To put an order, please contact the Bhakti Vikas Trust: https://books.bvks.com/
In this work, composed at the request of his students, Sri Vidyabhusana presents a summary study of nine major philosophical and theological tenets covered in the Govinda-bhasya. Each of the theorems, or objects of knowledge, is succinctly defined and backed up by quotes from the sruti and the smrti, making this text a perfect outline of the Gaudiya system of thought.
This edition includes the original Sanskrit text critically edited on the basis of 51 manuscripts, its Roman transliteration, the original Sanskrit commentary written by Vedantavagisa, a gloss by the author, an English translation of all of these, and an extensive introduction rebutting false accusations against Sri Vidyabhusana and the legitimacy of the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-parampara defended by him.
Introduction
Authorship and Time
Commentator
Gloss
Polemics
Sundarānanda Vidyāvinoda
Rādhāgovinda Nātha
Kānāi Lāl Adhikārī
Akṣaya Kumāra Śāstrī
Sources
Acknowledgements
Invocation
Guru-paramparā
Prameyas
Prameya
1: Lord Viṣṇu’s
Supremacy
Prameya
2: Lord Viṣṇu
is to be Known Through all the Vedas
Prameya
3: The
Reality of the Universe
Prameya
4: Difference
is Real
Prameya
5: The Jīvas’
Servitude to Lord Hari
Prameya
6: The
Gradations among Living Entities
Prameya
7: Liberation
is the Attainment of Kṛṣṇa
Prameya
8: Pure
Devotional Service yields Liberation
Prameya
9: The Three
Kinds of Evidence
Epilogue
Introduction
The
prolific and astounding literary production that characterised Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism
in the 16th century was followed by a drastic recess after Śrī Jīva
Gosvāmī left this world. Only a few authors were then engaged in writing
Bengali compositions, and even rarer were those who wrote in Sanskrit. This
picture did not change until late 17th century, when Śrī Viśvanātha
Cakravartī became another luminary, whose writings revived the old scholarly
tradition started by Lord Caitanya’s followers. Despite their substantial
numbers, Gauḍīya works were mostly within the scope of poetry, dramaturgy, and
theology, besides commentaries on prominent Vaiṣṇava texts. Until the beginning
of the 18th century, Gauḍīyas had shown little interest in
presenting purely philosophical treatises, let alone comment on standard
philosophical texts such as the Brahma-sūtra. This made them somewhat
alienated from other schools of thought that had established themselves by
actively engaging in writing Vedānta commentaries and debating various opposing
systems. Each of the four original Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas— Śrī, Brahmā,
Rudra, and Kumāra— had one or more Vedānta commentaries to their credit. So was
the case with those who claimed affiliation to one of them, such as the
Rāmānandīs and the Puṣṭimārgīs. It was possibly with the intention of filling
this gap that King Sawai Jai Singh II (1688-1743 AD) commissioned Śrī Baladeva
Vidyābhūṣaṇa (c.1700-1793 AD) to compose a Gauḍīya commentary on the
Brahma-sūtra. In response, Śrī Vidyābhūṣaṇa first presented the Brahma-sūtra-kārikā-bhāṣya
in a very condensed format, and years later, the Govinda-bhāṣya, a much
more extensive and elaborate work. In order to duly facilitate the
comprehension of the latter, he subsequently composed the Siddhānta-ratna,
a dense treatise covering major philosophical and theological topics. Being
requested by his students, he further penned the Prameya-ratnāvalī, a
Vedānta-prakaraṇa in which he succinctly focused on the objects of knowledge or
theorems (prameya) dealt with in Vaiṣṇava philosophy.
