Google
Web         Gaudiya Discussions
Gaudiya Discussions Archive » PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY
Discussions on the doctrines of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Please place practical questions under the Miscellaneous forum and set this aside for the more theoretical side of it.

Vedanta and the Ontology of Shakti - Views of the various sampradayas



Keshava - Sat, 24 Jul 2004 09:48:10 +0530
Sounds like the argument here has to be examined philosophically first before the theological aspects can be discussed.

As far as I have read in Vedanta three categories (tattvas) are said to exist.
It is the relationship between these three that makes for the differences in the different philosophies of the different Vedanta acaryas (Vaisnava and non Vaisnava alike).

Therefore these other forms of Shakti are confusing as long as they are not equated with one or other of the above categories.

Madhva accepts panca bheda (5 differences):

1. Between one unique piece of matter and another unique piece of matter.

2. Between one unique soul and another unique soul.

3. Between souls and matter.

4. Between God and the souls.

5. And between God and matter.

A sixth difference is rejected, i.e. Between one form of God and another form of God.

(Gaudiyas seem to accept this sixth difference, in some limited forms. For instance saying that Lord Visnu lacks some (4) of the qualities of Lord Krsna. Or in their "Shakti tattva" styled explanations of Radha, etc.)

In Sri Vaisnavism the sampradaya is split in two basic groups. One of which accepts Laksmi (Gaudiyas read Radha) as equal to Lord Narayana (Gaudiyas read Krsna) and one of which does not accept Her as equal but only as a jiva (albeit the greatest jiva).

Followers of the first camp define the Godhead as a divine couple consisting of Laksmi-Narayana with no essential internal differences and yet having different roles to play in the deliverance of the jivas and engaged in loving pastimes with each other and the jivas.

Followers of the second camp define Lord Narayana (Isvara) as the Godhead alone and all others as belonging to either the jiva or jagat categories. Laksmi still has a unique position vis a vis the relationship between God and the souls. She acts in the position of a mediatrix who appeals to Her Lord on behalf of the "wretched" souls (this is also accepted by the other group whereas the other group also accepts that Laksmi is Herself a moksakara or able to give directly moksa)

The group that insists that Laksmi is equal to Narayana quotes Visnu Purana and Laksmi Samhita (Pancaratra) as sastric proofs. The other group quotes more Vedic sources about the Godhead being one only and about the three basic categories.

I am interested to know how deeply this controversy is taken by Gaudiyas.

Once it is definitively know what Gaudiyas believe on these issues, the above arguments in this thread will become clear IMHO.
Kishalaya - Sat, 24 Jul 2004 12:32:42 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Jul 24 2004, 09:48 AM)
Sounds like the argument here has to be examined philosophically first before the theological aspects can be discussed.

The ontological position held by Madhvacharya is the most suitable as the substratum of love, because love *requires* difference. (Of course, his position as regards spiritual love is another ballgame altogether)

WRT Lakshmi, he very simple and straightforward. Lakshmi is a jiva, albeit the highest in the hierarchy of the jivas.

The position of abheda has some inherent difficulties in it. This can be seen in the obvious discomfort that all such philosophies with abheda tattava find in reconciling abheda with their theistic conclusions. It happens in Vishishtaadvaita, in Gaudiya Vaishnavism and, I suspect, in others also. The only recourse seems to be, "Shut down your intellect and listen to scripture." However it is difficult to switch off the intellect and scripture is not straightforward. ah!

Anyway, personally I feel The Lady is more concerned about Her love for Krishna than Her position in the ontological hierarchy. I think the latter can be "bracketed out", using Jagat ji's terminology as long as some realism is attributed to the entire setup (with the usual axioms to go like Her love is the highest etc.). A God engaged in loving pastimes is more sensible than a God engaged in mindless lilaas.
Madhava - Sat, 24 Jul 2004 16:10:11 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Jul 24 2004, 04:18 AM)
As far as I have read in Vedanta three categories (tattvas) are said to exist.


