Saturday afternoon I visit Mahānidhi Swāmi in his small but
costly estate at the edge of Rādhākund.
When I enter the room he's reading to some śiṣyas from a new
book by Śivaram Swāmi about Kṛṣṇa's meeting with the gopīs at Kurukṣetra.
I tell him I don't believe that the soul is sac-cid-ānanda,
but only sat and cit. He quotes Navadwīp Dās in his intro to Bhakti Sandarbha,
that the jīva is taṭastha śakti and bhakti is swarup-śakti; thus bhakti is
infused, not intrinsic. I confirm it by quoting CC -
Every word is significant here - kon means some, not all. pāy means 'he gets', not that it's intrinsic, its coming from outside. prasād means that it is not deserved, but is causeless grace. One cannot work in advance to attain it. Only in this way the verse nitya siddha kṛṣṇa prem sādhya kabhu noy can be understood. I tell him how great Bhānu Swāmi's Bhakti-rasāmṛta Sindhu is, despite others' opinion he heard to the contrary.
brahmāṇḍa bhramite kon bhāgyavān
jīva
guru-kṛṣṇa prasāde pāy bhaktilatā bīja.
Every word is significant here - kon means some, not all. pāy means 'he gets', not that it's intrinsic, its coming from outside. prasād means that it is not deserved, but is causeless grace. One cannot work in advance to attain it. Only in this way the verse nitya siddha kṛṣṇa prem sādhya kabhu noy can be understood. I tell him how great Bhānu Swāmi's Bhakti-rasāmṛta Sindhu is, despite others' opinion he heard to the contrary.
About the origin of the jīva (kṛṣṇa bhūli sei jīva anādi
bahirmukha) I tell him that forgetting (Kṛṣṇa) in the Vedic context isnt always
like in the western context - it is beginningless, just as smaranam doesn't
always mean remembering someone you have known in the past; like when you do
līlā smaranam - you have never seen Kṛṣṇa, yet you 'remember'.
He asks me if everyone has adhikāra for manjari bhāva, but I
quote Śrīmad Bhāgavata 6.14.5 to prove the contrary -
'Among millions of liberated souls a devotee of Nārāyan is very rare.' And that is only Nārāyan! For beginners we should keep upbeat mottos like 'Chant hare kṛṣṇa and be happy' and 'Back to Godhead in this lifetime'. Reality is different, though.
muktānām api siddhānām nārāyaṇa
parāyana
sudurlabhaḥ praśāntātma koṭiṣvapi mahāmune
'Among millions of liberated souls a devotee of Nārāyan is very rare.' And that is only Nārāyan! For beginners we should keep upbeat mottos like 'Chant hare kṛṣṇa and be happy' and 'Back to Godhead in this lifetime'. Reality is different, though.
He accepts that Bhaktivinode, Bhaktisiddhānta and Bhaktivedānta
appeal to the scientific, meritocratic western mind due to their English
education, and that this is why their missions are so successful in the west. Traditional
Indian Gurus would be more difficult to accept for westerners. Mahānidhi Swāmījī
agrees that western devotees often need decades to transcend their rational,
causal thinking to come to the point of simple Indian śāstrīya śraddhā.
Wholly contrary to maryādā, Swāmījī (who is senior to me in
age, devotee-years and ashram) bows down to me, and offers me 1,000 Rs daksina
- I'll remember this place if I ever get in dire straits! (I'll come and
lecture there again!)
Dear Advaita,
ReplyDeleteTwo things that need further explanation.
1) the jiva not being sad chit and ananda, only sad and chit, ananda being infused by Divine Grace. This very topic was one of the causes for a split in the Sri Sampradaya.
I personally hold the view that a liberated soul, who realized the self, experiences his being eternally conscious and that this experience itself is blissful. Not just by the absence of suffering, but as part of its true nature. The Upanishads seem to confirm this more than once. So do the Alvars, who clearly distinguish between realizing just the self and the self in relation to the Supreme Self. Many other accounts of liberated souls in the revealed scripture confirm the blissful nature of the soul, the jivatma that is.
Of course for us everything is meaningless without a positive relation of the self with the Supreme Self. The bliss experienced in relation to the Supreme is of an incomparable higher order. It based on Love and Free Will and is infused by the Grace of the Lord (or better to say Radha). So in that sense you are right. The jiva is never full in itself without a relationship with the Supreme. Yet saying he is not satchitananda seems not really complete either.
To me it is more of a non-discussion anyway, because being still under the spell of maya even the depth of my individual soul is acintya. But Scripture is clear that the jivatma has in it everything in a minute extent, also a fraction of the Lords bliss, even though being marginal.
So to say the opposite more proof is necessary. Of course you are free to blow me away on this one.
2) The quote from Scripture you use to proof the extent of souls eligable for madhurya, doesn't proof your point. I am not saying you are right or wrong. But the quote is implicating the rarity of a pure devotee in this material world and even in the marginal world. But it doesn't say that any of these souls cannot devellop a relation in madhurya-rasa and become eligable.
Again you are free to blow me away (not from the Lords Feet of course, but from any misconception rising) and correct me there where I am wrong, because I am actually not eligable to even touch these topics.
Yours
Dear Anuradha,
ReplyDelete1. The point is that the bhaktilata bija is an external gift (PAy) of Guru-Krishna, and bhakti is the vritti of the hladini shakti. This is the verdict of Jiva Gosvami, who writes extensively about this external gift in his Sandarbhas. This is the ananda we speak about here, as bhaktas.
2. If a pure devotee of Narayan is proven to be so rare, then what to speak about a siddha manjari?
Radhe !
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anuradha's points. I thought the synthesis of all the shastras is that the intrinsic nature of the soul is sat cit ananda based in the bedhaabheda tattva.
Advaita: If a pure devotee of Narayan is proven to be so rare, then what to speak about a siddha manjari?
I agree with you Advaita in this, but on the other hand, I also agree with Anuradha because I think all jivas have the potential (would mean adhikara)to develop a relationship with Krishna in Madhurya rasa.
Thanks
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense to me.
All Marginal Living Beings Can Only 'Think or Dream' they fall from Krsnaloka, The Imperishable Kingdom of God - By Gauragopala dasa
ReplyDeleteOur understanding of the jiva-soul's (individual life force) origin comes from the teachings of Srila Prabhupada.
It is well known that some of the teachings of other within the Gaudiya Math believe that some marginal living entities originate from the Impersonal Brahmajyoti - Srila Prabhupada rejects that idea as his conclusion is no jiva souls originate from the Impersonal Brahmajyoti but in fact ALL originate from Goloka or directly from Krsnaloka.
In relation to the jiva’s fall from Goloka, yes it is correct that no marginal living entities or nitya-siddha devotees fall from Goloka, they can only dream or imagines they do.
Srila Prabhupada - "After all, the living entity falls down from the spiritual world . . . There is possibility . . . even if you are in Vaikuntha, you will fall down--what to speak of this material world." - Lecture on Bhagavad-gita on July 4, 1974
Srila Prabhupada - “The answer to your question about the marginal energy is that the jiva soul is always called marginal energy whether he is in the spiritual world or in the material world’. - Letter to Rayarama, December 2, 1968
Nevertheless, it must be understood that it is not in our power to create such a facility like the mahat-tattva separate creation from Krishna’s eternal abode that takes up 25% of the Spiritual creation or Brahmajyoti, which is in effect the ‘dream’ of Maha-Vishnu and the marginal living entity.
Maha-Vishnu’s temporary material creation of past, present and future caters ‘sub-consciously or nitya-baddha’ for 10% of all marginal living entities in Goloka/Vaikuntha, while 75% of the Spiritual Sky or Brahmajyoti is where the ‘eternal presents’ of Goloka and Vaikuntha perpetually exist in uninterrupted Krishna Consciousness. (If one chooses)
It must be understood that in Goloka ALL 100% of marginal living entities perpetually exist as nitya-siddha devotees and, as already explained, only 10% of them imagine, dream or think themselves to be nitya-baddha.
We are eternally under the jurisdiction of Krishna directly in Vaikuntha or indirectly in the mahat-tattva creation of Maha-Vishnu. All our facilities come from God
This clearly means our nitya-siddha svarupa body can NEVER leave Goloka or Vaikuntha and that WE ONLY ‘DREAM’, ‘THINK’ OR ‘IMAGINE’ WE LEAVE. In this way the mahat-tattva is the destination for where such dreams go. Such an inferior non-Krishna conscious facsimile of the self is called the nitya-baddha sub-conscious projection.
Gaura Gopal Das,
ReplyDeleteYour philosophy lacks scriptural evidence. Shastra unanimously states that our conditioning is beginningless. There is no evidence that we are imagining ourselves to be conditioned only. Subtle maya [as such imagination is] is also said to be beginningless, in SB 4.29.70. Other references are SB 5.26.3, 6.5.11, 8.24.46, 11.2.37, 11.11.4, 11.11.7, Vedanta Sutra 2.1.35, and many commentaries by the nitya siddha acaryas.
Many have laughed due to ignorance when told their existence in the material world is just the dream condition of the marginal living entity (soul). However, by reading Srila Prabhupada’s books we find that the material condition and creation is simply made up of their own self-centred imaginations, thoughts, and dreams all over shadowed by the reactions (karma) to their actions that are all a factual reality yet temporary.
ReplyDeleteThis impermanent reality known as the mahat-tattva (material creation) is experienced by first choosing to leave Goloka (The eternal imperishable Kingdom of God), not as one’s perpetual nitya-siddha or mukta body that is forever there in Goloka beyond the material gross and subtle body, but as their secondary nitya-baddha sub-conscious bodiless state that is only able to have form by entering unlimited material ethereal (subtle) and biological (gross) vessels or containers within the mahat-tattva that are all created and manufactured from the dreams of Maha-Vishnu.
Srila Prabhupada – “This material creation is the spirit soul's dream. Actually all existence in the material world is a dream of Maha-Vishnu, as the Brahma-Samhita describes – “This material world is created by the dreaming of Maha-Vishnu. The real, factual platform is the spiritual world, but when the spirit soul wants to imitate the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he is put into this dreamland of material creation”. 4.29.83.http://vedabase.net/sb/4/29/83/en
Srila Prabhupada - “Everything happening within time, which consists of past, present and future, is merely a dream. This is the secret in understanding all the Vedic literature.” SB. 4.29.2b.
Srila Prabhupada - “Our contact with matter is just like dream. Actually we are not fallen. Therefore, because we are not fallen, at any moment we can revive our Krishna consciousness, we break the dream. Similarly, we can break this situation” Tokyo Japan 1972: Srimad Bhagavatam 2.9.1
Srila Prabhupada - “When the dream is finished, we come to another dream: “Oh, this is my house. This is my family. This is my bank balance.” This is going on. Dreaming one dream at night, one dream at daytime. But who is dreaming? That is the living entity whose business is different, not dreaming the daytime dream and night-time dream. To achieve this he has to come to the actual platform that is Krsna consciousness. If he takes to Krsna consciousness, then that is his actual life. Otherwise, he’s in the dreamland of material existence” Bombay, December 27, 1972
Srila Prabhupada - “Our separation from Krishna is like that. We dream this body and so many relationships with other things. Just like in a dream we are thinking very long time, but as soon as we awaken we look at our watch and see it has been a moment only”. Letter to Australian devotees 1972
Anon, perhaps you have not read my reply to the previous comment by Gaura Gopal Das - the same Bhagavat chapter which you quote refutes this dream-vada, in 4.29.70, where it says that the subtle conditioning of the living entity is also beginningless. Brahma Samhita 5.47 speaks of Mahavishnu dreaming a divine slumber, it says nothing about the
ReplyDeleteconditioned souls dreaming they are here, nor does Jiva Goswami's tika to that verse say that.
The Bhagavat in many places, quoted in my previous comment, speaks of anAdyavidyA, which means that ignorance is beginningless, which already does not specify between gross and subtle bodies. It is an absolute and beginningless ignorance.
Maybe you have not read the clear statements from Srila Prabhupada
ReplyDeleteSrila Prabhupada – “This material creation is the spirit soul's dream. Actually all existence in the material world is a dream of Maha-Vishnu, as the Brahma-Samhita describes – “This material world is created by the dreaming of Maha-Vishnu. The real, factual platform is the spiritual world, but when the spirit soul wants to imitate the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he is put into this dreamland of material creation”. 4.29.83.http://vedabase.net/sb/4/29/83/en
Srila Prabhupada - “As soon as we forget, immediately the illusion is there. Just like as soon as we sleep, dream is there. Just like one man is dreaming and he forgets himself. In the dream he creates himself in different forms: now I am the King discussing like that. This creation of himself is as seer and subject matter or seen, two things. But as soon as the dream is over, the “seen” disappears. But the seer remains. Now he is in his original position. Our separation from Krsna is like that. We dream this body and so many relationships with other things.”.
http://prabhupadabooks.com/?g=170123
It is Srila Prabhupada who has said - “Our separation from Krishna is like that. We dream this body and so many relationships with other things”.
http://prabhupadabooks.com/?g=170123
Srila Prabhupada – “We never had any occasion when we were separated from Krsna. Just like one man is dreaming and he forgets himself. In dream he creates himself in different forms: now I am the King discussing like that. This creation of himself is as seer and subject matter or seen, two things. But as soon as the dream is over, the "seen" disappears. But the seer remains. Now he is in his original position.
http://prabhupadabooks.com/?g=170123
Srila Prabhupada – “We dream this body and so many relationships with other things. First the attachment comes to enjoy sense gratification. Even with Krsna desire for sense gratification is there. There is a dormant attitude for forgetting Krsna and creating an atmosphere for enjoying independently. Just like as soon as we sleep, dream is there”.
http://prabhupadabooks.com/?g=170123
Srila Prabhupada – “We cannot say therefore that we are not with Krsna. As soon as we try to become Lord, immediately we are covered by Maya. Formerly we were with Krsna in His lila or sport. But this covering of Maya may be of very, very, very, very long duration, therefore many creations are coming and going. Due to this long period of time it is sometimes said that we are ever-conditioned. But his long duration of time becomes very insignificant when one actually comes to Krsna consciousness”. http://prabhupadabooks.com/?g=170123
Srila Prabhupada – “So this dreaming condition is called non-liberated life, and this is just like a dream. Although in this material calculation it is a long, long period, as soon as we come to Krsna consciousness then this period is considered as a second”. http://prabhupadabooks.com/?g=170123
Srila Prabhupada – “Awakening or dreaming, I am the same man. As soon as I awaken and see myself, I see Krsna. Cause and effect are both Krsna. http://prabhupadabooks.com/?g=170123
Srila Prabhupada - “This creation of himself is as seer and subject matter or seen, two things. But as soon as the dream is over, the "seen" disappears. But the seer remains. Now he is in his original position”.
http://prabhupadabooks.com/?g=170123
Srila Prabhupada – “Our separation from Krsna is like that. We dream this body and so many relationships with other things. First the attachment comes to enjoy sense gratification. Even with Krsna desire for sense gratification is there”.
http://prabhupadabooks.com/?g=170123
Your fallen servant GG
Gaura Gopal Das, I have been hosting your monologue long enough now. You show no signs of even reading my refutations, let alone responding to them. The arguments you submit do not submit to any common sense nor were you able to come with any scriptural evidence for them. Unless you respond to my arguments and quote sound scriptural evidence I will have to block further comments. This is not a forum for monologues, especially not non-scriptural ones. I hope you will not let it come that far. Please do comply.
ReplyDeleteAll glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
ReplyDeleteHare Krisna!
Dear Advaita das,
In your article, further comments and especially refutation of first comment by HG Gaura Gopal das, you clearly made two mistakes. The first one derives from two contradictory statements:
A. ‘Gaura Gopal Das, Your philosophy lacks scriptural evidence.’
HG Gaura Gopal das has signed as a disciple of Srila Prabhupada. This is what ACBSP in addition to his name means. He is a disciple of HDG Srila Prabhupada. This should mean something to a person who calls himself a devotee and thinks himself to be learned, unless he or she concocts to be learned and advanced. When you refute ‘his philosophy’, you have forgotten to note that in ‘his philosophy’ he quotes his Divine spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada. All the statements he quoted as ‘his’, in reality came from Maha-bhagavata, Srila Prabhupada. Therefore, what he quoted and you refuted as HIS philosophy, actually IS scriptural evidence, because it comes from Srila Prabhupada’s books and His teachings. This is bonafide scriptural evidence, as per Guru-Sadhu-Sastra principle. I’m most assured you would be able to quote scriptural evidence for the statement that only due to one’s sinful activities one would not able to recognize a Maha-bhagavata. Therefore, Gaura Gopal’s statements do stand unopposed and unsubstantiated by you alone. As a consequence, your subsequent comment to his anon comment is rude and non respectful. I doubt this is in the line of teaching of any generation of descendants of Lord Sri Advaita Prabhu, be it 13th or a 100th.
B. You have finished your refutation by saying ‘and many commentaries by the nitya siddha acaryas’, suggesting that you are well aware of Guru-Sadhu-Sastra principle, but fail to recognize Srila Prabhupada as nitya siddha acarya. This casts a certain light on you alone, if i may notice.
Please accept my apologies if you find this offensive. My motive is to promote the truth free from misconceptions and false interpretations, since your blog is well visited and you influence devotees by your writings. Since i am surely under the influence of misconceptions and false interpretations, i would fear to indulge in products of my own mind and intelligence.
The second mistake will easily be understood if I first explain where you are wrong regarding interpretation of scriptures and verses suggested as references to our beginningless conditioning. Well this is very simple. Apart of SB 11.2.37 in which I fail to note any important relation to the issue, all other verses incl. VS 2.1.35 use the word anada. The interpretation of this sanskrit word appear to be tricky and specific (but only to westerners’ type of mind as you have defined it in the article), enough so that a whole part of a book has been dedicated to it, namely the book Our original position by HH Hrdayananda Goswami. Here is a brief quote: ‘Sanskrit words denoting absolute time are commonly used in a figurative sense when applied to events and entities within the material world. We have found this to be especially so in discussions of the so-called eternally bound and eternally liberated jiva soul. Thus within the Bhagavatam we would expect to find some form of figurative language associated with the word anadi, a term denoting an absolute time span, but describing events and entities within the material world. Both in the Bhagavatam itself as well as in standard Vaisnava commentaries, the word anadi does show a figurative sense when describing the material condition of the soul. ‘
ReplyDeleteAs for example, let me address only one of your list of verses supporting your clearly wrong beginningless theory, namely SB 5.26.3. Anadyavidya relates to those persons whose material desires are caused by beginningless ignorance. In Sarartha-darsini commentary on this particular verse, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti states: ‘the jiva has a relationship with beginningless ignorance because it is impossible to state when or how this relationship began". Does it mean it began at the very beginning? No, no acarya actually ever said this. In SB 2.5.19p Srila Prabhupada states ‘…but the covering is so constant that it appears that the conditioned soul is eternally ignorant.’ For us who appreciate the word of Srila Prabhupada as non-different from teachings of other great acaryas in parampara, it is significant to know that He almost invariably declared that the term anadi indicates that the soul is bound or conditioned "since time immemorial," literally meaning "since a time no longer in memory."
Of course, everyone is ‘free’ to discard not only HH Hrdayananda Goswami, or His spiritual master HDG Srila Prabhupada, but also HDG Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti as well, as mental speculators in the same line of understanding.
ReplyDeleteAll other verses you have mentioned to support your refutation and chastisement of HDG Srila Prabhupada as lacking philosophy, invariably use the same word anada, with exception SB 11.2.37 in which no relation to this question is given. For all those verses, the same principle of figurative language associated with the word anadi applies and there is no use mentioning them here and repeating HH Hrdayananda Goswami and His book.
Therefore I suggest that if we want to play philosophy, let’s play it humbly, for we all share the same attraction to the Lotus Feet of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and it is He who gives everything - the intelligence to understand, the books to comprehend, the Guru to worship and respect, the Vaisnavas to associate with and respect in person or virtually, the Holy Name as both the means and the goal. Everything.