Prameya
is an essential category in any philosophical system. For instance, in the Nyāya-sūtra
(1.1.1), Gautama delineates the Nyāya philosophy in sixteen categories: pramāṇa
(means of knowledge), prameya (objects of knowledge), saṁśaya
(doubt), prayojana (aim), dṛṣṭānta (example), siddhānta
(conclusion), avayava (members of a syllogism), tarka
(hypothetical reasoning), nirṇaya (settlement), vāda
(discussion), jalpa (wrangling), vitaṇḍā (cavilling), hetvābhāsa
(fallacy), chala (quibbling), jāti (sophisticated refutation),
and nigraha-sthāna (point of defeat). In sūtra 1.1.9, he
acknowledges twelve kinds of prameyas: ātmā (soul), śarīra
(body), indriya (senses), artha (sense objects), buddhi
(cognition), manaḥ (mind), pravṛtti (activity), doṣa
(defects), pretyabhāva (rebirth), phala (results), duḥkha
(suffering), and apavarga (liberation). In his commentary, Vātsyāyana
defines prameya in the following words: yo’rthas tattvataḥ pramīyate tat
prameyam, “Prameya is an object that is accurately known.” Anything that
can be known is a prameya, but Indian philosophers occupied themselves
only with the prameyas they deemed meaningful to attain liberation.
The
following definition appears on the top page of several manuscripts of the
Prameya-ratnāvalī: pramātuṁ yāthārthyena jñātuṁ yogyāni prameyāṇi tāny eva
ratnāni teṣām āvalī prameya-ratnāvalī, “Worthwhile theorems (prameya), which
are to be truly known, are themselves jewels (ratna). A string (āvalī) of such
jewels is called Prameya-ratnāvalī.” In this treatise, Vidyābhūṣaṇa
delves in the nine prameyas that have been handed down through the
Mādhva-paramparā, as highlighted in a famous verse often attributed to Śrī
Vyāsa Tīrtha:[1]
śrīman-madhva-mate hariḥ paratamaḥ satyaṁ jagat
tattvato
bhedo jīva-gaṇā harer anucarā nīcocca-bhāvaṁ gatāḥ|
muktir naija-sukhānubhūtir amalā bhaktiś ca
tat-sādhanam
akṣādi-tritayaṁ pramāṇam akhilāmnāyaika-vedyo hariḥ||
“In the view of the venerable
Madhvācārya, 1) Lord Hari is the Supreme; 2) the world is real; 3) difference is
real; 4) the living entities are servants of Lord Hari; 5) they attain a low or
high state; 6) liberation means to experience bliss in one’s own constitutional
form; 7) selfless worship of the Lord is the means to liberation; 8) direct
perception, inference, and verbal testimony are the three kinds of evidence;
and 9) Lord Hari is to be known through all sacred scriptures.”
In
spite of this outward approach, some of these prameyas have been
explained by Vidyābhūṣaṇa from a primarily Gauḍīya perspective, rather than
what would be considered as an orthodox Mādhva exposition. The first prameya
comprises half of the book and presents evidence of the supremacy of Lord Viṣṇu,
Who is non-different from Lord Kṛṣṇa or any Viṣṇu-tattva. Similarly, Goddess
Lakṣmī is non-different from Śrī Rādhā. The apparent difference between Their avatāras
is attributed to the gradation of the potency manifested by each of Them. While
the Mādhvas may have reservations regarding the ontological status of Rādhā,
they strongly object to seeing difference in the Supreme Lord. The second prameya
deals with the knowability of God through the scriptures, something that is
universally accepted by Vaiṣṇavas of all designations. The third prameya
discusses the reality of the world, which is said to be manifested by the
Lord’s energy. This theory of śakti-pariṇāma-vāda does not entail any
transformation in the Supreme, which is in conformity with Madhvācārya’s
philosophy. The fourth prameya clarifies the difference between God and
the individual souls, which remains even after liberation. He is eternally one,
and they are eternally many. In this connection, several monistic arguments are
rebutted. The emphasis being on difference, there is no conflict with the
Mādhva ideology. The fifth prameya describes the jīva as an
eternal servant of Lord Viṣṇu. This is a further elaboration on the first prameya,
elucidating how even the highest demigods are subordinate to Lord Viṣṇu. Again,
this is unarguable among Vaiṣṇavas. The sixth prameya explains that although
the jīvas share common attributes such as atomic size and consciousness,
there are gradations among them: in the material world, on the basis of their karma;
and in the spiritual world, on the basis of their mode of worship. The latter
is described in terms of the five major rasas. This is an instance in
which the author propounded a primarily Gauḍīya tenet. The seventh prameya
defines liberation as the attainment of Lord Kṛṣṇa or any of His forms. The
eighth prameya states that bhakti is the means to attain
liberation. These two propositions are commonly shared with other schools,
although they may differ as to the details. The ninth prameya
establishes direct perception, inference, and verbal testimony as the valid
means of knowledge (pramāṇa), and Madhvācārya is mentioned as an authority in
this regard. In the Tattva-sandarbha and Sarva-saṁvādinī, Jīva
Gosvāmī defends this same view and expounds that any further means of knowledge
is encompassed within these three. Vidyābhūṣaṇa presented these nine prameyas
in a very succinct manner, leaving out much scope for dissension, and thus
smoothly highlighted a relatively harmonious connection between the views
propounded by Madhvācārya and those propounded by Caitanya Mahāprabhu.