  • Isvara (God)

  • Jiva (Souls)

  • Jagat (Matter)

It is the relationship between these three that makes for the differences in the different philosophies of the different Vedanta acaryas (Vaisnava and non Vaisnava alike).

Therefore these other forms of Shakti are confusing as long as they are not equated with one or other of the above categories.

The question is, is this division sufficient for a thorough ontological study?

As I am certain you know, Gaudiyas divide reality into the following:This is a very basic understanding in our sampradAya. As you see, here we have antaraGga-zakti without a Vedantic counterpart in that three-fold division. How would you classify zakti in terms of Vedanta? How does Vedanta deal with the concept of zakti, does it classify her in any way whatsoever?
Kishalaya - Sat, 24 Jul 2004 22:50:41 +0530
QUOTE

As I am certain you know, Gaudiyas divide reality into the following:


  • bhagavAn (Izvara-tattva)

  • antaraGga-zakti

  • taTastha-zakti (jIva-tattva)

  • mAyA-zakti (jagat-tattva)




As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) Baladeva Vidyaabhushana considers Lakshmi identical to Vishnu, and any conjugal feelings between Them are to be understood to be true because scripture says so.
anuraag - Sat, 24 Jul 2004 23:07:12 +0530
QUOTE
How does Vedanta deal with the concept of zakti, does it classify her in any way whatsoever?


na tasya kAryaM karaNaM ca vidyate
na tat-samaz cAbhyadhikaz ca dRzyate

parAsya zaktir vividhaiva zrUyate
svAbhAvikI jJAna-bala-kriyA ca

Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.8

More here and there.

Jaya Sri Radhey!
dirty hari - Sun, 25 Jul 2004 02:07:55 +0530
QUOTE
From Bhaktivinoda Thakura

Will and consciousness are qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. By itself, the potency does not possess will, but rather it carries out the will of the Supreme. For example, you have power, and by Your will, your potencies act. If you say, 'the power acted', then that means that the possessor of the power was actually behind the action. To say that 'the power acted' is only to use a figure of speech.

In truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead has only one potency. When she performs spiritual actions, she is called spiritual potency, and when she performs material actions, she is called the material potency, or maya.





QUOTE
Madhya 6.154

visnu-śaktih parā proktā

ksetra-jñākhyā tathā parā

avidyā-karma-samjñānyā

trtīyā śaktir isyate


"'The internal potency of the Supreme Lord, Visnu, is spiritual, as verified by the śāstras. There is another spiritual potency, known as ksetra-jña, or the living entity. The third potency, which is known as nescience, makes the living entity godless and fills him with fruitive activity.


6.160

antarańgā — cic-chakti, tatasthā — jīva-śakti

bahirańgā — māyā, — tine kare prema-bhakti


"The spiritual potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead also appears in three phases — internal, marginal and external. These are all engaged in His devotional service in love


This concept is very accurate. Matter or Maya Sakti or Jagat is in reality is not a seperate principle from Isvara. It is defined as such when it is being used as such. For example if I use a conch shell in worship then that is a spiritual thing, if I sell it to a non devotee and the buyer uses it as a paper weight then it is a material object. Material energy and spiritual energy are the same thing, they are classified depending on the use.

Matter is not dead, it is actually comprised of God's self same energy, which is conscious, but when used for material purposes then that "matter" is classifed as the inferior or Mayic energy.


The confusion for some is when they mix up rasa with ontology. They cannot understand how God is a single person. They give individual consciousness to the
varities of expression of the personifed Cit or antaranga sakti, which in fact is a single person.



QUOTE
From Jaiva Dharma

..cit-sakti is the complete potency of Krishna. Whatever it manifests are all nitya- siddha objects. The jiva is not nitya-siddha; he becomes sadhana-siddha through sadhana and enjoys bliss like the nitya-siddha. The four types of sakhis of Sri Radha are nitya-siddhas; they are kaya-vyuha manifestations of Sri Radha, who is the personification of the cit-sakti.

