Sripad Baladeva VIdyabhusana Tirobhava Tithi [disappearance day]
Lectures : Bhagavad-gita Lectures : Bg 13: Lectures : Bhagavad-gita 13.8-12 — Bombay, September 30, 1973 : 730930BG.BOM : 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.
Conversations : 1976 Conversations : June, 1976 : Interview with Professors O’Connell, Motilal and Shivaram — June 18, 1976, Toronto : 760618iv.tor :
Prabhupāda: So, it is actually bhāṣyāyāṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām. It is stated. This is the real commentary on Brahma-sūtra by Vyāsadeva himself, author. Vyāsadeva is the author of Brahma-sūtra, and he has written personally, under the instruction of his guru, Nārada Muni, this Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya. And it begins with the Brahma-sūtra aphorism: janmādy asya yataḥ [SB 1.1.1]. The Brahma-sūtra begins with these words: janmādya, athāto brahma jijñāsā. Janmādy asya yataḥ. So these things are explained elaborately. Therefore Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya, bhāṣyāyāṁ brahma-sūtra. Vedārtha paribṛṁhita. So therefore in our Gauḍīya, Caitanya Mahāprabhu did not write any bhāṣya of the Brahma-sūtra, neither the gosvāmīs, because they took it that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the real bhāṣya of Brahma-sūtra. But when…. Sometimes the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas are challenged that “You cannot be accepted as bona fide community, spiritual community, because you have no bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra.” Then Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa wrote govinda-bhāṣya. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu did not like or ask His disciples to write, because He thought, “This is the Gauḍīya, Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya.” Not Gauḍīya—for every Vaiṣṇava. Bhāṣyāyāṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām. So we have got now Gauḍīya Vedānta-bhāṣya. Rāmānuja Vedānta-bhāṣya is there. Madhvācārya Vedānta-bhāṣya is there, all. And Gauḍīya had not. But since this challenge was made in Jaipur, then Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, he took: “Yes,” and he finished, Gauḍīya bhāṣya, and it is called Govinda-bhāṣya. Actually, in India, unless one follows the ācāryas and has given commentary on the Brahma-sūtra, he’s not a bona fide. Nyāya-prasthāna. Brahma-sūtra is called nyāya-prasthāna. Śruti-prasthāna, smṛti-prasthāna, nyāya-prasthāna. So any bona fide ācārya must give his understanding about these three prasthānas..
Lectures : Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures : Canto 1: Lectures : SB 1.2: Lectures : Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.25 — Vrndavana, November 5, 1972 : 721105SB.VRN :
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
Guest (1) (Indian man): …cultural affairs, Orissa government. Here there is a large stack of palm leaf manuscripts. Palm leaf manuscripts. We are editing the Sanskrit manuscripts, correcting them and publishing them.
Srila Prabhupāda: Sanskrit?
Guest (1): Sanskrit.
Prabhupāda: It is published in Sanskrit?
Guest (1): Yes.
Prabhupāda: Palm beach?
Guest (2) (Indian man): Palm leaves.
Hari-śauri: Some manuscripts on palm leaf.
Prabhupāda: Oh, palm leaf.
Hari-śauri: They’re translating and publishing. So he is the editor in charge of all that for the government.
Guest (1): What is the…?
Srila Prabhupāda: What is the śāstra?
Hari-śauri: What is the name of the śāstra?
Guest (1): Śāstra. I told yesterday Bhakti-bhāgavatam of Kavisurya Baladeva(?).
Srila Prabhupāda: Oh, yes, yes.
Guest (1): And ācārya, there is one… (quotes long Sanskrit verses) This is one Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa līlā by Kavisurya Baladeva of Orissa.
Srila Prabhupāda: Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana?
Guest (1): Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana who commented on, wrote Śrī Bhāṣyam..
Gurukṛpa: That’s the same one you just quoted? By who?
Guest (1): Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana.
Gurukṛpa: The one you just sang.
Guest (1): No. This is Kavisurya Baladeva.
Srila Prabhupāda: Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana, different.
Guest (1): Different.
Srila Prabhupāda: Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana belonged to Orissa or Bengal?
Guest (1): Yes, Orissa. And he has clearly mentioned that near Tilika, Tilika Lake he was born. It is clear mentioned.
