Follow by Email

Saturday, September 01, 2007

Jīva manifestation of the svarūpa śakti?

I recently stumbled upon this interview with B.V. Tripurāri Swāmī on Audarya fellowship. It originally appeared on Swāmījī’s website on August 8, 2005:

Q. What is the relationship between the jīva (individual soul) and Kṛṣṇa's svarūpa-śakti, and where does the soul's attraction to a particular relationship with Kṛṣṇa come from?

A. Śrī 
Kṛṣṇa's svarūpa-śakti is his primary śakti, and thus all other śaktis have their origin in it. The svarūpa-śakti is constituted of sandhinī (eternal existence), samvit (complete spiritual knowledge), and hlādinī (joy). The jīva-śakti is a partial manifestation of the svarūpa-śakti and the māyā-sakti (illusory energy) is a distorted manifestation of it. Because the jīva is a partial manifestation of the svarūpa-śakti, it exists eternally, can know itself (brahma-jñāna), and has the capacity to experience the joy of brahmānanda. However, only when the jīva comes in contact with the svarūpa-śakti through the guru-paramparā can it realize its full potential to exist, know, and be happy. This is a potential that is not present in the māyā-śakti, as all manifestations of the māyā-śakti, including material knowledge and sense pleasure, are relative and fleeting, the latter ultimately only leading to greater degrees of suffering. In connection with the svarūpa-śakti, the jīva-śakti has the potential to experience an eternal relationship with Kṛṣṇa,  as it is a partial manifestation of the svarūpa-śakti. When the jīva-śakti comes in contact with the svarūpa-śakti through the guru-paramparā, its dormant spiritual potential gradually awakens. "


With due respect to Swāmījī, the underlined sentences do not represent Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava siddhānta, and he is kindly invited to quote evidence for this from śāstra. Rather, in Caitanya Caritāmṛta Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu teaches Sanātan Gosvāmī (CC Madhya 20.108):

jīvera svarūpa hoy kṛṣṇera nitya dāsa; kṛṣṇera taṭastha śakti bhedābheda prakāśa


“The jīva’s real form is of an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, being Kṛṣṇa's intermediary energy, both different and non different from Him.”

Here the jīva is established as a certain distinct energy of the Lord. Later, in verse 111, Śrīman Mahāprabhu says:

kṛṣṇera svābhāvika tina śakti pariṇati; cicchakti, jīva-sakti, āra māyā śakti


"Kṛṣṇa naturally has three energies – the cognizant (internal, spiritual) energy, the jīva-energy and the illusory potency.”

The Lord then quotes the Viṣṇu Purāṇa:

viṣṇu śakti parā proktā kṣetrajñākhyā tathā parā; avidyā karma saṁjñānyā tṛtīyā śaktir iṣyate


“Lord Viṣṇu has three energies: “The supreme (internal, spiritual) energy, the field-knowing energy (the living entities) and the ignorant energy (māyā).”

It is nowhere stated that jīva śakti is a partial manifestation of svarūpa śakti. Wherever there is a discussion of the Lord's śaktis, jīva-śakti and svarūpa-śakti are mentioned as eternally separate. One also never becomes the other.

64 comments:

  1. Hmm. I think it will be difficult for Swamiji to provide sastra evidence for his statements.

    Actually, his spiritual teacher himself, Swami Prabhupada, translates CC Adi 6.24:

    īśvarera 'ańga' aḿśa — cid-ānanda-maya
    māyāra sambandha nāhi' ei śloke kaya


    "This verse describes that the limbs and plenary portions of the Lord are all spiritual; They have no relationship with the material energy."

    Jivas (we) are obviously not all spiritual.

    With respect,
    nityananda p.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tripurari Swami is most likely using the teachings of various recent Gaudiya acaryas (maybe past ones as well, I don't know) who also say more or less the same thing. The basis for this line of thought is also written by Jiva Goswami and all other acaryas stemming from the Mundaka Upanishad where God is described as a fire and that the jiva are sparks of that fire.

    Also the Caitanya Caritamrta quotes the Vishnu Purana:

    visnu-saktih para prokta
    ksetrajnakhya tatha para
    avidya-karma-samjnanya
    trtiya saktir isyate

    I know that Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Narayana Maharaja have said more or less the same thing, although more along the lines of the swarupa shakti manifests the tatastha shakti and the tatastha shakti manifests the jivas. I don't know if Bhaktivedanta Swami or Bhaktisiddhanta have said like that or not.

    Here is a bit from Narayana Maharaja:

    "Here a question comes. If all souls are eternal servants of Krsna, then when did they become bahirmukha? When did they become adverse to Krsna? Why did they turn away from Krsna? Krsna dasa Kaviraja Gosvami has explained this by quoting the version of Caitanya Mahaprabhu: "krsna bhuli' sei jiva" Who is the jiva? He is the eternal servant of Krsna. He is tatastha-sakti: not pure svarupa-sakti. This should be remembered always. The jiva is a manifestation of svarupa-sakti. From svarup-sakti comes Krsna, Nrsimha, Rama, and so on. They are svansa, and they have come from there. The vibhinnansa-tattva jiva never came from svarupa-sakti, and therefore he is called vibhinnansa jiva. Why did he become adverse to Krsna? This is the question. If he is Krsna's eternal servant, he must serve Him. This is explained in chapter 22, verses 10-13, beginning, 'sei vibhinnansa jiva.'"

    And

    "They are from the marginal point, and that marginal point is called tatastha-sakti. Tatastha-sakti is one of the saktis of svarup-sakti, but it is not full."

    And here from Bhaktivinoda from Jaiva Dharma

    " Jaiva Dharma:

    Krsna is self-effulgent, like a blazing fire or the sun. Krsna is like a blazing fire. In the centre of the fire is the cit-sakti (svarupa sakti), it is present in fullness. In addition to the centre there is also a great expanse illuminated by the fire. The same way the Krsna-sun illumines a great area with sunlight. The rays of sunlight are particles of His internal potency (svarupa sakti). Those atomic particles that constitute those rays of sunlight are the individual spirit souls. The internal potency (cit sakti) manifests the Krsna-sun planet itself. The sunlight emanating from that planet is manifested by the cit-sakti and the individual particles of light are manifested by the jiva-sakti. Therefore the individual spirit souls are manifested by the jiva-sakti."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shiva, thank you for that. Yes, I had already quoted the visnushakti para prokta verse in the blog myself to show that the three energies are eternally separate. That the jivas are sparks of the God-fire is quite allright, but that is not under discussion here. The claim that the jiva is a manifestation of the svarupa sakti, meaning the internal potency Radha, Lalita, Nanda Yashoda etc., is the question here. I find the expression 'the jivas come from tatastha shakti also a bit strange. They simple constitute tatastha shakti.
    As you may know, evidence provided from the sources you quote is not immediately what I consider evidence. If you could quote Jiva, Sanatan, Visvanatha, the Bhagavata or Sridhara Swami I could be convinced.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Swami Tripurari:
    "Because the jiva is a partial manifestation of the svarupa-sakti..."

    Well, translators usually use the phrase "partial manifestation" when translating the word amsa.

    In SB 12.4.32 we find this:
    brahmāḿśakasyātmana ātma-bandhanaḥ

    Although a cloud is a product of the sun and is also made visible by the sun, it nevertheless creates darkness for the viewing eye, which is another partial expansion of the sun. Similarly, material false ego, a particular product of the Absolute Truth made visible by the Absolute Truth, obstructs the individual soul, another partial expansion of the Absolute Truth, from realizing the Absolute Truth.

    Hmm. It still doesn't really explain Swami's points, though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, indeed, because no one argues that the living entity is an amsa of the Lord. The Lord Himself says that in Bhagavad Gita (15.7) - mamaivamso jivaloke
    The problem here lies with the claim that the jiva is an amsa of the svarupa sakti, which is one of the three energies of the Lord. That is another thing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. advaitadas your translation of the verse from the Vishnu Purana seems to be missing something.

    visnu sakti para prokta ksetrajnakhya tatha para
    avidya karma samjnanya tritiya saktir isyate

    “Lord Vishnu has three energies: The supreme (internal, spiritual) energy, the field-knowing energy (the living entities) and the ignorant energy (maya).”

    There are two instances of the word "para", but in your translation you only use it once. If you stick to a more literal translation the verse says something like this:

    "Vishnu shakti is supreme, that called ksetrajna (jivas) likewise is supreme, the third shakti is known as avidya and karma"

    I wasn't arguing that what Tripurari said was correct, I was just showing places where he gets that conception from.

    Ultimately whether the jiva shakti is manifested from the swarupa shakti or not doesn't matter much in the philosophical sense. Either way the jiva shakti is still eternally the jiva shakti. I know Madhavananda disagress with this conclusion and claims that once the jiva enters into the spiritual world he is no longer tatastha sakti, but I find his argument lacks the true understanding of what tatastha sakti really means.