Now please let me define the second mistake you have made. At the very bottom of the original article to which my attention has been drawn due to the mention of His Holiness Mahanidhi Swami Maharaj, you have said ‘Traditional Indian Gurus would be more difficult to accept for westerners. Mahanidhi swamiji agrees that western devotees often need decades to transcend their rational, causal thinking to come to the point of simple Indian shastriya shraddha.’ This is exactly what caused misconceptions, at least it appears to be so. Contrary to your decades of simplifying as a disciple of HH Sri Sadu Baba, you also tend to greatly loose the point of simple Indian sastriya sraddha. So then what’s the point of indulging the conditioned mind into philosophy, if we all regardless of where our karma placed us by the mercy of the Lord, fully depend on Him to understand and advance, and to receive the bhaktilata bija. Our material mind can never help us in this direction.
Your servant,
marko
Marko, reacting to your first comment - A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami stands quite alone in his theory that the jiva fell down from the spiritual world to become envious of Krishna. No other acarya, be it the earlier Gaudiya Acaryas or the acaryas of any other Sampradaya, support this theory. One would have to choose between him and all other shastras and acaryas and I have decided to choose for all other shastras and acaryas. It would be worthwhile for you to study the references I have given in my previous comments. Did you study and ponder them? I doubt it. Secondly, I do not even claim that your Swamiji is wrong - he might have simplified matters to facilitate his preaching mission, since the jiva tattva is really very abstract and perhaps too much to conceive of.
ReplyDeleteB. The light is not cast on me alone - all shastras and all acaryas, be it Gaudiya or otherwise, stand with me.
And it is not my mind and intellect that make this up either - I have provided a host of evidence for it, if you and Gaurgopal Das would only take the trouble to study them. And there is much more where that came from, I'm afraid.
Marko as to your second comment - the word anAdi means beginningless, as in anAdyavidyA, beginningless ignorance and anAdi karma (Vedanta Sutra) beginningless karma.
ReplyDeleteI do not know why you mention Visvanatha Cakravartipada, as he does not mention fall, envy or dream-vada anywhere but supports anAdi vada everywhere in Sarartha Darshini.
I must apologize here to you as it seems you did take the trouble to consult some shastra on this matter, be it mistranslated shastra.
Finally, simple shastriya shraddha means exactly that - our conditioning is anAdi, that is what all shastras say. It does not mean blind sentimental following, beyond reason (yukti) and scripture (shastra). It is not an intellectual exercise, rather trying to explain inconceivable matters like anAdyavidyA is.
As to your third comment, Marko,
ReplyDelete"Sanskrit words denoting absolute time are commonly used in a figurative sense when applied to events and entities within the material world. We have found this to be especially so in discussions of the so-called eternally bound and eternally liberated jiva soul. Thus within the Bhagavatam we would expect to find some form of figurative language associated with the word anadi, a term denoting an absolute time span, but describing events and entities within the material world. Both in the Bhagavatam itself as well as in standard Vaisnava commentaries, the word anadi does show a figurative sense when describing the material condition of the soul."
anAdi means no (an) beginning (Adi) - no word jugglery will help here, you can check any Sanskrit dictionary on it.
If figurative language were used it would be mentioned by the acaryas - they did not. There is no alternative meaning to anAdi at all.
You said:
"Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti states: ‘the jiva has a relationship with beginningless ignorance because it is impossible to state when or how this relationship began". Does it mean it began at the very beginning? No, no acarya actually ever said this."
Visvanatha Cakravarti would not contradict himself, as he has said in his commentary on 3.7.10:
tatra bhagavataH pRSTha sthitayA anAdyavidyayA tamaH svarUpayA anAdi vaimukhya rUpa bhagavat pRSTha-sthAnAM jIvAnAM jJAnam yal lupyate tasya na vastutvam kAraNam nApi prayojanaM kim apy asti "Ignorance, which is beginningless, is situated on the Lord's back. She covers the knowledge of the jévas who are situated on the Lord's back and are non devotees. Their failure of knowledge is anädi, beginningless. There is no reality to it and no cause and purpose for it."
Then of course, there is absolutely no mentioning in any shastra or by any acarya of anyone becoming envious of Krishna and subsequently falling down from the spiritual world to imitate him, or dreaming to do so for that matter.
Again, not only no Gaudiya Acarya says no, not even any Acarya from any other Sampradaya says so either. It is Christian/Muslim/Jewish concept only.
Marko, re your second comment,
ReplyDeleteA. About the nitya baddha [eternally conditioned] jiva - can you quote evidence that this is not literal, or in other words, that all jivas will eventually reach the spiritual sky and the material world will cease to exist?
B. I have already commented on SB 2.5.19 in my blog of October 8, 2009.
Advaita Dasji,
ReplyDeleteGauragopala Das has been littering the length and breadth of the World Wide Web with his erroneous fall-vadi claptrap for many a year, and lately appears to have been surcharged with renewed vigour in that regard, if his copious posts on Dandavats, Sampradaya Sun, your own site and elsewhere are any measure of this. The now defunct Audarya Fellowship was not spared either; in fact, there, this preaching adjustment was masqueraded as sastra and shoved down the throats of dissenters ad nauseam, so much so that the authorities responsible for the forums had to step in and attempt to somewhat remedy the decadent situation.
You have already more than adequately addressed the so-called issues of the 'fall from Vaikuntha' proponents, and I reckon that the piece I shall reproduce below will reinforce the scripturally correct stance for which you have rightly taken up cudgels, subsequent to the recent comments to this blog post. The explanation that follows was furnished by H.H. B.V. Tripurari Mahajara in reply to a post of mine on Harmonist.us not too long ago.
It goes like this (I have slightly modified the passage) - see my next post.
In some respects this Gaudiya controversey, as it has become, stems from Prabhupada, who sometimes said one thing and sometimes said another. However, with regard to the Bhagavatam, the question of how souls could fall from Vaikuntha comes up directly only once. And in his purport Prabhupada sides with the previous acaryas comments by writing that no one falls from Vaikuntha.
ReplyDeleteThe instance I am referring to is Raja Pariksit’s amazement at the idea that the gate keepers of Vaikuntha could have fallen from there on the strength of the Kumaras’ (who were jnanis not bhaktas) curse. In the course of the narrative it is explained by the acaryas that they did not fall because of this curse, but rather the entire incident was instigated by Narayana who wanted to taste vira (heroic/fighting rasa) with the gate keepers and thus arranged for them to take birth in the material world and taste this rasa with three successive avataras. So the clear message from the Bhagavatam in this instance is that souls do not fall from Vaikuntha.
Reference is also made to the 4th canto of the Bhagavata, where Narada speaks allegorically to a king. In the allegory God speaks to the souls and expresses his desire to have them return, etc. However, Sri Jiva and Sri Visvanatha both make it clear in their commentaries that the God speaking is Mahavisnu and that the state from which the jiva came from was susupti within Mahavisnu. In his Paramatma-sandarbha Sri Jiva says that these verses are spoken by Mahavisnu. In his Bhagavata tika he says the souls referred to come from mahapralaya (susupti), and Sri Visvanatha says that they fell because of previous karma, a clear reference to susupti, not Vaikuntha.
Furthermore, throughout the scriptures it is stated that the souls of the material world proceed from Mahavisnu for his sristi-lila (like sparks form a fire/eternal present), from which he seeks to take them to Vaikuntha through his descent, etc. Such souls are said by Sri jiva in his Paramatma-sandarbha to be without the blessing of the svarupa-sakti, which upon being blessed with they can never leave the Godhead, nor can he allow them to if they tried. Thus as Prabhupada states in his Bhagavata commentary, “No one falls from Vaikuntha.”
Furthermore in 1970 Srila Prabhupada wrote in a letter to his student Jagadisa explaining what in his mind it means to have been with Krsna and to have subsequently left him thus:
Regarding your second question, have the conditioned souls ever seen Krsna? Were they with the Lord before being conditioned by the desire to lord it over material nature? Yes, the conditioned souls are parts and parcels of the Lord and thus they were with Krsna before being conditioned. Just as the child must have seen his father because the father places the child in the womb of the mother, similarly each soul has seen Krsna or the Supreme Father. But at that time the conditioned souls are resting in the condition called susupti which is exactly deep sleep without dream, or anesthetized state, therefore they do not remember being with Krsna when they wake up in the material world and become engaged in material affairs.
So here Prabhupada’s comments are also in concert with the previous acaryas and we should follow this example.
I would like to point out that in the fourth pada of the fourth chapter of govinda bhasya, baladeva vidyabhusana clearly states that the jiva attains his original form. This is clear sastric evidence that disproves your understanding of the term anadi. Since if the natural position of the jiva was to be bound up by maya then the possibility of his liberation is non-existant. Your statement that jiva has no ananda, is also false since it would be impossible for the jiva to enjoy anything without his own tiny portion of hladini shakti. The jiva though being the energy of Krsna, also possesses the same energies, to a lesser degree. Without energies then nothing can be done or experienced, what you'd have is just matter. We are not dull matter.
ReplyDeleteAnon, as for your quote of Baladeva, please always quote the Sanskrit text, then we can first test the quality of the translation. I surely hope it is not from Kushakratha.
ReplyDeleteI also never said the soul is dull matter. If our happiness is a reflection of hladini shakti then please quote evidence [apart from Bhaktivinode].
Please read anuchedda 19 of paramatma sandarbha. That is all the evidence needed to support what I have said.
ReplyDeleteanur nityo vyapti-shilas
cid-anandatmakas tatha
aham-artho 'vyayah kshetri
bhinna-rupah sanatanah
Dandavat
Anon,how do you understand this text [what is your translation of it] and what is the point you want to make actually?
ReplyDeleteThis verse is used by jiva goswami to describe the qualities of the jiva
ReplyDelete"He is atomic in size, all-pervading within the material body, full of spiritual bliss, a separate and distinct person, unchanging, the knower of the field of activities, eternal, and different from others."
He is described as chidanandatmakas, I think you've really only described jiva in his bound state but in his ATMA svarupa which is his eternal state, that is unchanging, unborn, undying, SAT CIT ANANDA are his three intrinsic qualities.
And Visvanath Cakravarti confirms that jiva is ananda too:
ReplyDeleteSB 3.7.10 Commentary by Visvanath
Because of maya, the loss of knowledge and bliss (atma-viparyayah) of the jiva (pumsah) appears to be without cause or goal (arthena). Medini says that artha means object of the senses, wealth, cause, thing, meaning of a word, prevention and goal. An example is given. The seer of a dream (drastuh), near himself (upa), sees his head is cut off. Though his head is intact, in the dream state he experiences that his head is gone. Though the jiva does not actually have a destruction of knowledge and bliss, in a state of ignorance he perceives this destruction. The brilliant luster of gold and silver is not lost by darkness, but is only covered. Just as a very brilliant ruby destroys even darkness, the life of the devotee destroys even ignorance.
I don't see how this comment says the jiva is inherently blissful and how Visvanath would contradict Sri Jiva here. At any rate, I am India now and unable to dive into the sanskrit commentaries so easily. Perhaps later I can comment in more detail.
ReplyDeleteI submitted Visvanatha's tika of 3.7.10 to Dr Satyanarayan Das and he replies as follows [15.11.2011]-
ReplyDelete"Ananda here means lack of misery and not the anada which is outocme or svarupa of bhakti, bhakti being an essence of samvit and hladini potency. The opponents will agree that this ananda of jiva in baddha state is not the ananda of bhakti.
The ananda is of various types such a s martyanada, brahmananda and bhaktyananda.
Martyanada is the material happiness, brahmananda is freedom from material misery and bliss of being in one's svarupa identified with Brahman.
Bhaktyananda is the bliss which is experienced by a devotte (asraya of prema) in relation to visaya of prema i.e. by giving pleasure to Krsna.
In Paramatma Sandarbha section 28 Sri Jiva Gosvami clearly says that when it is said that jiva is jnana svarupa it means it is not inert (not that it is full knowledge) and when it is said that it is ananda svarupa it means it is devoid of misery. Tatra tasya jada-pratiyogitvena jnanatvam duhkha-pratiyogitvena tu jnanatvam anandatvam ca. Then he further says that anandatvam means that atma is the object of love without any condition. anandatvam ca nirupadhi.premaspadatvena sadhayati
tasmat priyatama........(SB 10.14.54)
These people who jump up and down by seing words jnana and ananda with the svarupa of jiva do not have any idea what the words jnana and ananda really mean. You should ask them what is the meaning of the word ananda. Is it having any content or is it contentless? Does it have any subject/object relation or is it indeterminate? Let me see if they even understand the question."
We are part and parcel of Sri Krsna, who is sat, chit, ananda, vigraha. Therefore we, jiva, are also intrinsically sat, chit, ananda, and vigraha (having form and personality intrinsically). The term "svarupa" is conclusive in this regard. It means "own form and nature". "Sva" is "own", meaning intrinsic, natural, inherent, real. If you study 4th Pada, 4th Adhaya of Vedanta, commentary of Baladeva, then this topic is dealt with conclusively. As Isopanisad, "perfect and complete" expresses that the soul is perfect and complete.
ReplyDeleteHere is the Vedanta:
Vedanta Sutra, Adhaya 4, Pada 4
Invocation
akaitave bhakti-save 'nurajyan
svam eva yaù sevakasät karoti
tato 'ti-modaà muditaù sa devaù
sadä cid-änanda-tanur dhinotu
May the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose form is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss, and who, pleased with His devotees sincere devotion, gives Himself to them, fill us with transcendental happiness.
Adhikaraëa 1
The Original Forms of the Liberated Souls
Introduction by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa
In this pada will be described first the original forms of the liberated souls, and then their glory, opulence, bliss, and other features. In the Chändogya Upaniñad (8.12.3) the demigod Brahmä explains:
evam evaiña samprasädo 'smät çarérät samutthäya paraà jyotir upasampadya svena rüpeëäbhiniñpadyate sa uttamaù puruñaù
"By the Supreme Lord's mercy, the enlightened soul leaves his material body and enters the effulgent spiritual world. There he attains his own spiritual body. He becomes the most exalted of persons."
Saàçaya (doubt): Does the liberated soul attain a body, like the bodies of the demigods, that is different from himself, or does the manifest his original identity, which is not different from himself?
Pürvapakña (the opponent speaks): he attains a body different from himself. This must be so because the word “abhiniñpadyate" (is attained) is employed here. Any other interpretation would make this word meaningless and would also make meaningless the scriptures' statement that liberation is a benefit attained by the soul. If this form is only the original nature of the soul and it had existed all along, then attaining it would not be a benefit granted to the soul. Therefore this form is newly attained by the soul and is different from the soul's original nature.
Siddhänta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sütras gives His conclusion.
Part Two of Vedanta Sutra:
ReplyDeleteSütra 1
sampadyävirbhävaù svena-çabdät
sampadya—of he who has attained; ävirbhävaù—manifestation; svena—svena; çabdät—by the word.
Because of the word "svena" it is the manifestation of he who has gone.
Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa
The individual spirit soul who, by means of devotional service accompanied with knowledge and renunciation, attains the effulgent Supreme, becomes free from the bondage of karma and attains a body endowed with eight virtues. This body is said to be the soul's original form. Why is that? The sütra explains, "svena-çabdät" (because of the word "svena"). The word "svena" here means, "in his own original form". For this reason it cannot be said that this passage means, "the soul arrives there and then accepts that form, which is an external imposition". In that way it is proved that the form here is the original form of the soul. This is not contradicted by the use of the word "niñpadyate", for that word is also used to mean, "is manifested". An example of that usage is seen in the following words of the Çruti-çästra:
idam ekaà su-niñpannam
"He is manifested."
Also, it is not that the manifestation of the soul's original form cannot be, because it already exists, a goal of human endeavor. This is so because even though the soul's original form exists, it is not openly manifested. Therefore it is not useless to say that the soul may endeavor to openly manifest the original form of the soul. Therefore the manifestation of that form can be an object of human endeavor.
Here someone may say: When the spirit soul is manifested in its original form and it attains the effulgent Supreme, as described in the words "paraà jyotir upasampadya", the the liberated state thus attained is characterized mainly by the cessation of all material sufferings.
Part Three of Vedanta:
ReplyDeleteidam ekaà su-niñpannam
"He is manifested."
Also, it is not that the manifestation of the soul's original form cannot be, because it already exists, a goal of human endeavor. This is so because even though the soul's original form exists, it is not openly manifested. Therefore it is not useless to say that the soul may endeavor to openly manifest the original form of the soul. Therefore the manifestation of that form can be an object of human endeavor.
Here someone may say: When the spirit soul is manifested in its original form and it attains the effulgent Supreme, as described in the words "paraà jyotir upasampadya", the the liberated state thus attained is characterized mainly by the cessation of all material sufferings.
If this is said, then I reply: No. It is not so. The Çruti-çästra explains that in the liberated state the soul is filled with intense spiritual bliss. This is described in Taittiréya Upaniñad (2.7):
rasaà hy eväyaà labdhvänandé-bhavati
"When one understands the Personality of Godhead, the reservoir of pleasure, Kåñëa, he actually becomes transcendentally blissful."*
Here someone may object: How do you know that approaching the effulgent Supreme Lord is true liberation?
If this is said, the author of the sütras gives the following reply.
Sütra 2
muktaù pratijïänät
muktaù—liberated; pratijïänät—because of the declaration.
He is liberated because of the statement.
Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa
The liberated soul manifests his original form. Why is that? The sütra explains, "pratijïänät" (because of the statement). The original condition of the soul is described in Chändogya Upaniñad (8.7.1). After that description, the following promise is given (8.9.3):
etaà tv eva te bhüyo 'nuvyäkhyäsyämi
"Again I will explain it to you."
The the demigod Brahmä proceeded to explain that the liberated soul is free from wakefulness, dreaming, and dreamless sleep, the three conditions of material consciousness and also free from the material body, which is created by the karmic reactions of pleasant and unpleasant deeds. The demigod Brahmä described this in order to fulfill the promise he made in 8.9.3). Because this passage explains that the soul becomes liberated when he is free from the external material body created by karmic reactions, it should be understood that in the liberated state the soul is manifested in its original form.
In this way it is proved that Chändogya Upaniñad (8.12.3) explains that in the liberated state the soul manifests its original form.manifests its original form."
Anonymous thank you for blindly copy/pasting translations by the worst Sanskrit-English translator who has ever lived, both philosophically and philologically. Perhaps you can study other translations of the Vedanta instead, by those who are properly philosophically trained?
ReplyDeleteI have studied various (four) translations of the above Vedanta Sutra and all of them agree that svarupa is intrinsic.
ReplyDeleteThe sutra, itself is quite clear: Sütra 1 4th Adhaya, 4th Pada
sampadyavirbhavah svena-sabdat
sampadya—of he who has attained; avirbhavah—manifestation; svena—svena; sabdat—by the word.
Translation: "Because of the word "svena" it is the manifestation of he who has gone."
"Svena" is derived from "sva", i.e., "own" in the sense of "one's own".
I think we should accept Vedavyasa on this topic.
We would be very interested to see the translation of your good self of this Vedanta section quoted above, i.e., 4th Adhaya, 4th Pada, Sutra 1, -- with of course the attendant commentary of Baladeva.
As this section of Vedanta is axiomatic on this question (of svarupa added or intrinsic, then your improved translation of would be most pertinent.
I presume you accept Vedavyasa and Baladeva..?
PS: If I were blind, as you assert, then I would not be able to copy and paste.
PS: The first three sutras of 4th Adhaya, 4 Pada, are composed by Vedavyasa to deal with the "manifestation of the soul in his real, natural form", so kindly give your translation of this section.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, I have just been re-reading the Vedanta Parijata Saurabha of Nimbarka, and the Vedanta Kaustabha of Srinivasa, (commentaries on Vedanta); both commentaries on this section correspond with Baladeva. Of course the commentary of Sankara, does not correspond; Sankara posits an impersonal, formless nature for jiva throughout his Vedanta commentary. It would appear that this conception of "jiva devoid of form" is more closely related to impersonalistic monism rather than the Vaisnavism enunciated by the above Vaisnava acaryas.
