This blog is a sequel to my blog of November 1, which led to an interesting debate between Pt. Satyanārāyan dās jī and an anonymous commentator. Since the new reply of Satyanārāyan dāsjī is extensive, it was impossible to post it as one single comment, so I am making a new blog about it.
Satyanārāyan dāsjī -
I am replying to the comments made by Anonymous on the topic of whether or not the Veda exists in the ātma. I have no intention of attacking or refuting anybody. I was asked to comment on Bhaktivinoda Thākur’s conclusion that the Veda exists in the pure soul, ātma. According to my study of the works of Jīva Gosvāmī and other ācāryas, this understanding does not find support in their writings. Before I reply to the comments of anonymous, I will give reference from the writings of Jīva Gosvāmī on this topic.
In Paramātma Sandarbha, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī has done a lengthy analysis of the constitutional position of the living being in sections 19 through 47. In Anuccheda 44, he cites verse 11.22.10 of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam.
Self-realization for the jīva, who is saddled with beginningless ignorance, is not possible by his own efforts. It is possible only if knowledge is imparted to him by another who knows the reality.
In this verse, Kṛṣṇa tells Uddhava that knowledge about the Supreme comes from an external source, who is called here as tattvajña, the knower of the Absolute Reality. Jīva Gosvāmī comments that this “another” is none other than Īśvara. He also writes:
“The word jñānada, “bestower of knowledge,” here informs us that Bhagavān is distinct from both knowledge and the knower. Uddhava will similarly say further on [in the same chapter of the Bhāgavata], tvatto jñānaṁ hi jīvānāṁ pramoṣas te’tra śaktitaḥ. The jīvas’ knowledge verily comes from You, and it is stolen away by Your [Māyā] potency. (11.22.28)”
In another place of CC it says by performing sadhana-bhakti, the seed of bhakti blooms into devotion (Śravaṇādi śuddha-citte karaye udaya (Cc. Madhya 22.107) Rūpa Gosvāmī also asserts the same thing in BRS 1.2.2 where he says that bhakti is eternally existent in pure devotees and it manifests in the heart of a sādhaka by the grace of guru. (nitya-siddhasya bhāvasya prākaṭyaṁ hṛdi sādhyatā). While commenting on this verse, Mukunda Das Gosvami clearly writes that this nitya-siddha bhava here refers to the bhava of nitya-siddha bhaktas. This is also made clear by Jīva Gosvāmī in his commentary on verse 1.3.1 from BRS.
There are various statements which they clearly say that the jīva is devoid of any knowledge, although he is a conscious being and he has the potential to acquire knowledge. This is certainly supported by Śrīmad Bhāgavatam in verses such as:
A similar statement is also found in Garuda Purāṇa, Preta Kalpa, 49.7. In the very first verse of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (1.1.1), it is very clearly stated that the Vedic knowledge was imparted to Brahmā by Bhagavān through the heart, tene brahma hṛdā ya ādi-kavaye. The third case in hṛdā means that Bhagavān revealed the Vedas through the heart and not through the ears. This means that Brahmā received Vedic Knowledge while in a trans-cognitive state, samādhi. This is also confirmed by Svetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.18. While giving the four-versed Bhagavatam to Brahmā, Bhagavān says, “Take this knowledge from Me, gṛhāṇa.” It is not said that Bhagāvān revealed the knowledge that was already existing in the heart of Brahmā. Sometimes, when it is said that the knowledge was revealed, it means that knowledge given in the heart in super-cognitive state. It does not mean that knowledge is already there inside the ātma and then it is revealed into heart. This is seen in the case of Brahmā receiving the catuḥ-ślokī Bhāgavatam.
Keeping this view in mind, I now reply to anonymous. He writes:
“You (SND) wrote:
12.6.40-41 – ‘There is no mention in this verse that Om manifests from atma, as is seen in the above translation. You can check the Sanskrit yourself.’”
My reply: In verse 12.6.40, the word ātmanah refers to Paramātma and not the individual living being. This is very clear from the commentary.
My translation is as follows.”When the power of hearing is dissolved (supta-śrotre), the one who hears this sound (imam sphoṭam) [i.e., Om], even at that time is the one who can perceive things beyond sense perception (śūnya-dṛk) [i.e. Paramātmā]. It is from Him that the speech [in the form of the Veda] is manifested. The [Vedic speech] becomes manifest in the sky [of heart] from Paramātmā (ātmanaḥ).”
The relative pronoun yaḥ in this verse refers to Paramātma and not to an individual living being. This is made clear in the commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī, Śrīdhara Svami, as well as by Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura. All the other commentators also agree with them. Although these three commentators have not glossed the word ātmanah as Paramātma, it is clear that the term cannot mean the living being here, because it is Paramātma who hears this sound, and not ātma, the individual living being. The context here is the manifestation of the Veda to Brahmā from Paramātma and not the living being. The topic is not related with an individual living being. The meaning is also given according to the context. The word ātma can mean the Supreme Being (Paramātma), an individual living being, mind, intellect, body or object of love. Examples of the word atma being used for Paramātma are i.e.
sarvam hi etad brahma ayam ātma brahma‘so ayam ātma catuṣpat
(Maṇḍuka Upaniṣad 2)
nāyam ātma pravacana labhyo na medhayā na bahunā śrutena
Yam evaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyas tasyaiṣa ātma vivṛṇute tanuṁ svam
(Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.2.4)
ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo nididhyāsitavyo maitreyi ātmani khalu are dṛṣṭe śrute mathe vijñate idam sarvaṁ viditam
(Bṛhad-āranyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.6)
Further, Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura writes that it is from Paramātma that the jīva gets the knowledge of Om, jīvasya yā upalabdhiḥ sā paramātma dvārikaiva iti jñeyam. If the nāda, Om, or the Vedas were inherent in a jīva then this comment of Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura would make no sense. At least three commentators, i.e., Śrī Sudarśana Suri, Śrī Vijayadvaja Tirtha and Śukadeva have clearly glossed atmanah as Paramātma. Thus, the manifestation of the Veda in the heart is from Paramātma, not from ātma.
Moreover, according to Śrīmad Bhāgavatam verse 12.6.37, the nāda which is mentioned here refers to the heart of Brahmā, brahmaṇaḥ parameṣṭhinaḥ, and not any living entity. This certainly matches with the statement of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.1.1. that Vedic knowledge was revealed by Bhagavān to Brahmā through the heart. Verses SB 12.6.37 and 12.6.40 do not say that the Vedas are established in the ātma. These verses give a description of the Vedas appearing in the heart of Brahmā and not the living entities. This is also understood from the questions of Śaunaka to Śukadeva Gosvami (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.6.36).
Anonymous comments:
Śrī Satya Narayana das Babaji’s comment that Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has refuted sphotavada in Sarva Samvadini is irrelevant for two reasons:
1) Śrīmad Bhagavatam 12.6.40 says – śṛṇoti ya imam sphotam supta-srotre – “He hears this sphoṭa when the senses do not function”.
This verse describes the manifestation of the syllable AUM from nāda as the “sphoṭa”. Thus, the theory of sphoṭa is supported by Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, the very text Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī is defending in Sarva Samvādini.
2) The sphoṭa theory refuted by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī in Sarva Samvādini has nothing to do with the sphota theory discussed in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.6.40. Rather, in Sarva Samvādini (11) Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has refuted the sphota theory of the grammarian Pāṇinī, which distinguishes between śabda as syllables and śabda as sphota. No such differentiation exists in the description of sphota in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam.”
My reply about these two points is that they are irrelevant. When I say, Jīva Gosvāmī refuted sphota-vāda, I obviously mean the sphota-vāda of the grammarians. That is the only sphota-vāda accepted in scholarly circles. Just because SB 12.6.37 uses the term sphota, it does not mean it is sphota-vāda. Words have popular meanings and secondary meanings. The term sphota-vāda is used only to mean the theory of the grammarians. I never heard or read of anyone referring to sphota-vāda of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, including Jīva Gosvāmī. Therefore, my comment is not irrelevant because I am referring to the popular sphota-vāda. There is no such thing as “sphota theory” of Bhāgavatam.
Anonymous comments:
“Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Thākura comments on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.21.37:
Bhūteṣu sarva-prāniṣu ghoṣa-rūpena ghoṣo nādaḥ tad-rūpena lakṣyate manīṣibhiḥ
“The Veda is seen as nāda by the wise in all beings.”
If you have no problem with this statement of Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Thākura, then you have to ask yourself why do you have a problem with Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Thākura saying exactly the same thing?”
My reply: You have to first decide whether the Vedas exist in the ātma or in the heart. Both are not the same. The heart is part of the subtle body, which is made of matter. It has nothing in common with the qualities of ātma.
In this verse, it is stated that Kṛṣṇa has established the nāda in the jīva. From the commentaries of Jīva Gosvāmī and Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura it is apparent that this nāda is established in the Mūlādhāra Cakra of Brahmā and from there it moves up. There is no mention that the nāda is established in the ātmā. Moreover, if the Veda were already inherent in the ātmā, then there would be no need to establish it. But Kṛṣṇa says that he established, māyā upabṛṁhitam. This supports my explanation of the word ātmanaḥ in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.6.40, where I said that ātmā here means Paramātma, and therefore the Vedas manifest from Paramātma and not the individual beings. But if you interpret the word ātma in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.6.40 as individual soul, it would contradict Kṛṣṇa’s statement in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.21.37 that is it He who established the Veda in the heart of Brahmā.
Anonymous comments:
“Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Thākura comments on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.6.39 -
svarāt sāksāt parameśvara eva - From nāda manifests AUM, which is directly the Supreme Lord.
Since the Supreme Lord is vibhu (vyāpaka), all-pervading, in all his forms, including AUM, the seed of the Vedas, what benefit is there from claiming that the Lord pervades everything except for the jīva?”
My reply: This comment does not serve the purpose of proofing that the Vedas are in the ātma. If you apply your logic, then the jīva would not be conditioned at all because of God being inherent in him. Wherever there is God, there is no māyā. The Srutis say, sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma, neham nānā asti kincana, There is only Brahman that exists and nothing else. Thus we are all Brahman, as is verily proclaimed by Advaitavādis. And Kṛṣṇa says, vāsudeva sarvam iti, everything is Vāsudeva. Then we are all Kṛṣṇa. In fact, it is only He who exists and nothing else. This will demolish your own principle of the path of bhakti. You will end up in Māyāvāda.
Thus it is not a question of citing a particular statement to prove your point. You need to reconcile everything.
Anonymous comments:
“Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Thākura comments on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.21.38:
ananta-pāram prākṛtāprākṛta-prāṇamayasya kālato deśataś cāparicchedāt
‘The Veda, composed of prākrta and āprākrta-prāṇa is infinite due to its being undivided by space or time.’
There are two types of hṛd-ākāśa. One is prākṛta, namely, the anāhata-cakra, where the Veda, in the form of paśyanti, becomes manifest as madhyama. This takes place in the subtle body. The other hṛd-ākāśa is aprākṛta and pervades the jīvātmā. That is described in Chandogya Upanisad 8.3. When the Vedic sound manifests in the aprākṛta-ākāśa, the absolute meaning is understood in relation to bhakti. When the Vedic sound manifests in the prākṛta-ākāśa, the relative meanings related to karma and jñāna are understood due to the vitiation of māyā.
The śabda-brahma is not limited by time or space, therefore it is pointless to argue that it exists in one place but not in another. These are all mundane propositions arising from conditioned binary thinking. All that is needed is a sympathetic disposition towards Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Thākura and you will appreciate the perfection of his presentation. Otherwise, vivādātmaka-buddhi will simply create contradiction where no contradiction exists.”
My Reply:
The commentary of Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.21.36 according to my book (11.21.38 according to your reference) makes no mention that the aprākṛta prāṇa belongs to the jīvātma. If you read the commentary of Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura on 11.21.38 (the verse beginning with yatho’rṇanābhi), he clearly mentions that this manifestation of the Veda is from Paramātma or Kṛṣṇa into the Mūlādhāra cakra of Hiraṇyagarbha, or Brahmā (svasmād udbhava prakāram āha yathorṇeti tribhiḥ….. prabhur īśvaro mad aṁśo hiraṇya-garbhāntaryāmī ….hiraṇyagarbhasyādhāra-cakre āvirbhūya). The commentary says, svasmād udbhava prakāram āha, which means, “The manifestation of the Veda from Kṛṣṇa is being described.” It is very clear from the commentary that this manifestation is from the antaryāmi of Paramātma who is part of Kṛṣṇa, mad aṁśo hiranyagarbha antaryāmi. This manifestation is from the unmanifest (aprakaṭa) ākāśa [in which Paramātma exists] into the manifest (prakaṭa) ākāśa in the heart of Brahmā (ākāśād ākāśam avalambya…) into the Mūlādhāra cakra of Hiraṇyagarbha (hiranyagarbhasya ādhāra cakre āvirbhūya). Therefore, there is no mention here in the commentary that the Veda is coming from the aprakat ākāśa of the jīva.
This is also confirmed in the commentary of Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura on the Bhāgavatam verses 11.12.17 and 11.12.19. He comments that the word jīva in 11.12.17 means Paramātma, who is He Himself, jīvayati iti jīvaḥ parameśvaraḥ śāstra prasiddhaḥ eṣa mallakṣaṇaḥ puruṣa eveti sva-tarjanyā sva-vakṣaḥ spṛśati. Then in the commentary it is explained how the nāda manifests in the body of Brahmā, vivareṣy caturmukha-śarīrastha-ādhārādi-cakreṣu… There is no mention that nāda is in the ātmā of Brahmā and from there it comes into his Mūlādhāra cakra. Even Paramātma manifests the Veda in the body of Brahmā and not into his ātmā. This is made further clear in the commentary on 11.12.19 – veda-lakṣaṇayā vāṇī yathā brahma-śarīrād-udbhutā, “just as the speech in the form of Veda manifests from the body of Brahmā ….”
Anonymous comments, “When the Vedic sound manifests in the aprakṛta-ākāśa, the absolute meaning is understood in relation to bhakti.”
My reply: I don’t understand what you mean by your statement. Where is this aprākṛta ākāśa. Is it in ātma or Paramātma and who understands it?
Anonymous further writes, “When the Vedic sound manifests in the prākṛta-ākāśa, the
relative meanings related to karma and jnana are understood due to the vitiation of māyā.”