    He claims that since tatastha means on the border between antaranga and bahiranga shakti therefore once the jiva enters the spiritual world the jiva is no longer on the border. His misconception is based upon the misunderstanding of what tatastha means, or what "on the border" means. He gives "on the border" a locative meaning, when in reality it has an ontological meaning. If we take Madhavananda's thesis as a basis for the true meaning of tatastha i.e. "on the border", then we would have to say that the jiva when under the influence of bahiranga shakti becomes bahiranga shakti.

    "On the border" in the sense of tatastha shakti simply means in between. Neither antaranga nor bahiranga, it doesn't designate a location. Therefore when the jiva leaves the world of bahiranga shakti and enters the world of the swarupa shakti the jiva doesn't change in any essential manner. The place will change, the bodily form will change, but the jiva will remain neither antaranga shakti nor bahiranga shakti. The jiva can live under the dominion of the antaranga shakti, but the jiva will always be different from the swarupa shakti because the swarupa shakti is is not a separate conscious entity different then God. Neither is bahiranga shakti. The jiva is different then swarupa and bahiranga shakti because the jiva is a distinct conscious entity from God. The jiva becomes similar to swarupa shakti and can posses sat cit ananda to a small degree, but the diference with the swarupa shakti is that it is sat cit ananda to the fullest extent. The swarupa shakti can manifest things by the will of Krishna because it is non different from Krishna, whereas the jiva shakti is a manifestation of Krishna, not a power that manifests things. Swarupa shakti is potency and potent, the jiva is only potency.

    From Raghava Gosvami’s

    Sri Krsna-bhakti-ratna-prakasa

    "Because Sri Sri Radha Krsna are not different and because Sri Krsna is the master of all potencies, therefore Sri Radha is also the master and source of all potencies. He is by nature full of sweetness and bliss, free from the three modes, and eternally manifest beyond the material nature. Because Radha is not different from Him, so is She also. It is said that within the Lord are all potencies, the modes and the material nature."

    radha-purna-sakti, krsna-purna-saktiman
    dui vastu bheda nai, sastra-paramana
    radha-krsna aiche sadaeka-i svarupa
    lila-rasa asvadite dhare dui-rupa

    ReplyDelete
  7. OK, thank you.
    But, are Krsna and His internal energy not basically the same ( sakti-saktimator abhedah )?

    You are ok with jivas being amsa of Sri Krsna and not of His swarupa-shakti?

    What is the difference between Sri Krsna and His swarupa-shakti, please?

    Well, I am not very good with spiritual arguments, but what exactly is your point, then, please?

    thank you.
    n.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Krsner svarupa
    ara saktitraya jnana
    yanra haya tanra
    nahi krsnete ajnana
    "One who knows the real feature of Sri Krsna and His three different energies cannot remain ignorant about Him." CC Adi-lila 2.96

    Srila Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada's purport for this text points to Bhagavat sandarbha 16. I found an online version at http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/sandarbhas/bhagavat/sandarbhas16.htm
    Beginning with the line "The explanation is like this" there is some discussion of this topic.

    I'm not sure why you object to the words "manifestation" or "come from." If the Lord has created us, don't we come from Him? If not from Svarupa Shakti, where? To "simply constitute" sounds a bit impersonal.

    I look forward to more discussion of this topic. "One who knows . . . cannot remain ignorant about Him." Jaya Radhe!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Satya, thank you for that contribution. As the verse you quoted says: Krishna has three energies, He is not these energies Himself. If you have three children you are not your children. That is monist philosophy. The three energies of Krishna are the internal (svarupa), the marginal (tatastha) and the external (bahiranga, or maya). The marginal energy, which is us, is eternally marginal and can therefore never be a manifestation of the internal energy. They are eternally separate energies.

    Thank you also for the link to the Sandarbha verse translation. It is most probably a translation by his Grace Kushakratha Das, whose translation are unfortunately of very poor quality. They are more likely to confuse than to enlighten you.

    "One who knows . . . cannot remain ignorant about Him."

    You see how important this understanding is!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nitya,

    "But, are Krsna and His internal energy not basically the same ( sakti-saktimator abhedah )?"

    Yes they are but not in this understanding of their mutual distinctions. All items of existence are both different and nondifferent from each other, as the Caitanya Caritamrita says: krishnera tatastha shakti bhedabheda prakash.

    "You are ok with jivas being amsa of Sri Krsna and not of His swarupa-shakti?"

    No, because the svarupa shakti is yet another amsa of Krishna. Krishna is not fully nondifferent from His energies. That would lead to a monist conclusion.

    "What is the difference between Sri Krsna and His swarupa-shakti, please?"

    Krishna has three energies - the internal energy, consisting of His eternal loving associates like Radha, Lalita, Nanda, Yashoda etc. These are reserved positions and they are not jiva living entities like us, not even nitya siddha jivas. We are marginal energy, tatastha shakti, which can either be liberated or conditioned. That is a completely different thing although when we are with Krishna in the spiritual sky we freely mingle with the svarupa shakti beings like Radha and Yashoda.

    "Well, I am not very good with spiritual arguments, but what exactly is your point, then, please?"

    The point is that the internal energy is eternally separate and superior to the marginal energy that we are. One is not a manifestation of the other. Rather, all three energies are manifestations of Krishna.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Shiva, I agree with most of what you say. As far as the two times para is concerned in the Vishnu Purana-sloka, obviously it means that both the svarupa shakti and the tatastha shakti are intrinsically spiritual (para), contrary to the third energy maya.

    What I am not sure about from your write-up is this:

    "The swarupa shakti can manifest things by the will of Krishna because it is non different from Krishna, whereas the jiva shakti is a manifestation of Krishna, not a power that manifests things."

    The Vishnu Purana verse clearly designates all three energies of being Krishna's, though as you know everything is ultimately simultaneously different and nondifferent, the nondifferent view does not contribute to devotion.

    "Swarupa shakti is potency and potent, the jiva is only potency."

    The same objection to this point.

    You quote
    dui vastu bheda nai, sastra-paramana

    and that is the nondual way of saying and seeing things. When I quoted this to my Guru Sadhu Baba he made some objection but unfortunately I forgot what it was. I hope by his grace I will once remember again. All in all, I have the impression that you do agree with me, and that Tripurari certainly did not make his statement in the nondual sense. Otherwise he might as well have lumped the bahiranga shakti in as well. From the bheda point of view the three energies are eternally separate.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Shiva, I decided not to let your latest comment pass. Generally comments are only blocked if they are offensive, threatening, obscene or silly, and your comment was none of these, yet, in order to avoid confusion with the participants I decided to block it anyway. Your love for the nondual view of things is well known - however, though the nondual aspect is acknowledged by the acaryas it is not stressed. I hope you will understand.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thank you for your time.
    :)

    Advaitadas: No, because the svarupa shakti is yet another amsa of Krishna. Krishna is not fully nondifferent from His energies.

    Yes, ok.
    Any sastra pramana on this, please?

    Thank you.

    with respect,
    nityananda

    ReplyDelete
  14. The last two verses I quoted in the blog are evidence, plus there is something here from gaudiyamath

    ReplyDelete
  15. I happen to be reading a book on the Nimbarka sampradaya by Prema Narayan Srivastava. Anyway, I noticed that Nimbarka's main argument for the difference of the jiva from Krishna is based on the jiva not possessing innately the quality of ananda. The argument is based on the raso vai sah text from the Taittiriya Upanishad, for their it says that yam hy evayam labdhvanandi bhavati--only after attaining the rasamaya purusha does the jiva become joyful.

    I think the argument is a good one.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The statements of Tripurari Swami clearly come from Jaiva Dharma's chapter on sakti-tattva. He has faithfully represented BVT.

    I think the idea is that just as Krsna is the source of all Visnu-tattva, similarly Radha is the source of all shati tattva, beginning with the svarupa sakti. In it we find sandhini, samvit, and haldhini. Similarly in the jiva we find sat, cit and ananda, which arguably are partial manifestations of sandhini, samvit, and hladhini in that they afford a type of existence, cognizance, and joy that is less complete that that found in the svarupa sakti's sandhini, samvit, and hladhini.

    Then in the maya sakti we find asat, acit, and nirananda, which could be described as a distorted manifestation of the inherent qulities of the svarup sakti. The source of all sakti is one, still the three principle saktis are at the same time distinct.

    I think this is an interesting way of talking about these saktis that ties them all together. It does not do away with the fact that they are eternally distinct from one another.

    Is Durga a manifestation of Radha?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Here is something from Srila Narayana Maharaja on this subject. So it seems to be a GM doctrine that makes sense but is not explicitly spelled out by the Goswamis. It may be more of a semantic issue.

    "Sri Krsna is one without a second, and His power is also one without a second. That power is called antaranga-sakti. There are different names for that potency, but there is only one potency.

    Tatastha-sakti and maya-sakti are not different from the cit-sakti (internal, spiritual potency), in the sense that they have no independent existence from the cit-sakti. When antaranga-sakti (also known as hladini-sakti or cit-sakti) manifests the millions of jivas, then it is called tatastha-sakti. When this material world manifests, then that very cit-sakti is called – according to its function – maya-sakti. In this world we are in maya, and there is a prominency of maya, so we say that maya-sakti is here. If we say that maya-sakti refers to Srimati Radhika, there will be some misunderstanding; but actually maya is ultimately svarupa-sakti or antaranga-sakti (whose embodiment is Srimati Radhika), because maya is a power and manifests as the shadow of cit-sakti.