All the jivas have appeared from the jiva-sakti of Lord Sri Krishna. Just as cit-sakti is Krishna's complete potency, similarly the jiva-sakti is His incomplete potency. All complete objects have appeared from the complete potency, similarly from the incomplete potency come the innumerable atomic jivas.(  All cit sakti entities are all fully God, they are all non different from Krishna, Krishna is identical with all enitities of Cit Sakti )  Lord Krishna, presiding over each of His potencies, manifests His various expansions correspondingly. Presiding over the cit potency, He manifests His Krishna form and that of Lord Narayana, the Lord of Vaikuntha. Presiding over His jiva-sakti, He manifests His Vilasa form of Baladeva in Vraja. Becoming situated in His maya-sakti, He manifests the free Vishnu forms - Karanodakashayi, Ksirodakasayi, and Garbhodakasayi.

From His Krishna form in Vraja, He manifests all the cit entities. From His Baladeva form as Sesa tattva, He manifests the nitya-mukta jivas who are associates that render service in eight ways to Lord Krishna, the Sesi tattva. Again, becoming Sankarsana as Sesa rupa, He manifests eight types of eternal associates to render service in eight ways to Sesi, Narayana. Maha-Vishnu, an incarnation of Sankarsana, becoming situated in the jiva-sakti as Supersoul, manifests the living entities of the material world. All these jivas (coming from Maha-Vishnu) are disposed to maya. Until they attain the shelter of the hladini-sakti  (Radha)  of the cit world by the mercy of the Lord, they are prone to be defeated by maya. The unlimited conditioned jivas being defeated by maya remain under the influence of her free modes. Therefore the principle is that only the jiva-sakti manifests jivas and not the cit-sakti."


The cit or antaranga sakti is that energy which is fully 100% God. That sakti is categorized into three parts.

QUOTE


Madhya 6.159


hlādinī sandhinī samvit

tvayy ekā sarva-samśraye

hlāda-tāpa-karī miśrā

tvayi no guna-varjite


"'The Supreme Personality of Godhead is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha [Bs. 5.1]. This means that He originally has three potencies — the pleasure potency, the potency of eternality and the potency of knowledge. Together these are called the cit potency, and they are present in full in the Supreme Lord. For the living entities, who are part and parcel of the Lord, the pleasure potency in the material world is sometimes displeasing and sometimes mixed. This is not the case with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, because He is not under the influence of the material energy or its modes.'



ānandāmśe 'hlādinī,' sad-amśe 'sandhinī'

cid-amśe 'samvit', yāre jñāna kari māni

"The three portions of the spiritual potency are called hlādinī [the bliss portion], sandhinī [the eternity portion] and samvit [the knowledge portion]. We accept knowledge of these as full knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.



Radha is the hladini aspect of the cit sakti. She is the personifed cit sakti and the personifed hladini sakti, all aspects of cit sakti as stated above and below are all equal and fully non different then Sri Krishna.


QUOTE
Just as cit-sakti is Krishna's complete potency, similarly the jiva-sakti is His incomplete potency. All complete objects have appeared from the complete potency, similarly from the incomplete potency come the innumerable atomic jivas.




QUOTE
Sri Krsna-bhakti-ratna-prakasa
by  Srila Raghava Gosvami

Their forms are not composed of material elements. Their forms are full of bliss. They are the single Supreme Spirit, manifested as two for the knowledge of the devotees.

The wise know that as a spark is one with the fire, so the potency and the master of potencies are one...


This is also described in the Govinda-Vrndavana-sastra, where Lord Krsna says to Balarama:

"My beloved Radhika is the form of My three transcendental potencies. As I am beyond the touch of matter, so is She, whose form is My potency.


Manifest in three forms, I am spiritual, My form is beyond the touch of the three modes of matter. I am the master of everything, and She is the mistress of this master of everything. She is said to be the kriya-sakti. She has the same sweetness as the other two saktis."