My reply: This does not make sense to me because the whole description in verses 12.6.37–44 is about the manifestation of the Veda into the heart of Brahmā and that definitely is a manifestation in the prākṛta ākāśa. So by your statement it appears that Brahmā does not understand that the Vedas speak about bhakti because he only got the Vedas in prākṛta-ākāśa. This however goes against the statement of Śukadeva (bhagavan brahma … Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 2.2.34) which said that Brahmā studied the complete Vedas three times and understood that their essence is bhakti. This goes against Śrīmad Bhāgavatam verse 2.7.51 in which Brahmā orders Nārada to expand the Bhāgavatam which he received from Bhagavān Himself. If he did not understand the meaning of the Bhāgavatam, how could he teach it to Nārada? Our whole paramparā is coming from Brahmā, so the above statement is actually an attack on the whole Gauḍīya sampradāya.
I find no such description anywhere in the works of the Gosvāmīs, Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura or Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. I do not know what is the basis for this. Kindly give reference for this.
As far as your reference to Chandogya Upanisad 8.3, I don’t find any reference to prākṛta and aprākṛta-ākāśa in it. Please supply the exact Sanskrit.
So with all this, at least in the Bhāgavatam-verses that you have referred to, I do not see any description of the Veda being within ātma.
The only argument which remains is that śabda-brahma or the Veda is not limited by time and space, therefore it also exists in the ātma. About this I have already written above that this is acceptable, but then you have to explain the statements that say that the jīva is ignorant of Bhagavān. You cannot just take one set of statements and neglect the other. Otherwise, you fall prey to ardha-kukkuti nyāya (example of accepting only half of a hen, the part that gives eggs and neglecting the part that needs to be fed).
In Bhagavad Gita 9.4, Kṛṣṇa says that He pervades everything and yet He is not in everything. He also says that everything that exists is He, vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti. Indeed He says that He is the ātmā in everyone (Gītā 10.20). Then by your logic, we are all Vāsudeva and certainly we have the Vedic knowledge. But this fact is not experienced by us. Otherwise what was the need for Kṛṣṇa to tell this to us. We would know it as He knows. Your logic of “all pervading” is tantamount to Māyāvāda philosophy.
By accepting the Vedic knowledge in the ātma, there is one more difficulty that arises. According to Bhāgavatam, there are five types of mukti. One of them is called sāyujya, which is of two types, brahma-sāyujya and bhagavat sāyujya. A jīva who attains brahma-sāyujya does not have any subtle or gross body because that is the very definition of mukti: muktir hitvānyatha rūpaṁ svarūpena vyavasthiti (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 2.10.6). Such a jīva also does not get a spiritual body because in Brahman there is no form or attribute. It is a homogeneous state of pure consciousness. So according to your proposition (or BVT), such a person should be situated in Vedic knowledge, because he does not have any more conditioning by the subtle or gross body. This goes against the very principle of brahma-sāyujya, because in brahma-sāyujya there is no awareness of anything except of Brahman. There is no duality in brahman realization. But if one has Vedic knowledge, one must have knowledge of Kṛṣṇa, as Kṛṣṇa Himself says: vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedya. This also needs to be accounted for if you accept that there is Vedic knowledge inherent in the ātma.
Further questions can be raised on this: Is this knowledge of the Veda manifest or unmanifest? If it is manifest, then it cannot be forgotten at all. For example, the ātma has I-consciousness in it. ātma is the referent of the word ‘I”. This knowledge of “I” can never be forgotten in any state of existence—wakeful, dream or dreamless state. No matter what the jīva thinks of himself, the sense of “I” always exists, because it is inherent in the ātma. It is this sense of “I” that is superimposed on the gross and subtle bodies, which makes one think, “I am the mind or the body.” In the same way, consciousness in the inherent quality of ātma, therefore it can never be taken away from it in any state of existence. No matter how much māyā influences the jīva, he never loses consciousness and the sense of “I.” He cannot become dead matter. In the same way, if Vedic knowledge were manifest in the ātma, the jīva could never forget it or be unaware of it, no matter how much he is covered by māyā. Just like a bulb which has light in it cannot lose it, no matter how much the bulb is covered externally. Therefore Jīva Gosvāmī is right when he says that the jīva has beginningless ignorance, anādyavidyā. However, being a conscious entity, he has the potential to acquire knowledge.
If we consider the second option, that the knowledge is unmanifest in the ātma, then the proponent of this idea must explain what is means to have unmanifest knowledge and how it exists in the ātma. What is the mechanism? The constitution of ātma is eternal and not liable to any modification, avikārī (Gītā 2.25). If the knowledge would change from unmanifest to manifest by some practice as proposed by Anonymous, then that would make the ātma modifiable, vikārī, like matter. One may argue that the practice of bhakti makes this knowledge manifest, but we find no support for that. On the contrary, Kṛṣṇa says that knowledge comes from an external source (see Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.22.10 as cited above). The knowledge is given from outside.
Satyanārāyan dāsjī -
I am replying to the comments made by Anonymous on the topic of whether or not the Veda exists in the ātma. I have no intention of attacking or refuting anybody. I was asked to comment on Bhaktivinoda Thākur’s conclusion that the Veda exists in the pure soul, ātma. According to my study of the works of Jīva Gosvāmī and other ācāryas, this understanding does not find support in their writings. Before I reply to the comments of anonymous, I will give reference from the writings of Jīva Gosvāmī on this topic.
In Paramātma Sandarbha, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī has done a lengthy analysis of the constitutional position of the living being in sections 19 through 47. In Anuccheda 44, he cites verse 11.22.10 of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam.
anādy-avidyā-yuktasya
puruṣasyātma-vedanam
svato na sambhavād anyas
tattvajño jñānado bhavet
Self-realization for the jīva, who is saddled with beginningless ignorance, is not possible by his own efforts. It is possible only if knowledge is imparted to him by another who knows the reality.
In this verse, Kṛṣṇa tells Uddhava that knowledge about the Supreme comes from an external source, who is called here as tattvajña, the knower of the Absolute Reality. Jīva Gosvāmī comments that this “another” is none other than Īśvara. He also writes:
“The word jñānada, “bestower of knowledge,” here informs us that Bhagavān is distinct from both knowledge and the knower. Uddhava will similarly say further on [in the same chapter of the Bhāgavata], tvatto jñānaṁ hi jīvānāṁ pramoṣas te’tra śaktitaḥ. The jīvas’ knowledge verily comes from You, and it is stolen away by Your [Māyā] potency. (11.22.28)”
Knowledge of the Absolute also indicates the knowledge of the Veda, because the essence of the Vedas is to know Kṛṣṇa (Gītā 15.15). The word used in SB 11.22.10 is jñānada, the giver of jñāna, or knowledge. It does not say that he makes the pre-existing knowledge in the ātma manifest. Rather, the verse clearly says that the jīva is ignorant without beginning (anādi avidyā). This is further fortified by Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī in section 47 of Paramātma Sandarbha, where he again says that the conditioned jīvas have beginningless indifference to Bhagavān, anādita eva bhagavat-parāṅmukha. In Bhakti Sandarba, Anuccheda 1 he clearly says that a conditioned jīva is devoid of knowledge of bhagavan - taṭastha-śakti-rūpāṇāṁ cideka-rasānām api anādi-para-tattva-jñāna-saṁsarga-abhāvamaya-tad-vaimukhya. He repeats the same point in Priti Sandarbha, Anuccheda 1, taj-jñāna-saṁsarga-abhāva-yuktatvena. In these two references of Bhakti Sandarbha and Prīti Sandarbha the compound word saṁsarga-abhāva refers to pre-absence (prāg-abhāva). Pre-absence is well-known to have no beginning but can come to an end. Thus, saṁsarga abhāva implies that a jīva has never had knowledge but he can acquire it. That is the significance of the word jñānada in verse 11.22.10.
While commenting upon SB 1.7.5 also he writes that a conditioned jīva is devoid of jñāna of Bhagavān, jīvānām anādi-bhagavad-ajñānam asahamāna. In these statements the word abhāva and ajñānam very clearly state that a jīva has no knowledge of Bhagavān or the Veda inherent in him. In fact, the very reason that māyā can overpower the jīva is because he lacks knowledge of Bhagavan. This knowledge has to be received from a qualified guru. That is the significance of the Bhāgavatam verse 11.22.10.
On this, one may raise the pūrvapakṣa (objection) that in Anuccheda 19, Jīva Gosvāmī has cited verses about the svarūpa of a living being from Padma Purāṇa and Jamātṛ Muni of the Śrī Sampradāya. In these verses, the word cidānanda-ātmaka is used as one of the characteristics of the jīva. This means that the jīva has knowledge (cit) and bliss (ānanda) in him.
This, however, is not true, because while explaining this term in section 28, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī writes that the meaning of the jīva being of the nature of cit, or jñāna, is that he is not inert, and the meaning that he is of the nature of ānanda, or bliss, is that he is devoid of suffering, tatra tasya jaḍa-pratiyogitvena jñānatvaṁ duḥkha-pratiyogitvena tu jñānatvam ānandatvam ca. In other words, the term cidānanda-ātmaka does not means that the jīva is full of knowledge and bliss, as it is misunderstood sometimes. It means that he is devoid of inertness and suffering. Nowhere in his analysis of the constitution of the jīva does Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī write that the knowledge of the Vedas or that of Bhagavān is inherent in the svarūpa of the jīva or ātma. No such statement is found in any of his writings, such as Sarva Samvādini or Krama Sandarbha, the commentary on the complete Bhāgavatam. Personally, I have not come across any statement in the writings of Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī, Śrī Sanātana, Śrī Jīva, Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravarti Thākur or Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, which says that knowledge of the Veda or that of Bhagavan is inherent in the svarūpa of the jīva or ātma. In the same vein, Kṛṣṇadās Kavirāja in Caitanya-caritāmṛta says: guru-kṛṣṇa-prasāde pāya bhakti-latā-bīja [Cc. Madhya 19.151] that the seed of bhakti is attained by the grace of guru and Kṛṣṇa. It does not say that the seed is already inside and that it manifests by sādhana bhakti.
In another place of CC it says by performing sadhana-bhakti, the seed of bhakti blooms into devotion (Śravaṇādi śuddha-citte karaye udaya (Cc. Madhya 22.107) Rūpa Gosvāmī also asserts the same thing in BRS 1.2.2 where he says that bhakti is eternally existent in pure devotees and it manifests in the heart of a sādhaka by the grace of guru. (nitya-siddhasya bhāvasya prākaṭyaṁ hṛdi sādhyatā). While commenting on this verse, Mukunda Das Gosvami clearly writes that this nitya-siddha bhava here refers to the bhava of nitya-siddha bhaktas. This is also made clear by Jīva Gosvāmī in his commentary on verse 1.3.1 from BRS.
There are various statements which they clearly say that the jīva is devoid of any knowledge, although he is a conscious being and he has the potential to acquire knowledge. This is certainly supported by Śrīmad Bhāgavatam in verses such as:
anādy-avidyā-yuktasya
puruṣasyātma-vedanam
svato na sambhavād anyas
tattva-jño jñāna-do bhavet
(11.22.10)
ekasyaiva mamāṁśasya
jīvasyaiva mahā-mate
bandho 'syāvidyayānādir
vidyayā ca tathetaraḥ
(11.11.4)
deho 'savo 'kṣā manavo bhūta-mātrām
ātmānam anyaṁ ca viduḥ paraṁ yat
sarvaṁ pumān veda guṇāṁś ca taj-jño
na veda sarva-jñam anantam īḍe
(6.4.25)
śrī-rājovāca
anādy-avidyopahatātma-saṁvidas
tan-mūla-saṁsāra-pariśramāturāḥ
yadṛcchayopasṛtā yam āpnuyur
vimuktido naḥ paramo gurur bhavān
(8.24.46)
A similar statement is also found in Garuda Purāṇa, Preta Kalpa, 49.7. In the very first verse of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (1.1.1), it is very clearly stated that the Vedic knowledge was imparted to Brahmā by Bhagavān through the heart, tene brahma hṛdā ya ādi-kavaye. The third case in hṛdā means that Bhagavān revealed the Vedas through the heart and not through the ears. This means that Brahmā received Vedic Knowledge while in a trans-cognitive state, samādhi. This is also confirmed by Svetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.18. While giving the four-versed Bhagavatam to Brahmā, Bhagavān says, “Take this knowledge from Me, gṛhāṇa.” It is not said that Bhagāvān revealed the knowledge that was already existing in the heart of Brahmā. Sometimes, when it is said that the knowledge was revealed, it means that knowledge given in the heart in super-cognitive state. It does not mean that knowledge is already there inside the ātma and then it is revealed into heart. This is seen in the case of Brahmā receiving the catuḥ-ślokī Bhāgavatam.
Keeping this view in mind, I now reply to anonymous. He writes:
“You (SND) wrote:
12.6.40-41 – ‘There is no mention in this verse that Om manifests from atma, as is seen in the above translation. You can check the Sanskrit yourself.’”
My reply: In verse 12.6.40, the word ātmanah refers to Paramātma and not the individual living being. This is very clear from the commentary.
śṛṇoti ya imaṁ sphoṭaṁ
supta-śrotre ca śūnya-dṛk
yena vāg vyajyate yasya
vyaktir ākāśa ātmanaḥ
My translation is as follows.”When the power of hearing is dissolved (supta-śrotre), the one who hears this sound (imam sphoṭam) [i.e., Om], even at that time is the one who can perceive things beyond sense perception (śūnya-dṛk) [i.e. Paramātmā]. It is from Him that the speech [in the form of the Veda] is manifested. The [Vedic speech] becomes manifest in the sky [of heart] from Paramātmā (ātmanaḥ).”
