva personally wrote the Vedānta-sūtra under the instructions of Nārada, his Guru Mahārāja (spiritual master), but still he was not satisfied. That is a long story, described in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Vedavyāsa was not very satisfied even after compiling many Purāṇas and Upaniṣads, and even after writing the Vedānta-sūtra. Then his spiritual master, Nārada, instructed him, "You explain the Vedānta-sūtra." Vedānta means "ultimate knowledge," and the ultimate knowledge is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa says that throughout all the Vedas one has to understand Him: vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ. Kṛṣṇa also says, vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham: "I am the compiler of the Vedānta-sūtra, and I am the knower of the Vedas." Therefore the ultimate objective is Kṛṣṇa. That is explained in all the Vaiṣṇava commentaries on Vedānta philosophy. 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.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

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.

Lecture on BG 13.8-12 -- Bombay, September 30, 1973:

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.

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.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

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.

Lecture on SB 1.2.25 -- Vrndavana, November 5, 1972:

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.

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 (SB 1.1.1). Brahman, the Absolute Truth, is that from whom everything emanates. Janmādy asya yataḥ (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.