    The svarupa-sakti (internal potency) of Sri Krsna manifests the infinitesimal jivas. That same svarupa-sakti is then called jiva-sakti (the living entities), or tatastha-jiva-sakti (the living entity called marginal energy, because this energy is situated between the spiritual and material worlds) – by function. The shadow of svarupa-sakti creates many varieties of inert matter, and it is called bahiranga-sakti, or the external energy (maya). Does this mean there are many saktis or energies? No, there is only one energy, but it has many names. This energy is named differently, according to its many different functions.

    There is no duality in sakti (the power) and saktiman (the powerful, or the possessor of the power) – Lord Sri Krsna and His power are non-different. Sakti saktimatayor abhedah – they are non-dual; they are one. Jiva-sakti (the marginal energy) comes in contact with bahiranga-sakti (the external energy) and manifests as jaiva-jagat (the world of the living entities). Maya-sakti has manifested this world, with its varieties of bodies, minds, natures and so many other things."

    ReplyDelete
  18. What Narayan Maharaj says here is very similar to what Tripurari Swami said. That brings us right back to square one - there is no evidence for this in the Gosvamis' books. NM goes even further by involving even the bahiranga shakti in it:

    "If we say that maya-sakti refers to Srimati Radhika, there will be some misunderstanding; but actually maya is ultimately svarupa-sakti or antaranga-sakti (whose embodiment is Srimati Radhika), because maya is a power and manifests as the shadow of cit-sakti."

    ReplyDelete
  19. Of course, Durga can be seen as a manifestation of Radha, Durga is to Siva what is Radha to Krishna. There are statements in sastra that say that. But I cannot agree with the view that jiva is a manifestation of svarupa-sakti. Philosophically such a view creates many problems. I would like to see a more detailed explanation backed up by quotes from sastra.

    I have some objections to some statements made by the anonymous:

    Similarly in the jiva we find sat, cit and ananda, which arguably are partial manifestations of sandhini, samvit, and hladhini in that they afford a type of existence, cognizance, and joy that is less complete that that found in the svarupa sakti's sandhini, samvit, and hladhini.

    Sat, cit and anand are in no way manifestation of sandhini, samvit and hladini. As far as the relation of sac-cid-ananda and sandhini, samvit and hladini is concerened, Caitanya Caritamrta says:

    sac-cid-ananda maya haya isvara-svarupa
    tina amse cic-chakti haya tina rupa

    anandamse hladini sad-amse sandhini
    cid-amse samvit yare jnana kari mani

    "The svarupa of the Lord is full of sat, cit and ananda. The cic-chakti in these three portions assumes three different forms, in the portion of ananda the form of hladini, in the portion of sat the form of sandhini in the portion of cit the form of samvit which means knowledge."

    So, sat is not a manifestation of sandhini, it is rather the other way round. Sandhini is a manifestation of sat. Similarly, samvit is a manifestation of cit, and hladini of ananda.

    The cit of the jiva and the samvit aspect of svarupa-sakti, which is an amsa of cit that is the Lord's svarupa, are two different things. Cit is jiva's consciousness and samvit is the knowledge of the Lord including the knowledge of Brahman.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Here is another reading of the verse Krishnadas cited from another manuscript.

    sac-cid-ananda, purna, krsnera svarupa
    eka-i cic-chakti tanra dhare tina rupa

    Krsna’s svarupa is full of sat, cit, and ananda. His one cic-chakti has three forms.

    In my manuscript the next verse is the same as cited by Krishnadas. Together they read,

    “Krsna’s svarupa is full of sat, cit, and ananda. His one cic-chakti has three forms. His ananda part is (manifest in his cic-chakti as) hladhini, his sat part is sandhini his cit part is samvit, which means knowledge.”

    These verses seem to say that the sat of the Lord’s svarupa sakti is called sandhini, etc. If so, then the svarupa sakti is not exactly the sat cit and ananda of the Lord, but rather sandhini, etc. It is this sandhini, etc. that then manifests partially as the sat, etc. of the jiva. From the primal sakti the other saktis manifest.

    This at least is how it strikes me.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Krishnadas said

    "The cit of the jiva and the samvit aspect of svarupa-sakti, which is an amsa of cit that is the Lord's svarupa, are two different things. Cit is jiva's consciousness and samvit is the knowledge of the Lord including the knowledge of Brahman."

    But the jiva not only posesses consciousness, moreover it is consciousness as well. See Tattva-sandarbha.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon, the second verse is always in the locative case, anandamse hladini, sad amse sandhini, cid amse samvit, which is just the way Krishnadas translated it. My GM CC Edition also carries your version of the first verse but I dont see how that would change the reading.

    Please quote the text of Tattva Sandarbha, both Sanskrit and English.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dear anonymous, you are right jiva is consciousness. My use of the genitive with the word jiva was not intended to make a distinction between jiva and consciousness but to make it clear that I was talking about the jiva and not about the Lord.

    ReplyDelete
  24. See Tattva-sandarbha 31 in relation to Jiva Goswami's explanation of the significance of the Bhagavatam's words describing the jiva as "sammohitah" and "manute" as found in 1.7.5 for the understanding that the jiva is both consciousness and posesses consciousness.

    Relevant to the discussion herein is the consciousness that the jiva is, more thn the consciousness it posesses. The latter is what Krishnadas said was the source of sandhini (irroneously equating it with the sat of Krsna even while later differentiating it from Krsna's sat). This seems quite wrong. For that matter I do not think that his quote demostrates that the consciousness (sat) of the jiva, as opposed to the consciousnes it posesses) can be described as the source of sandhini either. It's source is Sri Krsna's sat.

    Again, if the sat, etc. of Krsna is manifest as the sandhini of the svarupa sakti, how can the sat of the jiva, being different than that of Krsna's sat in someway, be the source of the svarupa sakti's sandhini? However, if the Lord's sat when manifest as his svarupa sakti is sandhini, it stands to reason that the sat the jiva is constituted of is a partial manifestation of this sandhini given that the jiva is sakti-tattva. It does not matter that jiva-tattva manifests from Mahavisnu. In fact that makes the whole idea that the jiva sakti is a partial manifestation of the svarupa sakti all the more plausable.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dear anonymous, I am sorry to say that but I am not sure you know what you are writing about. You jumble things up and are misreading my explanations. You should at least not mistake sat for consciousness. Cit means consciousness, sat means existence.

    The idea that the jiva is both consciousness and posesses consciousness was elaborated especially by Ramanujacharya. According to Ramanuja, the jiva's consciousness is twofold: dharma-bhuta-jnana and svarupa-jnana, the dharma-bhuta-jnana is however inseparably related to the atma (aprthaksiddha).

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anon: "It does not matter that jiva-tattva manifests from Mahavisnu."

    In what respect do you see it like that? The jivas, as entities, emanate from Mahavishnu during the creation, that is clear. Is that what you mean or you mean something else? In the latter case, could you explain what you mean and substantiate that?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Krishnadas,

    I don’t think I am that confused, but yes of course sat refers to existence. The point I am making is that you said the sat cit ananda of Krsna is the source of the sandhini samvit and hladhini of the svarupa sakti based on Cc. However, on the basis of this you concluded that the sandhini etc. of the svarupa sakti cannot be the source of the sat cit ananda of the jiva because in your words it’s the other way around. That is, the sat cit ananda of the Lord is the source of the sandhini, etc. The problem with this logic that I am pointing out is that, as you have rightly concluded, the sat cit and ananda of the jiva is not the same as the sat cit ananda of the Lord. So you cannot say that the sat cit ananda of the Lord is the source of the sandhini, etc and therefore the sat cit ananda of the jiva cannot have its origin in the sandhini, etc of the svarupa sakti, because again the sat cit ananda of the jiva is different from that of the Lord.

    Adviata, what I meant to say is that I believe that Sankarsana/Mahavisnu is said to be the source of the jiva sakti, and he is a partial manifestation of Krsna.

    I am just finding this an interesting topic, but have not reached any conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anon: "Adviata, what I meant to say is that I believe that Sankarsana/Mahavisnu is said to be the source of the jiva sakti, and he is a partial manifestation of Krsna."

    To my understanding there is no source of the jiva, since the jivas are beginningless, as in BG 2.12-20, and they are eternally (without beginning or end) a spark of Krishna, as in BG 15.7. I have never read that Mahavishnu or anyone else is a 'source' of the jivas, other than that Mahavishnu 'stores' the jivas during the time their particular universe is unmanifest.

    "I am just finding this an interesting topic, but have not reached any conclusions."