Srila Prabhupāda: But he used to live in Balasore.
Guest (1): Yes. He used to live in Balasore, and then went to Bhastrana,(?) where he wrote Bhāṣya on Vedānta-sūtra and Gītā.
Prabhupāda: Vedānta-sūtra, Govinda-bhāṣya, he wrote in Jaipur.
Guest (1): Jaipur. Yes, last time, Jaipur.
Srila Prabhupāda: I have dedicated my Bhagavad-gītā to Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana.
Guest (1): Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana? Following Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana?
Hari-śauri: He dedicated it. Yes, this is… Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana.
Conversations : 1977 Conversations : January, 1977 : Room Conversation — January 24, 1977, Bhuvanesvara
Conversations : 1976 Conversations : July, 1976 : Conversation with Prof. Saligram and Dr. Sukla — July 5, 1976, Washington, D.C. : 760705rc.wdc :
Prabhupāda: Brahma-sūtra-padaiś caiva hetumādbhir viniścitaiḥ [Bg. 13.5]. Very…. Nyāya-praṣṭhāna. But Vedānta-sūtra is explained in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Therefore our Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, they did not write any comment on the Vedānta-sūtra. They accept Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the real bhāṣya. But when the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇavas are challenged that “You have no Vedānta-sūtra-bhāṣya, therefore you cannot be accepted as transcendental party,” so Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana immediately gave Govinda-bhāṣya on Vedānta. Our Gosvāmīs, they did not write because they knew Brahma-sūtra bhāṣya, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam
Lectures : Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures : Madhya-lila: Lectures : Madhya 20: Lectures : Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 20.100-108 — New York, November 22, 1966 : 661122C2.NY :
So Sanātana Gosvāmī, he’s ācārya in this disciplic succession from Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Lord Caitanya. He is the first disciple of Lord Caitanya, and from him, Sanātana Gosvāmī, six Gosvāmīs. There were six among the first followers of Lord Caitanya. And then, from next step comes Raghunātha Gosvāmī and then this author of this book, Kṛṣṇa dāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, and from him, Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura, and then from him, Viśvanātha Cakravartī, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. In this way this disciplic succession is coming from Lord Caitanya. So as ācārya… Ācārya means one who knows the principles of scripture, properly being initiated by authority who knows things as they are, and they apply those things in their own life. They are called ācārya. Acinoti śāstrāṇi: he must know all the principles from authorities, and he should apply in his life those principles. Not that he knows but does not apply. He cannot be ācārya. Āpani ācari prabhu jīva disa (?). Lord Caitanya, He, although He is accepted as the, I mean to say, the personal, He’s Kṛṣṇa Himself, still, He behaved in such a way that others can follow. He also accepted Īśvara Purī. Īśvara, Īśvara Purī was His spiritual master, Lord Caitanya’s. This is the disciplic succession.
Conversations : 1971 Conversations : July, 1970 : Room Conversation — July 18, 1971, Detroit : 710718RC.DET :
Prabhupāda: Then, from Kṛṣṇa, Nārada. From Nārada, Vyāsadeva. From Vyāsadeva to Madhvācārya, from Madhvācārya to Īsvara Puri, Mādhavendra Puri, then Caitanya Mahāprabhu, then His disciples, the six Goswāmīs, then Kṛṣṇa dāsa Kavirāja, then Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. So we are taking account very rigidly from Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and I am the tenth generation from Caitanya Mahāprabhu.
Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains the suvarna-varna hemango citation to establish Lord Caitanya as the yuga-avatara.
sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ śānto
suvarṇa—of gold; varṇaḥ—having the color; hema-aṅgaḥ—whose body was like molten gold; vara-aṅgaḥ—having a most beautiful body; candana-aṅgadī—whose body was smeared with sandalwood; sannyāsa-kṛt—practicing the renounced order of life; śamaḥ—equipoised; śāntaḥ—peaceful; niṣṭhā—devotion; śānti—and of peace; parāyaṇaḥ—the highest resort.
“In His early pastimes He appears as a householder with a golden complexion. His limbs are beautiful, and His body, smeared with the pulp of sandalwood, seems like molten gold. In His later pastimes He accepts the sannyāsa order, and He is equipoised and peaceful. He is the highest abode of peace and devotion, for He silences the impersonalist nondevotees.”