A
large part of the Prameya-ratnāvalī consists of ample quotations from
the śruti and the smṛti, interspersed by the author’s own verses,
and the whole book is concise enough to be easily memorised, as he suggests at
the end.
Authorship and Time
Among
Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s independent works, Prameya-ratnāvalī is by far
the most copied, distributed, and published one. This is in great part due to
its conciseness and didactical nature as an outline of the Mādhva-Gauḍīya
system of thought. The plentiful manuscript copies, the consistency of the text
in each copy, the historicity of the earlier copies, the correlation between
other of his works, the internal evidence, and the coordination with the
commentator leave zero scope to doubt that Vidyābhūṣaṇa is the legitimate
author of the original text or that his work was tampered with by an
interpolator. The claims to the contrary will be debunked and exposed below as
a deliberate and insidious conspiracy.
Out
of the multiple manuscript copies consulted for preparing this critical
edition, which are described below, two have an enormous historical
significance and are decisive evidence to silence naysayers. Manuscript number
20 (described below) was thoroughly penned by Dayānidhi, who was Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s
main scribe for many years. We know his name from a manuscript of the Govinda-bhāṣya
preserved in Gopiballabhpur, the Śyāmānandi-pīṭha in West Bengal, dated Saṁvat
1815 (1758 AD), in which he identifies himself as a brāhmaṇa and the son
of the minister of Kūrmācala. He not only copied most of Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s works
but also wrote several of his personal letters. This manuscript includes the Sūkṣmā-ṭīkā,
so it can be safely assumed that 1758 AD is the year of its completion, for it
would have been unethical to wait for years to gift a copy of the text to the
Gosvāmīs in Gopiballabhpur. The Govinda-bhāṣya might have been completed
either in the same year or perhaps one or two years earlier. In corroboration
to this, despite Sawai Jai Singh’s avid interest in collecting Brahma-sūtra
commentaries, there is no copy of the Govinda-bhāṣya in the Khasmohor
Collection, his personal library, for he passed away in 1743 AD.
The
Kānti-mālā commentary on the first verse explicitly states the purpose
for which this book was written: “A commentary on the Brahma-sūtra
entitled Govinda-bhāṣya has been composed by Baladeva, also known as
Vidyābhūṣaṇa, who is exclusively devoted to Lord Govinda. Having been asked by
some students about the objects of knowledge (prameya) in that commentary, and
being about to briefly speak about these, he now recites an auspicious
invocation.” The commentary also refers to the Vedānta-syamantaka (on
8.8 and 9.1), Govinda-bhāṣya with Sūkṣmā-ṭīkā (on 1.16 and 8.10),
and Gītā-bhūṣaṇa (on 8.10). On the basis of all this evidence, the Prameya-ratnāvalī
may have been written between 1758 and 1768 AD. The manuscript number 16
indicates that the place of its composition might have been Jaipur, where
Vidyābhūṣaṇa resided for many years while managing the Vijaya-Śyāmasundara
Temple, which enjoyed the royal patronage for as long as it existed, as
recorded in several documents of the period.