    I am similarly just inquiring from you, Tripurari Swami and Krishnadas what your opinion is on this matter. For me scriptural evidence coupled with common sense (shastra + yukti) will ultimately convince me whether anyone is right or wrong. Dont see any of this as either a challenge or an interrogation.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Shiva said "The jiva can live under the dominion of the antaranga shakti, but the jiva will always be different from the swarupa shakti because the swarupa shakti is is not a separate conscious entity different then God. Neither is bahiranga shakti. The jiva is different then swarupa and bahiranga shakti because the jiva is a distinct conscious entity from God."

    But the svarupa sakti manifests as distinct entities that are one with God and different from him. The jivas are also entities that are one and different from him

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous said...

    Shiva said "The jiva can live under the dominion of the antaranga shakti, but the jiva will always be different from the swarupa shakti because the swarupa shakti is is not a separate conscious entity different then God. Neither is bahiranga shakti. The jiva is different then swarupa and bahiranga shakti because the jiva is a distinct conscious entity from God."

    But the svarupa sakti manifests as distinct entities that are one with God and different from him. The jivas are also entities that are one and different from him.


    I know people disagree with me but nowhere are we told there is another type of living enitity other then the lord and his personal (svamsa) expansions and the jivas.

    In Krsna Sandarbha Jiva Goswami says there are two types of expansions of The Supreme Lord:


    "This is confirmed in the Varaha Purana:

    The two kinds of expansions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead are : 1. svamsa (personal expansions) and 2. vibhinnamsa (separate persons). The svamsa expansions are unlimitedly powerful. Their form and personality are the same as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself.

    There is not the slightest difference between the svamsa expansions and the Original Personality of Godhead. The vibhinnamsa expansions are very weak in comparison to Them."

    From Caitanya Caritamrta

    svamsa-vibhinnamsa-rupe hana vistara
    ananta vaikuntha-brahmande karena vihara

    svamsa-vistara -- catur-vyuha, avatara-gana
    vibhinnamsa jiva -- tanra saktite ganana

    sei vibbhinamsa jiva - dui ta' prakara
    eka - "nitya-mukta," eka - "nityasamsara"

    "Krsna expands Himself in many forms. Some of them are personal expansions, and some are separate expansions. Thus He performs pastimes in both the spiritual and the material worlds. The spiritual worlds are the Vaikuntha planets, and the material universes are the brahmandas, gigantic globes governed by Lord Brahma

    Expansions of His personal self -- like the quadruple manifestations of Sankarsana, Pradyumna, Aniruddha and Vasudeva -- descend as incarnations from Vaikuntha to this material world. The separated expansions are the living entities (jivas). Although they are expansions of Krsna, they are counted among His different potencies

    The living entities (jivas) are divided into two categories. Some are eternally liberated, and others are eternally conditioned."

    From Bhagavat Sandarbha

    ekam eva tat parama-tattvam svabhavikacintya-saktya sarvadaiva svarupa-
    tad-rupa-vaibhava-jiva-pradhana-rupena caturdhavatisthate
    suryantarmandalastha-teja iva mandala
    tad-bahir-gatarasmi-tat-prattichavi-rupena.
    durghata-ghata-katvam hyacintyatvam

    "The Absolute Truth is one. His natural characteristic is that He has incon-ceivable potency. His inconceivable potencies are reposed in four different stages: His personal form (svarupa), the expansions of His divine form (tad-rupa-vaibhava), the jivas, and the material ingredients (pradhana). With re-gard to the sun, there is the sungod, the internal power of the sun, and that power when it is expanded as the external rays of the sun. Then there is the shadow of the sun, that is to say, the sun's reflection which is in darkness, far from the sun's influence. (translation by gaudiya math)"

    ReplyDelete
  31. Advaitadas, I was wondering:

    in your eyes, what exactly would be the difference between jivas being amsa of the Lord and amsa of His swarupa?

    How do you perceive this difference, please?

    Thank you.
    n.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Nitya, it is important to distinguish between the Lord's svarupa and His svarupa shakti. Shiva is not completely wrong by saying that they are non-different but they are also different, as in our acintya bhedabheda tattva - the discussion in this blog is about the svarupa sakti and whether or not the jiva is a manifestation of that.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yep, I understand that. Hari is only one, and no one and nothing is equal to Him. VS and all other sastras claim this very clearly. No problems here.

    But just for the sake of argument, then:

    what if jiva were amsa of svarupa sakti, and not amsa of the Lord - what would be the difference, in your opinion?

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "what if jiva were amsa of svarupa sakti, and not amsa of the Lord - what would be the difference, in your opinion?"

    In my humble opinion you should see it like this - you have three children - Ram, Syam and Lila. They are all amsas of you because you have once created them, but Syam is not a manifestation of Ram nor is Lila a manifestation of Syam, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Well, I am sorry, but you still didn't answer my question (what exactly would be different in us if we were amsa of svarupa sakti), but OK, I hear you.

    As naive as this question may sound, it still requires exact insight into difference between the Lord and his svarupa sakti and consequently difference between amsa of the Lord and amsa of his sakti.

    What does sastra say on this?

    Hmm.
    Talking about acintya bhedabheda tattva.
    :-)

    Thank you.
    n.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This is what I found on a GM website:
    Tatastha-sakti - the marginal or jiva potency of Sri Bhagavan. Because the jiva-sakti is included neither within the svarupa-sakti nor within maya-sakti, it is known as tatastha-sakti, the marginal potency. The word tata means a shore or bank, like the shoreline of an ocean; and the verbal root stha means to be situated. The shore is not part of the ocean, yet it is not part of the land which borders the ocean. One situated on the shoreline is known as tatastha. He is situated neither within the ocean, nor on the land. In his Paramatma-sandarbha, Jiva Gosvami has described the tatastha-sakti as follows: “The jiva-sakti is known as tatastha-sakti for two reasons. First of all it cannot be included within mayasakti for it is beyond maya-sakti. Secondly, although jiva-sakti is overcome by ignorance, the defect of being overcome in this way cannot touch the Paramatma situated in his heart. This is understood by the following analogy. We see that some portion of the sun’s rays can be covered by shade or clouds, but the sun itself cannot be covered. Similarly, the individual soul, who is vibhinnamsa, a separated part of Him, can be covered by maya, but Krsna Himself can never be covered. “From this it may be understood that the jiva-sakti is separate from the svarupa-sakti also for the following reason. Svarupa-sakti is present in the Paramatma. If the jiva-sakti were included within the svarupa-sakti, then the defect of the jivas being overcome by ignorance would be transposed upon the svarupa-sakti situated within the Paramatma as well, and ultimately upon the Paramatma Himself. Since that is not the case, it is evident that the jiva-sakti is not included within svarupa-sakti. Consequently, because the jiva-sakti is included neither within svarupa-sakti nor within mayasakti, it is known as tatastha-sakti.”

    ReplyDelete
  37. My understanding is that the jiva sakti is sheltered in Krsna in a general sense but it manifests in terms of its function from Sankarsana, who is also described as its asraya. In other words Krsna is the shelter of the jiva sakti in the sense that he is the shelter of everything, but more specifically it is Krsna in the form of Samkarsana who is the shelter of the jiva sakti. It manifests in the form of the jivas it is constituted of from him in relation to the world.

    jiva-nama tatasthakhya eka sakti haya
    maha-sankarsana saba jivera asraya

    Here is BVT’s position in Jaiva Dharma

    Babaji:

    As Sri Krsna is the complete saktimän-tattva, Srimati Radhika is His complete sakti. She can be called the complete svarupa sakti. That svarupa-sakti, Srimati Radhika, has three kinds of kriya-sakti. They are known as: cit-sakti, jiva-sakti and maya-sakti. Although svarupa-sakti is one, She acts in these three ways. All the eternal characteristics of svarupa-sakti are completely present in the cit-sakti, present to a minute degree in the jiva-sakti, and present in a distorted way in the maya-sakti. Apart from the three kinds of kriya-sakti (potency of activity) that I have described, svarupa-sakti also has three other types of function, named hladiné, sandhini and samvit.

    The three aspects of svarupa-sakti – namely, hladini, sandhini, and samvit – completely influence all the activities
    of the cit-sakti, jiva-sakti, and maya-sakti.

    Vrajanatha:

    You have just explained that sandhiné, saàvit, and hladiné are all manifestations of svarupa-sakti. You have also said that jiva sakti is an atomic part of svarupa-sakti, and that maya-sakti is the reflection of svarupa-sakti. Now kindly explain how the sandhini, samvit, and hladini tendencies act upon the jiva and on maya.

    Babaji:

    Jiva-sakti is the atomic potency of svarupa-sakti, and all three aspects of svarupa-sakti are present in it to a minute degree. Thus, the hladini-vrtti is always present in the jiva in the form of brahmananda (spiritual bliss); samvit-vrtti is present in the form of brahma-jnana (transcendental knowledge); and sandhini-vrtti is present in the jiva’s minute form. In maya-sakti, the hladini vrtti is manifest in the form of mundane pleasure (jadananda); samvit-vrtti is manifest in the form of material knowledge (bhautika-jnana); and the sandhini-sakti is manifest in the form of the entire material universe, which consists of the fourteen planetary systems and the material bodies of the jivas.