That Radha is manifested from half of Lord Krsna’s form, and that She is the personification of all transcendental potencies is described in the Sammohana-tantra, where Narada Muni prays:

"O wonderfully opulent one, O one even Brahma, Siva, and all the demigods can approach, who are You? You never touch the path of the great yogis meditation.

"The potencies iccha-sakti, jnana-sakti and kriya-sakti, are tiny parts of parts of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

"Whatever inconceivable potencies are the property of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Visnu, the handsome master of all potencies, they are all the expansions of your expansions."

In this way it may be concluded that all potencies of the Lord are manifested from Sri Radha
Madhava - Sun, 25 Jul 2004 03:00:50 +0530
Please do not copy and paste these long quotes over and over again into your posts. Rather, make a single thread under the copy and paste area and put them all there, and link to them as necessary.
Keshava - Sun, 25 Jul 2004 09:13:54 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Jul 24 2004, 10:40 AM)
QUOTE

The question is, is this division sufficient for a thorough ontological study?

As I am certain you know, Gaudiyas divide reality into the following:


  • bhagavAn (Izvara-tattva)

  • antaraGga-zakti

  • taTastha-zakti (jIva-tattva)

  • mAyA-zakti (jagat-tattva)

This is a very basic understanding in our sampradAya. As you see, here we have antaraGga-zakti without a Vedantic counterpart in that three-fold division. How would you classify zakti in terms of Vedanta? How does Vedanta deal with the concept of zakti, does it classify her in any way whatsoever?

To the question of whether 3 categories is enough I say "Yes".

Brahman is everything, everything is Brahman. (Sankara stops there)

The rest of us go on and say that there is inherent internal differentiation within Brahman.

[*] bhagavAn (Izvara-tattva) = antaraGga-zakti

[*] taTastha-zakti (jIva-tattva)

[*] mAyA-zakti (jagat-tattva) (also called bahiraGga-zakti)

How is antaraGga-zakti something different from bhagavAn (Izvara-tattva)? I don't think you can find a Vedantist who accepts a difference. Am I wrong?
Madhava - Sun, 25 Jul 2004 15:33:01 +0530
Then, what do we consider sufficient grounds for declaring "bheda"? What is the clue observing which we can understand that there is a bheda between two objects?
Talasiga - Sun, 25 Jul 2004 16:38:10 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Jul 24 2004, 08:37 PM)
..........This concept is very accurate. Matter or Maya Sakti or Jagat is in reality is not a sep[a]rate principle from Isvara. It is defined as such when it is being used as such. For example if I use a conch shell in worship then that is a spiritual thing, if I sell it to a non devotee and the buyer uses it as a paper weight then it is a material object. Material energy and spiritual energy are the same thing, they are classified depending on the use.

Matter is not dead, it is actually comprised of God's self same energy, which is conscious, but when used for material purposes then that "matter" is classifed as the inferior or Mayic energy.
..........

Very well put.
Kishalaya - Sun, 25 Jul 2004 23:09:36 +0530
QUOTE

Matter is not dead, it is actually comprised of God's self same energy, which is conscious, but when used for material purposes then that "matter" is classifed as the inferior or Mayic energy.
..........


According to Baladeva Vidyaabhushana (At least according to the English Translation, I have), matter is a transmutation of Brahman where its essential character is changed. Just as Hydrogen and Oxygen combined produce water which has properties totally different from the former two. This goes to show how Brahman is the material cause of Prakriti.

However, the transmutation of Brahman does not mean that Brahman has been subject to some kind of defect because (you guessed it right) scripture says so. om puuranam adah puurnam idam puurnaat puranam udacyate puurnasya puurnam aadaaya puurnam evaavashishyate.
Kishalaya - Sun, 25 Jul 2004 23:18:26 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Jul 25 2004, 03:33 PM)
Then, what do we consider sufficient grounds for declaring "bheda"? What is the clue observing which we can understand that there is a bheda between two objects?