Thank you for your kind attention. We wait expectantly for your translation of this section, Vedanta, 4.4.1-3 inclusive with Baladeva gloss.
Anonymous you can be blind and still copy/paste. Anyway the texts have been discussed twice before, in the comments pages of my blogs of August 5, 2006 and February 20, 2010.
ReplyDeleteIt is wonderful that you have discussed these texts before. Now we await your translation Vedanta, 4.4.1-3, inclusive with Baladeva gloss. Your translation improvement, on the previous Vedanta 4.4.1-3, posting that you dismissed, will clarify the topic.
ReplyDeleteA perfect translation by your good self of the very section of Vedanta wherein Vedavyasa and Baladeva discuss this particular topic will set the matter aright.
Thanking you for your kind attentions in this matter.
sampadya means to accomplish. svena is by one's own, avirbhava is appearance or manifestation. Did you even bother to surf to these two blogs to whose comments I referred? I am busy with two translation assignments, and have no time for argument.
ReplyDeleteAccomplishment means it was not there before. Only in that light the word svena, by one's own [sva in third case - by or through] can be understood.
Anon, in your last comment, which is blocked, you wrote : This will help you to get started on that Vedanta section:
ReplyDeleteYou chose to remain anonymous which makes you a coward. That is bad enough. But I will not take orders from an anonymous as well. If you can prove that you are senior to me, vyavahārik and/ or pāramārthik, you can speak to me like this. Do you understand? You are from mleccha stock? 1960s hippy, that you think you can behave like this? Can you give me one reason why I should be your servant? You are paying me a salary or so?
Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 22.107
ReplyDeletenitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema 'sādhya' kabhu naya
śravaṇādi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya
SYNONYMS
nitya-siddha — eternally established; kṛṣṇa-prema — love of Kṛṣṇa; sādhya — to be gained; kabhu — at any time; naya — not; śravaṇa-ādi — by hearing, etc.; śuddha — purified; citte — in the heart; karaye udaya — awakens.
TRANSLATION
"Pure love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally established in the hearts of the living entities. It is not something to be gained from another source. When the heart is purified by hearing and chanting, this love naturally awakens.
Acyutananda, if you believe this means that prema is dormant in the conditioned soul, then consider this -
ReplyDeleteThe words ‘eternally established’, and ‘in the hearts of the living entities’ are nowhere in the original Bengali text. ‘it is not to be gained from another source’ is also totally opposite, as it is gained from an external source. Caitanya Caritāmṛta (Madhya 19.151) says: brahmāṇḍa bhramite kon bhāgyavān jīva, guru-kṛṣṇa prasāde pāy bhakti-latā bīja. “Wandering throughout the universe, some fortunate soul receives the seed of devotion, by the grace of Guru or Kṛṣṇa.” Every word is significant here - kon means “some”, not that everyone gets it. pāy means 'he gets', not that it's intrinsic – it’s coming from outside. prasād means that it isn’t deserved, but is causeless grace. One cannot work in advance to attain it. Only in this way the verse nitya siddha kṛṣṇa-prema sādhya kabhu noy can be understood. hlādinī is the missing ānanda in the svarūpa of the jīva and it is an external gift.
Regarding “sādhya kabhu noy” - The verse nitya siddhasya bhāvasya from the Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu (1.2.2, quoted just before the nitya siddha kṛṣṇaprema verse in the Caitanya Caritāmṛta) confirms this - this nitya siddha bhāva is the goal, it is not to be achieved artificially.
The word nitya siddha means nitya-siddha bhaktas according to Mukunda Goswāmī in his comment on this verse (Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu 1.2.2): nitya-siddha-bhakteṣu śuddha-sattva-viśeṣa-rūpatayā sadā vartamānasyātra svayaṁ sphuraṇān na kṛtrimatva-śaṅkā. ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi na bhaved grāhyam indriyaiḥ [bha.ra.si. 1.2.234] iti vakṣyamāṇatvāt. sādhana-bhaktir eva na kṛtrimā, kim uta bhāvaḥ – “The pure sattva which is ever present in the nitya siddha devotees manifests itself and thus should not be seen as artificial. This can be seen in verse 1.2.234, ataḥ śrī kṛṣṇa nāmādi. Surely sādhana bhakti is not artificial, what to speak of bhāva.” The words ‘established in the hearts of the living entities’ are not anywhere in the verse at all.
Ok, Let us see the previous verses:
ReplyDeleteŚrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 22.105 (BRS 1.2.2)
kṛti-sādhyā bhavet sādhya-
bhāvā sā sādhanābhidhā
nitya-siddhasya bhāvasya
prākaṭyaḿ hṛdi sādhyatā
SYNONYMS
kṛti-sādhyā — which is to be executed by the senses; bhavet — should be; sādhya-bhāvā — by which love of Godhead is acquired; sā — that; sādhana-abhidhā — called sādhana-bhakti, or devotional service in practice; nitya-siddhasya — which is eternally present; bhāvasya — of love of Godhead; prākaṭyam — the awakening; hṛdi — in the heart; sādhyatā — potentiality.
TRANSLATION
"'When transcendental devotional service, by which love for Kṛṣṇa is attained, is executed by the senses, it is called sādhana-bhakti, or the regulative discharge of devotional service. Such devotion eternally exists within the heart of every living entity. The awakening of this eternal devotion is the potentiality of devotional service in practice.'
Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 22.106
śravaṇādi-kriyā — tāra 'svarūpa'-lakṣaṇa
'taṭastha'-lakṣaṇe upajāya prema-dhana
SYNONYMS
śravaṇa-ādi-kriyā — the process of hearing, chanting and so forth; tāra — of that; svarūpa-lakṣaṇa — symptoms of the nature; taṭastha-lakṣaṇe — marginal symptoms; upajāya — awakens; prema-dhana — love of Godhead.
So the meaning of the BRS verse is totally opposite. This verses describe the living entities, not the nitya siddha bhaktas.
We can find the word udaya=awekens and upajaya (in connection to prema)in many verses of CC. And please consider that the bhakti lata bija is not the same as prema.
(Sorry for my poor english. I understand the language, but to write in english is not easy for me.)
Acyutananda, again the words 'in the heart of the living entity' as given by your Guruji in the translation of BRS 1.2.2 is nowhere in the original text. The word udaya means 'rising'. Like you have the Caitanya Candrodaya Mandir - it is not the 'awakening of the Caitanya-moon' is it? It is the rising of the Caitanya moon.
ReplyDeleteTo assert that ananda and svarupa is not present in the soul, which is thus only sat and chit, is like saying that this fire has only "light", but no
ReplyDelete"heat".
The fact is that heat and light are different aspects of fire. They are inseparable from fire itself. And therefore they inseparable from each other, being bound inseparably as the intrinsic nature of fire.
From the point of view of observation, heat and light may appear to be separate (and discussed in that way), however they intrinsically bound by being the very indivisible nature of fire.
Put simply you can't have heat without light.
Similarly, you can't have sat and chit, without ananda and svarupa, as these four aspects are manifestations of the substance of transcendence emanated by sat, chit, ananda, vigraha (svarupa) Sri Krsna. (see Brahma Samhita 5.1.)
Therefore the soul being the acintya bedabeda expansion (mama amsa, Gita) of Sri Krsna is surely sat, chit, ananda and possessing svarupa intrinsically.
To assert otherwise, is against the plain statements of sastra and the great acaryas' commentaries.
The heart is there: "hṛdi — in the heart" (22.105) The three verses have connection and cannot understand independently. Theme has not changed, so Srila Prabhupada correctly help us saying 'in the heart of the living entity' (because the heart is in the verse 22.105)
ReplyDeleteYes the moon and the sun rise... but not born. The sun and the moon is always there... so your example is perfect... for me. The words rise and awake has similar meaning in this sense. So the prema is there, it rises/awekens. And yes, the bhakti lata bija is coming from outside, but its not the same as prema. Please consider this fact.
You say: "The verse nitya siddhasya bhāvasya...confirms this - this nitya siddha bhāva is the goal, it is not to be achieved artificially."
The verse do not confirms this. The verse confirms: nitya-siddhasya bhāvasya
prākaṭyaḿ hṛdi sādhyatā: 'Such devotion eternally exists within the heart of every living entity. The awakening of this eternal devotion is the potentiality of devotional service in practice.' The 22.106 also confirms this meaning: taṭastha-lakṣaṇe upajāya prema-dhana: 'The marginal characteristic is that it awakens pure love for Kṛṣṇa.' The verse 22.107 confirms also this meaning :nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema 'sādhya' kabhu naya: Pure love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally established in the hearts of the living entities.
So the verse 22.107 do not speak Krishna prema of Nitya siddha souls. It describes the eternal position (nitya siddha) of Krishna Prema. So yes, the 'eternally established' is also there (=nitya siddha)
The three verses explain it clearly. Please translate the three verses, not just parts of the verses.
Rasa prema,
ReplyDeleteThe comparison with fire is a material example.
Krishna being sat cit ananda as in Brahma Samhita 5.1 is something else. He is Bhagavan, vibhu, while we are jiva, or anu.
Can you quote from shastra and acaryas that the jiva in a conditioned state is sat cit ananda?
Acyutananda, of course the verses are not separate. They are the same. Look at Bhanu Swami's translation of BRS 1.2.2. That is more clear - "This ATTAINED state of bhava bhakti (sādhyatā) is an eternal sthāyi bhāva which is not created but simply MANIFESTS within the soul." As for the meaning of nitya siddhasya bhāvasya, you may have overlooked Mukunda Goswāmī's tika I quoted earlier today : nitya-siddha-bhakteṣu śuddha-sattva-viśeṣa-rūpatayā sadā vartamānasyātra svayaṁ sphuraṇān na kṛtrimatva-śaṅkā. ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi na bhaved grāhyam indriyaiḥ [bha.ra.si. 1.2.234] iti vakṣyamāṇatvāt. sādhana-bhaktir eva na kṛtrimā, kim uta bhāvaḥ – “The pure sattva which is ever present in the nitya siddha devotees manifests itself and thus should not be seen as artificial. This can be seen in verse 1.2.234, ataḥ śrī kṛṣṇa nāmādi. Surely sādhana bhakti is not artificial, what to speak of bhāva.”
ReplyDeleteThe root of the Bengali word 'upajāya' is 'upajā', which means 'to be born, produced or to generate'.
The verse 22.107 does not mention the hearts of the living entities at all.
For the gentleman who asked for this on 4th august - I sent one translation of the Vedanta Sutras 4.4.1-3, and Ramanujacarya’s tikas, which seem to support dormant-vada, called pūrva paksa from now on, to Pandit Satya Narayan Das, who gave the following explanation and refutation:
ReplyDeleteSND: [The contention here is on the words svena, sadhya and siddha. I think everyone knows their meanings, yet I state them. Svena means ‘by oneself’ or ‘with one’s own’. Both of these meanings are given below by the translator of Ramanuja’s commentary. In the present context the second meaning is suitable. One is joined with one’s own form. Below ‘joining’ is one of the three meanings given by the translator.
Sadhya is that which is to be achieved or produced through sadhana or a process. Which implies that it did not exist before. If it existed then sadhana is not needed.
Siddha means perfected, accomplished or existing, not to be produced or achieved.
I give my comments below:]
I understand that Ramanujacarya is explaining that the form is inherent
Pūrva pakṣa -
“There is another relevant sūtra (Vs. 4.4.1), in which Rāmānujācārya vigorously argues that the spiritual body of the soul has always existed and that upon liberation, one attains that which has always existed.
sampadyāvirbhāvaḥ svena śabdāt*
sampadya-attaining, joining, succeeding; āvirbhāvaḥ- appearance; svena - with or by one's own; śabdāt-from sound.
"Attaining, the appearance with one's own, from sound."
Rāmānuja's Śrī-bhāṣya Commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.1*
idānīṁ muktānām aiśvarya-prakāraṁ cintayitum ārabhate. idam āmnāyate: evam evaiṣa samprasādo 'smāc charīrāt samutthāya paraṁ jyotir upasampadya svena rūpeṇābhiniṣpadyate iti kim asmāc charīrāt samutthāya paraṁ jyotir upasampannasya devādi-rūpavat sādhyena rūpeṇa sambandhaḥ anena vākyena pratipādyate? uta svābhāvikasya svarūpasyāvirbhāvaḥ? Iti saṁśayaḥ
"Now [the text] begins to contemplate the kind of opulence of the liberated persons. This is handed down in the śāstra: "'Just so this blessed soul, rising up from the [material] body and approaching the supreme light with his own form achieves [the Absolute] (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.2)
[is joined with his own form] svena rupena abhinispadyate. The translator applies the verb abhinispadyate with ‘the Absolute’. Why not apply it with svena rupena? Then there is no need to assume the extra word ‘the Absolute’. Otherwise we also have to assume that the mukta somehow got his own form.'
Pūrva pakṣa: "Is it understood by this statement that, having risen up from this [material] body, he who has approached the supreme light has a relationship with a form produced like the forms of demigods, etc.? [In other words, does the liberated soul achieve a body that is different from his self
[This is the important point. Svena means that spiritual body is not distinct from atma, not that it is inherent in atma],
just as the souls of demigods receive demigod bodies?] Or is there the appearance of a svarupa, a constitutional form, which is derived from the very nature [of the soul]? Thus, on this doubt [we shall speak]."
[the point to note in the Sanskrit is sadhya. Is this body sadhya like a deva body or is it siddha? There is no talk of inherency. This is clear from the purva paksa below. The stress is on sadhyena rupena]
Pūrva pakṣa – “Ramanuja now presents various objections to his view. We shall give a sample of these objections to clarify that the basic issue is whether the soul, at liberation, achieves a thoroughly new spiritual body or simply manifests a spiritual form that the soul possessed all along:
ReplyDelete"Objection: *
(pūrva-pakṣa) sādhyena rūpeṇa sambandha iti yuktam. Anyathā hi apuruṣārthāvabodhitvaṁ mokṣa-śāstrasya syāt svarūpasya svato'puruṣārthatva-darśanāt.
It is logical that [the soul has a] relationship with a form that is to be produced. For, otherwise, scriptures that teach liberation would not be teaching us about a life-goal (puruṣārtha), since the soul's own form (svarūpa), [if already existing] by itself, does not show the quality of being a goal for people (puruṣārtha), [i.e. that which one already possesses cannot be one's goal in life.]"*
(NOTE: It is held in the Upaniṣads that in deep, dreamless sleep (suṣupti) only the pure soul is functioning, since the material mind and senses are inactive.)
Rāmānujācārya now gives the siddhānta, or bona fide conclusion*:
evaṁ prāpte pracakṣmahe sampadyāvirbhāvaḥ-iti / ayam pratyag-ātmā arcir-ādinā paraṁ jyotir upasampadya, yaṁ daśā-viśeṣam āpadyate saḥ svarūpāvirbhāva-rūpaḥ, na apūrvākārotpatti-rūpaḥ. kutaḥ? svena śabdāt-svena rūpeṇa iti viśeṣaṇopādānāt ity arthaḥ. āgantuka-viśeṣa-parigrahe hi svena rūpeṇa iti viśeṣaṇam anarthakaṁ syāt. aviśeṣaṇe 'pi tasya svakīya-rūpatva-siddheḥ. kutaḥ?"svena" śabdāt-svena rūpeṇa iti viśeṣaṇopādānāt ity arthaḥ. āgantuka-viśeṣa-parigrahe hi svena rūpeṇa iti viśeṣaṇam anarthakaṁ syāt. aviśeṣaṇe 'pi tasya svakīya-rūpatva-siddheḥ.
"When [the argument] reaches this point, we declare that the [Vedānta text] sampadya āvirbhāvaḥ means that this individual soul, approaching the supreme light through light, etc., attains to a specific situation in the form of the appearance of the [soul's] svarūpa, not in the form of [the soul] entering a bodily shape that did not exist before. How so? Because of the word svena, [in the sense of] svena rūpeṇa, 'by one's own form.' That is the meaning because of the use of the adjective (sva). Indeed, if we accept that [the spiritual body one acquires at liberation] is āgantuka [extrinsic, added on, adventitious, etc.], then certainly the adjective svena [modifying] rūpeṇa would be meaningless, because even without an adjective, it would be logically clear that the form the soul attains has the condition of belonging to that soul."
[Again the point is that the spiritual body is not external to the atma - it is not produced but is pre-existing. Where is it pre-existing? The general understanding is that it is existing in the soul. But it is not mentioned clearly anywhere.]
Pūrva pakṣa - Rāmānuja goes on to state in his Śrī-bhāṣya commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.2*:
ReplyDeletekarma-sambandha-tat-kṛta-dehādi-vinirmuktaḥ svābhāvikena rūpeṇāvasthitaḥ atra"svena rūpeṇābhiniṣpadyate" (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.2) ity ucyate. atra abhiniṣpattir ucyate. ataḥ nitya-prāptasyāpi svarūpasya karma-rūpāvidyā-tirohitasya, tirodhāna-nivṛttiḥ.
"Being liberated from the connection with karma and from the body, etc., created by it, [the liberated soul] is situated with a form that is of his own nature. Here is stated [from Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.2]:
"'With his own form, he attains...'
"Here 'attainment' is stated. And so there is cessation of the concealment of the svarūpa, which, even though eternally present, was concealed by ignorance in the form of karma.
This is not acceptable to us. We accept Bhagavata Purana as natural commentary of Vedanta Sutra by the author himself. Verse 1.6.29 says that bhagavati-tanu was given to Narada. The word used is prayujyamane which Sridhara Swami glosses as niyamane – being brought [to Narada]. You can also check the other commentaries. Similarly there is the verse no 6.2.43 – sadya svarupam jagrhe bhagavat parsva vartinam. Jagrhe means he took. Other verse to be noted in this regard is 8.3.19. The important verb here is rati meaning ‘grants, gives, awards’. So the spiritual body is given by the Lord. The same can be seen in the commentary of Sri Visvanatha on 3.9.11 tata vapu pranayase.
Sri Ramanujacarya above says;” "Here 'attainment' is stated. And so there is cessation of the concealment of the svarüpa, which, even though eternally present, was concealed by ignorance in the form of karma.
My question on this is that if the svarupa [which you translate as form] is ever present in the soul but concealed by ignorance in the form of karma, then what happens to those who attain Brahma-sayujya mukti? Their ignorance is removed, otherwise it cannot be called mukti. Then a Brahma-sayujya mukta should also have a spiritual form. But if they have spiritual form it cannot be called Brahma-sayujya.
I am truly amazed to see someone quote Ramanujacarya and then say "This is not acceptable". Such arrogance can only be rooted in madness.
DeleteIn the Cc Mahaprabhu condemns Sarvabhauma for his twisted secondary meanings of Vedanta. All the conjecture of Advaita and Satyanarayan runs against the plain meanings of the tikas of Ramanuja, etc.
I am leaving this playground of fools who condemn themselves by their own nonsense twisted meanings from twisted minds.
Anon, I did not know u are a follower of Ramanujacarya. Satya Narayan and me are Gaudiyas, however, not obliged to follow Madhva, Ramanuja etc.
DeleteDid u peruse the slokas Satyanarayan quoted from the Bhagavat to make his point?
Pūrva pakṣa – “Rāmānujācārya comments further on Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.2 in his Vedānta-sāra ("essence of Vedānta")*:
ReplyDeleteātma-svarūpa-mātrasya prāg eva siddhatve 'pi karma-bandha-vinirmuktāparicchinna-jñānādi-svarūpasya hy atrāvirbhāva ucyate.
"It is said here that although the precise form of the soul's constitutional form was in fact previously known and existed in perfection, still (at the time of liberation) there is the appearance of that constitutional form, with unlimited knowledge, freed from the bondage of karma."*
Here Ramunuja is not talking about form but svarupa as a conscious being (jnanadi). Conscious (jnana) becomes limited by the upadhis in the form of subtle and gross bodies. When these upadhis are removed jnana or consciousness becomes unrestricted, like a light source which is not covered can spread its light unrestrictedly. [By the way the word jnana here does not mean knowledge. For different meanings of the word jnana read my article on my website. I think it is called ‘what is jnana?’]