    So says Bhaktivinode Thakura. But I do not think he is differing with the idea that the three shaktis are diferent from one another.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "This is what I found on a GM website:"

    Well, there you go. That's it.

    Author on GM web site is contradicting swami Tripurari on the subject? Interesting.

    Thank you for your time, Advaita dasa.

    n.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anon, thank you for the quotation. Unfortunately I do not accept teachings from later Acaryas (post Baladeva Vidyabhusana) as undisputable evidence unless they are backed up by shastras or the teachings of the foundational acaryas (Baladeva and all before him).

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dear anonymous, I am curious how you reconcile that jiva-sakti is a manifestation of svarupa-sakti with all the arguments that have been gathered here on Advaita's blog. For example, the very concept of the jiva as tatastha-sakti then seems superfluous, because the jiva now is part of svarupa-sakti and not inbetween bahiranga and antaranga-saktis. The one sublates the other. Why is maya-sakti called a reflection of svarupa-sakti? Shouldn't she be also called a manifestation of svarupa-sakti? Can you find any support in the literature of the Goswamis for the thesis that there is actually only one shakti, the svarupa-sakti that manifests as other saktis?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Perhaps the closest thing to the universal acceptance we find of the siddhanta of Baladeva Vidyabhusana and the luminaries who came before him is found in the siddhanta of Thakura Bhaktivinode. He was similarly prolific and entered samadhi never to return four years before passing from the world. His writing, example, and following have had and continue to have a significant influence on the world, creating an international Gaudiya Vaisnava community that has also directly ad indirectly given energy to many Gaudiya lienages in Bharata.

    Below, I believe, is his sastra-yukti in support of his experience on the Lord’s sakti.

    The Lord has para-sakti, parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate. This para-sakti expresses itself as jana, bala, and kriya, svabhaviki jnana bala kriya ca. So says the Svetasvatara-sruti. Regarding its kriya (action potency), this para-sakti exhibits itself in three states. Describing the three states of this para-sakti by which the Lord conducts the entirety of existence, the same sruti says,

    sa visva-krd visva-vid atma-yonir jnah kala-karo guni sarvavidyah pradhana-ksetrajna-patih gunesah samsara-moksa-sthiti-bandha-hetuh

    which describes three manifestations of para-sakti relative to the Lord’s preoccupation. Here “pradhana” indicates maya-sakti, “ksetrajna” alone indicates jiva-sakti, and “ksetrajna-pati” indicates svarupa-sakti.

    As Sri Krsna or Narayana of the paravyoma the Lord’s para-sakti conducts the spiritual world of divine lila in the form of the svarupa sakti, and as the Purusa his para-sakti manifests to conduct the material world during his srsti-lila as jiva-sakti and maya-sakti. In all three of these states of the para-sakti we find the same vrttis of jnana, bala, and kriya manifest differently in accordance with the circumstances. These saktis are different from one another in terms of function, but they are nonetheless all manifestations of one para-sakti.

    As svarupa-sakti, jnana, bala and kriya are expressed as samvit, sandhini, and hladhini; as jiva-sakti, atomic cit, sat, and ananda; as maya-sakti, acit, asat and nirananda.

    Para-sakti as svarupa-sakti is no doubt different from jiva-sakti and maya-sakti, and these two are of course different from one another as well, yet all three are possessed of the same basic vrttis, which in svarupa-sakti are fully and perfectly manifest; in jiva-sakti partially manifest; in maya-sakti pervertedly manifest.

    The idea here is not to blur the clear distinction between the three saktis, but rather to show how they are interelated. At least BVT does not seem to think that his explanation brings into question citations like those cited by Advaita that emphasize the distinction between the saktis, that which makes them unique unto themselves.

    Indeed, BVT readily cites the same verses Advaita has cited throughout his books. He says the same thing Advaita says, but he also says things on the same subject that you (Krishnadas) and Advatia cannot harmonize, while they were harmonized in BVT's own head and heart. Too bad he is not here to talk to now! Perhaps we can all agree on that.

    Again, this may have more to do with semantics than philosopy. Best I can do for now.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anon, reminder that I said in my last comment that BVT's teachings are allright as long as they are backed up by shastras or the teachings of the foundational acaryas. Whether the interpretation of shastra is right, is then again another matter, but that would depend on each individual point. As for the jnana bala and kriya being integrally present in the three saktis, as hladini etc. in the svarupa sakti etc. I leave up to Krishnadas to verify or not, I dont know.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dear anonymous, this discussion is not aimed against BVT who deserves the highest respect. He is indeed a great model for all of us to follow, although we do not have to agree with everything he said.

    Thanks for the explanation but I have to say that you actually haven't answered my question, and I again cannot agree with what you wrote. Jnana, bala and kriya mentioned in Svetasvatara Sruti do not refer to svarupa-sakti. These are forms of maya-sakti through which the Lord causes the material creation to come into being. Bala is often called iccha. See Caitanya Caritamrita Madhya Lila 20.252-260 for the explanation how the Lord in the form of Sankarsana manifests the material and the spiritual world using maya-sakti and cic-chakti respectively.

    ReplyDelete
  44. In his Prameya-ratnavali while discussing Laxmi Baladeva Vidyabhusana writes

    tatra trisakti-visnu˘, yatha svetasvataropanisadi
    parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate
    svabhaviki jnana-bala-kriya ca
    pradhana-ksetrajna-patir gunesah

    This seems to be where BVT takes his lead in his application of the sruti verse. Here Baladeva Vidyabhusana quotes two lines from 6.8 and one from 6.16 (as does BVT), tying the Lord’s para-sakti (Laxmi) in terms of its jnana, bala and kriya with pradhana, ksetrajna, and ksetrajna-patir gunesah. Obviously the jnana, bala, and kriya of Laxmi are synonymous with samvit, sandhini, and hladhini in this interpretation.

    I think the sruti can legitimately be taken in this way regardless of the context one might more readily tie it to. Such practice of disregarding the sruti’s context concerning a particular verse and interpreting the text such that it lends support to their position is not unheard of among Gaudiya commentators.

    Thakura Bhaktivinoda cites this verse of Svetasvara throughout his books as a sruti reference to svarupa sakti. His position is really seems to be a commentary on the above from Baladeva Vidyabhusana.

    Krishnadasa, the section of Cc you referred to also connects kriya-sakti to both the material and spiritual worlds.

    You say that I did not answer your question. I think I did. Saying that the jiva-sakti is a partial manifestation of svarupa-sakti does not equate it in all respects to svarupa-sakti and thus does not do way with its marginal position. It is also para, as Visnu Purana states, but nonetheless different from the para-sakti being one of three of God's principle saktis. As for maya-sakti being a manifestation rather than a reflection, according to BVT is is a distorted manifestation, wich he someties refers to as a perverted reflection, of the para-sakti. I think his position on this has been made clear throught the discussion. So I do not think you are asking anything significant by asking how the jiva sakti can remain tatastha or how can maya-sakti can continue to be deluding if it is a particualr manifestation of svarupa-sakti. To me it's like asking something like how can Durga be a manifestation of Radha and still represent maya-sakti

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous, even though I can agree with you that jnana, bala, and kriya is the Lord's svabhaviki sakti that takes part in the "creation" of both the worlds, I don't see a reason why consider it identical with svarupa-sakti that is threefold, i.e. sandhini, samvit and hladini. Even the verses from CC suggest that they are different. You say jnana, bala and kriya are synonymous to sandhini, samvit, and hladini. Please, explain. They don't sound synonymous to me. Only jnana and samvit seem to correspond with each other.

    I am wondering that if your view should be correct why Jiva Goswami did not write about such a relation of sandhini, samvit and hladini to jiva-sakti and maya-sakti. In the Sandarbhas, he gave elaborate explantions about the relationships among the Lord, the jiva and the material world, but I cannot find anything that would lead to your proposition which is philosophically quite fundamental.
    It does not seem to me likely that Jiva Goswami and Krishnadas Kaviraj in CC would miss such an important point.

    ReplyDelete
  46. We exist, we know that we exist, and we exist for a purpose. That is, the purpose of our existence is not to be idle. We have something to do. The Absolute has something to do. What is that kriya (action)? It is ananda. To say that God exists for ananda is to say that he exists for no purpose. It is a purposeless purpose. Such is lila. So in jnana, bala, and kriya, the kriya is ananda. We exist, we know, and we do, and when we know why we exist ananda is what we do.

    I agree with you Krishnada, that Jiva Goswami to my knowedge has not written about this, and thus neither has Sri Krsnadasa. I have tried to trace the seed of this to Baladeva Vidyabhusana because as far as I can see this is where Bhaktivinoda Thakura has gotten his inspiration to go down this road. Had Sri Baladeva come out with it to the extent that Thakura Bhaktivinoda has, I doubt that it would be seen as controversial by anyone.

    I think one needs to justify one's realization with sastra paramana, but I also know that such an exercise will not always satisfy all concerned. After all, Gaudiya Vaisnavism itself speaks loudly to us along these lines. While this is ture in terms of Gaudiya siddhnata vs other sects, it appears that it also holds ture to a lesser extent within Gaudiya Vaisnavism as well. Indeed, as I am sure you are aware, some Gaudya Vaisnavas do not accept even Baladeva Vidyabhusana as being entirely chaste to Sri Jiva.

