Impersonal Brahman and Vedanta Sutra

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

I have not studied Vedanta Sutras or Govinda Bhasya, but have been reading

Srimad Bhagavatam. I present my understanding of the subject herewith. Please

correct me, if I am wrong. The verse and purport quoted by Sumeet Prabhu is

from SB 1.5.4, chapter entitled "Narada's Instruction on Srimad Bhagavatam for

Srila Vyasdeva".

 

On reading the translation of 1.5.4 , the question that comes to my mind is why

Srila Narada had to say "You have fully delineated the subject of impersonal

Brahman as well as the knowledge derived therefrom....".? Srila Prabhupada

supports this point made by Srila Narada in the purport, as pointed by Sumeet

Prabhu, by saying "The Vedanta-sutra, or Brahma-sutra, compiled by Sri

Vyasadeva is the full deliberation of the impersonal absolute feature...".

 

The conversation between them that follows may throw some light on this issue.

Srila Narada replies to Srila Vyasa's question about his despondency in SB

1.5.8 (bhavatanudita-prayam...) that "You have not actually broadcast the

sublime and spotless glories of the Personality of Godhead. That philosophy

which does not satisfy the transcendental senses of the Lord is considered

worthless". In the SB 1.5.9 -10 verses, Srila Narada emphasizes the need of the

description of the glories of the Supreme Lord. In SB 1.5.38, he establishes who

is the actual seer. He says "Thus he is the actual seer who worships, in the

form of transcendental sound representation, the Supreme Personality of

Godhead, Visnu, who has no material form". And finally in SB 1.5.40, he

requests Srila Vyasa to describe the glories of the Supreme Lord for that will

satisfy the hankerings of people after knowledge and the general mass who are

much aggrieved by suffering conditions of material life.

 

Having said this, if Vedanta Sutras had conclusively described the bhagavan

feature then where was the need for Srila Vyasa's dissatisfaction? Why did

Srila Narada advise Srila Vyasadeva to describe the Lord's activities? While

Bhagavan feature is the last word in the realization of the Absolute, the

Brahman and Paramatama feature have no locus standi without Bhagavan. So if

Vedanta Sutra had discussed bhagavan feature to its fullest, then why was Srila

Vyasa unhappy? The reason is Vedanta Sutra must not be discussing bhagavan.

Hence Srila Narada advised Srila Vyasa to compile a treatise that exclusively

describes bhagavan, Sri Krsna. If Vedanta-sutra describe bhagavan, then the

advise given by Srila Narada would result in compilation of a redundant

treatise. But that is clearly not the case. On this advise by Srila Narada,

Srimad Bhagavatam was revised by Srila Vyasa.

 

Another argument that can be made is if Vedanta-sutra had conclusively discussed

the bhagavan feature, then there would not have been so many interpretations

including Sankara's Sararika Bhasya. The very fact that Sankara could squeeze

out Mayavada out of Vedanta-sutra is enough evidence that Vedanta sutra must

not be categorically establishing the bhagavan feature. As opposed to this,

Srimad Bhagavatam is full of details about bhagavan.

 

Krishna Prabhu wrote:

>We know that the Bhaagavatam is >not a commentary in the sense of being a

suutra-by-suutra >explanation. A commentary is something which gives the

purport of >that which it comments on. Hence, we would expect that the

>Bhaagavatam and the Vedaanta to share the same subject, but the former to be

merely a clearer explanation of the same.

 

While writting Srimad Bhagavatam, the subject matter is the same as Vedanta

Sutra. With this what I mean is, the subject matter is the Absolute Truth per

se and not karma-kanda, jnana-kanda and upasana-kanda. And in this view

Bhagavat is the commentary on Vedanta Sutra. But the difference between

Bhagavat and Vedanta Sutra is while the latter deals with Brahman or Absolute

Truth per se, the former deals with Absolute in its supreme feature of

Bhagavan. Now Bhagavan (Master) means there has to be the bhakta (servitor) and

the bhakti (service), or else the word Bhagavan has no meaning. Just as when

there is a king, there has to be his kingdom, his family, people serving him

and so on. Everything is the king's part and parcel. So Bhagavat means

"descriptions about bhagavan", which mean bhagavan, bhakta and bhakti. And

hence it is position vis-a-vis Vedanta Sutra is unique.

 

But this gets us to an important fact pointed out by Krishna Prabhu:

 

Just pick up any translation of the Govinda bhaashya and you will see that Srila

Baladeva definitely deals with the subject matter of the Supreme Personality of

Godhead.

 

Since I have not read either, I am curious to know more about this. But If I am

correct, all the acaryas in the four Sampradayas have written commentaries on

Vedanta-sutra and have formulated the philosophies of Dvaita-vada,

Vishista-advaita etc. Also Sankara could write his commentary on the Sutras in

a radically different way. Hence, it is not a surprise that Srila Baladeva

could write Govinda Bhasya on the sutras and thus bring the purport of the

sutras in close agreement with Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

However, the commentaries of Vaisnava acarayas are superior to any other

commentary. The reason is Vedanta-sutra contains knowledge in extremely

concentrated form (sutras or formulaes). Just like only a physicist can truly

appreciate the meaning of E=mc*2. For a person who does not know physics, the

above sutra/formula has limited meaning. Vaisnavas, because of devotion to Sri

Krsna, are the real knowers of Vedanta. Hence like the physicist, only they can

truly appreciate the meaning of the sutras. Hence, the Govinda Bhasya comentary

that discusses Supreme Personality of Godhead is perfect because of Srila

Baladeva's unique position as devotee of Sri Krsna.

 

But nevertheless, the fact stands out that because of scholarly, yet

inconclusive, nature of Vedanta sutras, the need to compile something different

was pronounced. And this precipitated the manifestation of Srimad Bhagavatam.

Thus I understand why Srila Prabhupada calls Vedanta-sutra to be deliberation

of impersonal Brahman feature and the position of Srimad Bhagavatam in relation

to Vedanta Sutras.

 

Your servant,

***********************************************************************Vidyadhar

M. KarmarkarGraduate Research AssistantMolecular Plant Breeding419, Crop Science

BuildingDepartment of Crop and Soil ScienceOregon State UniversityCorvallis, OR

97331.Phone:

541-737-5844***********************************************************************