During the past few weeks, I have beem studying the Govinda Bhashya of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana with the purpose of writing an explanation of the Vedanta Sutra according to Vaishnava philosophy that can be at the same time deep and easy to understand.

A few things I realized during this process:

a) The explanation of the Vedanta Sutra by Sankaracarya (that is the basis for most of the books we have in the market) is very indirect, confusing, and contradictory. It is so because Sankaracarya tried to cover the real meaning of the verses. We all know that Sankaracarya is Lord Shiva, he came to teach impersonalism to lure the Buddhists back into accepting the Vedas.

b) Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu convinced great scholars such as Savabhauma Battacarya and Prakasananda Sarasvati by explaining the direct meaning of the Vedanta Sutra, which is clear and logical.

c) For someone who studied all the books from Srila Prabhupada, the philosophical conclusions of the Vedanta Sutra are nothing new. It’s impressive how Srila Prabhupada included all the conclusions of the Vedanta in his purports.

d) Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana is a genius. His explanation of the Vedanta Sutra follows a flawless logic. His commentary captures all the essence of the interpretation of Mahaprabhu.

e) The Vedanta Sutra can be a quite valuable book for devotees because it teaches us to reach the correct understanding of the scriptures, by examining the passages in context and using logic. These are two qualities that missing in most battles of quotes we see around, which are often emotional and fueled by quotes found on the Vedabase and used out of context.

f) Although Prabhupada gives all the conclusions in his books, still studying the Vedanta Sutra can be valuable, because it teaches us the arguments that support these conclusions, as well as the process to reach them.

g) The difficulty is that the Govinda Bhashya is a book written for debating with scholars, who not only understood Sanskrit well but were well versed in the meaning of the Upanisadis. It can be quite challenging for us, who lack these qualifications.

So, what I’m doing in this work I’m working on is to start by giving the word-for-word and a literal translation of the original verses of the Vedanta Sutra, and then give explanations based on the commentary of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana, concluding with the more refined translations of the original verses given by Bhanu Swami. With this, I hope to help the reader understand how the few words of the original verses reveal so much meaning.

For example, the translation of Bhanu Swami for the Sutra 1.3.18 reads:

—
Sūtra – 1.3.18
| | itara-parāmarśāt sa iti cen nāsambhavāt | |

Translation: If one says that the space refers to the jīva because of reference to the jīva in the text, the answer is no, because it is impossible for the jīva to have the qualities mentioned.

Commentary by Śrīla Baladeva: Just because of a reference (paramarṣāt) to jīva (itara) in the middle of the passage it cannot be claimed that the space in the heart is the jīva. Why? Because it is impossible (asambhavāt) since the eight attributes of that space mentioned (starting with being free of sin) are not applicable to the jīva.
(Pūrva-pakṣa) Let that be. After the teachings about the space in the heart where the eight qualities are mentioned, Prajāpati speaks about the jīva. Thus the qualities mentioned in the section concerning the space in the heart can be applied to the jīva. Thus the space in the heart must be the jīva.

This idea is refuted in the next sūtra.

The commentary is actually quite clear when we understand all the references and ideas it is referring to. The difficulty in our case is that we are often not familiar with these passages, and therefore it becomes difficult to understand the conclusion that is revealed in the commentary.

What I’m doing is trying to include all these references in the explanation, revealing the whole context of the explanation of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana, explaining his conclusion, and then enriching it with explanations given by Srila Prabhupada. In this way, I try to show how these two acaryas are in harmony, and how the explanations of Srila Prabhupada help us to understand the conclusions revealed by the previous acaryas.

This particular passage follows the sutras I wrote about yesterday, so if you want to understand the full context, I suggest reading also the previous article.

In any case, the explanation for this particular sutra became like this:

Sūtra – 1.3.18

itara-parāmarśāt sa iti cen nāsambhavāt

itara: the other; parāmarṣāt: because of reference; saḥ: he (is the small); iti: thus; cet: if; na: not; asambhavāt: because of impossibility.