    It has been an interesting discussion. And to Advaita I would like to say this after looking over his blog for the first time. I think your gurunistha is very laudable and inspirational. Jaya Nikunja Gopal Gosvami! Jaya Advaitacandra!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anon: "I think one needs to justify one's realization with sastra paramana, but I also know that such an exercise will not always satisfy all concerned."

    That is a sad thing. It leaves a part of our sampradaya's members on quicksand - tasmacchastram pramanam....

    "Indeed, as I am sure you are aware, some Gaudya Vaisnavas do not accept even Baladeva Vidyabhusana as being entirely chaste to Sri Jiva."

    That is new to me. I have not heard this from anyone myself yet, and I've been around for a while.

    "And to Advaita I would like to say this after looking over his blog for the first time. I think your gurunistha is very laudable and inspirational."

    Thank you very much. I consider that an honour.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Dear anonymous, your explanation of the synonymousness of jnana etc. and sandhini etc. is not convincing.

    Can you please explain what you mean by the statement that justifying one's realization with sastra paramana will not always satisfy all concerned and that Gaudiya Vaisnavism itself speaks loudly to us along these lines?

    Yes, it has been an interesting discussion. And it would also be equally intresting to explore the philosophical implications of both the views.

    ReplyDelete
  49. In Paramatma Sandarbha, in the translation I have, Jiva says that bahiranga sakti comes from swarupa sakti.

    -------------------

    Anuccheda 90

    Text 1

    atra kevalam cin-matratvam na sambhavatiti bhagavattvam evaggi-krtya sri-maitreya uvaca

    atra - here; kevalam - only; cin-matratvam - spiritual nature; na - not; sambhavati - is possible; iti - thus; bhagavattvam - the nature of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; eva - indeed; aggi-krtya - accepting; sri-maitreya - Sri Maitreya; uvaca - said.

    The Supreme Personality of Godhead is not only spiritual in nature. He is also the master of all opulences. Sri Maitreya accepts this when he says (Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.7.9):

    Text 2

    seyam bhagavato maya

    yan nayena virudhyate icvarasya vimuktasya

    karpanyam uta bandhanam

    sa iyam - such a statement; bhagavatah - of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; maya - illusion; yan - that which; nayena - by logic; virudhyate - become contradictory; icvarasya - of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; vimuktasya - of the ever-liberated; karpanyam - insufficiency; uta - as also, what to speak of; bandhanam - bondage.

    "Certain conditioned souls put forward the theory that the Supreme Brahman, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is overcome by illusion, or maya, and at the same time they maintain that He is unconditioned. This is against all logic."*

    Text 3

    yaya visva-srsty-adikam bhavati. seyam bhagavato 'cintya- svarupa-sakter mayakhya saktih. yad ya ca nayena tarkena virudhyate. tarkatitataya seyam apy acintyety arthah.

    yaya - by which; visva-srsty-adikam - beginning with the creation of the material universe; bhavati - is; sa iyam - that; bhagavatah - of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; acintya - inconceivable; svarupa - personal; sakteh - 0of the potency; mayakhya - called maya; saktih - the potency; yat - what; ya - which; ca - and; nayena - by logic; tarkena - by logic; virudhyate - is contradicted; tarkatitataya - beyond logic; sa iyam - that; api - also; acintya - inconceivable; iti - thus; arthah - the meaning.

    Here the words "seyam bhagavato maya" mean the Lord's potency that creates, maintains, and destroys the material worlds, a potency that is called maya and is manifested from the Lord's inconceivable internal potency". "Yan nayena virudhyate" means "This is against all logic". The meaning is that the Lord's inconceivable potency is beyond ordinary material logic.

    Text 4

    yadyapy evam dvayor apy acintyatvam. tatha pi bhagavato mayety anena vyaktatvat svarupa-sakter antaraggatvad bahiraggaya mayaya gunaih sattvadibhis tat-karyaih sthapanadi-lilabhic ca nasau sprcyata ity arthah.

    yadyapi - although; evam - thus; dvayoh - of the two; api - even; acintyatvam - inconceivability; tatha pi - still; bhagavatah - of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; maya - maya; iti - thus; anena - by this; vyaktatvat - because of being manifested; svarupa-sakteh - of the personal potency; antaraggatvat - because of being internal; bahiraggaya - external; mayaya - by maya; gunaih - by the modes; sattvadibhih - beginning with goodness; tat-karyaih - by their effects; sthapanadi-lilabhih - pastimes that begin with creation; ca - and; na - not; asau - this; sprcyata - is touched; iti - thus; arthah - the meaning.

    Although the internal and external potencies of the Lord are both inconceivable, for the external potency maya is itself manifested from the internal potency, nevertheless the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not touched by maya's three material modes, which begin with the mode of goodness, nor is He touched by maya's pastimes of creating, maintaining, and destroying the material worlds. That is the meaning.

    -----------------------

    In Paramatma Sandarbha Anuccheda 102 (in this translation) Jiva Goswami writes that jiva sakti comes comes from swarupa sakti.


    Text 3

    yada yatra sva-cesta-laksane kale esa parah paramecvarah sva-mayaya bhakta-krpaya atmanah purah pracina-srsti-gata- sadhaka-bhakta-rupani svasyadhisthanani sisrksur bhavati. prakrtya saha etesu linesu avirbhavanartham iksam karoti. tada prthak svarupa-cakter itarasau jiva-mayakhya saktih purvavat tac-cestatmaka-prabhavabhasoddipta rajah srjati. svamca- bhutad guna-traya-samyad avyaktat tad viksipati. udbodhayatiti va.

    yada - when; yatra - where; sva-cesta-laksane - characterized by His own actions; kale - in time; esa - He; parah - the Supreme Personality of Godhead; paramecvarah - the Supreme Personality of Godhead; sva-mayaya - by His own maya potency; bhakta-krpaya - by mercy to His devotees; atmanah - of the self; purah - before; pracina- srsti-gata - in creation; sadhaka-bhakta-rupani - the forms of His aspiring devotees; svasya - of Him; adhisthanani - creations; sisrksuh - desiring to create; bhavati - is; prakrtya saha - with His matewrial energy; etesu - in them; linesu - merged; avirbhavanartham - for the sake of manifestation; iksam - glance; karoti - does; tada - then; prthak - separate; svarupa-cakteh - of His personal potency; itarasau - another; jiva-mayakhya - called jiva-maya; saktih - potency; purvavat - as before; tac-cesta - His actions; atmaka- prabhava - His powers; abhasoddipta - splendid; rajah - passion; srjati - creates; svamca - His own part; bhutat - manifested; guna- traya-samyat - from the equilibrium of the three modes; avyaktat - from the unmanifested; tat - that; viksipati - manifests; udbodhayati - causes to be born; iti - thus; va - or.

    Here the word "yada" means "at the time when the Lord acted in that way", "esa parah" means the Supreme Personality of Godhead", "sva-mayaya" means {.sy 168}with mercy to His devotees", "atmanah purah sisrksuh" means "before the material world was manifested, the Lord desired to create residences for His aspiring devotees", "prthak asau" means "with His internal potency He manifested the potency called jiva-maya (the individual spirit souls) as it had been before", and {.sy 168}rajah srjati" means "He manifested or created the mode of passion from the unmanifested (avyakta), where the three modes had been situated in equilibrium".

    ReplyDelete
  50. For example, what I meant was that although we Gaudiyas cite scripture to support our position on, say, the Godhood of Gauranga, not all Vaisnavas will accept our citations as being supportive of our realization. So it is faith that in the realizations of the Goswamis, etc. thier interpretations that makes one a Gaudiya or otherwise. Madhvas do not accept our interpretation on krsna tu bhagavan svayam, etc., etc.

    Similarly, witin Gaudiya Vaisnavism saints develop nuanced positions that they seek to support with scripture, but sometimes they are not universally accepted. Take Caran dasa babaji and his position on chanting the maha-mantra in kirtana, for example, or some sects' position on the nonexsistant nitya-lila of Sacinandana, or Gaura-nagara bhava. Many differing positions are held within the sampradaya and each draws support from sastra that they feel is adequate to support their position. However, not everyone agrees on the varying positions or that the scriptural support is adequate, convinving, etc. Many belive that Sri Baladeva's Govinda-bhasya does not represent actintya bhedabheda, but more of a simplistic over arching dvaita metephysic with its doctirne of visesa. Such Gaudiyas do not acknowledge any connection formal or otherwise with the Dvaita-vada sect, and for that matter neither did any of the Goswamis, Sri Jiva in particular who writes, for example, about Sri Caitanya "sva sampradaya-sahasradhidaivam."