This is a verse from the Mahābhārata (Dāna-dharma, Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma-stotra). In his commentary on the Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma called the Nāmārtha-sudhā, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, commenting upon this verse, asserts that Lord Caitanya is the Supreme Personality of Godhead according to the evidence of the Upaniṣads. He explains that suvarṇa-varṇaḥ means a golden complexion. He also quotes the Vedic injunction yadā paśyaḥ paśyate rukma-varṇaṁ kartāram īśaṁ puruṣaṁ brahma-yonim (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.3). Rukma-varṇaṁ kartāram īśam refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead as having a complexion the color of molten gold. Puruṣam means the Supreme Lord, and brahma-yonim indicates that He is also the Supreme Brahman. This evidence, too, proves that Lord Caitanya is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa. Another meaning of the description of the Lord as having a golden hue is that Lord Caitanya’s personality is as fascinating as gold is attractive. Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa has explained that the word varāṅga means “exquisitely beautiful.”
Lord Caitanya accepted sannyāsa, leaving aside His householder life, to preach His mission. He has equanimity in different senses. First, He describes the confidential truth of the Personality of Godhead, and second, He satisfies everyone by knowledge and attachment to Kṛṣṇa. He is peaceful because He renounces all topics not related to the service of Kṛṣṇa. Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa has explained that the word niṣṭhā indicates His being rigidly fixed in chanting the holy name of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Lord Caitanya subdued all disturbing opponents of devotional service, especially the monists, who are actually averse to the personal feature of the Supreme Lord.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta – 1975 Edition : Cc. Adi-lila The External Reasons for Lord Caitanya’s Appearance : Adi 3.49 .
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. Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana has therefore enunciated the nature of pradhāna as follows:
“Material nature is inert, and as such it cannot be the cause of matter, neither as the material nor as the efficient cause. Seeing the wonderful arrangement and management of the cosmic manifestation generally suggests that a living brain is behind this arrangement, for without a living brain such an arrangement could not exist. One should not imagine that such an arrangement can exist without conscious direction. In our practical experience we never see that inert bricks can themselves construct a big building.
“The example of the waterpot cannot be accepted because a waterpot has no perception of pleasure and distress. Such perception is within. Therefore the covering body, or the waterpot, cannot be synchronized with it.
“Sometimes the material scientist suggests that trees grow from the earth automatically, without assistance from a gardener, because that is a tendency of matter. They also consider the intuition of living creatures from birth to be material. But such material tendencies as bodily intuition cannot be accepted as independent, for they suggest the existence of a spirit soul within the body. Actually, the tree or the body of a living creature has no tendency or intuition; the tendency and intuition exist because the soul is present within the body. In this connection, the example of a car and driver may be given very profitably. The car has a tendency to turn right and left, but one cannot say that the car itself, as matter, turns right and left without the direction of a driver. A material car has neither tendencies nor intuitions independent of the intentions of the driver within the car. The same principle applies for the automatic growth of trees in the forest. The growth takes place because of the soul’s presence within the tree.
“Sometimes foolish people take for granted that because scorpions are born from heaps of rice, the rice has produced the scorpions. The real fact, however, is this: the mother scorpion lays eggs within the rice, and by the proper fermentation of the rice the eggs give birth to several baby scorpions, which in due course come out. This does not mean that the rice gives birth to the scorpions. Similarly, sometimes bugs are seen to come from dirty beds. This does not mean, however, that the beds give birth to the bugs. It is the living soul that comes forth, taking advantage of the dirty condition of the bed. There are different kinds of living creatures. Some of them come from embryos, some from eggs and some from the fermentation of perspiration. Different living creatures have different sources of appearance, but one should not conclude that matter produces such living creatures.
“The example cited by materialists that trees automatically come from the earth follows the same principle. Taking advantage of a certain condition, a living entity comes from the earth. According to the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, every living being is forced by divine superintendence to take a certain type of body according to his past deeds. There are many varieties of bodies, and because of a divine arrangement a living entity takes bodies of different shapes.