The relative pronoun yaḥ in this verse refers to Paramātma and not to an individual living being. This is made clear in the commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī, Śrīdhara Svami, as well as by Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura. All the other commentators also agree with them. Although these three commentators have not glossed the word ātmanah as Paramātma, it is clear that the term cannot mean the living being here, because it is Paramātma who hears this sound, and not ātma, the individual living being. The context here is the manifestation of the Veda to Brahmā from Paramātma and not the living being. The topic is not related with an individual living being. The meaning is also given according to the context. The word ātma can mean the Supreme Being (Paramātma), an individual living being, mind, intellect, body or object of love. Examples of the word atma being used for Paramātma are i.e.
sarvam hi etad brahma ayam ātma brahma‘so ayam ātma catuṣpat
(Maṇḍuka Upaniṣad 2)
nāyam ātma pravacana labhyo na medhayā na bahunā śrutena
Yam evaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyas tasyaiṣa ātma vivṛṇute tanuṁ svam
(Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.2.4)
ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo nididhyāsitavyo maitreyi ātmani khalu are dṛṣṭe śrute mathe vijñate idam sarvaṁ viditam
(Bṛhad-āranyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.6)
Further, Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura writes that it is from Paramātma that the jīva gets the knowledge of Om, jīvasya yā upalabdhiḥ sā paramātma dvārikaiva iti jñeyam. If the nāda, Om, or the Vedas were inherent in a jīva then this comment of Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura would make no sense. At least three commentators, i.e., Śrī Sudarśana Suri, Śrī Vijayadvaja Tirtha and Śukadeva have clearly glossed atmanah as Paramātma. Thus, the manifestation of the Veda in the heart is from Paramātma, not from ātma.
Moreover, according to Śrīmad Bhāgavatam verse 12.6.37, the nāda which is mentioned here refers to the heart of Brahmā, brahmaṇaḥ parameṣṭhinaḥ, and not any living entity. This certainly matches with the statement of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.1.1. that Vedic knowledge was revealed by Bhagavān to Brahmā through the heart. Verses SB 12.6.37 and 12.6.40 do not say that the Vedas are established in the ātma. These verses give a description of the Vedas appearing in the heart of Brahmā and not the living entities. This is also understood from the questions of Śaunaka to Śukadeva Gosvami (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.6.36).
Anonymous comments:
Śrī Satya Narayana das Babaji’s comment that Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has refuted sphotavada in Sarva Samvadini is irrelevant for two reasons:
1) Śrīmad Bhagavatam 12.6.40 says – śṛṇoti ya imam sphotam supta-srotre – “He hears this sphoṭa when the senses do not function”.
This verse describes the manifestation of the syllable AUM from nāda as the “sphoṭa”. Thus, the theory of sphoṭa is supported by Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, the very text Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī is defending in Sarva Samvādini.
2) The sphoṭa theory refuted by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī in Sarva Samvādini has nothing to do with the sphota theory discussed in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.6.40. Rather, in Sarva Samvādini (11) Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has refuted the sphota theory of the grammarian Pāṇinī, which distinguishes between śabda as syllables and śabda as sphota. No such differentiation exists in the description of sphota in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam.”
My reply about these two points is that they are irrelevant. When I say, Jīva Gosvāmī refuted sphota-vāda, I obviously mean the sphota-vāda of the grammarians. That is the only sphota-vāda accepted in scholarly circles. Just because SB 12.6.37 uses the term sphota, it does not mean it is sphota-vāda. Words have popular meanings and secondary meanings. The term sphota-vāda is used only to mean the theory of the grammarians. I never heard or read of anyone referring to sphota-vāda of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, including Jīva Gosvāmī. Therefore, my comment is not irrelevant because I am referring to the popular sphota-vāda. There is no such thing as “sphota theory” of Bhāgavatam.
Anonymous comments:
“Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Thākura comments on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.21.37:
Bhūteṣu sarva-prāniṣu ghoṣa-rūpena ghoṣo nādaḥ tad-rūpena lakṣyate manīṣibhiḥ
“The Veda is seen as nāda by the wise in all beings.”
If you have no problem with this statement of Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Thākura, then you have to ask yourself why do you have a problem with Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Thākura saying exactly the same thing?”
My reply: You have to first decide whether the Vedas exist in the ātma or in the heart. Both are not the same. The heart is part of the subtle body, which is made of matter. It has nothing in common with the qualities of ātma.
In this verse, it is stated that Kṛṣṇa has established the nāda in the jīva. From the commentaries of Jīva Gosvāmī and Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura it is apparent that this nāda is established in the Mūlādhāra Cakra of Brahmā and from there it moves up. There is no mention that the nāda is established in the ātmā. Moreover, if the Veda were already inherent in the ātmā, then there would be no need to establish it. But Kṛṣṇa says that he established, māyā upabṛṁhitam. This supports my explanation of the word ātmanaḥ in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.6.40, where I said that ātmā here means Paramātma, and therefore the Vedas manifest from Paramātma and not the individual beings. But if you interpret the word ātma in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.6.40 as individual soul, it would contradict Kṛṣṇa’s statement in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.21.37 that is it He who established the Veda in the heart of Brahmā.
Anonymous comments:
“Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Thākura comments on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.6.39 -
svarāt sāksāt parameśvara eva - From nāda manifests AUM, which is directly the Supreme Lord.
Since the Supreme Lord is vibhu (vyāpaka), all-pervading, in all his forms, including AUM, the seed of the Vedas, what benefit is there from claiming that the Lord pervades everything except for the jīva?”
My reply: This comment does not serve the purpose of proofing that the Vedas are in the ātma. If you apply your logic, then the jīva would not be conditioned at all because of God being inherent in him. Wherever there is God, there is no māyā. The Srutis say, sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma, neham nānā asti kincana, There is only Brahman that exists and nothing else. Thus we are all Brahman, as is verily proclaimed by Advaitavādis. And Kṛṣṇa says, vāsudeva sarvam iti, everything is Vāsudeva. Then we are all Kṛṣṇa. In fact, it is only He who exists and nothing else. This will demolish your own principle of the path of bhakti. You will end up in Māyāvāda.
Thus it is not a question of citing a particular statement to prove your point. You need to reconcile everything.
Anonymous comments:
“Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Thākura comments on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.21.38:
ananta-pāram prākṛtāprākṛta-prāṇamayasya kālato deśataś cāparicchedāt
‘The Veda, composed of prākrta and āprākrta-prāṇa is infinite due to its being undivided by space or time.’
There are two types of hṛd-ākāśa. One is prākṛta, namely, the anāhata-cakra, where the Veda, in the form of paśyanti, becomes manifest as madhyama. This takes place in the subtle body. The other hṛd-ākāśa is aprākṛta and pervades the jīvātmā. That is described in Chandogya Upanisad 8.3. When the Vedic sound manifests in the aprākṛta-ākāśa, the absolute meaning is understood in relation to bhakti. When the Vedic sound manifests in the prākṛta-ākāśa, the relative meanings related to karma and jñāna are understood due to the vitiation of māyā.
The śabda-brahma is not limited by time or space, therefore it is pointless to argue that it exists in one place but not in another. These are all mundane propositions arising from conditioned binary thinking. All that is needed is a sympathetic disposition towards Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Thākura and you will appreciate the perfection of his presentation. Otherwise, vivādātmaka-buddhi will simply create contradiction where no contradiction exists.”
My Reply:
The commentary of Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.21.36 according to my book (11.21.38 according to your reference) makes no mention that the aprākṛta prāṇa belongs to the jīvātma. If you read the commentary of Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura on 11.21.38 (the verse beginning with yatho’rṇanābhi), he clearly mentions that this manifestation of the Veda is from Paramātma or Kṛṣṇa into the Mūlādhāra cakra of Hiraṇyagarbha, or Brahmā (svasmād udbhava prakāram āha yathorṇeti tribhiḥ….. prabhur īśvaro mad aṁśo hiraṇya-garbhāntaryāmī ….hiraṇyagarbhasyādhāra-cakre āvirbhūya). The commentary says, svasmād udbhava prakāram āha, which means, “The manifestation of the Veda from Kṛṣṇa is being described.” It is very clear from the commentary that this manifestation is from the antaryāmi of Paramātma who is part of Kṛṣṇa, mad aṁśo hiranyagarbha antaryāmi. This manifestation is from the unmanifest (aprakaṭa) ākāśa [in which Paramātma exists] into the manifest (prakaṭa) ākāśa in the heart of Brahmā (ākāśād ākāśam avalambya…) into the Mūlādhāra cakra of Hiraṇyagarbha (hiranyagarbhasya ādhāra cakre āvirbhūya). Therefore, there is no mention here in the commentary that the Veda is coming from the aprakat ākāśa of the jīva.
This is also confirmed in the commentary of Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura on the Bhāgavatam verses 11.12.17 and 11.12.19. He comments that the word jīva in 11.12.17 means Paramātma, who is He Himself, jīvayati iti jīvaḥ parameśvaraḥ śāstra prasiddhaḥ eṣa mallakṣaṇaḥ puruṣa eveti sva-tarjanyā sva-vakṣaḥ spṛśati. Then in the commentary it is explained how the nāda manifests in the body of Brahmā, vivareṣy caturmukha-śarīrastha-ādhārādi-cakreṣu… There is no mention that nāda is in the ātmā of Brahmā and from there it comes into his Mūlādhāra cakra. Even Paramātma manifests the Veda in the body of Brahmā and not into his ātmā. This is made further clear in the commentary on 11.12.19 – veda-lakṣaṇayā vāṇī yathā brahma-śarīrād-udbhutā, “just as the speech in the form of Veda manifests from the body of Brahmā ….”
Anonymous comments, “When the Vedic sound manifests in the aprakṛta-ākāśa, the absolute meaning is understood in relation to bhakti.”
My reply: I don’t understand what you mean by your statement. Where is this aprākṛta ākāśa. Is it in ātma or Paramātma and who understands it?
Anonymous further writes, “When the Vedic sound manifests in the prākṛta-ākāśa, the
relative meanings related to karma and jnana are understood due to the vitiation of māyā.”
My reply: This does not make sense to me because the whole description in verses 12.6.37–44 is about the manifestation of the Veda into the heart of Brahmā and that definitely is a manifestation in the prākṛta ākāśa. So by your statement it appears that Brahmā does not understand that the Vedas speak about bhakti because he only got the Vedas in prākṛta-ākāśa. This however goes against the statement of Śukadeva (bhagavan brahma … Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 2.2.34) which said that Brahmā studied the complete Vedas three times and understood that their essence is bhakti. This goes against Śrīmad Bhāgavatam verse 2.7.51 in which Brahmā orders Nārada to expand the Bhāgavatam which he received from Bhagavān Himself. If he did not understand the meaning of the Bhāgavatam, how could he teach it to Nārada? Our whole paramparā is coming from Brahmā, so the above statement is actually an attack on the whole Gauḍīya sampradāya.
I find no such description anywhere in the works of the Gosvāmīs, Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura or Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. I do not know what is the basis for this. Kindly give reference for this.
As far as your reference to Chandogya Upanisad 8.3, I don’t find any reference to prākṛta and aprākṛta-ākāśa in it. Please supply the exact Sanskrit.
So with all this, at least in the Bhāgavatam-verses that you have referred to, I do not see any description of the Veda being within ātma.
The only argument which remains is that śabda-brahma or the Veda is not limited by time and space, therefore it also exists in the ātma. About this I have already written above that this is acceptable, but then you have to explain the statements that say that the jīva is ignorant of Bhagavān. You cannot just take one set of statements and neglect the other. Otherwise, you fall prey to ardha-kukkuti nyāya (example of accepting only half of a hen, the part that gives eggs and neglecting the part that needs to be fed).
In Bhagavad Gita 9.4, Kṛṣṇa says that He pervades everything and yet He is not in everything. He also says that everything that exists is He, vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti. Indeed He says that He is the ātmā in everyone (Gītā 10.20). Then by your logic, we are all Vāsudeva and certainly we have the Vedic knowledge. But this fact is not experienced by us. Otherwise what was the need for Kṛṣṇa to tell this to us. We would know it as He knows. Your logic of “all pervading” is tantamount to Māyāvāda philosophy.
By accepting the Vedic knowledge in the ātma, there is one more difficulty that arises. According to Bhāgavatam, there are five types of mukti. One of them is called sāyujya, which is of two types, brahma-sāyujya and bhagavat sāyujya. A jīva who attains brahma-sāyujya does not have any subtle or gross body because that is the very definition of mukti: muktir hitvānyatha rūpaṁ svarūpena vyavasthiti (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 2.10.6). Such a jīva also does not get a spiritual body because in Brahman there is no form or attribute. It is a homogeneous state of pure consciousness. So according to your proposition (or BVT), such a person should be situated in Vedic knowledge, because he does not have any more conditioning by the subtle or gross body. This goes against the very principle of brahma-sāyujya, because in brahma-sāyujya there is no awareness of anything except of Brahman. There is no duality in brahman realization. But if one has Vedic knowledge, one must have knowledge of Kṛṣṇa, as Kṛṣṇa Himself says: vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedya. This also needs to be accounted for if you accept that there is Vedic knowledge inherent in the ātma.
Further questions can be raised on this: Is this knowledge of the Veda manifest or unmanifest? If it is manifest, then it cannot be forgotten at all. For example, the ātma has I-consciousness in it. ātma is the referent of the word ‘I”. This knowledge of “I” can never be forgotten in any state of existence—wakeful, dream or dreamless state. No matter what the jīva thinks of himself, the sense of “I” always exists, because it is inherent in the ātma. It is this sense of “I” that is superimposed on the gross and subtle bodies, which makes one think, “I am the mind or the body.” In the same way, consciousness in the inherent quality of ātma, therefore it can never be taken away from it in any state of existence. No matter how much māyā influences the jīva, he never loses consciousness and the sense of “I.” He cannot become dead matter. In the same way, if Vedic knowledge were manifest in the ātma, the jīva could never forget it or be unaware of it, no matter how much he is covered by māyā. Just like a bulb which has light in it cannot lose it, no matter how much the bulb is covered externally. Therefore Jīva Gosvāmī is right when he says that the jīva has beginningless ignorance, anādyavidyā. However, being a conscious entity, he has the potential to acquire knowledge.
If we consider the second option, that the knowledge is unmanifest in the ātma, then the proponent of this idea must explain what is means to have unmanifest knowledge and how it exists in the ātma. What is the mechanism? The constitution of ātma is eternal and not liable to any modification, avikārī (Gītā 2.25). If the knowledge would change from unmanifest to manifest by some practice as proposed by Anonymous, then that would make the ātma modifiable, vikārī, like matter. One may argue that the practice of bhakti makes this knowledge manifest, but we find no support for that. On the contrary, Kṛṣṇa says that knowledge comes from an external source (see Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.22.10 as cited above). The knowledge is given from outside.
dandavats my respects to all the Vaishnava within that conversation.
ReplyDeleteThe baddha-jiva [tatasta-sakti] does not have transcendental knowledge. This knowledge comes from Bhagavan;
The question is: Just as transcendental knowledge only comes from Bhagavan; and rasa-jnana... can only enter the jiva [sadhaka] by the mercy of parikara-tattva?