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anon, as a representative of the Advaita Parivara I can tell you that shastra does give ultimate judgement on issues like Gaura nitya lila (it simply isnt mentioned in the Gosvamis books) or Charan Dasji's philosophies and practises (Mahaprabhu is never heard to have sung nitai gaura radhe syam hare krishna hare ram, and there is evidence for His associates chanting harekrishna without counting).
    Concerning Baladeva, if there is any discrepancy between him and Jiva Gosvami, then Jiva Gosvami should get precedence.

    Speaking of precedence, there are some later Acaryas, like Radha-Krsna Gosvami, Gopalguru Gosvami and Dhyancandra Gosvami, who speak of Gaura nitya lila, but since none of the Gosvamis ever mentioned it they should get precedence.
    The grey zone is really more limited than that even. Perhaps one of the only grey zones may be whether everyone should shave up or not.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Shiva, there is a correspondence between antaranga and bahiranga. But that is not the subject of our discussion. The text of Paramatma Sandarbha you quote to support that jiva is a manifestation of svarupa shakti is not translated properly. The text states: svarupa-sakter itarasau jiva-mayakhya saktih, i.e. this sakti called jivamaya is different from svarupa-sakti.

    Anonymous, thanks for the explanation. Though I would like to comment on it, I will not since I don't want to change the topic and I am afraid that it would lead nowhere at the moment. I just asked so that you aren't misunderstood :)

    ReplyDelete
  53. I think the idea that jiva sakti is manifested from svarupa sakti is not unreasonable even if that idea didn't start till some time after the goswamis. I think the idea stems from the concept that the jiva's consciousness is manifested from god's consciousness. Therefore since god's consciousness is swarupa sakti then the jiva sakti is manifested from swarupa shakti, even though it remains in it's own category of tatastha due to the jiva being a different conscious entity from swarupa sakti.

    Also the verses from the gita and from the vishnu purana also state that both the jiva and Krishna are para shakti.

    So whether or not the goswamis said such a thing directly, I think there can be a reasonable argument made for such a conception. Either way nothing really changes. Either way the jiva is still tatastha and not swarupa shakti. Just like the sun creates the sun rays but the sun rays are still in a different category of existence from the sun.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Shiva, I do see certain problems, and I think the view that jiva sakti is a manifestation of svarupa-sakti makes sense to you only because you do not distinguish between the Lord's svarupa and His svarupa-sakti.

    One has to be careful with words like "manifested". As you are surely aware, none of the shaktis has a beginning, they are anadi. So we have here rather a relationship of dependence in mind. These are the best words that I can find at the moment. According to the teachings of our acharyas jivas do not have any relation to svarupa-sakti prior to their contact with bhakti which is svarupa-sakti itself. That is the crux of the problem. If jiva sakti is a manifestation of svarupa-sakti, I assume, there should be a natural relation of dependence between them. However, jiva is tatastha, neither a part of bahiranga nor of antaranga.

    To say that sandhini, samvit and hladini of svarupa-sakti manifest in the jiva as sat, cid and ananda, sound also problematic to me.

    Caitanya caritamrta defines sandhini, samvit and hladini as follows (I am using Prabhupada's translation now):

    sandhinira sara amsa suddha-sattva' nama
    bhagavanera satta haya yahate visrama

    "The essential portion of the sandhini potency is suddha-sattva. Lord Krishna's existence rests upon it."

    mata, pita, sthana, griha, sayyasana ara
    e-saba krishnera suddha-sattvera vikara

    "Krishna's mother, father, abode, house, bedding, seats and so on are all transformations of suddha-sattva."

    krishne bhagavatta-jnana -- samvitera sara
    brahma-jnanadika saba tara parivara

    "The essence of the samvit potency is knowledge that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is Lord Krishna. All other kinds of knowledge, such as the knowledge of Brahman, are its components."

    hladinira sara 'prema', prema-sara 'bhava'
    bhavera parama-kashtha, nama -- 'maha-bhava'

    "The essence of the hladini potency is love of God, the essence of love of God is emotion [bhava], and the ultimate development of emotion is mahabhava."

    As I explained in my very first comment, first there is sat, cit and ananda and only then there is sandhini, samvit, and hladini, i.e. sandhini, samvit, and hladini are dependent on sat, cid and ananda and not vice versa. Sandhini manifests as mata, pita, sthana, griha, sayyasana etc. becaue there is aleady sat in the Lord, samvit manifests as knowledge of Krishna etc. because the Lord is cit, and hladini manifests because the Lord Himself is ananda. My question is how sandhini, samvit, and hladini can manifest as sat, cid and ananda if sandhini, samvit, and hladini are dependent on sat, cid and ananda. I also cannot harmonize why would, for example, samvit that is knowledge of Krishna etc. manifest in the jiva as consciousness, or prema as anand of the jiva, (though , as shown elswehere on Advaita's blog, according to our siddhanta there is actually no ananda in the jiva).

    ReplyDelete
  55. See Ps.65. There is a little ananda in the jiva.

    BVT understands this to mean up to brahmananda (ananda kana), no more. It could perhaps be even less than that, but it is there.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Dear anonymous, yes, Jiva Goswami says in Priti Sandarbha (Anu. 65): ato nataram jivasya svarupananda-rupa, atyanta-ksudratvat. He says that the ananda in the jiva is extremely minute. However, one has to understand the statement in connection with Paramatma Sandarbha (Anu 29), i.e. that the ananda means just non-existence of misery. Commenting on the definition of the jiva as cid-anandatmaka, Jiva Gosvami explains there that the jiva is not ananda in the proper sense of the word: duhkha-pratiyogitvena tu jnanatvam anandatvam ca ... anandatvam nirupadhi-premaspadatvena sadhayati. "Because the jiva is beyond misery it is said to be of the nature of consciousness and bliss ... The jiva attains bliss when it attains love of God."

    See Advaitaji's blog of August 18 for more information related to the anandatva of the jiva.

    ReplyDelete
  57. samvid eva jnanajnana-saktih

    “Samvit is the energy of knowledge and ignorance.” Bs.117

    krsne bhagavatta-jnana-samvitera sara
    brahma-jnanadika saba tara parivara Cc 1.4.67

    “The essence of the samvit potency is knowledge of the Godhood of Krsna. All other kinds of knowledge, such as the knowledge of Brahman, are its components.

    Comments ACBSP

    The activities of the samvit-sakti produce the effect of cognition. Both the Lord and the living entities are cognizant. Sri Krsna, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has full knowledge of everything everywhere, and therefore there are no hindrances to His cognition. He can have knowledge merely by glancing over an object, whereas innumerable impediments block the cognition of ordinary living beings. The cognition of the living beings has three divisions: direct knowledge, indirect knowledge and perverted knowledge. Sense perception of material objects by the mundane senses, such as the eye, ear, nose and hand, always produces definitely perverted knowledge. This illusion is a presentation of the material energy, which is influenced by the samvit-sakti in a perverted manner. Negative cognition of an object beyond the reach of sense perception is the way of indirect knowledge, which is not altogether imperfect but which produces only fragmentary knowledge in the form of impersonal spiritual realization and monism. . . . Material knowledge and indirect spiritual knowledge are by-products of the samvit-sakti.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anonymous, please elaborate on the significance of the quote from Bhagavat Sandarbha for your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  59. krishnadas you said:

    "you do not distinguish between the Lord's svarupa and His svarupa-sakti."

    The Lord's swarupa is manifested by the sandhini aspect of swarupa sakti. The Lord's swarupa sakti is identical to the Lord.

    From Svetasvatara Upanishad

    na tasya karyam karanam ca vidyate
    na tat samas cabhyadhikas ca drsyate
    parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate
    svabhaviki jnana-bala-kriya ca

    From Govinda Bhasya

    Sutra 38


    vyatiharo visimshanti hitara-vat

    vyatiharo-changeable; visimshanti - distinguish;hi - indeed;
    itara - others; vat - like.


    Like others, they say they are interchangeable.

    Purport by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana


    In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.4.15) it is said:


    atmanam eva lokam upasita


    "One should worship the Supreme Personality of
    Godhead as identical with His spiritual abode."

    This passage of the %Sruti-sastra clearly shows that the
    Supreme Personality of Godhead is identical with His spiritual
    abode and the spiritual abode is identical with the Supreme
    Personality of Godhead. In this way it is proved that they are
    mutually identical. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the
    same as His spiritual abode, and the spiritual abode is the same
    as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
    In the Gopala-tapani Upanishad, in the passage beginning
    sat-pundarika-nayanam", as well as in the passage beginning
    "sakshat prakriti-paro 'yam atma gopalah", the
    %Sruti-sastra clearly explains that the form of the Supreme
    Personality of Godhead is identical with the Supreme Personality
    of Godhead Himself, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is
    identical with His own form. Thus the Supreme Personality of
    Godhead,l whose form is full of knowledge and bliss, manifests
    Himself, by the agency of His inconceivable potency, as His own
    spiritual world, which He reveals only to His devotee and to no
    one else. In this way it is proved that as one meditates on the
    Supreme Personality of Godhead, so one should also meditate on
    the Supreme Personality of Godhead's spiritual abode.