When a person thinks ‘I am doing this,’ the ‘I am’ does not refer to the body. It refers to something more than the body, or within the body. As such, the body as it is has neither tendencies nor intuition; the tendencies and intuition belong to the soul within the body. Material scientists sometimes suggest that the tendencies of male and female bodies cause their union and that this is the cause of the birth of the child. But since the puruṣa, according to Sāṅkhya philosophy, is always unaffected, where does the tendency to give birth come from? “Sometimes material scientists give the example that milk turns into curd automatically and that distilled water pouring from the clouds falls down to earth, produces different kinds of trees, and enters different kinds of flowers and fruits with different fragrances and tastes. Therefore, they say, matter produces varieties of material things on its own. In reply to this argument, the same proposition of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad-that different kinds of living creatures are put into different kinds of bodies by the management of a superior power-is repeated. Under superior superintendence, various souls, according to their past activities, are given the chance to take a particular type of body, such as that of a tree, animal, bird or beast, and thus their different tendencies develop under these circumstances. The Bhagavad-gītā (13.22) also further affirms.
puruṣaḥ prakṛti-stho hi
bhuṅkte prakṛti-jān guṇān
kāraṇaṁ guṇa-saṅgo ‘sya
‘The living entity in material nature thus follows the ways of life, enjoying the three modes of nature. This is due to his association with that material nature. Thus he meets with good and evil among various species.’ The soul is given different types of bodies. For example, were souls not given varieties of tree bodies, the different varieties of fruits and flowers could not be produced. Each class of tree produces a particular kind of fruit and flower; it is not that there is no distinction between the different classes. An individual tree does not produce flowers of different colors or fruits of different tastes. There are demarcated classes, as we find them among humans, animals, birds and other species. There are innumerable living entities, and their activities, performed in the material world according to the different qualities of the material modes of nature, give them the chance to have different kinds of life.
“Thus one should understand that pradhāna, matter, cannot act unless impelled by a living creature. The materialistic theory that matter independently acts cannot, therefore, be accepted. Matter is called prakṛti, which refers to female energy. A woman is prakṛti, a female. A female cannot produce a child without the association of a puruṣa, a man. The puruṣa causes the birth of a child because the man injects the soul, which is sheltered in the semen, into the womb of the woman. The woman, as the material cause, supplies the body of the soul, and as the efficient cause she gives birth to the child. But although the woman appears to be the material and efficient cause of the birth of a child, originally the puruṣa, the male, is the cause of the child. Similarly, this material world gives rise to varieties of manifestations due to the entrance of Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu within the universe. He is present not only within the universe but within the bodies of all living creatures, as well as within the atom. We understand from the Brahma-saṁhitā that the Supersoul is present within the universe, within the atom and within the heart of every living creature. Therefore the theory that matter is the cause of the entire cosmic manifestation cannot be accepted by any man with sufficient knowledge of matter and spirit.Sri Caitanya-caritamrta – 1975 Edition : Cc. Adi-lila : Adi 6: The Glories of Sri Advaita Acarya : Adi 6.14-15
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures : Madhya-lila: Lectures : Madhya 20: Lectures : Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 20.100-108 — New York, November 22, 1966 : 661122C2.NY : So Sanātana Gosvāmī, he’s ācārya in this disciplic succession from Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Lord Caitanya. He is the first disciple of Lord Caitanya, and from him, Sanātana Gosvāmī, six Gosvāmīs. There were six among the first followers of Lord Caitanya. And then, from next step comes Raghunātha Gosvāmī and then this author of this book, Kṛṣṇa dāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, and from him, Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura, and then from him, Viśvanātha Cakravartī, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. In this way this disciplic succession is coming from Lord Caitanya. So as ācārya… Ācārya means one who knows the principles of scripture, properly being initiated by authority who knows things as they are, and they apply those things in their own life. They are called ācārya. Acinoti śāstrāṇi: he must know all the principles from authorities, and he should apply in his life those principles. Not that he knows but does not apply. He cannot be ācārya. Āpani ācari prabhu jīva disa (?). Lord Caitanya, He, although He is accepted as the, I mean to say, the personal, He’s Kṛṣṇa Himself, still, He behaved in such a way that others can follow. He also accepted Īśvara Purī. Īśvara, Īśvara Purī was His spiritual master, Lord Caitanya’s. This is the disciplic succession.