The last verse of the sadhana bhakti-chapter of Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu [1.2.309] says - krsna tad-bhakta karunya mātra lābhaika hetuka - "rāgānuga bhakti is only attained by the grace of Kṛṣṇa and/or His devotees."
ReplyDeleteDear Advaita Jī,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the translation of what BVT wrote seems wrong, but maybe we shouldn't trust the translations?
Example, the translation reads:
Q. How can one know the truth about the Lord (bhagavat-tattva)?
A. He can be known by the soul’s own self-manifest innate knowledge (svataḥ-siddha-jñāna).
This answer should be translated instead as, "He can be known when the soul's inherent consciousness becomes perfect."
Then we should translate the next section to be a description that (in summary) "consciusness can acquire knowledge through external senses or through direct revelation. The direct revelation comes through the Veda, which appears in the world along with the jīvas, and takes the form of specific books.
Then the next Q & A should mean (in summary) "We have to study the Veda, but this is not merely an external sensory study. The Veda becomes known to the jīva through direct revelation as a result of the effort to study, which frees one from imperfections."
Maybe the Bengali won't exactly support this, but I am quite indebted to Sri Bhaktivinode Thakur and would like to at least offer the observation that you have been arguing against a translation, and that translation may have some imperfection, or motivation. It would be better to argue against the original language. First establish exactly what the original language means, and then we can argue whether or not it is harmonius with Sri Jīva Goswāmīpāda.
Your junior,
Vraja Kishor das
Sometimes acaryas take creative license or simplify points. It should be taken into consideration that Thakura Bhaktivinode was presenting gaudiya vaishnavism to a secular audience. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati generally continued these simplified teachings but said to some disciples that he needs to become more clear to avoid misunderstandings. We see now that their followers sometimes cling to the simplifications even when the actual siddhanta becomes clear. What's positive about that is that it generates hari-katha, such as this discussion.
ReplyDeleteSimplified teachings exist in other parivaras as well. Tarun Govinda Prabhu wrote regarding sadhakas activating the niskriya siddha-dehas: "Right now we need metaphors like the forms “being inactive”. We “activate” them by our spiritual bhava."
I don't think studying motives or backgrounds are to the point here. The truth is to the point, whatever reason there was to spread these philosophies.
ReplyDeleteActually, my Gurudeva and my Param Gurudeva gave this example of "activating" by our bhava.
ReplyDeleteys
Tarun Govinda das
The confusion here is just semantic. When someone says, “Vedic knowledge is “IN” the jiva,” one can interpret the word “IN” in two ways. “IN” can refer to the sense implied by “the jewel is in the box.” Alternatively, the word “IN” might be taken in the sense of “the space in the box.” The first example implies a presence that is gross, and contained by the limitations of the box, whereas the second implies a presence which transcends the structural limitations of the box. It is in this second sense that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has described the “svatah-siddha-jnana” of the jiva.
ReplyDeleteUse of the word “IN” in the second sense is not uncommon in Vedic literature. In Brhad-Aranyaka Upanisad 3.7.22 we find: yo vijnane tisthan vijnanantaro yasya vijnanam sariram – “The Paramatma is He who, standing within the conscious entity, pervades him, and who assumes the conscious entity as His own body.”
Therefore to say that the living entity acquires knowledge from an external source called Paramatma, as SND has written, is only true in the sense that Paramatma is a divine being distinct from the jivatma. But can we really say that Paramatma is “external” to the jiva? Paramatma is truly “internal” to the jiva as described in Brhad Aranyaka 3.7.22 above.
Krsna Himself uses the locative in the same sense several times in Bhagavad Gita. Sarvasya caham hrdi sannivistho (15.15) “I am in the heart of everyone....” isvara sarva bhutanam hrd-dese’ rjuna tisthati (18.61) “O Arjuna, the Lord of all beings is situated within the heart...” No one has a problem with that.
But if Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, in the very beginning of the most basic pamphlet for newcomers says that the Vedic knowledge, in contrast to knowledge acquired externally through sense perception, is self-manifest within the jiva through bhakti, then some persons protest simply because they choose to interpret the word “IN” as “pre-existing within the structural substance of the jiva” rather than “transcendental internal presence.”
In Jaiva Dharma chapter 14, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura clearly describes that the jiva’s knowledge, inherent in the very constitution of his svarupa, is only brahma-jnana. So there is no difference between the conception of Srila Jiva Gosvami and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura outside of one’s own desire to create a difference.
SND translates duhkha-pratiyogitatva as “devoid of suffering”. There are many ways of expressing the “absence of” something in Sanskrt, such as “abhava”,“rahita”, “vihina”, “sunya”, etc. Never have I seen pratiyogitatva used in the sense of “devoid of”. Can you share with us the name of the dictionary from which this meaning is derived? All the dictionaries I have access to define pratiyogitatva in the sense of “antithetical”, “possessed of the opposite nature.” Thus duhkha-pratiyogitatva does not mean “the absence of suffering.” Rather it means “the opposite of suffering”, which would of course be “happiness”.
ReplyDeleteThis is consistent with other verses in Priti Sandarbha
Priti Sandarbha (65): ato nataram jivasya svarupananda-rupa atyanta ksudratvat tasya “Nor can one consider the bliss existing in the form of the jiva (to be the cause of bliss for the Lord) because it is extremely minute.”
If the ananda in the jiva is “ksudra” (minute), then interpreting ananda as “the absence of suffering” is untenable, since one cannot speak in terms of “a minute amount of absence”. Thus ananda is present in the jiva, albeit in a minute amount.
In his Madhurya Kadambini commentary, Sri Ananta Das Babaji also says the ananda in the jiva is minute:
“Nor can one consider bhakti as the bliss existing in the eternal form of the jéva since the bliss of jévänanda is extremely minute.” (Madhurya Kadambini commentary pg17)
In Brhad Bhagavatamrta 2.2.183 Dig-darçiné-öékä, Srila Sanantana Gosvami describes the Lord as ghanananda (condensed bliss) in contrast to the jiva’s ananda-matra (merely a measure of bliss):
(QUOTE)The bhakti-çästras say, “Yet, the opinion of Çré Paräçara and others is that in reality, all jévas, by principle (tattva) – in other words, by their nature, or svarüpa – are parts and parcels (aàças) of Brahman. However, in the antonym of the word ghana (referring to Bhagavän, who is of concentrated of bliss), namely, in the word aghana (not concentrated), there is an indication of another entity also, which, in comparison [to ghana], represents proportionately less, or a mere amount, of bliss [ananda-matra]. That other, aghana entity must be understood to be ätmä-tattva (pure, conscious reality), or the jévas. The plurality of that other entity – ätmä-tattva – is due to the variegated natures of the jévas. An example using the sun clarifies this. As the diffused rays of light (aghana) are part of the dense sphere (ghana) of the radiance of the sun, in the same way, the living beings are parts of Brahman. Nothing exists apart from Him.” (UNQUOTE) Brhad Bhagavatamrta 2.2.183 Dig-darçiné-öékä
Concurring with this conclusion, Srila Jiva Gosvami describes that when the jiva takes shelter of svarupa-sakti, the jiva’s ananda, which was incomplete, becomes complete:
Bhagavat Sandarbha. Anu. 98.5: tatah svarupa-saktyaiva pratyuta tesam sukhaikaprada purna saktir bhavisyatiti bhavah.
“On the other hand, it is only by Bhagavan’s svarupa sakti that the energy of the living beings will be completed, becoming exclusively delightful.”
The jiva must be possessed of an aspect of ananda, other wise his energy could not be completed by the svarupa-sakti any more than a gold bracelet could be completed by a substance other than gold.
Thus the conclusion is that the phrase duhkha-pratiyogitatva does indeed mean “the opposite of suffering” not “the absence of suffering” as claimed by SND.
Satyanārāyan Bābājī’s reply pt.1 -
ReplyDeleteAnonymous has asked „Can you share with us the dictionary from which this meaning is derived?“
He is objecting to my meaning of duḥkha-pratiyogitva as “devoid of suffering”. He says that such a meaning is not found in any dictionary. My reply to this is that first of all, the dictionary does not give all the meanings of a word. Many times commentators give meanings to words which are not found in the dictionaries. To give an example, while commenting on the word “aṁśa-bhāgena” in verse 10.2.9 of Srīmad Bhāgavatam, in Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha, Anuccheda 92, Srī Jīva Gosvāmī glosses the word bhāga as “entry into” (aṁśena bhāgo bhajanam praveśo yatra). Such a meaning of the word bhāga is not found in any dictionary. I can cite many such examples from the commentaries. Nonetheless, if you want to see the meaning of pratiyogitva as absence, then please see the Sanskrit Dictionary by Apte. In the second entry under pratiyogin, it is explained how pratiyogi and absence are related as counterparts. This is common knowledge in Nyāya. In Nyāya, abhāva or absence is of two types: samsarga abhāva (this is the very word used by Jīva Gosvāmī in Prīti Sandarbha, Anu. 1 and Bhakti Sandarbha Anu. 1, which I cited in my previous reply). The second type of abhāva is called anyo‘nya abhāva. The first type of abhāva has three divisions in it, prāg abhāva, pradhvamsa abhāva and atyanta abhāva. The counterpart of abhāva is called pratiyogi. The relationship between abhāva and pratiyogi is called pratiyogita. So it is in this sense, that Jīva Gosvāmī is using the word duḥkha-pratiyogitva to imply the absence of suffering. This is a very common meaning in Nyāya language. Anybody who has studied any book on Nyāya will understand this. If you want to know more about this term, please consult the famous Nyāya Koṣa (Dictionary of Nyāya-terminology) by Bhīmācārya Jhalkikar.
Otherwise, just to say that sukha, or happiness, is “the opposite of suffering,” as Anonymous has proposed, does not need the caliber of Jīva Gosvāmī. Even the most illiterate person knows this fact by experience. If Jīva Gosvāmī is thus commenting, he must tell us something which is unknown to a common person.
Satyanārāyan bābājī’s reply pt.2 -
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I do agree with you that there is some ānanda in the jīva, as you had cited various references. However, this ānanda of the jīva is not a positive type of ānanda. This is what Jīva Gosvāmī is trying to explain. To throw some more light on it, the word jnāna in case of jīva svarūpa means mere consciousness. It means that this jnāna has no content. Usually jnāna has some content or a subject, but when the word jnāna is used to explain the svarūpa of the jīva, it is without any content. In the same way as jnāna is of two types, ānanda, or happiness, is of three types –
1. Material happiness is nothing but getting rid of suffering, i.e., when one is suffering from hunger, one feels happy by eating food, but once the pangs of hunger are satisfied, food does not give any more pleasure. This is indicated by Kṛṣṇa in verse 5.24 in Bhagavad Gītā. This type of happiness comes from sense objects.
2. The second type of happiness is being situated in one’s own svarūpa without any contact of sense objects. It is considered to be happiness because there is no suffering at this state, but it is also not a not a positive type of happiness. This is what Jīva Gosvāmī called kṣudra in Prīti Sandarbha 65, cited by Anonymous. This is the happiness Jīva Gosvāmī calls duḥkha pratiyogitva because there is no suffering. It is has no viṣaya, or sense object. It is the happiness one experiences in deep sleep or dreamless sleep. In, this regard Srī Viśvanātha Cakravarti Thākur writes as follows while commenting on SB 6.16.55: “When the jīva sleeps, then in that state of deep sleep, the jīva experiences happiness which is beyond the guṇas and without any subject, by the grace of Paramātma (prasuktah puruṣo jīvo yadā svapaṁ veda tad eva susuktau ātmanah svasya nirgunam nirviṣayam sukhaṁ ca yena eva hetunā veda tam atmanam antaryāminam avehi).
3. The third type of ānanda is the happiness of bhakti. It is this happiness of bhakti which makes the jīva complete.
In comparison to the third type of happiness the second type is sometimes called “insignificant” and sometimes “absence of suffering”. The first type is not even considered as “absence of suffering” but just suffering. Kṛṣṇa says that happiness is beyond both so called happiness and suffering and suffering is the very desire for material happiness (SB11.19.41). The same is said in Yoga Sūtra 2.15.
I had already explained the meaning of "IN" logically as by samvaya sambandha or samyoga sambandha, and refuted the idea of inherent knowledge of Veda in the jīva.
As for the rest of comments of Anonymous, I do not wish to say more about it, but at least he agrees that knowledge comes from Paramātma. Whether Paramātma is external or internal is immaterial.
SND wrote:
ReplyDelete“I had already explained the meaning of "IN" logically as by samvaya sambandha or samyoga sambandha, and refuted the idea of inherent knowledge of Veda in the jīva...... Whether Paramātma is external or internal is immaterial.”
RESPONSE: If Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura is discussing two broad categories i.e. knowledge that comes externally from the senses and knowledge that manifest from within, then the concept that the paramatma is actually within is not immaterial. It is central to the whole discussion.
Everyone knows that the transcendental subject matter cannot be restricted to the analysis of location in terms of the mundane logical categories of samavaya and samyoga (inherence and conjunction). Is it so difficult to understand that the presence of the Lord as Paramatma and sabda-brahma in the jiva falls into neither of those mundane dualistic categories of nyaya?
There are many other side issues being raised in this discussion. They can be cleared later. For now I want to focus on the core issue – “Are the Vedas inherent?”
SND writes: “.....Kṛṣṇa’s statement in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.21.37 that it is He who established the nāda in the Mūlādhāra Cakra of the jīva.”
RESPONSE: So here we have some common ground. All sides agree that Sri Krsna has established nāda in the Mūlādhāra Cakra of the jīva.
SND continues: “This nāda is not the Veda as it is known to us.”
Here SND admits that nāda really actually is the Veda, but not in the form in which it is generally known to us. In other words, it is the vedas in a seed form and it is present in the
subtle body of all jivas. Bhag 12.6.41 describes this sound as the seed of the vedas, all mantras and upanisads (sarva-mantropanisad veda-bijam sanatanam).
No one, including Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, is saying that the jiva can access this sound in its fully manifest form of the Vedas without outside help. We are just saying, it is there. Who can deny it?