    Adhikarana 17

    The Qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead


    Introduction by %Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana


    To confirm what has already been said, the following
    explanation is now begun. Many texts that describe the specific
    features and qualities of the Lord are the subjects of discussion (vishaya)
    here.

    Samsaya (doubt): Are the features and qualities of the Lord
    spiritual realities or are they material illusions?

    Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): In Brihad-aranyaka
    Upanishad (4.4.19) it is said:


    neha nanasti kincana


    "Variety is not present in the Supreme."

    In Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (2.3.6) it is said:


    athata adeso neti neti


    "This is the teaching: It is not this. It is not
    this."

    In this way the %Sruti-sastra teaches that the Supreme has
    neither features nor qualities.

    Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author
    of the sutras gives His conclusion.


    Sutra 39


    saiva hi satyadayah

    sa - she; eva - indeed; hi - indeed; satya - truth;
    adayah - beginning with.


    Indeed, she is those that begin with truth.

    Purport by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana


    In the Svetasvatara Upanishad (6.8) it is said:


    parasya saktih


    "The Supreme has a potency that is spiritual."

    In the Vishnu Purana (6.7.61) it is said:


    vishnu-saktih para


    "Lord Vishnu has a potency that is spiritual."

    This potency is clearly different from the illusory
    material potency (maya). As heat is to fire, so this personal,
    spiritual potency is to the Lord. This potency is called para
    sakti (spiritual potency) or svarupa sakti (the Lord's personal
    potency).
    Because this spiritual potency manifests itself as the
    truthfulness and other qualities of the Lord, these qualities are
    not material or illusory. They are the actual qualities of the
    Lord. Two arguments proving that the Lord's truthfulness and
    other qualities are manifestations of this spiritual potency will
    be given later. The "neti neti" passage quoted by the
    purvapaksha has already been refuted in sutra 3.2.22.
    The word "adi" (beginning with) should be
    understood to imply the Lord's other qualities, such as His
    purity, mercy, forgiveness, omniscience, omnipotence, bliss,
    handsomeness, and many others. That is why Parasara Muni defines
    the word "bhagavan" as "The Supreme Personality
    of Godhead, who is supremely pure, filled with spiritual good
    qualities, and the master of great potencies". Then Parasara
    Muni explains that the Lord has many transcendental qualities,
    such as His being the maintainer of all, the master of all, the
    master of all opulences, possessing all intelligence, and many
    other qualities also. In the Vishnu Purana (6.5.72-75)
    Paraasra Muni says:


    suddhe maha-vibhuty-akhye
    pare brahmani sabdyate
    maitreya bhagavac-chabdah
    sarva-karana-karane


    "O Maitreya, the word `bhagavan' means `The Supreme
    Personality of Godhead, who is supremely pure, who is the cause
    of all causes, and who is the master of great potencies.'


    sambharteti tatha bharta
    bha-karo 'rtha-dvayanvitah
    neta gamayita srashta
    ga-kararthas tatha mune


    "The syllable `bha' means `the maintainer of all' or
    `the protector of all'. O sage, the syllable `ga' means `the
    leader', `the savior', or `the creator'.


    aisvaryasya samagrasya
    viryasya yasasah sriyah
    jnana-vairagyayos capi
    shannam bhaga itinganah


    "Full wealth, strength, fame, beauty, knowledge,
    and renunciation: these are the six opulences of the Supreme
    Personality of Godhead.*


    vasanti yatra bhutani
    bhutatmany akhilatmani
    sa ca bhuteshv aseshesu
    vakararthas tato 'vyayah

    jnana-sakti-balaisvarya. . .


    "The syllable `va' means `the Supreme Personality of
    Godhead, in whom everything abode, and who Himself abides in all
    beings.' Therefore the word `bhagavan' means `The Supreme
    Personality of Godhead, who has all knowledge, power, and
    opulences'. "

    Therefore the Supreme Personality of Godhead's truthfulness
    and other qualities are not different from Him. In this way it
    is proved that one should meditate on the Supreme Personality of
    Godhead as being not different from His qualities.




    Sutra 42


    upasthite 'tas tad-vacanat

    upasthite - being near; atah - thus; tat - of that;vacanat - from
    the statement.


    It is in His presence. It is so because of the statement.

    Purport by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana


    The word "upasthite" means "nearness". even
    though the Lord's potency and the Lord Himself, the shelter of
    that potency, are one, still, because the Lord is the best of
    males and His potency is the jewel of young girls, when They are
    together there is naturally the perfection of blissful amorous
    pastimes. How is that known? The sutra explains: "tad-
    vacanat" (because of the statement). In the Gopala-tapani
    Upanishad (2.25) it is said:


    yo ha vai kamena kaman kamayate sa kami bhavati. yo ha vai tv
    akamena kaman kamayate so 'kami bhavati.


    "He who lusts after pleasures is lusty. He who
    enjoys without material lust is not lusty."

    In these words the amorous pastimes of the Lord are
    described. The word "a-kamena" here means "with
    something that bears certainly similarities to lust". This thing
    with some similarities to material lust is the Lord's pure
    spiritual love. That is the meaning. With spiritual love He
    enjoys the goddess of fortune, who is actually Himself. In this
    way He finds pleasure and fulfillment. For this there is no fault
    on His part. By touching the goddess of fortune, who is actually
    Himself, the Lord enjoys transcendental bliss. It is like a
    person gazing at his own handsomeness (in a mirror). That is what
    is said here.
    Different from His spiritual potency (para sakti) is the
    potency of the Lord's form (svarupa-sakti). The Sruti-sastras
    and other scriptures explain that through the svarupa-sakti the
    Supreme Lord manifests as the best of males, and through the
    para sakti the Lord manifests His various transcendental
    qualities. It is through the para sakti that the Lord manifests
    His knowledge, bliss, mercy, opulence, power, sweetness, and
    other qualities.
    It is also through the para sakti that the Vedic
    scriptures are manifested. In the same way is manifested the
    earth and other places. manifesting as the Lord's pleasure
    potency (hladini sakti), the para sakti appears as %Sri
    Radha, the jewel of teenage girls.
    Although the Lord and His para sakti are not different,
    still, for enjoying different pastimes, They are manifested as
    different. In this way the Lord's desires are perfectly and
    completely fulfilled.
    These manifestations of the para sakti, beginning with the
    manifestation of the Lord's qualities, are not manifested only
    recently. They are beginningless and eternal. They will never
    cease to exist. Therefore the devotees should meditate on the
    Supreme Personality of Godhead as accompanied by the goddess of
    fortune.
    -------------------------


    You said you have a problem with the word "manifest" because the jiva is described as anadi. The jiva is described by the upanishads and by Jiva Goswami as being a ray of light from the sun of God. Just as the concept of the jiva being conditioned without beginning is inconceivable to you so to is the nature of the jiva being a manifestation of the consciousness of God.

    ReplyDelete
  60. If we take the verse to say that all kinds of knowledge are ultimately components of samvit, then this includes the knowledge inherent in the jiva, its cit. Thus this cit of the jiva could be said to be a partial expresion of samvit--the position of BVT. Here ACBS is following this reasonsing when he writes that the cognizance of the jiva is a component of samvit.

    The problem with the overall argument, however, seems to rest, more with ananda/hladhini and its "negative presence" in the jiva. I think this is your best foot forward. The ananda kana of BVT is very small indeed. Still it seems that this is what BVT is identifying with when he says that the jiva is a partial expression of the para-sakti, cti anu, ananda kana and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  61. If we take this verse from Cc to mean that all cognizance is a component of samvit (I realize it could be taken otherwise), then this includes the cognizance inherent in the jiva as well as ignorance, the influence of maya-sakti. This is the position of BVT, and ACBS follows him in his comments.

    That said, I think your best foot forward in this discussion is the “negative presence,” if you will, of ananda in the jiva. BVT seems to want to give it a touch more positivity with his term ananda kana.

    Vallabha has it that the jiva is sat cit and concealed ananda.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anonymous, we are acintya-bhedabheda-vadis. We accept that the Lord (svarupa) and His saktis are simultaneoulsy identical with Him and different from Him. It is, however, the difference that we like to stress. The difference between the Lord and His svarupa-sakti is on of the crest jewels of our philosophy. We can say that Radha and Krishna are one, but we want to see them as different, otherwise there would be no lila.

    You wrote that the Lord's swarupa is manifested by the sandhini aspect of swarupa sakti. I cannot
    agree, the Lord is the asraya of svarupa-sakti, and not vice versa.

    I would not attach too much importance to the statement samvid eva jJAnAjJAna-zaktiH from the Bhagavat Sandarbha. In my opinion you interpret it out of the context when you try to relate it to the cit of the jiva.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Just for clarification, Krishnadas said, "You wrote that the Lord's swarupa is manifested by the sandhini aspect of swarupa sakti. I cannot agree, the Lord is the asraya of svarupa-sakti, and not vice versa. "

    I think that was Shiva, not anonymous. Although he was quoting a translation of Baladeva Vidyabhusana.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Sorry, anonymous. The first two paragraphs are a reaction to Shiva's comment and the third one to yours.

    ReplyDelete