Born in a Khandite (arguibly, vaisya)family at the end of the 17th century in a village nearby Remuna in the district of Balasore, Orissa, a boy of extreme sharp intellect and an exceptional talent for logical reasoning would later on by the blessings of our most beloved deity, Sri Govinda deva, become known as Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana, the author of ‘Sri Govinda bhasya’, the treatise that established gaudiya vaisnavism as a bona fide school of vedanta . In his childhood, he studied grammar, nyaya, alankara, etc. in a traditional pathasala on the bank of the Chilka lake. Having quickly mastered all the different subjects, he left for pilgrimage, in search of a guru who could impart to him the real import of the Vedic knowledge. In Mysore he eventually came in contact with a sannyasi from the Madhva sampradaya who strongly preached to him the tattvavada, convincing him not only to accept Madhvacarya’s siddhanta, but also to renounce the world and preach it. Concluding his studies of the Vedas, Vedanta and the Sarva-mula of Madhvacarya, the young sadhu left for Jagannatha Puri, where he challenged and defeated all the opponent scholars present there in very intense debates on sastra. By the divine providence, one day he attended a lecture given by a foremost disciple of the gaudiya vaisnava acarya, Srila Rasikananda, called Sri Radha-damodara. The lecture was on the famous treatise written by Srila Jiva Gosvami- the Six Sandarbhas. After several days hearing the sweet topics about Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s acintya-bhedabheda-tattva in such impressive and logical exposition, Baladeva surrendered himself unto Srila Radha-damodara requesting him to be accepted as a disciple and fully taught the gaudiya philosophy. Taking up the simple dress of a gaudiya vaisnava mendicant, he was given the name ‘Ekanti Govinda dasa’ . Being surcharged by the taste of the philosophy expounded by the six Gosvamis of Vrndavana- Rupa, Sanatana, Gopala, Jiva, Raghunatha dasa and Raghunatha Bhatta- he left for Vrndavana to dedicate his life to Lord Caitanya’s mission. At that time, the leader of the gaudiya vaisnava community was Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti, who being pleased with Ekanti Govinda dasa, taught him Srimad Bhagavatam and other vaisnava scriptures.
The Jaipur episode
Meanwhile, a series of historical incidents that were to take place would give Ekanti the opportunity to serve His beloved Lord to his best capacity, changing the very history of the gaudiya vaisnavism. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu had given three main orders to the six Gosvamis of Vrndavana- to write books on philosophy extensively quoting from the sruti and smrti to corroborate the acintya-bhedabheda siddhanta; to excavate Vrndavana in order to recover the lost sites of the pastimes of Bhagavan Sri Krsna and to establish temples for His worship. It is said that the great grand-son of Lord Krsna, Vajranabha, had carved three deities in an attempt to depict the Lord. They were called Govinda, Madana-mohana and Gopinatha. Govindaji was found by Srila Rupa Gosvami, who in 1590 installed Him in the most gorgeous temple ever built in north India, sponsored by Man Singh from Rajasthan. Madana-mohana was found by Srila Sanatana Gosvami and in 1580 installed in a temple built by a rich merchant on the Aditya Tila hill, by the bank of the Yamuna. Gopinatha was found by a disciple of Gadadhara Pandita called Paramananda Bhattacarya, who entrusted Him to his disciple Madhu Pandita. Unfortunately, the time came when the Moghul ruler, Aurangzeb, took the power and started his persecutions against Hinduism. In 1669 he gave an open order to his army to destroy all the main Hindu temples and deities within his domain. Under this threat, the vaisnava leaders in Vrndavana decided to appeal to the Rajputs of Rajasthan. With mutual cooperation, it was decided that the deities should be moved to Rajasthan. In 1670, the troops of Aurangzeb mercilessly desecrated the main temples in Vrndavana, but could not find anyone inside them. After moving from one place to another, Govindaji finally settled under the care of Maharaja Jai Singh, nearby the present Jaipur city. It happened that at that time the Ramanandi sampradaya, a branch of the Sri Ramanuja sampradaya founded by Sri Ramananda in north India, was in charge of the worship there, enjoying the favor of the king. The arrival of Govindaji and His gaudiya priests was a threat to the status of the Ramanandis. In an attempt to keep their prestige and royal favor, they plotted against them by raising doubts about the credibility of the gaudiya sampradaya on the following grounds:
1) They did not seem to be connected to a bona fide parampara in terms of philosophical affiliation, since they lacked a commentary on the Vedanta Sutra.