Pūrva pakṣa - (NOTE: siddhatvam means a state of perfection, or the state of being known or understood, the latter sense being characteristic of the Bhagavata Purana (Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Monier-Williams, p.1215)
[siddhatve simply means it is already existing, not created or manufactured. That is why R uses the word prag=pre]
Pūrva pakṣa - Rāmānuja's Śrī-bhāṣya Commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.3
In his Śrī-bhāṣya commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.3, Rāmānujācārya states that the soul's pure qualities are "shrunk" or "contracted" in material existence, and then "expanded" upon liberation. Thus he emphasizes his central argument that the pure nature of the soul has always existed:
"And so it is logical to say that upon the destruction of bondage in the form of karma, [the soul] having attained to the highest light, there is the appearance in expanded form of the qualities of knowledge, bliss, etc., which due to karma had been shrunk within the soul. Thus it is aptly stated [Vs. 4.4.1]: 'Having attained, appearance.'"*
ato jñānānandādi-guṇānāṁ karmaṇātmani saṅkucitānāṁ paraṁ jyotir upasampadya karma-rūpa-bandha-kṣaye vikāsa-rūpāvirbhāvo nānupapanna iti, suṣṭhūktaṁ sampadyāvirbhāvaḥ-iti.
[This has nothing to do with form. He is clearly using the word gunanam, and not rupa. This we have already stated above by the example of the light bulb]
Rāmānujācārya's discussion of the soul's original form is remarkably similar to Lord Caitanya's statement to Sanātana Gosvāmī:
ReplyDelete"Pure love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally established in the hearts of living entities. It is not something to be gained from another source. When the heart is purified by hearing and chanting, the living entity naturally awakens." (Cc. Madhya 22.107, translation by Śrīla Prabhupāda)*
nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema 'sādhya' kabhu naya
śravaṇādi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya
Sorry to say but the above translation is not correct. Srila Prabhupada has added things into translation which do not exist in the pyara. Compare it with the following translation by EC Dimock and T K Stewart:
“Krsna prema is eternal and is perfect [Krsna prema nitya siddha] – it is never ‘to be attained’ [sadhya kabu naya], and in the pure mind sravana and the rest arise [sravanadi suddha-citte karaya udaya]. [Note: I will translate the last part differently: “It [prema] arises in the citta which has been purified by [devotional activities such as] hearing etc.” they have taken sravanadi as the nominative, but from the cotext it appears to be in instrumental case. They have separated sravanadi and suddha-citte. I take it as a compound word i.e. sravanadina suddha-citte = sravanadi-suddha-citte].
This is a very precise translation, as u can see from the original words of the poyar [put in the parenthesis by me]. The word sadhya is used in the sense that prema is not created or manufactured by sadhana. Then why prema is called sadhya? It is answered by Sri Rupa Gosvami – Nitya-siddhasya bhavasya prakatyam hrdi sadhayata (BRS) So Sadhya or sadhyata or siddha has a very specific or technical meaning here, not what is understood in general as an effect produced by a cause.
Pūrva pakṣa – “In this verse from Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Śrīla Prabhupāda translates the word sādhya as "to be gained from another source."
ReplyDeleteRāmānujācārya has used this same term, sādhya, in his commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.1, in which he asks the rhetorical question:
"[Is it understood by this statement of the Upaniṣads that (at the time of liberation) the soul comes into touch] with a form that is sādhya [to be gained, produced, etc.], or rather is there the appearance of a form that is of the soul's own nature? This is the doubt."*
ādhyena rūpeṇa sambandhaḥ-anena vākyena pratipādyate? uta svābhāvikasya svarūpasyāvirbhāvaḥ? iti saṁśaye. In answer to this question, Rämänujäcärya first presents the viewpoint of the pūrva-pakṣa, the theological opponent who argues against the siddhānta. The pūrva-pakṣa immediately claims that the spiritual form that the soul manifests at the time of liberation is sādhya:
"Logically, the soul comes into touch with a sādhya form."*
sādhyena rūpeṇa sambandhaḥ-iti yuktam
Rāmānujācārya then defeats this proposal and proves that the spiritual form of the soul is eternally present, established.
[But where is it present? Is it within the soul? Then we need to take care of the Bhagavata verse I mentioned above, and the problem of Brahma-sayujya mukti]
Then in his commentary on the next verse of Vedānta, 4.4.2, in which he continues to argue the same point, he again uses a term (siddha) that is repeated in Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu's statement to Sanātana Gosvāmī.
"It is said here that although the precise form of the soul's constitutional form was in fact previously known and existed in perfection, still [at the time of liberation] there is the appearance of that constitutional form, with unlimited knowledge, freed from the bondage of karma."*
ātma-svarūpa-mātrasya prāg eva siddhatve 'pi karma-bandha-vinirmuktāparicchinna-jñānādi-svarūpasya hy atrāvirbhāva
In the above statement, the words prāg eva siddhatve 'pi mean "was in fact previously known and existed in perfection." Here prāg means "previously"; eva makes the word prāg more emphatic, and means "actually, in fact," etc., and siddhatve means "in the condition of existing fully or perfectly," or "in the condition of being known or understood," and refers to the spiritual form of the soul and nothing else, as emphasized by the word mātra above.
Same question. Where does this form exist? According to Sri Jiva Gosvami (priti sandarbha} these forms exist in Vaikuntha and not in jiva or atma.
pūrva pakṣa - Thus Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu echoed the words of His devotee, Śrīpāda Rāmānujācārya, when He said to Sanātana Gosvāmī:
ReplyDeletenitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema 'sādhya' kabhu naya
śravaṇādi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya
Both statements argue the same point: although the soul appears to acquire or take on a spiritual form at the time of liberation, this form or constitutional position already existed previously in fullness.
A previous comment of Satya Narayan Pandit on this topic of the above nitya siddha verse which may also be helpful:
"The word svena denies that the siddha deha is agantuka or manufactured. Then one naturally thinks that it must be within the soul, and hence dormant. That is the wrong assumption. Nitya-siddhasya bhAvasya prAktyam hrdi-sadhyataA - just as bhakti is called sadhya in the sense that it manifests in the heart by the grace of guru and Krishna, not that it was lying dormant in the heart, in the same way one gets a nitya-siddha deha and this deha is not agantuka nor dormant in the heart; It comes from the spiritual world where it exists eternally. That is why it is called siddha-deha; It is not created. It is awarded by the Lord just like the BhAva. An example of this is in SB 1.6.29"
BTW - The anonymous poster of 4th august was guilty of grave personal attacks. He should know that if he inserts any further such attacks in his possible replies, the entire reply will be blocked, as per the rules stated on the home page of this blog.
I would like to make one brief comment. Several devotees have made the point that since jivas are parts of Bhagavan, the whole, they also possess the qualities of sat, cit and ananda, but to a minute degree. However, this is clearly not supported by Visnu Purana 1.12.69:
ReplyDeletehlādinī sandhinī saṁvit tvayy ekā sarva-saṁśraye
hlāda-tāpa-karī miśrā tvayi no guṇa-varjite
The one energy, having the three divisions of hlādinī (bliss), sandhinī (eternal existence) and saṁvit (knowing), exists only in You, the support of everything. But the energy that yields material happiness, misery and their mixture, does not abide in You, because You are free from the guṇas.
This idea is also not supported by Jiva Gosvami. Tatastha jiva's ananda has nothing to do with the cit-potency (hladini) of the Lord.
I would like to ask one question of all the learned devotees in this discussion, but particularly Advaita and Satyanarayan:
ReplyDeleteKindly give an example of some entity that exists and yet has "no form"?
rasa prema, are you referring to Brahman?
ReplyDeleteBrahman has substance and therefore form, and therefore brahman is perceived by yogis. The sastra is replete with description of Brahman.
ReplyDeleteA simile will illustrate the point: One may argue that water "has no form". However, on the molecular level the form of water molecules exist.
Moreover, on a simpler level water has form (and that form is changeable) and so it is perceived.
Similarly, Brahman has form and thereby it is perceived by the soul.
The form of Brahman is unlimited expanse of spiritual energy.
That form is impersonal but "impersonal form" does not mean "formless".
Existence without form is non-existence.
..........
However, Dear Adwaita I must point out that your bringing up the Brahman is indicative. You are tying the jiva, a person, to the Impersonal Form of the Supreme Lord.
Do you consider the jiva to be impersonal? (which is the clear implication of asserting that jiva is formless or has no form)
..........
Moreover, I have read the posting, with much information and argumentation, however, all the discussion revolves around one word:
svarupa: own form, or constitutional form and nature.
To deny that jiva has form is to deny the plain and indisputable meaning of the word "svarupa": "own form"
Therefore jiva has form but as acaryas consistently state that form is dormant, along with ananda and prema, within the very being of the jiva.
The form of a tree lies dormant within the seed.
Yet, both the seed and the tree have form. However the tree is the awakened, accomplished, risen, attained intrinsic form of the seed.
Similarly, in his conditioned state jiva contains his dormant svarupa, spiritual own form, which by bhakti manifests like the tree manifests from the seed.
Svarupa: own constitutional form.
So says dictionaries, sastra, Vedanta, and acaryas.
Rasa prema, that is a whole barge full of points. I think we are going off topic here. No one ever said the jiva is linked to Brahman, or that the jiva is impersonal. Where did I say this? I was just asking, and I still do, where anyone said that an entity has no form? The seed and the tree are material examples. The seed we know as the bhakti lata bija which is GIVEN by Guru and Kṛṣṇa, and hence is not dormant.
ReplyDeleteThe word svarupa consists of two parts - sva, or one's own, and rūpa, of form, 'own form'. Nothing mentioned of constitutional or dormant. Which acarya, other than Bhaktivinode and his followers, says the form is dormant?
So many meanings of svarupa but no dormant or constitutional -
ReplyDeleteस्वरूप svarUpa n. appearance edit
स्वरूप svarUpa n. looks edit
स्वरूप svarUpa adj. learned edit
स्वरूप svarUpa adj. pleasing edit
स्वरूप svarUpa adj. having one's own peculiar form or character edit
स्वरूप svarUpa adj. wise edit
स्वरूप svarUpa adj. having a like nature or character edit
स्वरूप svarUpa adj. handsome edit
स्वरूप svarUpa adj. like edit
स्वरूप svarUpa adj. similar edit
स्वरूप svarUpa n. form or shape of edit
स्वरूप svarUpa n. own condition edit
स्वरूप svarUpa n. nature edit
स्वरूप svarUpa n. event edit
स्वरूप svarUpa n. name of a place edit
स्वरूप svarUpa n. quality edit
स्वरूप svarUpa n. peculiarity edit
स्वरूप svarUpa n. texture edit
स्वरूप svarUpa n. character edit
स्वरूप svarUpa n. one's own form or shape edit
स्वरूप svarUpa n. peculiar aim edit
स्वरूप svarUpa n. consistency edit
स्वरूप svarUpa n. occurrence edit
स्वरूप svarUpa n. sort edit
स्वरूप svarUpa n. particular relation edit
स्वरूप svarUpa n. kind edit
Brahman is the indeterminate realization of Bhagavān and therefore doesn't have attributes like form. Form can be divided, but Brahman is indivisible. Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.5.66-69 says that Brahman is formless(arūpam).
ReplyDeleteI have never come across any explicit statement that the jiva has form. The only analogy which could be interpreted as form is that of being 1/10.ooo of the tip of a hair which is to show our minuteness. In Paramatma Sandharba (37) Jiva Gosvami says that jiva is the energy of the Paramatma:
ReplyDeleteThe jīva is understood to be of the nature of energy because (1) it is the intermediate potency (taṭastha-śakti) [of the Paramātmā]; (2) though it is like a ray of the Paramātmā, it is still ever under His shelter, i.e., it cannot exist without Him; (3) it is the means [sādhanatvaṁ ] by which the universal creation takes place, as is said: “The jīva is the cause of this creation” (12.7.18); and (4) although it is substance (dravya or matter), it is similar to pradhāna [which is energy].
The jīva is also said to be an energy due to being a special prakṛti of the Lord, as in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa:
Viṣṇu’s energies are called “the higher” (parā), “the other” (aparā), which is called the knower of the field (kṣetrajña). The third śakti is called avidyā-karma (ignorance and entanglement). (VP 6.7.61)
Being covered by ignorance (avidyā), O king, the potency called “the knower of the field” (kṣetrajña) exists in various gradations in all species of life. (VP 6.7.63)
स्वरूप svarUpa adj. having one's own peculiar form or character edit
ReplyDeleteस्वरूप svarUpa n. own condition
स्वरूप svarUpa n. nature
स्वरूप svarUpa n. one's own form or shape
I thank you for the definitions. The ones repeated above support that concept that svarupa is innate, constitution.
You bring up the 'dormant' nature of svarupa.
Well we have to separate the two topics.
One topic is whether the jiva has a constitutional (innate) form.
A separate topic is whether that constitutional svarupa is dormant or fully expressed.
Or to put it another way: just because the svarupa is dormant does not mean it does not exist. For example: the form of a tree is present within a seed, yet it is dormant.
The dormancy of svarupa should not be equated with non-existent of svarupa.
That is to say the existence of svarupa is a different topic to the condition of the svarupa.
As regards, the dormancy of the svarupa in conditioned life is not just the concept of Bhaktivinoda and followers, but also Supreme Lord Mahaprabhu.
Nitya siddha krsna prema.....
sravanadi-suddha-citte karaye udaya......
By hearing and chanting, etc., the heart is purified and this prema awakens.
karaye udaya—awakens
Rasa Prema, you have not read the posts of myself and Satya Narayan Pandit on the nitya siddha krsna prema verse at all? udoy does not mean awaken, and nitya siddha is an adjective of krsna prema. There is no 'heart of the living entity' anywhere, there or in the preceding quote from BRS. The word hṛdi is in connection with the bhāva which has being nitya siddha as a characteristic, in the heart. bhāva bhakti is there described as 'attained', not dormant, by Bhanu Swami ACBSP. I already dismissed the tree and seed simile as a material example. Are we going around in circles? Do I need to copy/paste this each time again? So please study the discussion well before you comment again.
ReplyDeleteJust because a simile is drawn from the elements of material nature does not automatically mean that it is invalid. The essence is the concept that the simile is conveying to the reader.
ReplyDeleteSastra uses illustrations all the time from material nature, so just to "dismiss" on the basis that it is "material" is not a refutation.
If ones want to refute the "seed manifests the constitutional tree" illustration, then one has to refute the concept behind the illustration, not just dismiss it out of hand as "material".
........
Actually I have read the previous posts and find that the interpretations given by Satyanarayan to be strained and invalid. Firstly, some interpretations lack relevance to the subject matter, some interpretations are illogical, and practically all the interpretations run contrary to definitions of "svarupa" given by the acaryas. Given the choice between Ramanuja, Baladeva, Nimbarka, and Vedavyasa (Vedanta 4.4.1-3) and Satyanarayan's ideas, well forgive us all for choosing the acaryas.
.........
It is interesting to see that lexicographical connotations play a large part in refuting the acaryas teachings. For example, your bringing up "attained" or "accomplished".
Well, consider this: Adulthood is "awakened", "accomplished", "attained" by a child as he matures. But a child who "attains" adulthood develops into that mature state.
He does not have an external body "added" to him from an external source at some distinct moment as an event as he attains adulthood.
Similarly, the jiva "accomplishes", "awakens", "attains" his svarupa, own, personal, constitutional form and nature.
So the usage of "attains", etc., does not invalidate the intrinsic nature of svarupa (constitutional form).
.......
By way of illustration, (and showing that I have read earlier postings) in an earlier posting you object to udaya being translated as "awakens", you prefer "arises".
Well, really, what is the difference in concept?
Let us use arise:
sravanadi-suddha-citte karaye udaya......
"By hearing and chanting, etc., the consciousness (heart) is purified and this prema arises."
No essential difference in meaning there...
Moreover, by "arises" the concept of the svarupa "arising" from the soul is even more indicative of the svarupa (and prema) "arising" from within the constitution of the soul.
.........
As regards you dismissal of examples as being "material" and thereby non-valid. I would quote a "material" example from Upanisads, no less:
In the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad, 2.2.20, we find:
yathagneh ksudra visphulinga vyuccaranti evam
evasmad atmanah sarvani bhutani vyuccaranti
“Just as innumerable sparks cascade out of a flame, similarly, from Sri Krsna, who is the Atma, the Universal Soul, the jivas emanate who are His separated parts and parcels.’
Is Vedavyasa (Sri Krsna, shaktavesavatara) wrong to use the "material" example of fire? Is this Upanisad to be also dismissed by your good self?
In the Upanisad above the we see that jiva is a spark and Sri Krsna is the fire. The spark shares the qualities of fire, but in smaller quantity (vibhu and anu).
Sri Krsna is sat, chit, ananda, vigraha (svarupa), and so jiva is also.
But as you say, his ananda and svarupa have not fully "arisen".
(Thank you for introducing the concept of the svarupa "arising"; this verb is very pertinent and illustrative. The concept of an "arising" svarupa is even more clearly in contradistinction with the concept of an "added" svarupa.)
.....
Yes, the dormant svarupa "arises" from the jiva.
Nice and clear. Thank you.
Rasa prema -
ReplyDelete1. the material examples the acaryas give are the material examples of the acaryas who are free from four human defects. that does not go for non-acaryas, such as your good self, nor can we find such a simile in the shastra.
2. no shastra or acarya says prema is dormant, or siddha deha is dormant. if that were ramanujacarya's purport then he would contradict bhagavat 1.6.29, 6.2.43 and 8.3.19.
3. you say -
Well, consider this: Adulthood is "awakened", "accomplished", "attained" by a child as he matures. But a child who "attains" adulthood develops into that mature state.
this is another one of your own ideas or logic which is not following the siddhanta of the acaryas of shastras.
4. you say -
"By hearing and chanting, etc., the consciousness (heart) is purified and this prema arises."
No essential difference in meaning there...
it makes a big difference because awakens indicates a dormant state of siddha deha or prema which is contrary to SB 1.6.29. 6.2.43 and 8.3.19
5. you say -
Is Vedavyasa (Sri Krsna, shaktavesavatara) wrong to use the "material" example of fire? Is this Upanisad to be also dismissed by your good self?
As I said earlier, you make your own examples but you are not Vedavyasa.
6. you say -
Sri Krsna is sat, chit, ananda, vigraha (svarupa), and so jiva is also.
As I explained earlier, this goes for the jiva in accomplished state not in the conditioned state.
Actually in sastra, the seed growing into a tree is widely used.
ReplyDeleteNo less than Rupa Goswami: The seed of devotion arising into the developed creeper of devotion.
......
Yes, I am not Vedavyasa, however I do accept the plain meaning of that quoted Upanisad:
Krsna is the fire (vibhu), and jivas are sparks (anu).
Now are you going to assert that sparks are different in quality from their source the fire?
One and different: one in quality and different in quantity.
So if Krsna is sat, chit, ananda, vigraha (svarupa), then so is jiva in intrinsic constitution.
Can you make another meaning out?
Remember, this is Vedavyasa.
Rasa prema the verse says guru kṛṣṇa prasāde pāy bhakti latā beej - it means by the grace of Guru and Kṛṣṇa he GETS the bhakti latā beej. That also has been repeatedly quoted, even in the blog itself. Have you at least read the blog? The seed is given [pāy] which exactly proves the point that prema / bhakti / siddha deha are not dormant. The Upanisad verse
ReplyDeleteyathagneh ksudra visphulinga vyuccaranti evam
evasmad atmanah sarvani bhutani vyuccaranti
Does not say that the jīva in conditioned state is saccidānanda. Can you show me that from the Sanskrit text please? Why you draw your own conclusions and write your own purports to Sruti?
1) Your original point was that the "seed grows/manifest a tree" simile does not exist in sastra. And I have given evidence that such simile/allegory does in fact exist, in the form of the "the bhakti lata bija" allegory. So you original objection is refuted.
ReplyDelete...........
2) As regards the bhakti lata bija allegory, we must note important points.
Firstly, it is an allegory.