So now the point of contention is solved. Even if one denies the aprakrta hrd-akasa (Chandogya 8.1 – antarakasas tasmin yad antas tad avestavyam “That which exists within the inner akasa, that is to be investigated.”) still, it must be admitted that Sri Krsna has established nada in the subtle body of every conditioned jiva. That nada is the subtle unmanifest form of the Vedas. Therefore, the Vedas are inherent.
Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has stated that there are two types of knowledge. Indriya-paratantra-jnana, knowledge dependent on the senses, and svatah-siddha-jnana, the self manifest-knowledge of the vedas. That knowledge is revealed in degrees in accordance with the purity of the individual.
ReplyDeleteSo what exactly is the problem here?
Allow me to frame the problem clearly. Advaita das wrote: “If he means to say with this that śāstrik knowledge is dormant in the heart of the conditioned soul then I'm afraid that is not correct.”
First of all, by the word “If...” Advaita das admits he is not even sure what Bhaktivinoda Thakura is trying to say. But he still opts to create doubt and suspicion in the minds of the public about the authenticity of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura by claiming that there is a good chance that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura does not understand vaisnava philosophy. Why would anyone do that?
So I suggest that Advaita should just admit that he was unaware that Sri Krsna had established nada in the subtle body of every conditioned soul and also that this nada is the seed of the vedas. After that, Advaita could try publicly begging forgiveness from Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura for trying to deligitimize his writing.
Returning to SND’s response, it is rather far fetched to claim that there is no sphota theory in Srimad Bhagavatam since the manifestation of detailed knowledge from a seed sound is called a “sphurti” as in “svayam eva sphuraty adaḥ” Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu (1.2.234). The sound that causes the appearance of a sphurti of brahman, paramatma, and Bhagavan is called “sphota” in Bhag.12.6.40.
Moreover, the self-manifest nature of transcendental knowledge from a seed sound is the basis of the entire epistemology of Srimad Bhagavatam, as established by the experience of Sri Veda Vyasa and Sri Sukadeva Gosvami. Isn’t that the whole point Tattva Sandarbha aims to establish? The materially impossible examples of Bharata Maharaja, in the form of a deer, and Indradyumna, in the form of an elephant, articulating prayers are the famous examples of the sphota in action.
It matters not that academic circles only recognize the errant sphota theory of Panini. Panini was not nastika like Carvaka and Buddha. Panini has drawn from the Vedas and offered his interpretation of the Vedas in his sphota theory. But it cannot be said that he has invented the subject. Therefore, there must be a correct way to understand the pre-existing sphota theory in Vedic literature. That correct understanding is established throughout Srimad Bhagavatam by the various examples I have already given (Vyasa, Suka, Bharata, Gajendra etc.)
Anonymous, my use of the word ' if' precludes 'deligitimizing' Bhaktivinode's writing. I was merely wondering what he meant. I am speaking here only on this particular theory of Bhaktivinode, not on others.
DeleteSatyanarayan das Babaji's final reply :
ReplyDeleteHe concludes "it must be admitted that Sri Krsna has established nada in the subtle body of every conditioned jiva. That nada is the subtle unmanifest form of the Vedas. Therefore, the Vedas are inherent."
What can I say? He does not understand the difference between Veda being inherent in atma, as accepted by BVT, and inherent in subtle body. Moreover how it is inherent if Krsna has to establish it?
Any way, i do not wish to continue with this dialog.I do not think i need to spend my time on this. I am just too busy with my writing and i cannot deviate my mind for such a trivial debate. I am sorry for that."
I second that, and thereby close this discussion.
Satyanarayan das Babaji adds -
ReplyDeleteI already wrote the "Inherent" means samavaya sambandha which is a permanent relation, like between sweetness and sugar. They are inseparable. But if Krsna establishes it in subtle body then it cannot be called inherent.
From Paramātma Sandarbha and Bhagavat-sandarbha – we use translation of
ReplyDeleteHis Holiness Bhanu Swami Maharaja
Using the descriptions found in Padma Purina, Jāmitr, an esteemed guru of the ancient Śrī-sampradāya following Rāmānuja’s philosophy, has described the jīva’s primary (svarūpa) qualities. In explaining pranava,the following is found in Padma Purana, Uttara-khanda (6.226.34-37):
jñānāśrayo jñāna-gunas cetanah prakrteh parah
najāto nirvikāraś caeka-rāpah svarūpa-bhāk
The jīva is the shelter of knowledge, has the quality of knowledge, is conscious and beyond prakrti. It has no birth and no change. It has its own individual form.
anur nityo vyāpti-śīlascid-ānandātmakas tathā
aham-artho ’vyayah ksetrī bhinna-rūpah sanātanah
The jīva is small, eternal, and spreads out. It has knowledge and bliss, and the sense of “I.” It does not decrease, is the knower of the body, and is different from other jīvas eternally.
Based on this, Jāmātr Muni teaches as follows:
ātmā na devo na naro na tiryak sthāvaro na ca
na deho nendriyam naiva manah prāno na nāpi dhīh
The jīva is not a devatā, not a human not an animal or plant. It is not a body or a sense, nor is it mind, prāna or intellect.
Each jīva has its own identity, and is separate from other jīvas. It is very small and eternally pure.
tathājñātrtva-kartrtva-bhoktrtva-nija-dharmakah
paramātmaika-śesatva-svabhāvah sarvadā svatah
It is a knower, doer, and enjoyer by its very nature. By its nature it is subservient to Paramātmā at all times.
The explanation of Jāmātr is according to Rāmānuja’s commentary.
The qualities never leave the ātmā as long as the ātmā exists over all time with no beginning and no end. The śruti shows this. Na hi vijñātur vijñāter vipañlopo vidyate: knowledge never leaves the ātmā. (Brhād-āranyaka Upanisad 4.3.30)
These qualities manifest in the jīva in liberation, just as qualities of male and female manifest in a person as they mature.
pumstvadivat tv asya sato ’bhivyakti-yogāt
You cannot say that the jīva’s knowledge is not eternal, because it exists during deep sleep and simply manifests on waking. It is like maleness which is unmanifest in a child but appears when he grows up. (Brahma-sūtra 2.3.29)
Jīva’s qualities which are similar to the Lord’s are hidden. From meditation on the Supreme Lord, a śakti which defies darkness appears by the mercy of the Lord, like the power of a medicine.
If it were not a matter of these qualities manifesting or not manifesting in the jīva, one would either percieve the qualities at all times (being eternally manifested) or not perceive them at all (not being present at all in the jiva). This is the case of material objects which have no consciousness. If the jiva did not have these qualities inherent in his svarūpa, there would be no tendency to manifest them. Thus the jiva is anu by nature, but pervades the body by his qualities.
Rāmānuja explains it in this way. Just as a fiery object remains with a glowing form, so the consciousness remains with its conscious form. Even if the effulgence arises as a quality of the substance, it is also the fiery substance, not a mere quality like whitness. It is the substance, since it takes shelter of itself, it can be present elsewhere, it has a form and it reveals things. This is different from whiteness. The ability to reveal things means its natural ability to reveal other things. Effulgence is sometimes classed as its quality because it always takes shelter of the substance and depends on it. It can never be said that the object with it parts is depleted when it spreads its effulgence since one would then see gems and the sun disappear after radiating effulgence.
Just as a lamp is termed the source of qualities since it has unfailing qualities like effulgence, so the jīva is the source of qualities, since it is endowed with unfailing qualities. Though the jīva is anu, it pervades by its qualities. That quality of consciousness is unbroken, but by the śakti called avidya-karma,the consciousness contracts or expands.
prthag-upadeśāt
ReplyDeleteKnowledge in the jīva is eternal because of teachings in the scriptures.(Brahma-sūtra 2.3.26)
Madhva quotes from Kauśika-śruti in this regard for proof:
bhinno 'cintyah paramo jiva-sañghāt
pūnah paro jīva-sañgho by apūrnah
yato ’py asau nitya-mukto ’py ahamś ca
bandān moksam tata evābhivanchet
The Lord is different from the jīvas and inconceivable. He is supreme and complete. The jīvas are incomplete. Because I am eternally liberated, he desires liberation from bondage.
The jiva is a knower. According to the previous logic, being a knower is a quality of the jiva.
Since the jiva is eternal, being the shelter of knowledge is jīva’s natural quality. Śruti says vijñātaram are kena vijāniyāt: by what should the knower be known? (Brhad-āranyaka Upanisad 4.3.30) The jīva knows. (Paramātmā Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 19 )
Others describe nondifference among all atmas in two ways. Some say that there is actual non-difference between atmas since difference is due to upadhis only. The separate identities are caused by the respective upadhis in each atma in the material world. Others say that even in the material world there is identity of all as one jiva but, like a dream, individuality is created. Both ideas can be rejected since it is impossible to explain the origin of ignorance, which is the basis of upadhis or dream state. The ideas are not intelligible. The concepts of bifurcation, shadow and reflection (Brahman becoming a jiva) will all be shown to be faulty. (Paramatma Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 19)
Comment. “be rejected since it is impossible to explain the origin of ignorance”
Ajnanenavrtam jnanam tena muhyanti jantavah: the living entities are bewildered by that ignorance and blame the Lord. (BG 5.15) (Paramatma Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 22)
Another sakti (maya) is described:
sayad ajayā tv ajām anuśayīta gunāmś cajusan
bhajati sarūpatām tad am mrtyum apeta-bhagah
The jīva contacts matter by the influence of māyā, takes on similar form due to upādhis, and enjoys material objects. He thus experiences samsāra. (SB 10.87.38)
Śridhara’s commentary is as follows:
Because the jīva (sah) embraces ignorance (ajām) caused by māyā (ajayā), it serves (jusān) the body and senses (gunān) or identifies with them as his self. After that (tad anu), with its qualities such as bliss (ānanda) hidden (apeta-bhāgah), it adopts similar qualities and attains (bhajati) saiiisāra (mrtum). (Paramatma Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 23)
Comment. Maya influences and the jiva falls into material world.
The bewildered jīva is further described as follows:
tat-sañga-bhrarhśitaiśvaryam samsarantam kubhāryavat
tad-gatīr abudhasyeha kim asat-karmabhir bhavet
The man in the story is the jīva who, like a householder with an unfaithful wife (intelligence), loses all his powers in her association. What is the use of insubstantial karmas performed by a person who does not know his destination? (SB 6.5.15)
Comment. The jiva had Krishna, but lost Krishna. The jiva loses all his powers in maya’s association. He had all qualities of a bhakta.
Jiva Gosvami continues: By association with māyā, represented by a woman (taysāh), the jīva loses all his powers, his capacity for inherent knowledge etc. and follows her (samsarantam). ANUCCHEDA 24
seyam bhagavato māyā yan nayena virudhyate
īśvarasya vimuktasya kārpanyam uta bandhanam
This māyā, which cannot be understood by logic and which belongs to the Supreme Lord but is not his svarūpa, is the cause of deprivation and ignorance for the jīva who has the possibility of
knowledge and liberation. (SB 3.7.9) ANUCCHEDA 25
vipralabdho mahisyaivamsarva-prakrti-vañcitah
necchann anukaroty ajñahklaibyāt kñdā-mrgo yathā
Specifically conditioned by the Queen, cheated of his own nature, the foolish King, though he did not want to, followed her like a pet animal because of falling under another’s control.(SB 4.25.62) ANUCCHEDA 26
comment. “cheated of his own nature” the king had his own fully developed nature, but then gave it up then Jiva Gosvami comments:
Comment. The jiva had Krishna, but lost Krishna. The jiva loses all his powers in maya’s association. He had all qualities of a bhakta.
Deletecomment. “cheated of his own nature” the king had his own fully developed nature, but then gave it up
These comments I could not find in these paragraphs of Paramatma Sandarbha. Quote evidence.
Puranjana, cheated by his queen, gave up (vañcitah) his nature of knowledge and other qualities (sarva-prakrti), not by his will, but by her will, and adopted her qualities (anukaroti) as his own. Though the jīva has acapacity for knowledge, his position of bondage is described in the following sūtra:
ReplyDeleteparābhidhyānāt tu tirohitam tato hy asya bandha-viparyayau
Dreams disappear by the will of the Lord. This is not surprising since the Lord (through māyā) is also the cause of bondage and liberation of the jīva. (Brahma-sūtra 3.2.5) (ANUCCHEDA 26)
Jāmātr mentions that the jīva is not just knowledge. The reason was given, but another reason is that the jīva is cid-ānandātmaka. It is knowledge as the opposite of insentience (jada-pratiyoga) and it is bliss and knowledge (cid-ānandātmaka) as the opposite of suffering (duhkha-pratiyoga). Its nature of knowing was already illustrated. Jīva accomplishes his nature as bliss by being the shelter of unconditional prema. ANUCCHEDA 28
The jīva’s knowledge composed of bliss is not experienced second-hand “for you” as in the case of a reflection, but rather it is experienced for the self (aham-artha), since the jīva is ātmā or the self. This knowledge “for the self’ is the sense of “I.” The word “I” indicates knowledge. The pure ātmā, though covered by prakrti, never becomes something else, since by the covering he merely identifies that self with the body. ANUCCHEDA 29
The jīva has a pure svarūpa (nitya-nirmalah). That was already illustrated in śuddho vicaste hy aviśuddha-kartuh: the jīva, though pure, becomes absorbed in the activities of the impure mind. (SB 5.11.12, explained at the beginning).
Even the jīva in his pure state is also a knower (jñātritva). That was illustrated also. Knowledge is eternal since it is the intrinsic quality of the eternal jīva. Therefore that knowledge is without change. (Paramātmā Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 35 )
Comment. nitya-nirmalah pure means a completely manifested nature, else it would be handicapped, deficient.
Now the jiva as a dependent (śesatva) of Paramātmā will be discussed. The jiva is an amśa (śesah) of Paramātmā or is secondary to Paramātmā. That is the jīva’s nature (svabhāva). This is the case at all times (sarvadā) even when the jiva is liberated. That is jīva’s svarūpa (svatah), not that Brahman when cut in pieces becomes jiva. By the Lord’s intrinsic, inconceivable śakti, the jiva is by nature dependent as an amśa, like a particle of a ray of light. This is the meaning of svatah.