2) According to the standard of the Sri vaisnavas, Lord Narayana is the original form of God and the source of all incarnations, and therefore He should be worshiped first. The gaudiyas, however, were worshipping Govinda before Narayana.
3) The ramanandis considered the worship of Srimati Radharani as unprecendented and irregular, and therefore they objected and even removed Her from the altar, thus separating Her from Govindaji.
Upon being requested, the mahanta of Sri Gopinatha temple, Shyam Charan Sharma, wrote a letter in reply to their challenges quoting from several scriptures to substantiate Lord Caitanya’s position as the Supreme Lord Krsna Himself and founder of the gaudiya vaisnava sampradaya. However, the ramanandis remained adamant. They quoted a verse said to belong to the Padma Purana:
sri-brahma-rudra-sanaka vaisnavah ksiti-pavanah
catvaras te kalau bhavya hy utkale purusottamat
“In kali-yuga, four vaisnava disciplic successions will emerge from Jagannatha Puri and purify the whole world: Sri-sampradaya, Brahma-sampradaya, Rudra-sampradaya and Kumara-sampradaya.”
With basis on this verse they were not ready to accept any sampradaya not proceeding from these four- Sri, Brahma, Rudra and the Kumaras- represented by their respective acaryas – Ramanuja, Madhva, Visnu Svami and Nimbarka. The gaudiyas had to go to Vrndavana to appeal to the senior most learned scholar at that time- Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti . Upon hearing that Radha and Govinda were split he started laughing and commented that this must be an amorous quarrel. Our acarya was in advanced age and would not be able to personally go to Jaipur to face the opponents, but he was convinced that Ekanti Govinda dasa was the right person to solve the case. Once in Jaipur, Ekanti presented himself to the king and the ramanandis for a debate. Upon seeing the boy in his early twenties and dressed like a vaisnava mendicant, they looked at him in disbelief. Without hesitation, he started substantiating the authenticity of the gaudiya sampradaya as a bona fide branch of the Madhva sampradaya, although remarkable philosophical divergences made each of them unique. But then which commentary on the Brahma-sutra do the gaudiyas follow? In reply to this, Ekanti explained that Sri Caitanya preached the study of Srimad Bhagavatam, this being the natural commentary on Vedanta written by the author himself, Sri Vyasadeva, as corroborated by the Garuda Purana:
artho ‘yam brahma-sutranam bharatartha-vinirnayah
gayatri-bhasya-rupo ‘sau vedartha-paribrmhitah
“Srimad-Bhagavatam is the meaning of the Vedanta-sutra and the purport of the Maha-bharata. It is the commentary on the Brahma-gayatri and it is fully expanded with all Vedic knowledge.”
So being, what need there should be of another commentary? This argument was not at all appealing to the panditas in the royal court, who demanded a Brahma-sutra commentary to accept the credibility of the gaudiya sampradaya, otherwise they should get ready to give up the worship of Govindaji and leave Jaipur. Being a staunch devotee of the Lord and fully relying on His mercy, Ekanti boldly affirmed that all he needed were some days to write down a full fledge commentary on the Vedanta-sutra. Before the assembly, the king accepted the proposal and requested him to present as soon as possible commentaries on Brahma-sutra, ten Upanisads and Bhagavad-gita. Ekanti went to see His beloved Govindaji and explained the whole situation for Him. In a dream, He appeared to him and assured him that there was no need to worry about anything, for He Himself would be dictating the whole commentary in his dreams. And it so happened, after which the commentary is called ‘Govinda-bhasya’. This was described by Baladeva himself at the end of the book:
vidya-rupam bhusanam me pradaya
khyatim ninye tena yo mam udarah
radha-bandhur bandhurangah sa jiyat
“All glories to the graceful and handsome Lord Govinda, who is
the dear friend of Sri Radha, who kindly gave me the name
Vidyabhusana, and Who spoke this commentary to me in dreams”.