That is to say there is no actual plant growing on the soul. Rather, this allegory indicates that the soul is growing/awakening with ever-increasing devotion. That devotion service is the constitutional nature of the soul.
Now the crux of our discussion is that you deny a constitutional nature (a svarupa) for the jiva soul.
But your opinion is not the opinion of Vedavyasa in Vedanta 4.4.1-3, who quotes Sri Brahmaji no less, Chandogya 8.12.2-3.
But conclusively it is not the opinion of Sri Caitanya, the Supreme Lord of All:
Cc Mad 20.108:
jivera ‘svarupa’ haya—krsnera ‘nitya-dasa’
krsnera ‘tatastha-sakti’ ‘bhedabheda-prakasa’
suryamsa-kirana, yaiche agni-jvala-caya
svabhavika krsnera tina-prakara ‘sakti’ haya
"It is the living entity’s constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Krsna because he is the marginal energy of Krsna and a manifestation simultaneously one with and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire. Krsna has three varieties of energy."
Here it is irrefutably established: 1) jiva has svarupa, 2) jiva-svarupa is eternal, 3) jiva-svarupa is eternal service, 4) jiva is one and different from Sri Krsna, just like the spark and fire, 5) therefore as Krsna is sat, chit, ananda, vigraha (constitutional form and personality), so jiva is also sat, chit, ananda, vigraha or svarupa.
In summary, "jivera ‘svarupa’ haya" is the irrefutable pramana (proof) that jiva has constitutional form and nature (as nitya-krsna-dasa).
..........
3) You objected to my understanding that sparks and fire are non-different in quality, (saying rather superfluously that I am not Vedavyasa). Well that understanding has been the standard understanding since the verse was spoken. In fact, could there be any other reasonable understanding that sparks and fire are non-different in quality?
Moreover, that understanding is irrefutably supported by the above CC M 20.108 verse above:
bhedabheda-prakasa
suryamsa-kirana, yaiche agni-jvala-caya
svabhavika krsnera tina-prakara ‘sakti’ haya
Here jiva is bedabeda prakasa of Sri Krsna.
"Surya amsa" is compared to jiva, the particles of sun are non-different from the sun.
Sri Krsna is vibu, the sat, chit, ananda, svarupa(vigraha);
Jiva is anu, sat, chit, ananda, svarupa (vigraha).
This the way Vedavyasa, Sri Caitanya and innumerable Vaisnavas have expounded on the nature of the soul. And following in their footsteps, I have expounded in the same way. So who should object?
I repeat the Upanisad for your convenience:
In the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad, 2.2.20, we find:
yathagneh ksudra visphulinga vyuccaranti evam
evasmad atmanah sarvani bhutani vyuccaranti
“Just as innumerable sparks cascade out of a flame, similarly, from Sri Krsna, who is the Atma, the Universal Soul, the jivas emanate who are His separated parts and parcels.’
...........
4) Jiva's possession of eternal svarupa as devoted Krsna dasa is thus established.
Jiva's non difference in quality from Sri Krsna as sat, chit, ananda, svarupa is thus established.
And jiva constitutionally possesses sat, chit, ananda, svarupa is thus established.
bedabeda-prakasha; svarupa: nityera krsna dasa.
Aum Tat Sat
.............
Wow - didn't realize there was so much depth to the subject. Very insightful discussion Prabhus.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/HH.Mahanidhi.Swami
Rasaprema, there is no mentioning in the jivera svarupa hoy verse that the jiva is sat cit ananda. This is your imagination. A blind man can see that. All your arguments are based on your own jumps to conclusion. What are you actually debating with me? I never denied that there is a svarupa of the jiva, or that the jiva is a spark of the fire - my only point is that it is not dormant within the heart. None of the texts you quoted say that at all. These are just your own conclusions. The svarupa is eternal yes but it needs to be realized first of all. It is an ontological status but is not realized unless the bhakti lata bij is given and come to full fruition.
ReplyDeleteEarlier I have quoted from Visnu Purana (see above) that jiva is not sat-cit-ananda. Only Krsna has Hladini potency (cit + ananda). Jiva is tatastha and therefore does not have the qualities of Krsna's cit sakti. The svarupananda of the jiva is simply freedom from suffering, which is the eternal quality of the soul. Atma has the potential for bhakti and is meant to be krsnera ‘nitya-dasa’ by constitutional position, but it is not dormant within the soul (see all the verses from SB quoted above.) This is also made very clear in Paramatma Sandarbha where the qualities of the jiva are described. Jiva has anadi-avidya. Where there is bhakti there cannot be avidya. Bhakti is infused onlu by guru it is descending, and this is how the seed is given.
ReplyDeleteThank you Malati, you remind me to post this text -
ReplyDeleteJīva Gosvāmī explains in Paramātma Sandarbha (29) that the jīva is not ānanda in the proper sense of the word: duḥkha-pratiyogitvena tu jñānatvam ānandatvaṁ ca ... ānandatvaṁ nirupādhi-premāspadatvena sādhayati. “Because the jīva is beyond misery it is said to be of the nature of consciousness and bliss ... The jīva attains bliss when it attains love of God.“ However, Jīva Goswāmī mentions the ānanda of the jīva in Prīti Sandarbha (Anu. 65): ato natarāṁ jīvasya svarūpānanda-rūpā, atyanta-kṣudratvāt. He says that it is extremely minute. However, one has to understand the statement in connection with the previous one, i.e. that the ānanda means just non-existence of misery.
If one argues “What about the verse jīvera svarūpa hoy kṛṣṇera nitya-dāsa from Caitanya Caritāmṛta (Madhya 20.108)? How to explain that in the light of bhāva not being inherent? The words nitya and svarūpa also imply inherence, after all.”
The answer to that will be: “The verse jīvera svarūpa hoy kṛṣṇera nitya-dāsa does not say that bhakti is inherent to the jīva. It just means that the jīva is a śakti of the Lord, and thus it is subordinate to Him who is the śaktimān, the Owner of the śakti. This relationship is eternal. It never was and will never be different. The verses subsequent to this one in Caitanya Caritāmṛta make the point clearly. The Bhagavad Gītā statement mad bhaktiṁ labhate paraṁ (18.54) “He attains My devotion and thus the Supreme” proves bhakti is not intrinsic but gotten (labhate) from outside.
Dear Advaita dasa, you say that "bhakti is not intrinsic but gotten from outside", but that is not teaching of Vedavyasa in Sb 1.7.7:
ReplyDeleteyasyam vai sruyamanayam
krsne parama-puruse
bhaktir utpadyate pumsah
soka-moha-bhayapaha
"By giving aural reception to this Vedic literature[Bhagavatam], bhakti, loving devotional service to Sri Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, arises to extinguish the fire of lamentation, illusion and fearfulnessn [of jiva]."
The operative verb is utpadyate: arises, is produced, appears, etc.
So just as in the verse: nitya-siddha krsna prema.... The inherent, intrinsic, constitutional bhakti is awoken, arises, comes forth from jiva whose svarupa is nitya-krsna dasa.
The dictionary definitions are below:
utpadyate: take place
utpadyate: come forth
utpadyate: begin on
utpadyate: arise
utpadyate: become visible
utpadyate: rise
utpadyate: appear
utpadyate: originate
utpadyate: be ready
utpadyate: be born or produced
utpadyate: be born
utpadyate: accrue
utpadyate:has arisen
utpadyate: come into existence
utpadyate: be produced
utpadyate: proceed
utpadyate: go forth
Yes rasaprema thank you for adding to the evidence I have quoted that bhakti/prema/siddha deha is not awakened from a dormant state but it arises, coming from the outside, like all the other verses I quoted from SB and CC.
ReplyDeleteThank you also for the lengthy gloss that proves that it arises, comes into existence, and appears.
Dear Advaita dasa
ReplyDeleteYes, as you say bhakti "arises, comes into existence, and appears".
However, you miss the point that bhakti is "arising, coming into existence, and appears" from the svarupa of of the nitya-siddha prema, nityera krsna dasa, in short bhakti arises from jiva-svarupa.
If bhakti is not arising from the jiva, then where from is it "arising and appearing"?
If bhakti is arising and appearing, then it must be arising and appearing from somewhere?
Keshidamana, you said:
ReplyDelete"In the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad, 2.2.20, we find:...."
Have you ever opened this Upaniṣada? There is no 2.2.20 at all. The second brāhmaṇa (śiśu-brāhmaṇa) of the second adhyāya ends on the 4th mantra and this brāhmaṇa deals with Mukhya Praṇa (so as entire Upaniṣada).
Rasaprema the problem is that you do not peruse the evidence provided. SB 1.6.29 [28 in some editions of the Bhāgavata] says prayujyamāna, which is glossed by Srīdhara Swāmi as bhagavata nīyamāna, it is brought by the Lord. I dedicated one blog blog to that too.
ReplyDeletePlease study that. Febr. 21, 2006
From where does bhakti arise? Bhakti, being part of Krsna's hladini-shakti, is not inherent in jiva. So the seed is given by guru, and it arises in the devotee who has received this seed and is doing his sadhana. However, since bhakti is nitya-siddha, it is not the result of that sadhana (sadhya), but it arises or manifests out of Bhaktidevi's own sweet will, to bless the devotee. This is the meaning of the nitya-siddha verse, as has been explained earlier here. BRS 1.3.4 says that bhava becomes manifest in the heart and becomes one with the vrittis of the mind.
ReplyDeleteBhakti Sandarbha (Anuccheda 142) is also quite clear about this:
ReplyDelete"Bhakti is the supreme aspect of this internal potency known as hlādinī. The Lord remains eternally situated in His fullness while transmitting this potency of bhakti to His own devotees. Then by contact with His own bliss-giving potency in the form of bhakti situated in His devotees, He experiences still greater delight."
And here is Śrīdhara Svāmī's comment on the earlier quoted VIṢṆU PURĀṆA verse:
"Hlādinī bestows delight, sandhinī is existence, and saṁvit is the cognitive potency. Ekā ('one') means predominant, undeviating, and intrinsic to the Lord’s essential nature. This energy is present in You only, the support of everything (sarva-saṁsthiti), or in other words, the one from whom all things come into being. This potency, however, is not present in the living beings. And the energy consisting of the three material guṇas, which is present in the living beings, is not in You."
So just from these quotes it is evident that bhakti is not inherent in any dormant state in the jīva.
Dear Advaita, The original starting point of this blog was as per your assertion quoted below:
ReplyDeleteAdvaita dasa: "I tell him [Maha Nidhi] I don't believe that the soul is sac-cid-ānanda, but only sat and cit."
But as just above, Advaita dasa posts: "However, Jīva Goswāmī mentions the ānanda of the jīva in Prīti Sandarbha (Anu. 65): ato natarāṁ jīvasya svarūpānanda-rūpā, atyanta-kṣudratvāt. He says that it[ananda] is extremely minute."
So Jiva Goswami does affirm, as Advaita dasa quotes, that jiva has "svarupa" and that svarupa contains "ananda".
Yes, the ananda of sat, chit, ananda svarupa is minute, as the jiva is "anu caitanya". Thereby, the sat and chit are also minute.
However incontrovertibly, as per Jiva Goswami, jiva svarupa is of sat, chit, ananda.
Now in my pocket I may have a little money. But having a little money in my pocket does not mean that I have NO money in my pocket. Of course.
So to spell it out: "Minute ananda" means the "presence of ananda".
Therefore jiva svarupa according to Jiva Goswami is sat, chit, ananda.
Therefore it is wrong to assert that jiva svarupa is just "sat and chit".
Aum Tat Sat
............
Therefore, in conclusion:
Jiva has constitutional svarupa eternally as "nitya-dasa",
And the constitution of jiva svarupa is anu (minute) sat, chit, ananda.
As Supreme Lord, Sri Caitanya explains, Cc Madhya 20:
jivera ‘svarupa’ haya—krsnera ‘nitya-dasa’
krsnera ‘tatastha-sakti’ ‘bhedabheda-prakasa’
suryamsa-kirana, yaiche agni-jvala-caya
svabhavika krsnera tina-prakara ‘sakti’ haya
"It is the living entity’s constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Krsna because he is the marginal energy of Krsna and a manifestation simultaneously one with and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire. Krsna has three varieties of energy."
Jiva is molecular particle svarupa of sat, chit, and yes, ananda. Constitutionally.
Aum Tat Sat.
..................
rasaprema, you should read all the comments of this blog please.
ReplyDeleteadvaitadasTuesday, November 15, 2011 at 4:24:00 PM GMT+1
I submitted Visvanatha's tika of 3.7.10 to Dr Satyanarayan Das and he replies as follows [15.11.2011]-
"Ananda here means lack of misery and not the ananda which is the outocme or svarupa of bhakti, bhakti being an essence of samvit and hladini potency. The opponents will agree that this ananda of jiva in baddha state is not the ananda of bhakti.
The ananda is of various types such as martyananda, brahmananda and bhaktyananda.
Martyanada is the material happiness, brahmananda is freedom from material misery and bliss of being in one's svarupa identified with Brahman.
Bhaktyananda is the bliss which is experienced by a devotte (asraya of prema) in relation to visaya of prema i.e. by giving pleasure to Krsna.
In Paramatma Sandarbha section 28 Sri Jiva Gosvami clearly says that when it is said that jiva is jnana svarupa it means it is not inert (not that it is full knowledge) and when it is said that it is ananda svarupa it means it is devoid of misery. Tatra tasya jada-pratiyogitvena jnanatvam duhkha-pratiyogitvena tu jnanatvam anandatvam ca. Then he further says that anandatvam means that atma is the object of love without any condition. anandatvam ca nirupadhi.premaspadatvena sadhayati
tasmat priyatama........(SB 10.14.54)
These people who jump up and down by seing words jnana and ananda with the svarupa of jiva do not have any idea what the words jnana and ananda really mean. You should ask them what is the meaning of the word ananda. Is it having any content or is it contentless? Does it have any subject/object relation or is it indeterminate? Let me see if they even understand the question."
The following article makes that point also quite clear:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jiva.org/are-bliss-and-knowledge-inherent/
Dear Advaita dasa, I send the following posting days ago.
ReplyDeleteDear Advaita dasa and Satyanarayana dasa,
We have to distinguish between an extrapolation and a definition.
Moreover, it is fallacious to accept only the extrapolation and thereby reject the definition upon which the extrapolation is based.
Advaita dasa, quoting Jiva Goswami, informs us that by constitution jiva has the attribute ananda:
“Jīva Goswāmī mentions the ānanda of the jīva in Prīti Sandarbha (Anu. 65): ato natarāṁ jīvasya svarūpānanda-rūpā, atyanta-kṣudratvāt. He says that it is extremely minute.”
The definition of ‘’ananda” is “bliss”.
And it is correct to *extrapolate* that therefore, as Jiva Goswami does, that jiva is “free of misery”.
However it is incorrect thereafter to only accept the extrapolation and not the definition upon which the extrapolation is based.
In effect saying something like “ananda does not mean bliss; ananda means only freedom from misery”.
Clearly, this is fallacious and unreasonable, because the “freedom from misery” is due to the “presence of ananda, bliss” in the svarupa, constitution of jiva.
Jiva Goswami writes: “svarupananda-rupa” in the Priti Sandarbha, Anu 65, as above.
To illustrate: one has “money in one’s pocket” and so one is “free of poverty”.
One cannot say “I am free of poverty”, but “I have no money available”.
Similarly, jiva has, as Jiva Goswami writes, “minute ananda as a constitutional component” and so jiva is “free of misery”.
……………………………………..
The other constitutional attributes of jiva illustrate the point further:
Jiva svarupa is sat, also.
Primary definition of sat is ‘’eternal”. Therefore “jiva is eternal”.
Extrapolation: jiva is “free of destruction”; jiva is “not temporary”; jiva is “not illusory”.
These extrapolations are valid. However, an extrapolation must be accepted in relation to the primary definition. And why an extrapolation should be used to exclude the primary definition upon which it is based?
For example: if we insist that “jiva is sat and so is free of destruction but he is not eternal”, then clearly there is defect in our statement. We are accepting the effect but not the cause.
……………………………..
To illustrate the point further:
Jiva svarupa is chit, also.
Primary definition of chit is “conscious, cognizant, a knower”.
Extrapolation: jiva is “free of ignorance, not inert, not material”.
These extrapolations are valid.
However, it is fallacious to then argue something like “jiva-svarupa is free of ignorance, but I do not accept that jiva is a conscious, cognizant being.” Then we are again in the unreasonable position.
It is akin to saying “jiva is free of avidya”, but jiva has “no cit, consciousness”. (Incidentally, this has impersonalistic, voidistic overtones.)
…………………………….
Therefore, we can define jiva-svarupa, “saccidananda, as eternal, conscious and blissful”.
And we can extrapolate jiva-svarupa is therefore “not temporary, not inert, free of misery”.
But we cannot just accept the extrapolation and not the foundational definition. That is incorrect.
…………………………..
Therefore, in conclusion:
Prīti Sandarbha (Anu. 65): ato natarāṁ jīvasya svarūpānanda-rūpā, atyanta-kṣudratvāt
Therefore as Advaita originally informs us (I paraphrase): “Minute ananda, bliss, is the svarupa of jiva, according to Jiva Goswami.”
Then Advaita correctly extrapolates “svarupananda means jiva is free of misery”.
But it is incorrect to discard one’s original statement and say “jiva svarupananda does not mean blissful by constitutional, only free of misery”.
The simple conclusion is that jiva is free of misery, *because* his svarupa is minute ananda – which is what Jiva Goswami clearly says in the first place anyway. So to reject that original statement is without justification.
So Jiva svarupa is saccidananda, “eternal, conscious and blissful”, and by extrapolation also “not temporary, not inert, free of misery”.”
Aum Tat Sat
………………………………………..
PS: I followed the above link to the essay of Satyanarayana and I was pleased to see that he affirms that in the Vedas jiva is defined as “saccidananda”.
Sorry I had to post this as anonymous since I'm ignorant of the process on how to do it.
ReplyDeleteI think this is the first time I visit a forum on internet that keept me reading with rapt attention. Thanks to ALL of you.
However, I must particularly thank Rasaprema Dasa Prabhu.
IMHO, (if the Pandits here allow my PER-ZONAL opinion), the conditioned tatastha-jiva will attain ONLY the stage of bhava-ananda after having "tasted" its shadow since time immemorial. ONLY the siddha tatastha-jiva MANY-FEASTS prema-ananda.
Thus, a way to conclude my humble opinion (if the Pandits allow my way of "following" Mahaprabhu's tenets of achintya-bhedabheda-tattva and achintya-bhedabheda-rasa simultaneously) is that everyone is right by quoting shastra (TATTVA), as well of those who quote their innermost intuition (RASA).
"My" point is that when TATTVA and RASA are together sambhoga takes place -- thus everything seems in harmony. Nonetheless, when TATTVA and RASA literally separates, vipralambha many-feats (yes! "FEATS")... thus discussions take place.
BTW, according to Kaviraja Goswamipada, "discussions" on devotional truths (siddha-anta) strengthen one's mind (towards rasa). One must not shun away from it.
Again, thank you ALL.
Sadhudasa Anudasa Dasa (yes! it stands for "SAD" .... once I'm STILL (&) conditioned...)
Just to make a last point, one word can have many meanings according to its context, eg. when the word 'prabhu' or 'isvara' is used for the jiva it means that he is superior to body mind, senses etc. and not that he is the supreme controller like Krsna. Similarly, when the term saccidananda is used, eg. in Padma Purana or in Sri Brhad Bhagavatamrita, it has to be understood in its proper context.
ReplyDeleteIn his own purport to BB 2.2.176 after using the term sac-cid-ananda-vastunah for the jiva, Sanatana Gosvami makes it clear what he means by it. He says that that when jiva is situated in its own svarupa, as said in SB 2.10.6, there is no happiness but only dukhabhava, absence of misery and its cause, tatkaranabhavamatrata. There is no happiness - sukham nastiti siddham eva.