Commentator
At
the end of the Kānti-mālā, the author clearly identifies himself as
“Vedāntavāgīśa.” He also wrote commentaries on the Govinda-bhāṣya and
Siddhānta-ratna. Although his name is not openly mentioned in these two
texts, therein it is evident that the commentator was thoroughly familiar with
Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s works and could be none other than a close associate. Indeed,
the very fact that these three commentaries— which had been just recently
written and would be known only to a few individuals— have cross-references to
one another, indicates that they were penned by the same person.[2]
By a comparative study of these commentaries, it becomes apparent that they
share the same explanations, illustrations, vocabulary, and quotations in
multiple instances.[3]
This could have been possible only if they were composed by the same person or
if one of the commentators were a plagiarist. Since these works were not yet
available to others, the latter option is totally ruled out. In fact, Govinda-bhāṣya,
Siddhānta-ratna, and Prameya-ratnāvalī are a trilogy, the last two
being supplementary works on the first. Thus, it is quite expected that
Vedāntavāgīśa would have commented not only on one or two, but on all three of
them.
In
1925 AD, the Gauḍīya Maṭha published the Prameya-ratnāvalī with
Kānti-mālā. Sundarānanda was the editor, and Ananta Vāsudeva undertook the
printing work. For reasons better known to them, they decided that the name of
the commentator was Kṛṣṇadeva Vedāntavāgīśa, although such a name is not seen
in any of the innumerable manuscripts. To make matters worse, henceforth
Vedāntavāgīśa has been consistently mistaken for Kṛṣṇadeva Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya,
a prominent śiksā disciple of Viśvanātha Cakravartī and a descendant of
Jagannātha Cakravartī (Māmu Ṭhākura). Documentary evidence suggests that Bhaṭṭācārya
had been initiated in the Advaita-parivāra.[4] Bhaṭṭācārya’s
name is mentioned among five of Cakravartī’s disciples in a document dated Saṁvat
1769 (1712 AD) in connection with the Gokulānanda jī Kuñja at Rādhākuṇḍa.[5]
Soon after, he settled in Amber and became the mahanta of the Vinodī Lāl
Temple. A document dated Saṁvat 1773 (1716 AD) records a grant he received from
King Sawai Jai Singh II to be used in the service of the deity.[6]
He also played an important role in the Jaipur debates, and ample documentation
corroborates his relationship with the King, who commissioned him to compose
several treatises, such as Bhakti-vivṛti, Karma-vivṛti, Jñāna-vivaraṇa,
Bhakti-phala-viveka, and Siddhāntaikya-prakāśikā, all of which are
part of the Khasmohor Collection, preserved at the Mahārāja Sawai Mān Singh II
Museum in the City Palace in Jaipur. Most of these works seem to have been
written between 1719 and 1723 AD. His best known book is the Padāṅka-dūtam,
whose earliest known manuscript is dated Śakābda 1645 (1723 AD).[7]
Commentaries on various works of Viśvanātha Cakravartī, such as Alaṅkāra-kaustubha,
Kṛṣṇa-bhāvanāmṛta, and Saṅkalpa-kalpa-druma also have the name “Kṛṣṇadeva
Sārvabhauma” at the end. Bhaṭṭācārya was a householder, and by 1735 AD, his son
Rāmanātha Deva Śarmā was already sharing some of his duties. Kṛṣṇadeva Bhaṭṭācārya
passed away either in the mid or late 1740s, as a document[8] dated Saṁvat
1802 (1749 AD) describes that after his demise, his grandson, Vṛndāvana Bhaṭṭācārya,
claimed the same grant that had been previously given to his grandfather.
The
obvious conclusion from all this is that Kṛṣṇadeva Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya can
by no means be the author of the commentaries on the Vedānta works of Vidyābhūṣaṇa,
which were likely composed between 1745 and 1770 AD. On the one hand, Vidyābhūṣaṇa
would have been about half the age of Bhaṭṭācārya and an absolutely unknown
personality when he first arrived in Jaipur. On the other, Bhaṭṭācārya was
already reputed as a mahanta and scholar as early as 1715 AD, while
Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s name is not seen in any document related to Jaipur before 1741
AD. Moreover, in none of his works has Bhaṭṭācārya signed ‘Vedāntavāgīśa,’
‘Vāgīśvara,’ or any similar name. We also know from the commentary on the Siddhānta-ratna
that its author was a sādhu (ascetic) rather than a householder.