There is divergence regarding how long it took him to write it down; some say seven days, some say one month. In any case, after a short period of time, Baladeva presented his commentary before the assembly of scholars in the court and defeated all possible objections raised by them, thus establishing the gaudiya vaisnava philosophy as bona fide as that of the other vaisnava sampradayas. He also substantiated that Lord Govinda is the original form of Lord Narayana and that Srimati Radharani is His eternal consort. Being fully satisfied with his presentation, Jai Singh Maharaja awarded him the title ‘vidyabhusana’ (adorned with knowledge). The ramanandis requested him to initiate them in the gaudiya sampradaya, but Ekanti refused explaining that they were already initiated in a bona fide vaisnava sampradaya and it would be an insult to Sri Ramanujacarya to reinitiate them. Back to Vrndavana, Baladeva became the leader of the vaisnava community and kept on writing. The following is a partial list of the works attributed to him:
Complete works attributed to Baladeva Vidyabhusana:
1. Isopanisad; (Krishnadas Baba), (Sarasvata Gaudiya Mission), (Shyam Lal,3 comm.), (Bhaktivinoda)
2. Aisvarya-kadambini; (Haridas Shastri), (Haridas das)
3. Kavya-kaustubha; (Haridas das), (Haridas Shastri)
4. Gopala-tapany-upanisad-bhasya; (Haridas das)
5. Candraloka-tika, (supposedly lost)
6. Chandah-kaustubha-tika; (Haridas das), (Haridas Shastri), (Vrindavan Research Inst.)
7. Tattva-dipika (manuscript)
8. Tattva-sandarbha-tika; (Harinam Press), (Haridas Shastri), (Nityasvarupa), (Jadavpur), (Acyuta-grantha-mala), (Krishnachandra Bhagavataratna), (Shyam Lal)
Commentary on five other Sandarbhas; (supposedly lost)
9. Nataka-candrika-tika; (supposedly lost)
10. Pada-kaustubha, (unpublished manuscript)
11. Prameya-ratnavali; (Haridas Shastri), (Gokul Chandra Goswami), (Sanskrit Parisad), (Kanai Lal), (Gaudiya Math), (Gour Krishna Goswami)
12. Brahma-sutra-karika-bhasya, (manuscript)
13. Bhagavad-gita (gita-bhusana); (Krishnadas Baba), (Gaudiya Mission), (Vidyananda), (Kasinatha S. Agase and Baba S. Phadake)
14. Laghu-bhagavatamrta-tika (saranga-rangada); (Haribhakta das), (Ramanarayana Vidyaratna), (Venkatesh Press), (Atul Krishna Gosvami), (Gaurasundar Bhagavata)
15. Visnu-sahasra-nama-tika (nama-sudhartha); (Krishnadas Baba)
16. Vedanta-sutra-Govinda-bhasya; (Sarasvata-Gaudiya Mission), (Harinam Press), (Krishnadas Baba), (Shyam Lal Goswami), (Krishnagopal Bhakta)
17. Vedanta-sutra-suksma-tika; (Sarasvata-Gaudiya Mission), (Shyam Lal Goswami)
18. Vedanta-syamantaka; (Haridas Shastri), (Umesh Chandra Bhattacharya, Lahore), (Kalidasnath), (Nalinikant Gosvami), (Pancavati, Nasik), (Shyam Lal Goswami), (Sri Vrindavan/Gourkrishna?)