Thus, though jīva is a śakti, it is different from the material śakti, since it is called tatastha. It is called tatastha because it cannot be classed as māyā since it surpasses māyā-śakti (being conscious) and it cannot be classed as Paramātmā since Paramātmā is not subject to jīva’s fault of being overcome by ignorance. Though it is the śakti of Paramātmā, Paramātmā is not tinged by jīva’s faults just as the sun is not covered though one ray of the sun can be covered by shadow. Nārada-pañcarātra describes the tatastha position:
yat tatastham tu cid-rūpam sva-samvedyād vinirgatam rañjitam guna-rāgena sajīva iti kathyate
The jīva is called tatastha because it is a conscious form which, leaving its knowledge of itself, becomes tinged by the attraction to material gunas.
Comment. 1. “leaving its knowledge of itself “ It had jnana and lost it.
tasmāt priyatamah svātmā sarvesām api dehinām tad-artham eva sakalam jagad etac carācaram
Therefore it is his own self that is most dear to every embodied living being, and it is simply for the satisfaction of this self that the whole material creation of moving and nonmoving entities exists. (SB 10.14.54)
Paramātma Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 37
Text 19 of Anuccheda 37 of Sri Paramatma-sandarbha, Jiva Goswami says:
When he becomes free from ignorance and situated in his original constitutional position, the soul is said to be liberated. In this liberated condition his spiritual nature is like that of the Lord Himself.
I think it is better to wait for the Sandarbha-translations of the Jiva Institute. Then we can compare the different dṛṣṭi-koṇas of these profound texts.
DeleteComment 2 was left out. Should come after comment 1
DeleteComment. 1. “leaving its knowledge of itself “ It had jnana and lost it.
2. Eternal fault?– unprecedented. Our experience is different; SOMEBODY makes a fault and then suffers the consequences. Not also that God makes a fault and jiva has to suffer.
It is claimed that the fault is produced by ignorance from time without beginning, but that ignorance has no cause. This is like saying that the warmth of the fire which arises from its nature, is without any creating agent (no fire).
One is forced to accept this theory because one refuses facts which should not be given up– eg. the law of cause and effect.
Thus this theory is tinged with impersonalism or voidism; things just are or happen but there is no cause.
This is all mathematical western logic. There is no reason for something which has no beginning, Visvanātha clearly and rightly said in his ṭīkā to 3.7.9. The śāstras do not wait for the approval of rationalists. Do not try to understand beginninglessness.
DeleteThe Sanskrit is:
ReplyDeleteAta evavidya-vimoksa-purvaka-svarupavasthiti-laksanayam muktau tal-linasya tat-sadharmyapattir bhavati
The word meanings are: ata eva—therefore; avidya—ignorance; vimoksa—liberation; purvaka—before; svarupa—own form; avasthiti—situation; laksanayam—in the nature; muktau—liberated; tal-linasya—merged into Him; tat-sadharmyapattih—attainment of His nature; bhavati—is.
The words purvaka-svarupavasthiti indicate that the original constitutional position was in fact experienced in the past, before the soul entered the conditioned state. The soul’s state after liberation is thus the same as the soul’s state before the soul became conditioned. This state is described as being of the same nature as that of the Lord, who displays various opulences. We can therefore conclude that the soul, before it became conditioned, was displaying opulences, just as it will after final liberation.
Next:
The individual jiva (in contrast to the totality of jīvas or samasti mentioned in the previous verse) is described:
ekasyaiva mamāmśasya jīvasyaiva mahā-mate bandho ’syāvidyayānādir vidyayā ca tathetarah
O intelligent Uddhava! The bondage of the jīva, who is my one part or tatastha-śakti, is created by avidyā and is without beginning. By vidyā, he achieves liberation which has a beginning. (SB 11.11.4)
Comment. Created by. The bondage had a beginning. The term “Beginningless” is figurative.
(Paramātma Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 38)
The same in Paramātmā Sandarbha
ANUCCHEDA 54 :
The first two functions of the nimitta form of māyā are described:
vidyāvidye mama tanū viddhy uddhava śarīrinām moksa-bandha-karī ādye māyayā me vinirmite
O Uddhava! Understand that vidyā and avidyā are my śaktis. They are created by my māyā, are without beginning, and create liberation and bondage for the living beings. (SB 11.11.3)
The commentary of Śrīdhara Svāmī says, “Since bondage and liberation are manifested (tanyete) by avidyā and vidyā, they are called tanū. They are śaktis made of my māyā (māyayā me vinirmite). Since they are functions of māyā they cause bondage and liberation. …‘Since they are effects of māyā they should not be eternal or without beginning.’ No, they are without beginning (ādye). As long as I inspire avidyā, bondage appears (verb is understood). When I give vidyā, then liberation appears.”
Though it is said they are made (vinirmite), this means that they merely manifest by māyā whose actions are really infinite – in time – since they are actually without beginning.
The jīva is by nature in a liberated state. Bondage however appears just by ignorance.
Avidyā has two functions: covering (āvaranātmikā) and confusing (viksepātmikā). The covering function sits in the jīva and covers his natural knowledge. The confusing function sits in the jīva and produces false knowledge.
Jīva’s tatastha nature is clear from the statement sa ajayā tyajā anuśayīta: the jīva contacts matter by the influence of māyā, takes on similar form due to upādhis, and enjoys material objects. (SB 10.87.38) (Paramātma Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 39)
Akhanditam (indivisible) indicates the jīva is a knower, doer and enjoyer intrinsically and eternally (jñātrtva-kartrtva- bhoktrtva-nija-dharmaka), since knowledge and other qualities are never separated from him
(Paramātma Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 45 quoting Jāmātr-muni commenting on SB 3.25.16-18)
Text 1 of Anuccheda 47 of Sri Paramatma-sandarbha, Jiva Goswami says:
Thus the Lord’s marginal potencies, who are called the individual spirit souls, are limitless in number. Still, they may be divided into two groups: 1. the souls who, from time immemorial, are favorable to the Lord (anadita eva bhagavad-unmukhah), and 2. the rebellious souls who, from time immemorial, are averse to the Supreme Lord (anadita eva bhagavat-paranmukhah). This is because one group is aware of the Lord’s glories and the other group is not aware of them.
In text 3 of Anuccheda 47 of Sri Paramatma-sandarbha, Jiva Goswami says, after having described the eternally liberated souls in text 2:
I protest at your interpretation of SB 11.11.4 - the word ' created' is nowhere in that śloka. And to dismiss ' anādi' as 'figurative' is totally frivolous and false. No ṭīkākāra has said anādi is figurative!
DeleteIn scripture the words sat, anadir, ananta, nitya can also be non-literal.
Delete– anadih—the firstborn, Lord Brahma
“After being born, Daksha, by the superexcellence of his bodily luster, covered all others’ bodily opulence. Because he was very expert in performing fruitive activity, he was called by the name Daksha, meaning “the very expert.” Lord Brahma therefore engaged Daksha in the work of generating living entities and maintaining them. In due course of time, Daksha also engaged other Prajapatis [progenitors] in the process of generation and maintenance.” (SB 4.30.51)
Lord Brahma is anadi, “the beginningless one.”
The demigods are amara immortal.
“When the sun-god and moon-god exposed the plot of wicked Rahu to steal the celestial nectar, a lasting (sasvata) enmity was sealed among them, which endures to the present day.” (Mbh. 1.17.8)
“The five sons of King Vasu each became kings in their own right, all five establishing permanent (sasvata) dynasties bearing their names.” (Mbh. 1.57.30)
“Defeated by his old friend Drona, King Drupada diplomatically solicits from him his ‘constant (sasvata) favor’ (Mbh. 1.128.13)
“The brahmana host of the Pandavas at Ekacakra condemns the incompetent king of the region who cannot provide the people with sasvata safety from harm.” (Mbh. 1.148.9)
Jaratkaru assures his forefathers that he will marry and beget a son who will preserve the family line and keep the forefathers in heaven:
“Surely for your deliverance offspring will arise in that [marriage]. May my forefathers enjoy, having reached the permanent status (sasvata-sthanam)!” (Mbh. 1.13.28)
When King Indra of heaven convinces the earthly King Vasu to give up the attempt to take Indra’s position, Indra promises that by sticking to his earthly duties, Vasu will eventually attain to the sasvata worlds:
“Ever protect the dharma that will take you to higher worlds, engaged and with attention, for being so engaged in dharma you shall then attain the pious, everlasting worlds (sasvatan lokan).” (Mbh. 1.57.6)
The sage Mandapala attempts to enter heaven on the strength of his pious credits, but he is turned back by the gatekeepers with these words:
“These very worlds are concealed from you because of [your lack of] progeny. Beget progeny and then you shall enjoy these everlasting (sasvatan lokan) worlds.” (Mbh. 1.220.13)
After begetting good sons, the same Mandapala then offered this prayer to the fire-god, Agni, when the blazing inferno of Khandava threatened to consume his young sons:
“Offering obeisances unto you, the sages go with their wives and sons to the everlasting destination (sasvatim gatim), won by their own work.” (Mbh. 1.220.25)
“After having ruled the citizens according to dharma for endless years (sasvatih samah), King Yayati, son of Nahusha, accepted a very ghastly old age that ruined his beauty.” (Mbh. 1.70.33)
The Rakshasi Hidimba refused her hungry brother’s order to kill the Pandavas, reasoning that:
“If they are killed (and eaten), there will be but a moment’s satisfaction for my brother and me. But by not killing them (and thus marrying Bhishma), I will enjoy for endless years (sasvatih samah).” (Mbh. 1.139.16)
When the Pandavas are defeated at dice, the wicked Duhsasana declares that Pritha’s sons have now been driven to hell for a long, virtually unlimited time, and that they are bereft of their happiness and kingdom, and ruined for endless years (sasvatih samah). (Mbh. 2.68.5)
“Having achieved the worlds of the pious doers, and having dwelt there for endless years (sasvatih samah), a fallen yogi takes birth in the home of pure and opulent persons.” (Bg. 6.41)
“One should eat very frugally and should always (sasvat) remain secluded so that he can achieve the highest perfection of life.” (Bhag. 3.28.3)
“O Lord, with a corpselike body that is always (sasvat) fearful, we bear the burden of the dreamlike happiness of kings.” (Bhag. 10.70.28)
cont.
Delete“O almighty Lord, we shall no longer desire a mirage-like kingdom that is to be attentively served by a material body that is always (sasvat) declining, and is the source of sufferings.” (Bhag. 10.73.14)
“The Pandavas have been driven into hell for an endlessly long time-dirgha-kalam anantakam. They have been deprived of their happiness and their kingdom. They are lost forevermore.” (Mbh. 2.68.5)
“As a friend of Krishna, I alone with my chariot, crossed over the ocean of the Kuru army, an invincible ocean with no end [of the distance] to its far shore (ananta-param).” (Bhag. 1.15.14)
Lord Rishabhadeva warns His sons that a blind materialist does not see his own unlimited (or unending) misery (ananta-duhkham). (Bhag. 5.5.17)
Sukadeva Gosvami announces the benefits of the pumsavana vow, which is said to cause “unlimited satisfaction (ananta-triptih) for the forefathers and demigods” (Bhag. 6.19.27).
“Formerly, O King, that very Supreme Lord expanded the reputation of Rudra, after that god’s fame had been struck down by Maya Danava, who possessed unlimited (ananta) mystic power.” (Bhag. 7.10.51)
-In Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.10.37, Uddhava says to Lord Krishna:
“The same, single entity is said to be eternally liberated and eternally conditioned. That is my confusion.” The answer is that ‘eternal’ is figurative; the nitya-mukta can become bound, and the nitya-baddha can become liberated.
Anon I must remind you that I'm not obliged to post your comments here because they are off-topic. The topic is 'Veda in the heart', not your conditioning to Christian thought and rationalism. I never said that all words are to be taken literally, but anādi is, because all śāstras say that our ignorance not only has no beginning but no reason. SD 3.7.9
Deleteaparas tu tat-paranmukhatva-dosena labdha-chidraya mayaya paribhutah samsari.
ReplyDeleteIn this part of text 3, aparas tu means “but others.” Tat-paranmukhatva-dosena means “with the defect of being averse to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” Labdha-chidraya is “faulty.” Or Labdha “get” or “obtain.” Chidra means “fault,” and chidraya is the instrumental case. So labdha-chidraya means “by having obtained the state of being faulty.” Labdha is generally used when one obtains something that one did not previously have. This indicates the original state of the soul is “not faulty.” But by becoming averse to Krishna, the soul becomes faulty. Then what happens? Mayaya paribhutah samsari. Such souls, says Jiva Goswami, “become conquered (paribhutah) by the illusory potency maya and must live in the material world (samsari).”
Another translation: “The other type, overcome by maya which has gained access to the
jiva because of jiva's aversion to the Lord, is born repeatedly in the material world.”
There is no anadi-patita vada here. The jiva ‘became’ overcome by maya. Maya gained access to the jiva.
Text 4 of Anuccheda 47 of Sri Paramatma-sandarbha. There Jiva Goswami cites Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.2.37,
bhayam dvitiyabhinivesatah syad
isad apetasya viparyayo 'smritih
bhayam—fear; dvitiya—in something seeming to be other than the Lord; abhinivesatah—because of absorption; syat—it will arise; isat—from the Supreme Lord; apetasya—for one who has turned away; viparyayah—misidentification; asmritih—forgetfulness; tat—of the Lord; mayaya—by the illusory energy
“Fear arises when a living entity misidentifies himself as the material body because of absorption in the external, illusory energy of the Lord. When the living entity thus turns away from the Supreme Lord, he also forgets his own constitutional position as a servant of the Lord. This bewildering, fearful condition is effected by the potency for illusion, called maya.”
Another translation: “For the jiva averse to the Lord, there will be samsara consisting of identity with body and lack of identity with the soul, because of his absorption in the material coverings on the soul, arising from the Lord's maya.
Another: “When the living entity is attracted by the material energy, which is separate from Krishna, he is overpowered by fear. Because he is separated from the Supreme Personality of Godhead by the material energy, his conception of life is reversed. In other words, instead of being the eternal servant of Krishna, he becomes Krishna’s competitor. This is called viparyayo ’smrtih.”
Another: “The first result of contact with maya (ignorance) was mistaken identity concerning the jiva's true form. Forgetting his spiritual form, the jiva took on a material form, and through his self-identity fell into deep forgetfulness of his role as servant of the Lord. Maya bestowed two coverings--the gross and subtle bodies- over the spiritual form.”
