Guest guest Posted May 10, 2001 Report Share Posted May 10, 2001 Hare Krishna PAMHO AGTSP I am wondering why the Sri Govinda bhasya of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana which is our official Vedanta commentary in Gaudiya sampradaya is not given much prominence amongst the scholarly Vedantic circles. Mostly they only cite the commentaries of Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva. Why not Baladeva ? Is it because much of his commentary except in a few places, echoes Madhva's commentary ? and thus lacks much originality of vedantic thought ? what is the reason ? i have heard of shariraka bhashya, sri bhasyha and poornaprajna bhashya but until i read srila prabhupada's books i never got to even know of the govinda bhashya ! if sripad baladeva vidyabhushana had used it to convince the ramanandis, it should have become famous all over india, but why the lack of knowledge ? your servant, r. jai simman singapore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2001 Report Share Posted May 10, 2001 On Thu, 10 May 2001, Jai Simman s/o R. Rangasamy wrote: > I am wondering why the Sri Govinda bhasya of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana > which is our > official Vedanta commentary in Gaudiya sampradaya is not given much > prominence > amongst the scholarly Vedantic circles. Mostly they only cite the > commentaries of > Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva. Why not Baladeva ? Is it because much of his > commentary except in a few places, echoes Madhva's commentary ? and thus > lacks much originality of vedantic thought ? what is the reason ? That's a good question. In North India, others are known; aside from Baladeva, Vallabha and Nimbarka also wrote Brahma-sutra bhashyas. Maybe South Indians are just more in touch than North Indians are with traditional Vedanta in general. I get that impression. The Ramanandis would presumably honor Ramanuja's commentary, but in recent years some Ramanandis have denied that their tradition is even linked to Ramanuja at all. There are three possible positions--dualist, nondualist, and some sort of combination of the two (like acintya-bhedabheda). My guess is that for some reason, or for no reason, some scholars simply see "all the others" in category three as mere variants of Visistadvaita. MDd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.