He says that even in the opinion of Vivartavadis the sukham is insignificant, tuccham, and in comparison to the bliss of bhakti in the form of realization of the lotus feet of the Lord who is saccidananda this sukham is ati-alpakm - very minute. In fact there is no sukha only dukhabhava. The sukha is accepted only by tusytu-durjajana nyaya - meaning 'I accept it to please the rascal'. So Sanatana Gosvami is very clear here, sukham tatra tattvato nasti - happiness does not exist at all. It is accepted only for the sake of argument and to ultimately prove the glory of happiness of bhakti.
By this it is shown that the ananda of jiva is not of the same type as that Bhagavan. For that reason sometimes only sat and cit are stressed.
As SND Babaji has pointed out, the jiva has the potential (svarupa yogyata) to get knowledge and bliss but not yet the functionality (phalopadhayi yogyata).
This attainment of ananda is coming from the Lord’s internal potency, as also explained in Priti Sandarbha 65: “The overwhelmingly blissful function of the hladini shakti is eternally being transferred (niksipyana) into the devotees where it has been given the name bhagavat-priti, or love of the Lord."
Posting:
ReplyDeleteDear Readers, well, thanks for the words of appreciation, and kudos for Advaita dasa for facilitating this discussion.
I would like to make a few further points:
……………………………
Section 1) It is important to distinguish descriptions of jiva in bondage and jiva in krsna-prema. In both conditions, we find that jiva is saccidananda, as per acintya bedabeda tattva. Jiva in krsna-prema is his expanded experience of saccidananda, whereas jiva in bondage is his constricted experience of saccidananda.
Nonetheless his essential constitutional nature does not change in either condition.
Why? He is "sat": eternal, and unchanging.
To posit that jiva "becomes a servant", "becomes blissful", "becomes devotional", by an external assumption is to contradict the meaning of "sat: eternal and unchanging".
Simple.
Furthermore, to posit that by external addition or assumption jiva "becomes a servant", becomes blissful", "becomes devotional" is to imply that ultimately krsna-prema and krsna-seva is foreign to the svarupa of jiva, in the same way that the material body is foreign to the jiva.
Furthermore, this clearly has impersonalistic overtones.
Moreover, this concept posits that transcendence and an assumed transcendental form is foreign to jiva, just as material life and the material body are foreign to jiva.
And of course, against sastra, "jivera-svarupa hoy, nityera krsna-dasa".
...............................
Section 2)
Above quoted Cc Madhya 20.108, informs us that that jiva is “inconceivably one and different from jiva source, Sri Krsna. That verse explains that jiva is a “molecule of the Krsna-sun”.
The jiva molecule of sun is non-different from the Krsna sun, therefore he is non-different in quality constitutionally.
However, he is different in quantity. Hence bedabeda.
Sastra and big acaryas have described in this way:
Sri Krsna is sun, jiva is molecule of sun.
Sri Krsna is fire, jiva is spark of fire.
Sri Krsna is mountain of gold, jiva is particle of gold.
Hence, jiva is non-different by quality, yet different by quantity.
……………………………
Continuation:
ReplyDeleteSection 3) Some may object saying something the like of “Rupa Goswami gives sixty-four qualities for Sri Krsna, but only fifty for jiva.”
This sounds reasonable. However, first point is that such a point of view, such assertion is contrary to ‘’acintya bedabeda” as described in point 1) above. So to hold such a point of view is to position oneself *against* acintya bedabeda tattva, and thus sastra and acaryas – hence the position is doubtful.
Yet it remains a fair point, Krsna sixty-four qualities, jiva fifty qualities.
So how to resolve this apparent contradiction?
Actually, quite easily. If one carefully examines the extra fourteen qualities (64-50=14), then the answer becomes self-evident:
Resolution: The extra fourteen qualities enumerated for Sri Krsna are due to His unlimited potency. We enumerate these fourteen here for the convenience of the Vaisnavas.
The perceptive reader will see that the fourteen are all related to Sri Krsna’s *unlimited* nature:
“‘These qualities are (51) the Lord is always situated in His original position, (52) He is omniscient, (53) He is always fresh and youthful, (54) He is the concentrated form of eternity, knowledge and bliss, (55) He is the possessor of all mystic perfection, (56) the Lord possesses inconceivable supreme power, (57) He generates innumerable universes from His body, (58) He is the original source of all incarnations, (59) He bestows salvation upon the enemies He kills, and (60) He has the ability to attract exalted persons who are atmarama, satisfied within themselves, (61) Krsna is like an ocean filled with the waves of lilas that evoke wonder within everyone in the three worlds; (62) in His activities of conjugal love, Krsna is always surrounded by His dear devotees who possess unequalled love for Him; (63) Krsna attracts the minds of all the three worlds with the melodious vibration of His flute; (64) the personal beauty and opulence of Krsna are beyond compare; no one is equal to Him, and no one is greater than Him.”
So, Sri Krsna is vibhu, the unlimited fire, whereas jiva is anu, the minute fire. And one can see that the extra fourteen qualities are due to the “different in quantity” aspect, not the “non-difference in quality” aspect.
As number (64) states: “No-one is equal to Him, and no-one is greater that Him” [in quantity].
So this is the siddhanta: on account of His unlimited nature [quantitatively] Sri Krsna surpasses all in opulence. Yet jiva remains non-different in constitutional quality as a spark is non-different from the fire.
Rasaprema, briefly - it seems you are in a habit to let your own intellectual logic prevail over Śruti pramāṇa which is the supreme pramāṇa, plus all the verses from Gītā and C.C. that were quoted here to show the external bestowal. In short, you are rejecting śāstra - is that not the fourth offence to the holy name?
ReplyDeletehttp://madangopal.blogspot.nl/2007/08/pure-love-for-krsna-is-not-dormant.html
ReplyDeleteDear Advaita dasa,
ReplyDeleteI have just reviewed my previous twelve postings and there are at least twenty-eight references, quotations from sastra.
Is this “rejecting sastra”?
For example:
“As Supreme Lord, Sri Caitanya explains, Cc Madhya 20:
jivera ‘svarupa’ haya—krsnera ‘nitya-dasa’
krsnera ‘tatastha-sakti’ ‘bhedabheda-prakasa’
suryamsa-kirana, yaiche agni-jvala-caya
svabhavika krsnera tina-prakara ‘sakti’ haya
"It is the living entity’s constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Krsna because he is the marginal energy of Krsna and a manifestation simultaneously one with and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire. Krsna has three varieties of energy."
Jiva is molecular particle svarupa of sat, chit, and yes, ananda. Constitutionally.”
So here is sastra and a simple conclusion.
…………………………….
The crux of the discussion revolves around 1) is jiva svarupa saccidananda, or 2) is jiva svarupa sat and chit, excluding ananda (as you “believe” at the start of this blog).
This soul holds 1) and quotes the above sastra, plus twenty-seven more references, to support conclusion 1).
Your good self holds 2).
Yet, above you quote Jiva Goswami as teaching that jiva has “minute ananda” in his constitution.
So your position is contradictory.
…………………………………………
Kindly provide some direct statement from sastra that supports your leading statement:
“I tell him I don't believe that the soul is sac-cid-ānanda, but only sat and cit.”
Kindly focus on this request.
Positive pramana, proof, from sastra.
You must have some sastra upon which you base your above statement.
Kindly answer specifically this question.
To make very clear: the plain sastra that states the soul is not “sac-cid-ānanda, but only sat and cit.”
This is what you “believe”.
Kindly give direct sastric pramana
Rasaprema, in your conclusion you directly contradict Srila Sridhara Swami about whom Lord Chaitanya Himself said in CC Antya that he is the spiritual master of the entire world because by his mercy we can understand Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
ReplyDeleteI have already quoted him above in reference to the Visnu Purana verse and quote the relevant section again: "This energy is present in You only, the support of everything (sarva-saṁsthiti), or in other words, the one from whom all things come into being. This potency, however, is not present in the living beings."
Rasa prema/ Keshi Damana, you quote one verse only, from shastra, which Malati and me have exhaustively explained, and you then reject Jiva Goswami, one of the six Goswamis. You also reject the verses of CC and the Srutis that we quoted. Then you continue again with your own brain's logic. Did you follow the link I made this morning to my blog of August 18, 2007?
ReplyDeleteWhen I say 'I do not believe' then that is for approaching ignorant persons who may be on the fence or may be opposed, as we do not know how people may react. It is not literally that I just mentally 'believe'. This is called Vaisnava Maryada, which you could also learn if you like.
You ask for pramana, I will not spell them all out again, I am too busy for that. Even if I would spell them all out you will not understand anyway, and come again with your own brain logic. Peruse the 93 comments here, the blog itself and the blog of August 18, 2007. There is plenty of evidence there.
Advaita dasa posts: "However, Jīva Goswāmī mentions the ānanda of the jīva in Prīti Sandarbha (Anu. 65): ato natarāṁ jīvasya svarūpānanda-rūpā, atyanta-kṣudratvāt.
ReplyDelete"He says that it [ananda] is extremely minute."
So to spell it out: "Minute ananda" means the "presence of ananda".
How can "minute ananda" mean "no ananda"?
If I have "a little money in my pocket", that cannot be interpreted to mean I have "no money in my pocket".
What is the difficulty?
Even a three-year old child knows the difference between "a little money" and "no money".
So cannot all the big philosophers of this blog accept the difference between "minute ananda" and "no ananda".
And then accept the plain statement of Jiva Goswami, thankfully provided by Advaita: "jīvasya svarūpānanda-rūpa".
PS: At the moment, we are focusing on one topic: Is jiva svarupa of ananda, constitutionally?
Jiva Goswami says "minute ananda".
Rasaprema/Kesidamana/Acaryavilasa leaves me with no option but to introduce a new boardrule [after allowing himself to repeat himself for the umpteeth time] - repetitive comments will also be blocked. [See 'about me' on the home page of this blog]. We have already provided enough evidence from śāstra that the ānanda of bhakti is added to the minute ānanda of the conditioned souls. And with this, we have officially broken a record - this is the most commented upon blog ever in the 8-year history of madangopal.blogspot.com. Unless our multi-named friend has any substantial point to add it would be good to end this endless and fruitless debate here.
ReplyDeleteHare Krishna,
ReplyDeleteThis is indeed a long discussion, I can't claim to have read all the posts with due attention but I don't think that there was any evidence presented that ananda is not a part of jiva's constitution, which was stated in the article itself.
That "ānanda of bhakti is added to the minute ānanda of the conditioned souls" is not the same. I don't think this even needed proof if we accept Satyanarayan's/Rupa Goswami's explanation of different kinds of ananda.
Here's another way to look at it - sat and cit can be realized by the soul on its own but ananda comes only from service to Krishna, so in that way it IS external - it needs external entity, Krishna, to manifest itself. Whether we possess it right now, in the conditioned state, doesn't really matter if we can't access it, right?
There's one other thing - the accusation that Srila Prabhupada mistranslated a verse or misrepresented philosophy. For ISKCON devotees this is of primary concern regardless of how the argument turns out in the end - we gain spiritual knowledge by serving our guru and this means our service in this situation would be protecting Prabhupada's integrity. You might not appreciate this attitude in the context of intellectual discussion but between these arguments and serving our guru it's not really a choice. You can have your intellectual victory, we'll stick with our guru. By maintaining explicit faith in our guru we will eventually learn where ananda comes from directly, not just theoretically.
On "nitya siddha" verse - this is in Bengali, Prabhupada's mother tongue, and it was shown here that "eternally established in the hearts of the living entities" relates to the previous verses that come as a block and where "hearts" have already been introduced. You have quoted Mukunda Goswami comment that nitya siddha there (BRS 1.2.2) meant eternally liberated souls but Lord Chaitanya was talking about ordinary jivas, besides I can't imagine how Mukunda Goswami would have translated the verse itself. I don't know Sanskrit but it would seem the entire structure and the meaning would have been completely altered to accommodate presence of actual "nittya siddhas" instead of "which is eternally present", as translated by Prabhupada. Even grammatically this substitution does not seem to fit.
On philosophical deviation - here's what Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati said in his purport to Brahma Samhita 5.32: "Both jīva-soul and Kṛṣṇa are transcendental. So they belong to the same category. But they differ in this that the transcendental attributes exist in the jīva-soul in infinitesimally small degrees, whereas in Kṛṣṇa they are found in their fullest perfection."
I don't see how Srila Prabhupada deviated from his guru on such a fundamental matter. It's practically the corner stone of achintya bhedabheda tattva - Krishha is sat-cit-ananda-vigraha and we have the same nature, same qualities but in a minute degree. Simultaneously one and different.
On our side we have this straightforward application of achintya bhedabheda (and vibhu and anu, and sun and sunshine, and fire and individual sparks - sūryāḿśa-kiraṇa, yaiche agni-jvālā-caya), along with "nitya -siddha" verse from CC, so on your side you should show some direct statements denying jivas innate possession of ananda. Where does it say that jivas differ from the Lord in that they do not possess ananda but only only sat and cit?
So far you haven't done so and rely only on one possible interpretation of bhaktilata-bija verse.
Let's leave the jiva fall issue off the table for now.
Sitalatma, all glories to your Guru nistha. Nothing remains to be said then. You come here to announce that nothing and nobody will convince you. Thank you for that announcement. What more you want to discuss? You like to reject all acaryas and all shastras for your Guru, fine. You, like Rasaprema, could perhaps read Bhanu Swami's translation of BRS 1.2.2? He is a disciple of your Guru too, and he also knows your Guru's native tongue Bengali. There is nothing there in BRS 1.2.2 about prema being dormant in the heart of the conditioned soul, not by any stretch of the imagination. Like Rasa prema you also have not studied the 96 preceding comments, nor the evidence provided in the blog of August 18, 2007? But even this is useless repetition for a person who has already entrenched himself in Guru nistha that leads to rejection of acaryas like Mukunda Goswami, a disciple of Krsnadas Kaviraja Goswami, plus Vyasadeva, who wrote the Bhagavat, which is quoted three times here.
ReplyDelete"Nothing remains to be said then" - but that is the point, regardless of the outcome of this discussion bhakti is attained by serving guru, and knowledge is manifested through service to guru, too. Knowledge obtained by any other means, through debates or intellectually studying shastra is superficial and, at the end, illusory - because it makes us believe in some sort of objective reality, independent of our relations with guru/Krishna, reality that you can study on your own, then apply this knowledge by selecting a spritiual master compliant with your conclusions, and then this guru will give you Krishna. This is a rather non-devotional approach.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, during execution of our service, there's a lot to be said about glory of Krishna and the Absolute Truth but somehow this thread turned into "Your Prabhupada was wrong and didn't follow acharyas" which is surely unproductive.
"Like Rasa prema you also have not studied the 96 preceding comments" - now it seems you are repeating yourself. I've read the comments, haven't seen the proof, and you keep saying it's all there. Though I admit I haven't looked at Aug 18, 2007 article until now.
ReplyDelete"Love of Krishna is not dormant" is not exactly "jiva does not possess ananda", proving point about love does not automatically prove the assertion made in this article so I didn't check it our earlier. Now that I have, I see that your were given a few quotes related to this post as well.
To me they don't look convincing at all and might be related to something entirely different.
Let's see how your argument goes:
First you say that our translation of "nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema 'sādhya' kabhu naya" is wrong, which leads to the need to discredit our translation of preceding "nitya siddhasya bhāvasya" verse, too. This also calls for another interpretation of "jīvera svarūpa hoy kṛṣṇera nitya-dāsa". So we have three shlokas that we see as clear and unified while your point rests on the chain of successful refutations of all three holding up at all times, and I don't think you can pull it off.
In the end it all hinges on a single tika by Mukunda Goswami's on "nitya siddhasya bhāvasya" which in isolation doesn't look controversial at all - "The pure sattva which is ever present in the nitya siddha devotees manifests itself and thus should not be seen as artificial." It becomes controversial only when you apply it in a certain way - to suggest that the verse relates only to nittya siddhas and not to the rest of us and therefore the verse means something different.
Prabhupada's translation is "nitya-siddhasya — which is eternally present", nothing about existence or practices of nittya siddha souls. Neither are preceding verses. I don't have Banu Swami's translation but I suspect he'd object to his version being interpreted as fundamentally opposing Srila Prabhupada.
Someone also offered quotes from Sandarbhas and Govinda Bhashya to support your point. I see them as not very relevant. Srila Prabhupada, for example, often quoted "anandamayo-bhyasat" but he also refuted applying this to a jiva soul, doesn't mean he agreed with you on "no ananda in the jiva". I can't check what those quotes exactly mean and what they were trying to prove. In the end, Srila Prabhupada followed his guru, and I'd take Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's scriptural knowledge over your supporters any day.
ReplyDeleteThere's one more thing form Lord Chaitanya (CC.Madhya.22.118):
"One should not partially study many scriptures just to be able to give references and expand explanations."
There's no way in this lifetime that I'll master the Sandarbhas or Govinda Bhashya, let alone Vedanta Sutra. If that is what you imply is necessary to understand such basic things about our philosophy then I'd rather pass. All we need to know is in Gita, Bhagavatam, Chaitanya Charitamrita, and, for ISKCON devotees, Nectar of Devotion. If you have time, abilities, and inclination to throughly study other books - good for you, but it's not necessary for the rest of us or for the realization of ananda itself.
Speaking of abilities - in Nectar of Devotion, in the part related to "nitya siddhasya bhāvasya" verse, Srila Prabhupada gives example of ability to walk, which is innate but also needs teaching. Other examples like that is our ability to speak - every human possess it and can speak but not unless he's been taught by other humans. Our ability to procreate is the same - it's present in our bodies but can't manifest itself without external help.
I think this approach would give us a better angle at inherent/dormant/awaken/arising interpretations of bhakti and, by extension, ananda. It would also support your point of view ("we don't have ananda unless we come into contact with guru and Krishna"), unless you push it to the limits - "no ananda is present in the jiva in any degree, shape or form", which, btw, you still haven't got direct quotes for, only interpretations of other people's tikas, and given without context, too.
PK Vidyavan
ReplyDeleteDear learned devotees,
It is fine to see this discussion and read all postings. I have background in this subject as my family has been sisyas of caste goswami line for two hundred year and more. My father took the diksa, but I did not as I could not find confidence in the son of the goswami who gave the diksa to my father. His behaviour was not good from the material view, even to speak of spiritual line. This the idea that my father gave to me. Caste goswami is 'nitya-siddha' from birth line, and so he can give the prema, ananda, moksa by guru-shakti only. By guru soul will enter Vaikuntha only.
By investigation checking it was found that even father and son were not in family line from original parsada of Mahaprabhu. That parsada had no family line descendants more than one generation. But our family guru actually was in line from disciple of parsada. Therefore our family guru had no family line connection even. And was not truthful so fraud was his claim. By investigation found that this is case in many other jati gosai.
The family guru claim qualification for guru position only by family body line must be under examination.
This discussion is very keen as jati goswami teaching that only they are giving prema and svarupa to jiva, other bhakta cannot be guru in this way.
One side of this discussion say prema, ananda, svarupa is natural to jiva in constitution and wake up by chanting. This is clear in Bengali of sastra. Other side say prema, svarupa, etc., is getting from guru in jati goswami line only possible. This jati philosophy is only for taking donation from foolish disciple and living easy on false claim of spiritual power by family line, even when family line is not there.
PK Vidyavan, thank you for your contribution. The issue here is not whether one gets svarupa from a jati gosai or from someone else, but whether the svarupa is dormant or is bestowed from outside. I have quoted from Upanisads, Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu and Caitanya Caritamrita that the svarupa is bestowed from the outside. Surely these ancient classic Vedic scriptures have nothing to do with caste goswami lineages, fraudulent or otherwise?
ReplyDeletePK Vidyavan
ReplyDeleteDear Learned Devotees,
I was seeing that main discussion was if constitution of soul was containing ananda or not. As learned devotees agree, svarupa is related but is different item and word. Svarupa is, as quoted above, own natural form and natural (constitutional) nature. Ananda has meaning of bliss. So question is if jiva svarupa contains ananda bliss by constitution.