In Bhakti-sandarbha Anuccheda 1, Text 9, Jiva Goswami then gives Sridhara Swami’s commentary on this Bhagavatam verse:
Sridhara Swami comments: “The fear here is created by the Lord’s material energy. Budhah means ‘an intelligent person,’ and abhajet means ‘should worship.’ Fear is created by absorption (abhinivesatah) in material things, beginning with the material body. It is created by the false ego of identifying with the material body and other material things. It is created because the original spiritual form of the living entity is not manifest. Why does the material energy (maya) do this? Because the living entity has turned away from the Supreme Lord (isad apetasya), the material energy makes him forget (asmrtih), and thus his own original spiritual form is no longer manifested. From this comes the misidentification (viparyayah) of thinking ‘I am this body.’ Thus, from being absorbed in something other than the Supreme Lord (dvitiyabhinivesatah) fear (bhayam) is created.”
The jīva's forgetfulness of the Lord is anādi, kṛṣṇa bhūli sei jīva anādi bahirmukha. labdha and any other statement that suggests a historical sequence must all be understood in this way. SB 11.2.37 is explained in Satyanārāyan Dāsji's book 'From Vaikuṇṭha not even the leaves fall.'
DeleteComment: Again this word asmrtih. Maya induces forgetfulness.
ReplyDeleteThe words “instead of being the eternal servant of Krishna” indicate that the original position is servant of Krishna. Instead of remaining in this position, the soul “becomes Krishna’s competitor.” “Becoming” indicates that the original position was something else, and that original position has already been described as “being the eternal servant of Krishna.” If one wants to propose that originally the soul was in a neutral or undefined position or somewhere outside of Krishna-lila, then the proper expression would have been “instead of becoming the eternal servant of Krishna, he becomes Krishna’s competitor.” But then the expression “his conception of life is reversed” makes no sense. Reversal means the original position has to be servant of Krishna. And again this word asmrtih. Maya induces forgetfulness. The soul knew Krishna, and then ‘’fail to remember or recall, lose the memory of, neglect stop thinking about, put out of one’s mind.’’
Text 2 of Anuccheda 72 of Sri Paramatma-sandarbha, Jiva Goswami cites Srimad-Bhagavatam 12.5.5:
"Just as when a pot is broken the sky [within the pot] would continue to be sky as before, similarly when the body is dead the jiva again attains to the absolute status."
Srila Sridhara Svami explains this verse as follows:
"Just as before (yatha pura) means just as before the designation of 'pot' [i.e. before the sky in the pot became designated by the shape and covering of the pot as 'the air in the pot'], so again when the pot is broken the sky that was within that pot would be sky alone [without the designation 'pot']. So as that is the case, similarly when the body is dead, that is when by knowledge of the truth the body is merged [back into matter]."
There is nothing in the commentaries of Vamsidhara, Viraraghava, Vijayadhvaja Tirtha, Sri Jiva Gosvami, Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura or the other commentators that in any way changes or even gives an indirect additional sense for what is obviously being stated here in Srimad-Bhagavatam: that the soul, once existing in a pure state, becomes covered by a material body and then returns to the same pure state as before. The words yatha pura, "just as before," are significant, for if one wishes to claim that the soul originally comes from the brahma-jyotir or some other surrogate pure status that is not the abode of the Lord, then the soul will return to the same state.
In text 2 of Anuccheda 83 of Sri Paramatma-sandarbha, Jiva Goswami cites Srimad-Bhagavatam 12.4.33 ghano yadarka-prabhavo vidiryate
caksuh svarupam ravim iksate tada
yada hy ahankara upadhir atmano
jijnasaya nasyati tarhy anusmaret
The translation of SB 12.4.32 as introduction and 12.4.33 is:
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. brahma-amsakasya—of the partial expansion of the Absolute Truth; atmanah—of the jiva soul When the cloud originally produced from the sun is torn apart, the eye can see the actual form of the sun. Similarly, when the spirit soul destroys his material covering of false ego by inquiring into the transcendental science, he regains his original spiritual awareness. (anusmaret—one gains his proper remembrance)
Comment: he regains his original spiritual awareness. (anusmaret—one gains his proper remembrance)
Where is the word ' competitor' anywhere in SB 11.2.37 or in any
Deleteof its tikas? or anywhere in Vedic siddhānta for that matter?
Anusmaret just means ' he should constantly remember'. You are seeing things
in these texts that are not there.
Next.
ReplyDeletedeśatah kālatoyo ’sāv avasthātah svato ’nyatah aviluptāvabodhātmā sa yujyetājayā katham
How can the jīva whose knowledge cannot be destroyed by place, time, condition, nature or other cause become associated with ignorance? (SB 3.7.5)
How does the jīva (asau) whose knowledge cannot be overcome by place, time, condition or nature become associated with ignorance (ajayā)? Knowledge cannot be reduced by distance (place) or defects of a place as in the case of the eye’s ability to see. Knowledge of the jīva is not destroyed by time, like lightning (which vanishes after a moment). It is not destroyed by circumstance, like memory. It cannot be destroyed by itself, like the illusion of silver in the shell. Knowledge cannot be reduced by other objects such as the pot since ātmā is the shelter of unimpeded knowledge inherent in its svarūpa. (Paramatma Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 88)
Comment. “unimpeded knowledge inherent in its svarūpa”. Who can say the jiva is like an empty container since eternity and only in the human form of life can get filled up.
bhagavān eka evaisa sarva-ksetresv avasthitah amusya durbhagatvam vā kleśo vā karmabhih kutah
The Lord is situated in all bodies. Why does the jīva then suffer from ignorance and become afflicted by karmas? (SB 3.7.6)
The one Lord, Paramātmā is also situated in all bodies of all jīvas. Then why should the jīva (amusya) lose his inherent knowledge (durbhagatvam) and suffer from karma?
(Paramatma Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 89)
By māyā, the jīva (vimuktasya) who has the ability to realize his svarūpa (īśvarasya), has his knowledge of ātmā covered (kārpanyam) and enters the net of gunas previously shown (bandhanam). It is said tat-sañga-bhramśitaiśvaryam: the jīva in association with māyā loses all his powers. (SB 6.5.15)….Because of māyā (yat), though it is without purpose in past, present and future (arthena vinā api), the jīva forgets his identity and thinks he is something else (ātmā-viparyayah).
(Paramatma Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 90)
Text 2 of Anuccheda 91 gives the Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.7.10 text:
yad arthena vinamusya
pumsa atma-viparyayah
pratiyata upadrastuh
sva-siras-chedanadibhih
“The living entity is in distress regarding his self-identity. He has no factual background, like a man who dreams that he sees his head cut off.”
Jiva comments: Because of maya (yat), though it is without purpose in past, present and future (arthena vina api), the jiva forgets his identity and thinks he is something else (atma-viparyayah). Because of maya, the jiva's loss of knowledge and bliss makes its appearance. This is the meaning. In a dream it is perceived by the jiva (upadrastuh) that his head is cut off, which is impossible. His head has not been cut off and no one has seen this take place. But the Lord's maya, accomplishing this, imposes this display on the jiva. Atma-viparyayah indicates that the conditioned soul has forgotten his true identity.
Another translation of this verse. “Because of maya, the jiva’s loss of knowledge and bliss makes its appearance without cause or purpose. The loss is illusory, just the seer of a dream experiencing his head being cut off is illusory.“
Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura comments. The jiva situated behind the Lord with beginningless aversion loses knowledge by beginningless ignorance which is also situated behind the Lord. There is no cause and no purpose for the jiva doing this. This is the nature of tamas that it eclipses the power of the jiva, who has only small power.
The last sentence of this comment sums it all up and answer the questions of 3.7.5-6 and all western[ized], Christian-raised logicians too.
DeleteBecause 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 (drashtuh), 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.
ReplyDeleteOur comment: The pure spiritual body, his true identity, sat-cit-ananda-vigraha was eternally, completely there, before the forgetfulness.
“No cause” means the cause is in the spiritual world. And ‘no purpose’ means no substance but shadow.
Next.
Though the jīva is pure, he takes on the quality of upādhis because of the upādhis….the qualities of the material upādhis appear on the pure ātmā who becomes the seer—the ātmā in a covered state (drastuh)…
The ātmā is pure but he sees himself as a material body by identification. It is said:
nrtyato gāyatah paśyan yathaivānukaroti tān evam buddhi-gunān paśyann anīho ’py anukāryate
Just as one may imitate persons whom one sees dancing and singing, similarly the soul, although never the doer of material activities, is thus forced to imitate the qualities of the intelligence. (SB 11.22.53)
It is also said śuddho vicaste hy aviśuddha-kartuh: the pure jīva becomes absorbed in the actions of the conditioned soul. (SB 5.11.12)
Comment. Pure means Krishna conscious. Brahman realization or residence in the maya is not complete, it is without cit and ananda. Eternal existence in maya is also excluded; the jiva was never pure in that idea and does not take on the quality of upadhi but has this eternally. (Paramatma Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 92)
The word kuhaka means “cheating.” Kuhaka refers to the power of māyā since it covers and bewilders the svarūpa of the jīva. (Paramatma Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 105)
Comment. The svarupa is there, and got covered over.
yo ’syotpreksaka ādi-madhya-nidhane yo ’vyakta-jiveśvaro yah srstvedam anupraviśya rsinā cakrepurah śāsti tāh yam sampadyajahāty ajām anuśayī suptah kulāyam yathā tarn kaivalya-nirasta-yonim abhayam dhyāyed ajasrath harim
He is the Lord who eternally watches over this universe, before, during and after its manifestation. He is the master of both the unmanifest material energy and the spirit soul. After sending forth the creation he enters within it, accompanying each living entity. There he creates the material bodies and then remains as their regulator. By surrendering to him, the jīva covered with upādhis can escape the embrace of illusion, just as a dreaming person forgets his own body. One who wants liberation from fear should constantly meditate upon this Lord, who destroys māyā by his pure svarūpa and gives freedom from fear. (SB 10.87.50) (Paramātma Sandarbha ANUCCHEDA 105)
Comment. “just as a dreaming person forgets his own body” we were awake in our original spiritual body. Then we fell asleep on the lap of maha-maya, now wake up and return back to awakened life.
“sa tvahi hi nitya-vijitātma-gunah sva-dhāmnā kālovaśī-krta-visrjya-visarga-śaktih cakre visrstam ajayeśvara sodaśāre nispīdyamānam upakarsa vibho prapannam
O Lord! O supreme power! You conquer the material gunas contained in the jīva’s intelligence at all times by your svarūpa- śakti. You are time which agitates the gunas. You destroy ignorance in the subtle body. Please bring near you that person who has been thrown in the wheel in the wheel of sixteen spokes by ignorance and is being squeezed like a piece of sugar cane. (SB 7.9.22)” (ANUCCHEDA 19 Bhagavat sandarbha)
Comment. Thrown in jail, from outside of the jail.
The pure spiritual body, his true identity, sat-cit-ananda-vigraha was eternally, completely there, before the forgetfulness. "
DeleteIf it is eternally pure, how can it become impure? It is called siddha deha, or perfect body. Perfect means perfect, if you fall down it's not perfect.
“No cause” means the cause is in the spiritual world. And ‘no purpose’ means no substance but shadow."
DeleteComment. “just as a dreaming person forgets his own body” we were awake in our original spiritual body. Then we fell asleep on the lap of maha-maya, now wake up and return back to awakened life.
"Comment. Thrown in jail, from outside of the jail."
These are just your own wilful misinterpretations, NOWHERE in ANY sastra or ANY tika.
In text 1 of Anuccheda 22 of Sri Bhagavat-sandarbha, Jiva Goswami cites SB 10.87.38
ReplyDeletesa yad ajaya tv ajam anusayita gunams ca jushan
bhajati sarupatam tad anu mrityum apeta-bhagah
tvam uta jahasi tam ahir iva tvacam atta-bhago
mahasi mahiyase 'shta-gunite 'parimeya-bhagah
sah—he (the individual living entity); yat—because; ajaya—by the influence of the material energy; tu—but; ajam—that material energy; anusayita—lies down next to; gunan—her qualities; ca—and; jushan—assuming; bhajati—he takes on; sa-rupatam—forms resembling (the qualities of nature); tat-anu—following that; mrityum—death; apeta—deprived; bhagah—of his assets; tvam—You; uta—on the other hand; jahasi—leave aside; tam—her (the material energy); ahih—a snake; iva—as if; tvacam—its (old, discarded) skin; atta-bhagah—endowed with all assets; mahasi—in Your spiritual powers; mahiyase—You are glorified; ashta-gunite—eightfold; aparimeya—unlimited; bhagah—whose greatness.
The illusory material nature attracts the minute living entity to embrace her, and as a result he assumes forms composed of her qualities. Subsequently, he loses all his spiritual qualities and must undergo repeated deaths. You, however, avoid the material energy in the same way that a snake abandons its old skin. Glorious in Your possession of eight mystic perfections, You enjoy unlimited opulences. (Sarva-samvadini of Sri Jiva Gosvami)
Comment. According to the dictionary:
apeta adj. having retired from
apeta adj. free from
apeta adj. escaped
apeta adj. departed
apeta adj. gone.
The commentary of Sridhara Swami (partly):
In this verse the word sah means “the individual spirit soul.” Yat means “because.” ajaya means “by the material energy maya,” ajam means “ignorance,” anusayita means “embraces,” gunams ca means “the material body and senses,” jusan means “serving, or considering the material body as the self,” svarupatam jusan apeta-bhagah means “absorbed in the material energy, the individual soul becomes bereft of his natural spiritual opulences, such as bliss and knowledge,” mrtyum means “the material realm of birth and death,” [and] bhajati means “attains.”
Another translation:
Because ([yat = yasmAt]) he, the [jIva,] however (in spite of the fact that the material world is unreal), by the influence of MAyA ([ajayA = mAyayA]), embraces ([anusayIta = A`linget]) ignorance ([ajAm = avidyAm]), thus he comes to serve ([juSan = sevamAnam]) her qualities, namely the body and senses, presumes them to be his own self ([A`tmatayAdhyasan]), subsequently ([tad anu = ,,tad-anantaram]) also assumes similarity to them, the acquirement of their nature ([sa-rUpatAm = tad-dharma-yogam]), becomes such that his qualities of happiness and so on are covered over, and obtains ([bhajati = prApnoti]) death. This, the implication is, is the subject matter of the [karma-kANDa]. You, on the other hand ([tvam uta = tvaM tu]), leave aside that MAyA ([ajAm = mAyAm]).