Some
believe that Cakravartī had another disciple called Kṛṣṇadeva Sārvabhauma
Vedāntavāgīśa, who is the actual author of the commentaries on the Alaṅkāra-kaustubha,
Kṛṣṇa-bhāvanāmṛta, and Saṅkalpa-kalpa-druma. Such a claim could be
definitely proved if we could actually find manuscripts of these commentaries
where the name Vedāntavāgīśa is mentioned, but up to the present day, I have
not come across any, despite searching far and wide. This proposition is
haunted with too many coincidences to be easily taken for granted. In view of
the above dates and facts, both of the above theories are likely to be another
distortion of the incidents, so common when hearsay prevails over recorded
history. Furthermore, oral tradition says that one Kṛṣṇadeva accompanied Vidyābhūṣaṇa
to Jaipur at Cakravartī’s command. If there were two individuals named Kṛṣṇadeva,
which one is meant in this case?
At
present, there is hardly any known information about Vedāntavāgīśa. Apart from
the three mentioned commentaries, no other work seems to be credited to him.
Even his first name is not revealed in the commentaries, which appears to be
intentional. In the Gītā-bhūṣaṇa (8.24) and Nāmārtha-sudhā
(108), Vidyābhūṣaṇa quotes a verse composed by Vedāntavāgīśa (from Sūkṣmā-ṭīkā,
4.3.3) and refers to him as “the commentator” (nirṇetṛbhiḥ). It would be
unethical and disrespectful to refer to a contemporary and senior scholar like
Kṛṣṇadeva Bhaṭṭācārya in such an informal and vague way. Rather, in the
Aiśvarya-kādambinī (7.15), he is directly referred to as “Śrī Sārvabhauma
Prabhu.” That casual referral to Vedāntavāgīśa indicates that the commentaries
were indeed commissioned by Vidyābhūṣaṇa himself. Ample manuscript evidence
confirms that the commentaries were written in coordination with the author. In
corroboration to this, very few manuscripts of the three Vedānta works do not
include the commentary. In the latter case, some of the scribes might have
deliberately copied only the main text due to time and paper constraints. As we
know that Vedāntavāgīśa was a sādhu and a scholar, it is natural to
conclude that he was probably an associate of the same generation, who, out of
humility, preferred to shun the limelight.
Gloss
Among
the large number of extant manuscripts, only number 16 (described below) has a
gloss, which although different from the Kānti-mālā, is closely related
to it. Unfortunately, the manuscript is incomplete and abruptly ends on
paragraph 6.3. No name is mentioned, but nevertheless a few factors corroborate
Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s authorship. Firstly, the gloss was noted down by his personal
scribe, Dayānidhi. Rather than something written, it seems more like notes the
author would have dictated while teaching the text. Being of a very terse
nature, the gloss is mostly limited to word equivalents, definitions, syntactic
connections, and a few quotations. Had it been written by Vedāntavāgīśa, it is
likely that the gloss would thoroughly match its equivalents in the Kānti-mālā.
However, this is often not the case, and in several instances sentences were
paraphrased and selected vocabulary was replaced by synonyms, while some
statements were omitted. This suggests that Vedāntavāgīśa just borrowed from
those notes wherever he felt appropriate and was otherwise at liberty to
develop his own explanations.
Polemics
[1] Some
believe that this verse was composed by Śrīpādarāja, who wrote a commentary on
it named Nava-ratna-mālikā-vyākhyā. Its authorship has also been
attributed to other Mādhva scholars.
[2] Like
Vidyābhūṣaṇa, he also did not directly sign the commentary on the Govinda-bhāṣya
but just alluded to his name by a wordplay (vāgīśvara) in the last verse
of the commentary.
[3] Vide
his gloss on the texts ‘jñātvā devam’ (SR 1.11, PR 1.11); ‘tam ekaṁ govindam’
(SR 1.35, PR 1.12); the explanations on SR 1.18 and PR 1.17, SR 1.20 and PR
2.5, etc.
[4] Vide
Prof. Monika Horstmann’s Der Zusammenhalt der Welt, 3.3.3.
[5]
Vrindavan Research Institute, microfilm T1:25.
[6] Nusukha
Puṇya, vol. 17, pg. 811, Rajasthan State Archives.
[7]
Dhaka University, call number 200(A).
[8] Nusukha
Puṇya, vol. 19 (Tālukā Havelī) p. 248, and vol.17 p. 813-814, Rajasthan
State Archives.