One point, from my father, is that if svarupa was "bestowed from the outside", then that is not svarupa. Svarupa is own form, own nature. If svarupa was "bestowed from the outside", then it cannot be "from inside", then it cannot be ''own form and nature" or svarupa. Definition of word meaning answers question.
So question remains if svarupa is containing ananda, yes or no. Reading carefully all posts, the starting post says jiva svarupa, nature, is only chit and sat. By speaking we say "sat", "chit", ''ananda" making separation by word usage. But point is para-shakti is one energy, not three. Para-shakti is one energy but showing three quality, sat, chit, ananda. This three qualities is unified by own nature, svarupa. From para-shakti we cannot take out ananda, and leave only sat and chit. Same way, we cannot take out sat from para-shakti and say para-shakti is chit and ananda now only; that is not para-shakti. Same way, we cannot take out chit from para-shakti and say para-shakti is now sat and ananda only; that is not para-shakti. Para-shakti is one. Not chit and sat, only. Or sat and ananda only. Or chit and ananda only. Para-shakti must be all three together, as it is one energy with three qualities on display.
Gita Seven chapter, "Apareyam itas tv anyam prakrtim viddhi me param jiva-bhutam: "All material nature is My inferior prakrti, but beyond this is another para-prakrti-jiva-bhutam, the living entity." Lord says jiva is not matter product, but para-prakrti, Supreme Nature. Para meaning is Supreme. If jiva is only sat and chit, and missing ananda, then he is not Para, Supreme Nature.
So everything and Bhagavan is pointing, jiva-svarupa is Para, Supreme, having sat, chit and ananda. but jiva svarupa is smallest, Bhagavan svarupa is greatest and more.
With respect by reading all posts and sastra upside, there is no sastra directly saying jiva svarupa is sat and chit only. Only interpretation by foregone conclusion. Same as many jati goswami line, some saying also jiva is sat only.
So nittya siddha jivas possess swarupa, bhakti, and ananda, while nittya-baddha souls do not?
ReplyDeleteHow about this question from Uddhava Gita answered by Krishna:
O my Lord, Acyuta, the same living entity is sometimes described as eternally conditioned and at other times as eternally liberated. I am not able to understand, therefore, the actual situation of the living entity. You, my Lord, are the best of those who are expert in answering philosophical questions. Please explain to me the symptoms by which one can tell the difference between a living entity who is eternally liberated and one who is eternally conditioned. In what various ways would they remain situated, enjoy life, eat, evacuate, lie down, sit or move about?
The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: My dear Uddhava, due to the influence of the material modes of nature, which are under My control, the living entity is sometimes designated as conditioned and sometimes as liberated. In fact, however, the soul is never really bound up or liberated, and since I am the supreme Lord of māyā, which is the cause of the modes of nature, I also am never to be considered liberated or in bondage.
That is SB 11.10.36-37 and 11.11.1
Krishna doesn't seem to leave space for any fundamental differences between these two types of souls.
So nittya siddha jivas possess swarupa, bhakti, and ananda, while nittya-baddha souls do not?
ReplyDeleteThat is what was already quoted from the Sandarbhas, no?
Kṛṣṇa explains in verses 1 and 2 that avidyā is an illusion. The jīva is taṭastha śakti, eternally and intrinsically. An American who is flat broke is a US citizen and a US billionnaire is also a US citizen. Baddha jīvas have sat in common with mukta jīvas. Verses 11.11.1-2 do not say that the baddha jīva is sat cit ānanda or that he has dormant prema, svarūpa etc.
"That is what was already quoted from the Sandarbhas, no?" - with all humility, I must have missed those references.
ReplyDelete"An American who is flat broke is a US citizen and a US billionnaire is also a US citizen. Baddha jīvas have sat in common with mukta jīvas. Verses 11.11.1-2 do not say that the baddha jīva is sat cit ānanda or that he has dormant prema, svarūpa etc."
No, they don't say that, but an American is an American, regardless of his situation, so his intrinsic qualities remain the same.
Why do you assume that American in Cambodian jail is intrinsically different from an American in Ohio?
What else were you trying to convey? Their fundamental differences? It just doesn't follow.
In Paramatma Sandarbha section 28 Sri Jiva Gosvami clearly says that when it is said that jiva is jnana svarupa it means it is not inert (not that it is full knowledge) and when it is said that it is ananda svarupa it means it is devoid of misery. tatra tasya jaḍa-pratiyogitvena jñānatvaṁ duḥkha-pratiyogitvena tu jñānatvam ānandatvam ca. Then he further says that ānandatvam means that ātma is the object of love without any condition - ānandatvam ca nirupadhi. premāspadatvena sādhayati tasmat priyatama........(SB 10.14.54)
DeleteThis was quoted in previous commentaries as well.
Two things about this quote - in ISKCON translation the verse is about the Supersoul. I guess you can argue that it's plain wrong and the verse is about jivas, but the second point is that Srila Jiva Goswami is talking about souls in their conditioned state where indeed there's no ananda, and even if they achieve liberation there would still be no ananda, only in a sense of absence of misery. "Real" ananda comes only from service to the Lord, as we all know.
DeleteI see no reason to insist that this verse means ananda is unavailable to the souls constitutionally, it just doesn't state that, it describes a different situation.
In SB 11.11.1 Krishna had a perfect opportunity to tell Arjina loud and clear that nitya-siddha souls are constitutionally different but He didn't. Was He hiding that knowledge from Arjuna? Or maybe the difference is simply not there.
PK Vidyavan
ReplyDeleteDear learned devotees,
"An American who is flat broke is a US citizen and a US billionnaire is also a US citizen."
Yes, he is same person.
Above this metaphor is not from Vedas, and Bhagavan is not using similar in this sastra context. But even if we accept it, when having much rupees or no rupees, or going from no rupees to much rupees, then the citizen does not change his body, he is still same body, same person. Money is external.
In same line, if soul is sat and chit, and then sat, chit plus ananda, then this is constitutional change, internal change.
But in Bhagavan Krsna answer it is clear that change is not constitutional but situational. Soul's change is from illusion to truth. But soul is unchanging, that is whole point of Bhagavan's statement.
" the soul is never really bound up or liberated" This points to no change in constitutional nature of soul, clear.
PK Vidyavan - that would make you and me liberated souls then? Do you and I dwell in the eternal pastures of Goloka as we speak?
DeletePK Vidyavan
DeleteFor first question answer I repeat: "But soul is unchanging (in constitutional nature), that is whole point of Bhagavan's statement." Soul is saccidananda, yes minute saccidananda, whether conditioned or liberated. Difference is in consciousness. In maya-shakti, consciousness is covered, but consciousness is free and expanded in cit-shakti. Like spark of fire is less bright and less heat out of fire, but more bright and more heat in fire. All sastra uses example of fire for Krsna and spark, non-different from fire, for jiva.
Sitalatma dasa has same point:
"No, they don't say that, but an American is an American, regardless of his situation, so his intrinsic qualities remain the same.
"Why do you assume that American in Cambodian jail is intrinsically different from an American in Ohio?"
Point is only American's consciousness is unhappy in Cambodian jail and happy in Ohio shopping mall. But such American is always American, talking big in both places, understand?
For second question: I cannot speak for you, but at this moment my soul is not situated in Goloka. Thank you for thinking I might be in Goloka.
PK Vidyavan
ReplyDeleteDear Learned Devottees,
In previous but one post, quote is there, Gita, 7th: "Apareyam itas tv anyam prakrtim viddhi me param jiva-bhutam"
Bhagavan is talking of conditioned jiva, clearly saying jiva is para-prakrti.
Now question is, specially for Advaita dasa, is para-prakrti saccidananda or sat and chit only?
PK Vidyavan, that verse does not speak of the properties of the jiva, subdivided in the properties of a baddha jiva or mukta jiva.
DeletePK Vidyavan
DeleteKindly answer the question: Ïs para-prakrti saccidananda or sat and chit only?
PK Vidyavan you are not reading the comments to this blog at all. Just above here I quoted Jiva Gosvāmī's Paramātma Sandarbha 28 to that extent.
DeletePK Vidyavan
DeleteDear Advaita,
I have read all comments closely, but I see that in one: jiva, according to Jiva G., is composed of "minute" ananda, as well sat and chit. So, Dear Advaita why are you arguing against your own statement.
As regards my question I shall work it out.
Bhagavan Sri Krsna says jiva is para-prakrti.
Advaita dasa believes jiva is sat and chit only.
Therefore Advaita dasa believes para-prakrti is sat and chit only.
Hmmm...
Dear Advaita Prabhu, can I ask you where your proposition that jivas have no ananda comes from originally?
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can see it's not directly stated anywhere in the shastra nor by any of our acharyas. There are only verses and tikas you can interpret to support your point (and we can try and refute your interpretations), but where did it come from in the first place?
I have a feeling that it's a logical extension of the "no fall" theory - if were never with the Lord than there's no need for jivas to possess a permanently fixed svarupa, bhakti or ananda, a kind of impersonlism applied to individual souls, not to the Lord Himself. Then you go and search for slokas that you can interpret favorably to yourself and dispute our understanding of statements that look unfavorable.
This is how we get to the situation where you say that in "jivera svarupa haya krishnera nitya dasa" there's neither svarupa, nor nitya, nor dasa and all these words mean something different or have some conditions attached.
Dasa, btw, implies relationship with the Lord, and this relationship should be inseparable from both bhakti and ananda.
Am I inaccurate in guessing your reason for "no ananda" conclusion?
Your supposition is a bit cynical. Sadhus study shastra from Gurudeva and teach each other. There is no conspiracy here. It is called Guru Paramparā. It is understood as such not only in the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava universe but also throughout the Vedic/Hindu civilization. jīvera svarūpa hoy kṛṣṇer nitya dās should be read in full. The 2nd line says 'kṛṣṇera taṭastha śakti bhedābheda prakāśa. It indicates only the ontological position of the jīva as an energy [śakti] of the Lord. It has nothing to do with ānanda being inherent or bestowed.
DeleteSorry for sounding cynical but you still haven't shown any verse or a statement from the acharyas that conditioned souls are constitutionally different from nitya-siddha souls, only your own interpretations on verses on related topics.
ReplyDeleteUntil you do so your proposition does sound speculative.
About "jivera svarupa" - yes, I forgot that in your interpretation there's not only no svarupa, no nitya, no bhakti and no ananda, but also no jiva, as you insist the verse talks about tatastha shakti in general. It is a bit cynical summary, too, but isn't it also a correct representation of your understanding of this verse?
In the purport Srila Prabhupada relates Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura explanation:
"..you are a spirit soul, eternally part and parcel of the Supreme Soul, Krishna. Therefore you are His eternal servant...You are related with Krishna as one and simultaneously different. Because you are spirit soul, you are one in quality with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but because you are a very minute particle of spirit soul, you are different from the Supreme Soul..."
Earlier I gave this quote from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati:
"Both jīva-soul and Kṛṣṇa are transcendental. So they belong to the same category. But they differ in this that the transcendental attributes exist in the jīva-soul in infinitesimally small degrees, whereas in Kṛṣṇa they are found in their fullest perfection." Brahma Samhita 5.32, which was originally written in English so it can't be a mistranslation.
For me that's three acharyas saying the same thing. If there were any direct contradictions, and there aren't so far, then I'd be obliged to resolve them rather than declare these three personalities as being mistaken about such a fundamental issue of achintya-bhedabheda philosophy.
Sitalātma, the very first word of the verse jīvera svarūpa hoy kṛṣṇer nityadās is jīva, is it not? As for the commentaries of Bhaktivinode and Bhaktisiddhānta, they do not say here that the ānanda is present in the conditioned souls do they? But even if they do, it is they who are the architects of dormant vāda in the first place, are they not? Is quoting them not like quoting Marx to prove communism?
ReplyDelete"No jiva" because you just said that this verse is about tatastha shakti being subordinate to the Lord, not about jiva's constitutional position. Our position is that the second line of the verse does not in any way negate the clear and informative first line, why do you even think that?
ReplyDelete"..commentaries of Bhaktivinode and Bhaktisiddhānta, they do not say here that the ānanda is present in the conditioned souls do they?" - How else would you interpret it? What else would qualitatively same mean, especially in comments on Brahma Samhita that starts with sat-cit-ananda-vigraha verse?
I didn't know that you considered Bhaktivinoda Thakura the Karl Marx of dormant-vada, but what is interesting that you made this connection about his opinion on the subject of ananda.
Now you effectively accusing three most illustrious acharyas of the past couple of hundred years that spread Gaudiya Vaishnavism all over the world of not knowing the first thing about their own philosophy, because nature of the soul as same in quality with the Lord is one of fundamental principles of our achintya-bhedabheda-tattva.
I never thought I'd be able to convince you of the error of your still speculative proposition, I just wanted to see why and how you support it and now I think I got it, I think I understand where you are coming from and, as I said from the start - it's not for me, I'll stick with our acharyas.
Unless you have any new information, arguments, or quotes there's nothing left to discuss, it's just rehashing five year old arguments.
can I ask you where your proposition that jivas have no ananda comes from originally?
ReplyDeleteThis is the same as someone asking where it originally says that we didn't fall from Vaikuntha. If there is abhava of anything, what is the point to ask when it was first stated?
Taittiriya Upanishad emphatically declares that the Supreme Lord is the embodiment of rasa and only in attaining Him, the jiva becomes blissfull: rasa vai sah rasam hy evayam labdhvanandi bhavati (2.7.2). From that is becomes clear, as well as from the earlier quoted Visnu Purana verse, that the ananda of Bhagavan is altogether different from the happiness of the living entity (jivananda).
ReplyDelete"can I ask you where your proposition that jivas have no ananda comes from originally?
ReplyDeleteThis is the same as someone asking where it originally says that we didn't fall from Vaikuntha."
I meant where Advaita Prabhu learned about it, whether he heard it from his guru, from Satyanaran Prabhu, read somehwere in shastra, or it came into his head on its own, ie a speculation.
Mataji Malati Manjari, if we take your interpretation of that Visnu Purana verse then Advaita Prabhu's proposition should state that jiva does not possess sat and cit, too, not just ananda.
We should also view that verse in light of acintya-bhedabheda philosophy. Your interpretation contradicts it, or at least contradicts its understanding by the acaryas recognized in ISCKON/GM.
If the "correct" understanding, in your view, has bypassed Bhaktivinoda Thakura et al, then how exactly did it reach Advaita Prabhu?
There's still no direct quote that jiva does not possess ananda, just your interpretations, not even by acharyas recognized in your tradition (who we may or may not have a problem with, similar to you not recognizing Bhaktivinoda Thakur's authority).
How about this quote from Srila Prabhupada's letter: "..we Gaudiya Vaisnava follow Srila Ramanuja's philosophy almost in the same manner. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu gives the identification of jiva soul as the eternal servant of Krishna and is situated as marginal potency of the Lord based on the philosophy of acintya-bheda bheda-tattva. This is almost similar to Visistadvaita vada. "
ReplyDeleteThe rest is here:http://www.vaniquotes.org/wiki/We_find_great_shelter_at_the_lotus_feet_of_Sri_Ramanujacarya_because_his_lotus_feet_are_the_strongest_fort_to_combat_the_mayavadi_philosophy
Earlier Ramanuja's statements about jiva's nature were debunked here by Satyanaran while Srila Prabhupada obviously still holds Ramanuja in high regard. Has anyone among Gaudiya acharyas refuted Ramanuja's philosophy, and particularly on this matter, similarly to what Satyanarayan did here?
That VP verse speaks of one energy with three divisions, and that is only in the Lord. So the jiva doesn't have these three divisions. It doesn't deny that jiva has sat, which according to our understanding of Gaudiya Vaishnava acaryas like Jiva Gosvami and Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur is basically all the jiva has. If we refer to different authorities we can go on debating eternally.
ReplyDeleteAs far as acintya-bhedabheda philosophy - the simultaneous oneness and difference of the Lord and His energies - I don't see how this contradicts anything we have said here.
hlādinī sandhinī saṁvit tvayy ekā sarva-saṁśraye
ReplyDeletehlāda-tāpa-karī miśrā tvayi no guṇa-varjite
The one energy, having the three divisions of hlādinī (bliss), sandhinī (eternal existence) and saṁvit (knowing), exists only in You, the support of everything. But the energy that yields material happiness, misery and their mixture, does not abide in You, because You are free from the guṇas.
Compare to Srila Prabhupada's translation:
hladini -- that which generates pleasure; sandhini -- the potency of existence; samvit -- the potency of knowledge; tvayi -- unto You; eka -- principal internal potency; sarva-samsraye -- You are the reservoir of all potencies; hlada -- pleasure; tapa-kari -- generator of pains; misra -- mixed; tvayi -- unto You; na u -- never; guna-varjite -- You, the transcendence, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
"'My dear Lord, You are the transcendental reservoir of all transcendental qualities. Your pleasure potency, existence potency and knowledge potency are actually all one internal spiritual potency. The conditioned soul, although actually spiritual, sometimes experiences pleasure, sometimes pain and sometimes a mixture of pain and pleasure. This is due to his being touched by matter. But because You are above all material qualities, these are not found in You. Your superior spiritual potency is completely transcendental, and for You there is no such thing as relative pleasure, pleasure mixed with pain, or pain itself.'
It's hard to see that for tvayy eka sarva-samsraye "exist only in you" is the only correct translation. Maybe it can be translated like that, maybe not. Prabhupada's version looks more appropriate to me.
Regardless, this verse talks about the Lord being the possessor of all potencies, which no one will argue with. We/I am not saying that jiva possesses ananda as a potency in the same way the Lord possesses hladini, we are saying that ananda is part of its constitution.
To say that because jivas, unlike the Lord, do not have three divisions in our potencies and therefore among sat, cit, and ananda we must choose only sat is a very roundabout way of arguing. We aren't shaktiman to begin with.
"It doesn't deny that jiva has sat, which according to our understanding of Gaudiya Vaishnava acaryas like Jiva Gosvami and Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur is basically all the jiva has."
ReplyDeleteFunny how Satyanarayan Prabhu in this jiva.org post says that jivas only possesses cit, not sat.
http://www.jiva.org/qualities-of-the-jivas/
Make up your mind, people :) - everyone is stating things on authority of Jiva Goswami but then the statements contradict each other!
Satyanarayan's translation of tvayy eka sarva-samsthitau line is "exist without any deviation only in You". We/I don't claim that jivas possess those attributes in full either.
In another purport Srila Prabhupada translated it as "exist in You as one spiritual energy".
All in all, this verse doesn't deny jiva its sat-cit-ananda nature as you claim, and your claim itself relies on a particular angle introduced to the translation that is not seen by other translators.
PK Vidyavan
ReplyDeleteDear Devotees, According to Sanatana Goswami Brhat Bhagavatamrta 2.2.176/187:
TEXT 176
jiva-svarupa-bhutasya
sac-cid-ananda-vastunah
saksad-anubhavenapi
syat tadrk sukham alpakam
SYNONYMS
jiva—of the finite individual soul; svarupa-bhutasya—which is his true identity; sat-cit-ananda—eternally full of knowledge and bliss; vastunah—who is an entity; saksat—direct; anubhavena—by experience; api—even; syat—can be; tadrk—such; sukham—the happiness; alpakam—only meager.
TRANSLATION
The happiness that arises from directly perceiving the true identity of the jiva soul—the entity composed of eternity, knowledge, and bliss—is actually meager.
TEXT 187
sac-cid-ananda-rupanam
jivanam krsna-mayaya
anady-avidyaya tattva-
vismrtya samsrtir bhramah
SYNONYMS
sat-cit-ananda—composed of eternity, knowledge, and bliss; rupanam—whose real forms; jivanam—of the individual living beings; krsna-mayaya—by Krsna’s material energy; anadi—beginningless; avidyaya—by illusion; tattva—of their true identity; vismrtya—by forgetting; samsrtih—the cycle of birth and death; bhramah—delusion.
TRANSLATION
The original forms of the jivas are made of eternity, knowledge, and bliss, but by the beginningless illusion of Krsna’s Maya the jivas forget their true identities and wander deluded in the cycle of birth and death.
Comment by PK:
Svarupa of jiva is saccidananda.