• (If said) that something else (the jiva) is mentioned in the passage, and therefore he is (the small sky), we say no because it is impossible.

After dismissing the argument that the “small sky” inside the heart is the ordinary element ether, Vyasadeva dismisses the idea that it may be the jiva by the word “asambhavāt”, arguing that it is simply impossible.

This is an answer to a possible argument that could be made based on the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.3.4. This verse (which comes after the description of the “small space” in 8.1.1-6) mentions that:

sa eṣa samprasādo ‘smāc charīrāt samutthāya paraṁ jyotir upasampadya svena
rūpeṇābhiniṣpadyate. Eṣa ātmeti hovāca. Etad amṛtam etad abhayam etad brahma.

“The liberated jīva rises from the material body. He attains the spiritual effulgence and manifests his original form. This is the self,” he said. “He is immortal. He is fearless. He is Brahman”.

In this way, there is a description of the jiva in this passage from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, but it appears only in the middle of the text (8.3.4), while the passage that describes the “small sky” appears at the beginning of the text (8.1.1-6). Apart from that, the “small sky” is described as “large as the sky”, “containing both heaven and earth”, “free from sin”, “maintaining everything”, and so on, qualities that can’t be attributed to the ordinary jiva. In this way, it’s simply impossible to sustain that the “small sky” is the jiva, as argued by Vyasadeva himself. Any interpretation in this direction is purely speculative and doesn’t find support in the scriptures.

The jiva falls down into material existence and his original qualities are covered. As confirmed by verse 8.3.4, these original spirtual qualities (including immortality) become manifested only when the jiva attains perfection through the practice of a spiritual process. The qualities attributed to the “small sky” (the Lord) on 8.1.1-6, however, are eternal. Different from the individual soul, the Lord never falls into illusion.

One could then argue that ultimately the jiva and the Lord are one, and thus ultimately the passage refers to the jiva anyway, in the sense that the jiva must find his inner self inside the heart, understanding that he is one with Brahman. However, this idea was already dismissed in the previous sutras. When the passage mentions “etad brahma” (he is Brahman), it just means the soul attains spiritual perfection, not that he becomes one with the Lord.

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu explained the difference between the jiva and the Lord in his achintya-bhedabheda-tattva philosophy. The individual soul is part of the Lord’s energy, and is thus equal to the Lord in quality (both are spiritual), but there is a vast difference in terms of quantity. Just like a drop of ocean water has the same chemical composition as the ocean as a whole, but is infinitely smaller in terms of quantity, the soul is identical to the Lord in terms of spiritual quality but is different in terms of quantity.

The Lord is infinite, and the soul is infinitesimal. Therefore, when certain passages of the Vedas emphasize the oneness of all beings with God, these passages must be considered in the context of other passages that say that the Lord is different from all beings. As taught by Vyasadeva in the Vedanta Sutra, we can’t take one passage from the scriptures and disregard the others, the meaning of all passages must be taken as a whole if we want to reach the correct conclusions of the text. Only when we understand how the soul can be simultaneously one with and different from the Lord can we properly understand the relationship between the two.

Another example that can be given is that the sun is the source of heat and light for our whole solar system (and in fact for the whole universe, according to the Vedas). The sun is inseparable from its rays, just as God is inseparable from His energies. In this sense, the sun and its rays are one, just like the Lord and His energies are one. However, at the same time, the sun’s rays are different from the sun. If the sun would enter my room, my body would be immediately vaporized, alongside the room, the building, and the rest of the city. But when the light of the sun enters I feel just a little warmth. Similarly, God and His energies are distinct. Each soul is an individual, eternally distinct from the Lord. Although the son comes from the father, it’s impossible for him to merge back into the father.

From this example of the sun, we can understand how God is simultaneously different (bheda) and nondifferent (abheda) from everything. This truth (tattva) is inconceivable (achintya) to the materialist. Everything that exists is God’s energy, and thus inconceivably simultaneously one and different from Him.

“If one says that the space refers to the jīva because of reference to the jīva in the text, the answer is no, because it is impossible for the jīva to have the qualities mentioned.”