Another translation of this commentary – extended:
Because (yat) the jiva embraces avidya (ajam) through maya, he serves the gunas, body and senses and mistakes them for himself. After that (anu) he takes on similar qualities (sarupatam) and, with qualities like bliss covered (apeta-bhagah), attains samsara (mrtyum). You however reject that maya. Maya is situated in me. How do I give it up? Just as a snake does not think its skin to be himself just by thinking of its good qualities, so you give up maya, because you do not identify it as yourself. Your profusion of continuous bliss and knowledge is not produced by maya. You are indifferent to it, because you have your eternal powers (atta-bhagah). You are glorious with your eight mystic powers. The powers are immeasurable (aparimeya-bhagah). Your eight qualities of power are not limited by time and place like the powers of others. They are unlimited because they are related to your complete svarupa.
One meaning of apeta is ' free from' - it is not an historical event, our turning away from Bhagavan. It is anadi.
DeleteCommentary of Sri Visvanatha: Although the jiva is pure spirit, qualitatively equal with God, he becomes degraded under the power of material illusion, maya. Entranced by the allurements of Māyā, the pure jiva soul becomes covered by ignorance and the qualities of material nature. Thus tainted by material designations, he accepts (bhajati) bodies…Subsequently (tad anu), his qualities like bliss become covered, and he undergoes repeated birth and death (mrtyum) in this world.
ReplyDeleteLord Narayana said, "But since I, the Supreme Soul, share the same spiritual nature as the individual spiritual soul (jiva), do I also get covered by ignorance?"
Srutis: "No, this can never happen! The jiva is an infinitesimal particle of consciousness, whereas You are the vast repository of consciousness. Smoke may engulf the glow of a small molten sphere of gold, brass or copper, but it can never cover the vast light of the sun.”
Our commentary: Visvanatha makes Lord Narayana fearfully ask: “I can also fall.” The srutis reassure “no Lord, only jivas fall down, You can not and will not at any time become fallen in the future.” The distinction between You and the conditioned soul is that You maintain Your natural opulences, known as sad-aisvarya, asta-siddhi, and asta-guna, But the soul loses all his spiritual qualities.
In text 5 of Anuccheda 22, Jiva Goswami cites Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.26.5, which says that the conditioned souls are “illusioned by the knowledge-covering feature of the illusory energy.”
gunair vicitrah srijatim
sa-rupah prakritim prajah
vilokya mumuhe sadyah
sa iha jnana-guhaya
gunaih—by the threefold modes; vicitrah—variegated; srijatim—creating; sa-rupah—with forms; prakritim—material nature; prajah—living entities; vilokya—having seen; mumuhe—was illusioned; sadyah—at once; sah—the living entity; iha—in this world; jnana-guhaya—by the knowledge-covering feature.
Divided into varieties by her threefold modes, material nature creates the forms of the living entities, and the living entities, seeing this, are illusioned by the knowledge—covering feature of the illusory energy.
In text 7, Jiva Goswami cites Bhagavad-gita 5.15: “Embodied beings are bewildered, however, because of the ignorance that covers their true knowledge.”
Bhagavad-gita 5.15-16.
nadatte kasyacit papam / na caiva sukrtam vibhuh
ajnanenavrtam jnanam / tena muhyanti jantavah
jnanena tu tad ajnanam / yesam nasitam atmanah
tesam aditya-vaj jnanam / prakasayati tat param
“Nor does the Supreme Lord assume anyone's sinful or pious activities. Embodied beings, however, are bewildered because of the ignorance which covers their real knowledge. When, however, one is enlightened with the knowledge by which nescience is destroyed, then his knowledge reveals everything, as the sun lights up everything in the daytime.”
Sri Ramanuja's commentary: "The atma is transcendental to material nature...How then is it that the atma is thus shrouded by this vasana. Lord Krishna reveals that it is because of ignorance. It is ignorance which shrouds and obscures spiritual knowledge. Ignorance and nescience is that which is opposed to spiritual knowledge and wisdom. By the shrouding of ignorance ...the consciousness of the atma becomes obscured and the intelligence compromised, allowing the living entity to enter the perilous predicament of believing they are the enjoyer..
Although the intelligence may be shrouded by the veil of ignorance still it has been seen that there are those whose consciousness becomes awakened upon receiving Vedic knowledge."
Our comment on this: knowledge of Krishna was present, became shrouded, compromised, obscured and clouded, then becomes uncovered and awakened.
Your first comment: "covered by ignorance" is something totally different'from "fall" as the jivas' being covered by ignorance is beginningless.
DeleteSecond comment: "Our comment on this: knowledge of Krishna was present, became shrouded, compromised, obscured and clouded, then becomes uncovered and awakened."
This is nowhere in Ramanuja's tika, not even remotely.
Kumara Vaisnava Sampradaya: Nimbaditya - Kesava Kasmiri comments: "The living entity's knowledge is obscured into a lesser quality like the light of a lamp is lessened when covered by a shaded glass although it does not change its nature. Contrarily when one has achieved atma tattva then in the state of moksa or liberation the destruction of the physical and subtle bodies reveals the knowledge of the atmas quality as the light of a lamp is more illuminating when the shaded glass cover is removed.... As the removal of the impurities obscuring a jewel allows its radiance to be seen; in the same way when the impurity of undesirable mundane qualities like lust and fruitiveness are removed and abandoned then the transcendental qualities of wisdom, renunciation and compassion reveal themselves in all their splendor. These qualities are always present without being created because they are eternally manifested as qualities of the atma."
ReplyDeleteOur comment on this: The metaphor is very enlightening. The soul was eternally effulgent with knowledge and bliss in the presence of Krishna. Just as the lamp shines by the energy of the powerhouse. Then these became ‘obscured into a lesser quality’. Wisdom, renunciation and compassion were manifest in all their splendor, as a jewel has its radiance. Then impurities obscured these. Then became again visible. In the brahmajyoti there is only sat (eternality), no cit (knowledge) and ananda (bliss). See CC. Adi 2.5. , thus is not the previous state of the soul.
Rudra Vaisnava Sampradaya: Visnuswami - Sridhara Swami's commentary: “Here Lord Krishna is emphasizing that persons whose spiritual knowledge has become awakened do not become deluded in the material existence.”
Our comment: "awakened" means Krishna-consciousness was present, then became dormant, and then returned.
Madhvacarya: “On account of the power of understanding being obstructed by nescience, the jiva’s do not know or see Him.”
Comment: the soul’s powers are obstructed. Eternal dormant knowledge is already rejected; Brahman has only brahma-vadis who will fall to maya; it is not a fountain of ‘new’ souls, for the first time aroused into activities after eternal coma. Nor are the souls eternally in the material world; why have the material world at all? Thus the soul was fully active, then obstructed and punished by maya.
Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura: “One of the associates, His sakti called ignorance, covers the inherent knowledge of the jiva.
Baladeva Vidyabhusana: “The knowledge of the jiva, though eternal, disappears from view (avrtam).”
In Sri Bhagavat-sandarbha Anuccheda 71, text 1, Jiva Goswami cites Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.29.48, wherein Narada Muni says:
"They do not know their own or the Lord's abode, where in fact there is God, Janardana. Those who have smoky intelligence say that the Veda facilitates fruitive activities because they do not know that [Veda]."
In his commentary, Sridhara Svami states:
"'They do not know that' means 'they do not know the Veda' because they do not know svam lokam, 'their own abode,' which means their constitutional position, the truth about themselves, which is the real purport that one is to perceive in the Vedas. [And that constitutional position] is where God is.”
Those who speak only of parts of the Veda that advocate karma do not know his (te) planet which is the Lord's svarupa (sva). They know only Svarga. In that planet (yatra) the Lord reside.
In text 2 of Anuccheda 71 of Sri Bhagavat-sandarbha Jiva Goswami says on this verse:
In this verse Narada Muni says, “Those who are less intelligent (dhumra-dhiyah) accept (ahuh) the Vedic ritualistic ceremonies (veda sa-karmakam) as all in all. They know of Svargaloka and the other planets in the material universe, but they do not know that the purpose of the Vedas is to understand one’s own home (svam lokam) where (yatra) the Supreme Personality of Godhead (janardanah) lives.
Our comment: "awakened" means Krishna-consciousness was present, then became dormant, and then returned.
DeleteIt gets boring to say this, but this is nowhere in these commentaries. You are seeing things through your own colored glasses.
Another translation: Those who speak only of parts of the Veda that advocate karma do not know his (te) planet which is the Lord's svarupa (sva). They know only Svarga. In that planet (yatra) the Lord reside
ReplyDeleteIn text 6 of Anuccheda 100 of Sri Bhagavat-sandarbha, Jiva Goswami cites Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.87.14, which is one of the prayers of the personified Vedas.
jaya jaya jahy ajam ajita dosa-grbhita-gunam
tvam asi yad atmana samavaruddha-samasta-bhagah
aga-jagad-okasam akhila-sakty-avabodhaka te
kvacid ajayatmana ca carato ‘nucaren nigamah
sri-srutayah ucuh—the Vedas said; jayajaya—victory to You, victory to You; jahi—please defeat; ajam—the eternal illusory potency of Maya; ajita—O unconquerable one; dosha—to create discrepancies; gribhita—who has assumed; gunam—the qualities of matter; tvam—You; asi—are; yat—because; atmana—in Your original status; samavaruddha—complete; samasta—in all; bhagah—opulences; aga—nonmoving; jagat—and moving; okasam—of those who possess material bodies; akhila—of all; sakti—the energies; avabodhaka—O You who awaken; te—You; kvacit—sometimes; ajaya—with Your material energy; atmana—and with Your internal, spiritual energy; ca—also; caratah—engaging; anucaret—can appreciate; nigamah—the Vedas.
The srutis said: Victory, victory to You, O unconquerable one! By Your very nature You are perfectly full in all opulences; therefore please defeat the eternal power of illusion, who assumes control over the modes of nature to create difficulties for conditioned souls. O You who awaken all the energies of the moving and nonmoving embodied beings, sometimes the Vedas can recognize You as You sport with Your material and spiritual potencies.
Comment: dosa-grbhita-guna, dosha—to create discrepancies; gribhita—who has assumed; gunam—the qualities of matter;
Jiva Goswami says: “Dosa here is the fault of ignorance, which makes the living entity forget the Supreme Personality of Godhead [atma-vismrti].”
Our comment: Forgetting implies that the knowledge of the Supreme Lord was once there.
One may try to interpret vismrti in this statement to mean that the jiva has always been forgetting Krishna; that it is “an unchanging state of forgetfulness’’, but then other words should be used, eg simply stating “the soul is eternally without the vision -darsana– of Krishna”, since according to the Oxford dictionary to forget means: ‘‘fail to remember or recall, lose the memory of, neglect stop thinking about, put out of one’s mind.’’
This is clearly describing going from ‘knowing’ to ‘ignorance’.
More from this anuccheda.
The Lord asks; "By what action will I show my excellence?"
Srutis: You show it by destroying maya and giving bhakti: conquer maya (ajam jahi).
Lord: "Maya is a sakti with the functions of vidya and avidya. By destroying maya I will destroy vidya also."
Srutis: Maya has accepted the quality of vidya, a cause of remembering you, with the fault of avidya, the cause of jiva forgetting atma. By her covering, maya creates the fault of avidya and sometimes, somewhere, somehow, maya leaves some jiva. There is thus fault in maya's quality of vidya whose nature is making maya leave the jiva (since maya has covered the jiva in the first place.) Thus, better to uproot maya completely and give the jivas bhakti to your lotus feet.
In text 6 of Anuccheda 103 of Sri Bhagavat-sandarbha, Jiva Goswami discusses the potencies of the Supreme Lord, as they are listed in Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.39.55.
sri-srutaya ucuh
jaya jaya jahy ajam ajita dosha-gribhita-gunam
tvam asi yad atmana samavaruddha-samasta-bhagah
aga-jagad-okasam akhila-sakty-avabodhaka te
kvacid ajayatmana ca carato 'nucaren nigamah
Our comment: Forgetting implies that the knowledge of the Supreme Lord was once there. One may try to interpret vismrti in this statement to mean that the jiva has always been forgetting Krishna; that it is “an unchanging state of forgetfulness’’, but then other words should be used, eg simply stating “the soul is eternally without the vision -darsana– of Krishna”, since according to the Oxford dictionary to forget means: ‘‘fail to remember or recall, lose the memory of, neglect stop thinking about, put out of one’s mind.’’
DeleteThis is clearly describing going from ‘knowing’ to ‘ignorance’.
We are not from Oxford. Mahaprabhu says - krsna bhuli sei jiva ANADI bahirmukha - jivas' forgetfulness of Krsna is beginningless."
It is necessary to clearly summarize the point of contention. Satyanarayana das Babaji accuses Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura of claiming that the relationship between atma and Veda is samavaya-sambandha, as evidenced in his comment below:
ReplyDelete"Satyanarayan das Babaji's final reply : He does not understand the difference between Veda being inherent in atma, as accepted by BVT, and inherent in subtle body....I already wrote the "Inherent" means samavaya sambandha which is a permanent relation, like between sweetness and sugar."
Satyanarayana das Babaji has refuted the possibility of samavaya-sambandha between atma and Veda. However, unless it can be proven that Srila Bhakivinoda Thakura has written such a statement, the accusation of Satyanarayana das Babaji is invalid. There are numerous examples of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura establishing brahma-jnana as the limit of the atma's intrinsic awareness, so it is implausible to suggest that he has supported the svatah-siddha-jnana of the Veda being related to the atma by samavaya-sambandha. If you cannot provide the evidence to support the aforementioned accusation in Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's original language we will have to conclude that this is just a case of libel.
Satyanarayan Panditji's reply -
ReplyDeleteJust tell him that
I am not accusing BVT.
I am only disagreeing with him.
But if disagreeing is equal to libel. Then let it be so.
Haribol.
Of course disagreement is not libel. No one said that. Did you really not understand the very reasonable request in the previous comment? Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has not written that the veda and atma have samavaya sambandha. Satyanarayana das Babaji claims that he did. So we are all waiting for Satyanarayana das Babaji to provide some evidence for that assertion by citing the original words of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura in sanskrit or bengali. In the absence of direct evidence, the truth of this matter is clear for all to see.
ReplyDeleteSatyanarayan Babaji's final reply -
DeleteJust tell him that I have no more interest in this discussion. I have said what i had to say. if Anonymous thinks that I am wrong or running away or defeated that is fine with me.