No more discussion is needed the proposal that jiva is sat only (Satyanarayan) and jiva is sat and chit only (Advaita dasa) goes against Sad Goswami, Sanatana Goswami.
Of course one cannot awaken one who is pretending to be asleep.
Aum Tat Sat
Keshi, I submitted these verse Brihad Bhagavatamrita 2.2.176-187 to Pandit Satya Narayan Dasji and he replied to me August 2, 2011 -
ReplyDelete"One word can have many meanings depending upon context. In Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam many times jiva is called prabhu or isvara. Krishna is also called isvara. Does it mean jiva and Krishna are equal? When the word prabhu or isvara is used for jiva it means that he is superior to, body mind, senses etc.Not that he is the supreme controller like Krishna. If bliss is already there in jiva then why is he suffering? Why we do not feel that bliss? Why are we looking for bliss? If we have it we should not be in need of it. If we are full of knowledge why are we in ignorance? Why Krishna says that without surrender to Him no can be free of Maya? The answer to this is that bliss and knowledge are covered by avidya. What does that mean? It means that they are not there. In Nyaya languge it is called praga abhava i.e. there is possibility of theses things manifesting in jiva by Lord's grace. He has the potential to acquire them. Pragabhava has no beginning, anadi. that is why jiva is called anadi-baddha. If bondage has no beginning then jiva knowledge and bliss was never covered by maya, otherwise bondage will have a beginning. If one says that jiva had these things and he lost them because of covering by maya then it amounts to saying that bondage is not beginningless. Which is not our siddhanta."
On Sanatan Goswami's commentary to the verses he wrote me later:
"The commentary is interesting. Of course it is a continuation of something Sanatana Gosvami said in the previous verses. But It is clear that in moksha (and this is impersonal moksha, which means jiva is situated in its own svarupa, as is said in SB 2.10.6 muktir hitva anyatha rupam svarupena vyavasthiti) there is no happiness but only dukhabhava, absence of misery and its cause, tatkaranabhavamatrata. There is no happiness - sukham nastiti iti siddham eva. He says that even in the opinion of Vivartavadis the sukham is insiginficant.tuccham, and in comparison to the bliss of bhakti in the form of realization of the lotus feet of the Lord who is satccidananda this sukham is ati-alpakm - very minute. In fact there is no sukha only dukhabhava. The sukha is accepted only by tusytu-durjajana nyaya - meaning 'I accept it to please the rascal' (but still i will defeat and prove that there is no sukham). So Sanatan Gosvami is very clear here sukham tatra tattvato nasti - happiness does not exist at all. It is accepted only for the sake of argument and then he has 21 slokas to prove this fact.This acceptance is ultimately to prove the glory of happiness of bhakti. What can be more clear than this?
Again the point to be noted here is the context in which he uses the word saccidananda for jiva. This i had mentioned in my earlier reply and Sri Sanatana Gosvami makes it very clear that he has said so only be Tusyatu-durjana-nyaya. "
PK Vidyavan
ReplyDeleteDear Devotees,
Frankly, the above is only off the point waffle.
Of course, the jiva svarupa is minute, not the expanded ananda that will be experienced in direct communion with Sri Krsna. But that is not the point of discussion.
Point of discussion is whether ananda and chit are intrinsic to the svarupa of jiva.
Now if one cannot see that jiva svarupa is saccidananda in the Bb verses 2.2.176/187 above, of Sanatana Goswami no less, then one should examine one's heart and ask why am I not accepting the plain words of the acaryas?
To know the truth one should admit the truth, and put aside false ego, false pride and attachment to false teachings.
TEXT 176
jiva-svarupa-bhutasya
sac-cid-ananda-vastunah
TEXT 187
sac-cid-ananda-rupanam
jivanam
Aum Tat Sat
So we come a full circle. Our siddhanta as presented in ISKCON is fully in line with direct meanings of Sanatana Goswami, then Bhaktivinoda Thakura, then Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, then Srila Prabhupada.
ReplyDeleteJiva is by nature sat-cit-ananda, qualitatively same as Krishna. It also possesses svarupa which is krishnera nitya dasa - the direct meaning of Lord Chaitanya's words.
Where we diverse from Satyanarayan Prabhu is in our "dormant vada" but this diversion appears to be so profound that if one follows it, like Satyanarayan and Advaita Prabu do here, then all those direct statements of acharyas and Lord Chaitanya Himself need to be twisted and their direct meanings rejected and replaced by convoluted explanations that aren't even logically sound, as I have honestly tried to understand them. Then authority of three great acharyas needs to be rejected as well.
I'm sorry to say, but Satyanarayan Prabhu's alternative appears to be damaged and unacceptable to a sincere and reasonable seeker of truth as it's passed down the parampara.
Whether this conclusion has any effect on Advaita Prabhu and others appreciation for "no fall" theory remains to be seen, he has invested many years in pursuing it, but it's a good lesson to one still contemplating the possibilities.
I, like PK Vidyavan above, consider this chapter closed.
It has been a very nice and fruitful discussion which, for once in a while, didn't degenerate into insults and aparadhas and for that I'm thankful to all participants.
Hare Krishna
So there are no contradictions here, and neither with the statement that jiva is cit, or conscious. Obviously there is no consciousness without existence, sat. So that is the basis. When cit is used in relation with the jiva, it just means conscious and not knowledge. Therefore sometimes it is said that jiva is only sat. All this confusion happens becomes sometimes - as in these verses of BB - jiva is also called sac-cid-ananda, but this should not be taken to be the same as the internal potency of the Lord. To make this point clear, the translator has added that these potencies exist "without any deviation only in You."
ReplyDelete"It has been a very nice and fruitful discussion which, for once in a while, didn't degenerate into insults and aparadhas and for that I'm thankful to all participants."
ReplyDeleteThis is really amazing. Just a few lines above you make a statement which is not only an insult to His Holiness Satyanaryana Dasa Babaji Maharaja, but also to his guru Sri Haridas Shastri Maharaja and our whole line, and in fact, to all the other traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava parivaras who accept the siddhanta presented by Advaita Prabhu. I wouldn’t care if you only speak about yourself, but you apply your conclusion to all “sincere and reasonable seekers of the truth”. Babaji Maharaja has studied Jiva Gosvami under one of the most learned scholars of Vrindavan in parampara for over 30 years. If ISKCON / Gaudiya Matha have a different view, let them have it, but such a statement is unacceptable.
You can protest against mud-slinging but not sling mud yourself. so I passed the comment, though I will not allow the debate to descend into a sectarian war. then I'll pull the plug out and start blocking stuff.
ReplyDeleteThis is a message I sent to Malati Manjari d.d. and we agreed it should be shared on this site as it is a general message to all readers and contributors. Thank you.
Perhaps I shouldn't have equated my experience in analyzing defense of the proposed ideas with expected conclusions of "sincere and reasonable seekers of Truth".
ReplyDeleteI, however, has tried to be as sincere and reasonable as possible.
There's also a fact that neither Advaita Prabhu nor anyone else presented sources of "no ananda" statement beyond Satyanarayan Prabhu. I don't know what are Haridas Shastri Maharaja's views on that, nor do I know views of Haridas Shastri Maharaja's guru.
Given the history between Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and many of the "traditional" Gaudiyas, including Bhaktivinoda Thakur's diksha guru, and proliferation of apa-sampradayas and all kinds of philosophical deviations in the past couple of hundred of years, there's a question of authority even if recently made "no ananda" statements were actually discovered.
As I said earlier - Sanatana Goswami, Bhaktivinoda Thakur, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswait, ISKCON's Srila Prabhupada are formidable authorities to go against. All of them have clearly had Lord Chaitanya's backing in their preaching and they are all in agreement with each other. Jiva Goswami's quoted statements do not contradict them either.
I'm afraid on the presented evidence the buck stops with Satyanarayan Prabhu. The onus to trace it further back does not lie on me.
Yellow card for Sitalatma. I just sai clearly no sectarean wars here. You should know that the accusation against other Vaiṣṇavas of being 'apasampradāya' is not the exclusive monopoly of followers of Bhaktivinode.
ReplyDeleteApasampradayas DO exist and I wasn't accusing anyone in particular (and you didn't say "your Swamiji was wrong" either), I was just stating that authority of the recently made statements should not be automatically accepted similar to how you do not automatically accept authority of Bhaktivinoda Thakur onwards.
ReplyDeleteWhen we can trace our position that jiva by nature is sat-cit-ananda vigraha to Sanatana Goswami it makes us feel pretty safe that we are not the ones deviating here, at least on this issue.
Maybe you feel that apasampradaya comment relates to you and in this case there are at least two ways to deal with it - by giving out yellow cards or by showing that your "no ananda" statement originates not from your or Satyanarayan's scholarship but from recognized and irreproachable acharyas.
You should also be aware that at the end of the day it would always come to "my acharya" vs "your acharya", which should come AFTER we agree that our personal interpretations are conditioned and unreliable, so descent into sectarianism is somewhat inevitable. After that it would come to "among these, look who was empowered by Lord Chaitanya" and you know our answer to that. Umm, in this case it would be "Sanatana Goswami"!
Personally, I'd suggest you modify your "no ananda" proposition to be in line with Sanatana Goswami's, not try to interpret his words to fit with yours.
Sitalatma you tenaciously insist that there is ānanda in the conditioned soul, ignoring the evidence provided in this blog and others. Without wanting to exhaust the readers, here is all the evidence once more,
ReplyDeletebrahmāṇḍa bhramite kon bhāgyavān jīva
guru-kṛṣṇa prasāde pāy bhaktilatā bīja
(C.C.)
Bhakti is svarūpa-śakti and the jīva is taṭastha sakti. Therefore, bhakti cannot be intrinsic to the jīva. ānanda that comes with bhakti is a function of cic-chakti which manifests as sandhini, samvit and hlādinī. bhaktyānanda is the hlādinī-aspect of cic-chakti. The Lord's ānanda is two-fold according to Jīva Gosvāmi's Prīti Sandarbha (66): svarūpānanda and svarūpa-śaktyānanda. The Lord Himself is depending on svarūpa-śaktyānanda (svarūpa-śaktyānanda-rūpā yadānanda-parādhīnaḥ śrī-bhagavān apīti). This ānanda is bhakti.
The Śruti quite clearly says that ānanda is not a property of the jīva: raso vai saḥ, rasam hy evāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati, “God is verily rasa. If one attains rasa, one becomes blissful“. Apart from that, in the ānandamayādhikaraṇa of Vedānta-sūtras, the ācāryas explain that the jīva is not ānandamaya. In the ṭīkā to the sūtra vikāra-śabdān neti cen na prācuryāt, our Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa refutes the idea that the word ānanda-maya could be applied to the jīva (tasmād ānandamayo na jīvaḥ), and this is the case also in the liberated state which means non-existence of suffering (na cānandamaya-śabdena muktau duḥkhāpty-asadbhāvāj jīva iti vācyam).
In addition, commenting on the definition of the jīva as cid-ānandātmaka, Jīva Gosvāmī explains in Paramātma Sandarbha (29) that the jīva is not ānanda in the proper sense of the word: duḥkha-pratiyogitvena tu jñānatvam ānandatvaṁ ca ... ānandatvaṁ nirupādhi-premāspadatvena sādhayati. “Because the jīva is beyond misery it is said to be of the nature of consciousness and bliss ... The jīva attains bliss when it attains love of God.“ However, Jīva Goswāmī mentions the ānanda of the jīva in Prīti Sandarbha (Anu. 65): ato natarāṁ jīvasya svarūpānanda-rūpā, atyanta-kṣudratvāt. He says that it is extremely minute. However, one has to understand the statement in connection with the previous one, i.e. that the ānanda means just non-existence of misery.
If one argues “What about the verse jīvera svarūpa hoy kṛṣṇera nitya-dāsa from Caitanya Caritāmṛta (Madhya 20.108)? How to explain that in the light of bhāva not being inherent? The words nitya and svarūpa also imply inherence, after all.”
The answer to that will be: “The verse jīvera svarūpa hoy kṛṣṇera nitya-dāsa does not say that bhakti is inherent to the jīva. It just means that the jīva is a śakti of the Lord, and thus it is subordinate to Him who is the śaktimān, the Owner of the śakti. This relationship is eternal. It never was and will never be different. The verses subsequent to this one in Caitanya Caritāmṛta make the point clearly. The Bhagavad Gītā statement mad bhaktiṁ labhate paraṁ (18.54) “He attains My devotion and thus the Supreme” proves bhakti is not intrinsic but gotten (labhate) from outside.
The translation of the word udaya in the nitya siddha verse above should not be ‘awakened’, but ‘arises’, as prema is not dormant in the heart. If it were described in scripture as dormant it would have been called supta prema or nidrita prema, but such terminology does not exist at all in scripture.
I think I and others have covered all that already. It's not evidence, mostly it's your interpretations of verses that directly state something else, and they are not very convincing. These interpretations cannot be accepted on the same level as Sanatana Goswami's direct statements:
ReplyDelete"..identity of the jiva soul—the entity composed of eternity, knowledge, and bliss.."
Btw, our position is that jiva is constitutionally sat-cit-ananda, qualitatively same as the Lord but quantitatively different, not that "there is ānanda in the conditioned soul". There's a difference between those two statements, just think about it.
If you see no difference, of if you didn't notice the difference at first but see it now, it shows that we should not rely on mind power alone and interpretations are not enough.
Jiva cannot attain or experience ananda on his own, only through connection to the Lord, just like a child cannot learn to talk all by himself. In that sense ananda is external, I agree. There's no bhakti without contact with the Lord, I agree with that, too, but we disagree that by attaining bhakti and ananda jiva undergoes constitutional transformation.
I do not wish to go over this again and again and so I unsubscribed from notifications of further comments on this post.
Just to make it clear: We have not claimed that the jiva undergoes a constitional transformation. Jiva remains tatastha shakti even after attaining prema, just as an iron bar become red hot when in contact with fire, but still remains iron. In the same way the jiva, when infused with the bhakti potency, becomes situated in its constituational position as nitya krsna dasa, but that doesn't change its constitution.
ReplyDeleteWhere we clearly disagree is in the understanding of ananda. In its conditional state, jiva's ananda is not only in quantity but also in quality different from the Lord's ananda. That's why these specific distinctions between martyananda, brahmananda, svarupananda, bhaktyananda, etc. have been made - so that we don't confuse one with the other.
Nitay Goura Haribol. Dandavats to all!
ReplyDeleteI can not read everything what was written here. But I´m just hankering for conclusions.
1) How we (as a tatastha-jiva shakti) are manifested?
2) What is the "starting point" of our conscious effort to go for antaranga or bahiranga sphere?
(Why we are "here" in this type of "consciousness"-nescience"?)
3) What is the cause of our determination for such inclination?
Thank You very much for answers
Jan Matyas
Dear Jan, a study of my blog will answer all these questions but here succinctly -
ReplyDelete1] We are eternal and there is no starting point to our existence. This is Krishna's first lesson in Bhagavad Gita [2.12] - never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you....
2] There is also no starting point for any choice between the external and internal energy. The Bhagavatam says throughout - anadyavidya - our ignorance is beginningless.
3] Because there is no beginning to our ignorance there is also no reason for it. This is described in Visvanatha Cakravartipad's commentary on Srimad Bhagavat 3.7.10
Thank You for answering.
ReplyDelete1) It is clear for me. Sat nature of our existence is always present.
2) But right now we (jivas) are at this point of choosing. Between avidya (antaranga sphere) or go for vidya (bahiranga sphere). Isn´t it? So we are always existing in nescience. So if we are always (eternaly) in avidya, therefore we can not be lift up or shift to the sphere of "full-vidya" because that sphere is also always (eternaly) present.
3)Because where there is no beginning there is also no end. Isn´t it? So how can be end up with something which is without the beginning?
We are not eternally in avidya. There is no beginning to it but there is an end to it. avidya has no beginning but it has an end and vidya has a beginning but no end.
ReplyDeleteSo, such conclusions are not allowed? Even if they are based on sastra.
ReplyDeleteI had hope that here will be more space for the Truth and not just for some dogma.
Jan, perhaps you should study the Tattva Sandarbha first, about the authority ("Truth" with capital T) of shastra vis a vis mental or intellectual speculation and the value of spiritual authority vis a vis mundane talk-show opinions? If you do accept the sole authority of shastra, can you please show me where is the word dogma in shastra?
ReplyDeleteSo what is the meaning of it (beginningless nescience)? What is this? It is strange and cruel! We (nitya badha jivas) are always in avidya and just boiling ourselves in maya and waiting for the mercy of guru. Isn´t it? It is more like sado-masochistic play without beginning. Is this the will of the Lord and conclusion of shastra?
ReplyDeleteIt is not the will of the Lord because it is a beginningless state. He did not put us here. Therefore there is no cruelty on the Lord's part.
ReplyDeleteWe have no independent existance. Therefore it must be his will. He is sarva karana karanam, Shaktiman. Everything is under his control. Lord is the source of our existance. His existance is also with no beginning. But naturally full of bliss and knowledge. So why our existance isn´t the same? Why we have to hanker for such state of consciousness?
ReplyDeletesarva kāraṇa karaṇam does not mean that there was a beginning to our conditioning, or to us, or even to the material energy. Please see Gītā 2.12. In ch.13 the Lord says 'prakṛtiṁ puruṣam caiva viddhy anādi ubhāv api'- 'Know that both matter and spirit are without beginning'. Despite that, Śrīmad Bhāgavata says [10.87.2] - buddhīndriya-manah prānan, janānām asrjat prabhuh matrartham ca bhavartham ca, ātmane ’kalpanāya ca - Sukadeva Gosvami said: The Supreme Lord manifested the material intelligence, senses, mind and vital air of the living entities so that they could indulge their desires for sense gratification, take repeated births to engage in fruitive activities, become elevated in future lives
ReplyDeleteand ultimately attain liberation." Creation here means at each new manifestation of the cosmos from Mahāviṣṇu.
Yes. I can understand this point. Our existance is beginningless. But He is the cause of everything. And He can do everything and anything. Isn´t it? So He is the cause of our existance which is without beginning but still...It is the will of the Lord that we are existing here in this sphere. And right now our only desire should be to give up this illusory sphere of existance and go for God. So what is the need of such "play". There is no meaning.And the cause of this nonsense is the Lord himself. Isn´t it?
ReplyDeleteWe are pointlessly going around in circles, Jan. Look at my previous comment:
ReplyDelete"It is not the will of the Lord because it is a beginningless state. He did not put us here. Therefore there is no cruelty on the Lord's part."
Do not try to understand it because our intelligence does not reach to that point. It is what all śāstras say - there is really nothing to add to it.
No. I´m just trying to get some real conclusion.
ReplyDeleteHe is the source of "beginningless". Even if this stage is eternal.He is putting us here even if our existance is beginningless. He can do it. Because there is no other way how to do it.
Because if there is no other source of anything than He is, therefore the source of everything is Lord himself. Therefore sastra says that this is just his play. But actually this is just way how to suffer due to Him.Because we have no choice. We have no power to give up this suffering. So what is the difficulty?
"He is putting us here even if our existance is beginningless. He can do it. Because there is no other way how to do it. "
DeleteThese are just mental gymnastics. He never did it because there is no beginning to this. Please try to accept that just as śāstra says without clogging up this already lengthy string of comments.
It lookslike that if the meaning of this is to get inteligence enough to understand. It means that the Lord is more "in love" with our "growing" inteligence than "in love "with us.
ReplyDeleteThe confusion that arises in the minds of Westerners when confronted with the anadi issue is why Bhaktivedanta Swami (my param-guru, by the way) said the jiva falls; i.e., to prevent the conditioned soul from blaming God for his suffering. One thing I noticed in the above discussion was that those arguing from ACBSP's fall-version fail to mention that he ALSO said the jiva does NOT fall. He said both, so we have to ask why. And since both options cannot be correct we will side with the sastrically-sound option and the other attribute to a preaching strategy.
ReplyDeleteYes but the Guru or preacher who employs preaching strategies risks a loss of credibility and a lot of confusion among his followers.
ReplyDelete