19. Vyakarana-kaumudi; (unpublished manuscript)
20. Srimad-bhagavata-bhasya (vaisnavanandini); prathama skandha, (Haridas das);
dasama skandha (Krishna-Shankar Shastri, incomplete), (Nityasvarupa/Manindra Bahadur)
21. Syamananda-sataka-tika, (Haridas das), (Gopala-Govindananda Goswami)
22. Sahitya-kaumudi; (Haridas Shastri),(Rastriya Sanskrit Samstham),(NirnayaSagar Press)
23. Siddhanta-darpana; (Haridas das), (Gaudiya Math), (Sajjana-tosani)
24. Siddhanta-ratna; (Krishnadas Baba), (Gopinath Kaviraj), (Shyam Lal Goswami), (Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti), (Adimohana Goswami), (Gaurasundar Bhagavata)
25. Stava-mala-tika; (Nirnaya Sagar Press), (Ramanarayana Vidyaratna)
Books wrongly attributed to BV:
Krsna-bhavanamrta-tika, (Krsnadeva Sarvabhauma)
Gupta-dhama-chatra, (Kanai Lal)
Gopala-campu-tika, (Viracandra Gosvami)
Padyavali-tika (rasika-rangada), (Viracandra Gosvami)
Bala-tosani, (Hare Krsna acarya)
Samsaya-satini, (Raghunandana Gosvami)
Sadananda-vidhayini-tika , (Vrndavana Cakravarti)
Stavavali-kasika, (Vangesvara Vidyabhusana)
posted by Demian Martins at 1:57 AM
Sri Ganga mata Goswamini
śiṣya paḍichā-dvārā prabhu nila vahāñā
ghare āni’ pavitra sthāne rākhila śoyāñā
śiṣya—disciples; paḍichā—and watchmen; dvārā—by means of; prabhu—Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu; nila—brought; vahāñā—carrying; ghare—at home; āni’-bringing; pavitra—purified; sthāne—in a place; rākhila—kept; śoyāñā—lying down.
While Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu was unconscious, Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, with the help of the watchmen and some disciples, carried Him to his home and laid Him down in a very sanctified room.
At that time Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya lived on the southern side of the Jagannātha Temple. His home was practically on the beach and was known as Mārkaṇḍeya-sarastaṭa. At present it is used as the monastery of Gaṅgāmātā.Sri Caitanya-caritamrta – 1975 Edition : Cc. Madhya-lila : Madhya 6: The Liberation of Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya : Madhya 6.8
tāṅhāra ananta guṇa ke karu prakāśa
tāṅra priya śiṣya iṅha–paṇḍita haridāsa
tāṅhāra—his; ananta—unlimited; guṇa—qualities; ke—who; karu—can; prakāśa—display; tāṅra—his; priya—dear; śiṣya—disciple; iṅha—this person; paṇḍita haridāsa—of the name Haridāsa Paṇḍita.
Ananta Ācārya was a reservoir of all good qualities. No one can estimate how great he was. Paṇḍita Haridāsa was his beloved disciple.
Śrī Ananta Ācārya is one of the eternal associates of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Previously, during the advent of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, Ananta Ācārya was Sudevī, one of the eight gopīs. This is stated in the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā, verse 165, as follows: anantācārya-gosvāmī yā sudevī purā vraje. “Ananta Ācārya Gosvāmī was formerly Sudevī-gopī in Vraja [Vṛndāvana].” In Jagannātha Purī, or Puruṣottama-kṣetra, there is a monastery known as Gaṅgā-mātā Maṭha that was established by Ananta Ācārya. In the disciplic succession of the Gaṅgā-mātā Maṭha, he is known as Vinoda-mañjarī. One of his disciples was Haridāsa Paṇḍita Gosvāmī, who is also known as Śrī Raghu Gopāla and as Śrī Rāsa-mañjarī. His disciple Lakṣmīpriyā was the maternal aunt of Gaṅgā-mātā, a princess who was the daughter of the King of Puṭiyā. Gaṅgā-mātā brought a Deity of the name Śrī Rasika-rāya from Kṛṣṇa Miśra of Jaipur and installed Him in the house of Sārvabhauma in Jagannātha Purī. The disciple in the fifth generation after Śrī Ananta Ācārya was Śrī Vanamālī; in the sixth generation, Śrī Bhagavān dāsa, who was a Bengali; in the seventh generation, Madhusūdana dāsa, who was an Oriyā; in the eighth generation, Nīlāmbara dāsa; in the ninth generation, Śrī Narottama dāsa; in the tenth generation, Pītāmbara dāsa; and in the eleventh generation, Śrī Mādhava dāsa. The disciple in the twelfth generation is presently in charge of the Gaṅgā-mātā monastery Sri Caitanya-caritamrta – 1975 Edition : Cc. Adi-lila : Adi 8: The Author Receives the Orders of Krsna and Guru : Adi 8.60 :