All others would posit something called "internal differentiation", but that wouldn't solve the Gaudiya conundrum - what is the status of Radha vis-a-vis Krishna? because the interpretation of "non-difference" seems to be very literal.

indeed achintya bheda abheda!
Keshava - Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:39:53 +0530
Again I come back to the Madhva and/or Tengalai position on the status of Radha (Sri) i.e. that She is the topmost jiva.

Afterall what is the essential nature of the jiva. God is svatantra (independent) the jiva is paratantra (dependent). God is the enjoyer, the jiva is the enjoyed. God is the master, the jiva is the servant. God is the controller, the jiva is the controlled. God is the supporter and sustainer, jiva is supported and sustained. Do I need to go on? By these definitions does not Radha fit the jiva category?

Before you reject this idea out of hand please remember that it is the accepted position of several major Vaisnava schools and also take a moment to think of the some other eternally liberated personality in the spiritual world. Are they jivas or not? Are nitya siddha, ragatmika devotees in Goloka jivas or not? Why should it be any different for Radha?

I am sure I am going to get a lot of flack for this post but I am interested in the responses, therefore I am plainly stating the objection.

Gaudiyas obviously identify Radha as antaranga which by it's very etomological definition is an internally differentiated part not an external separated part like matter or the jivas. It is also not surprising that Gaudiyas take this one step further even ascribing difference between Krsna and Narayana. (Maybe another topic)
dirty hari - Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:44:57 +0530
Bheda between isvara and cit or antranga sakti would be in the form and personality. For exampe as isvara God need display no form nor personality, everything is controlled beyond anyone else's vision. God is controlling and manifesting reality without the need to display form or personality. Whereas the various personal forms of Godhead are different in that their concern is not controlling and manifesting reality, rather their sole purpose is in display of personality and pastimes.

So even though Krishna is in fact isvara parama, sarva karana karanam, the difference between Krishna's appearence as Krishna and His job of running the whole cosmos is where the Bheda comes in to play. So Krishna is both running everything and not running everything. Krishna as Govinda is simply enjoying lila, Krishna as Maha Vishnu, Yoga Maya etc is running the show.
Keshava - Mon, 26 Jul 2004 03:30:25 +0530
QUOTE
Bheda between isvara and cit or antranga sakti would be in the form and personality.


This is not true Bheda in the Vedantic sense.

For example according to Pancaratra Agama Isvara as (Para) Vasudeva exhibits all six qualities jnana, aisvarya, shakti, bala, tejas, and virya in full. Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha although non-different from Vasudeva exhibit two of these qualities each in full.

Rama exhibits some qualities that Krsna does not. Similarly Krsna exhibits some qualities that Rama does not.

Also as you say different Purusa Avataras (Karanadaksayi, Garbodaksayi, Ksirodaksayi and even the Antaryamin exhibit different functions) yet internally there is no difference.

These avataras are all called svamsa

Then there are the avataras which are vibinnamsa. They are empowered (shakti avesa) jivas. For example:

Narada rsi is bhakti avesa
Sesa is dharana avesa etc (by the way Madhvas also consider Sesa/Balarama a jiva, Tengalais don't)

QUOTE
For exampe as isvara God need display no form nor personality, everything is controlled beyond anyone else's vision. God is controlling and manifesting reality without the need to display form or personality.


"Need" is not the point. The point is what is the relationship between the personal and impersonal aspects?

QUOTE
Whereas the various personal forms of Godhead are different in that their concern is not controlling and manifesting reality, rather their sole purpose is in display of personality and pastimes.


QUOTE
Krishna as Govinda is simply enjoying lila, Krishna as Maha Vishnu, Yoga Maya etc is running the show.


Don't these two quotes above contradict one another? Are not the forms of Maha Visnu, etc who are "running the show" not personal forms?

QUOTE
So even though Krishna is in fact isvara parama, sarva karana karanam, the difference between Krishna's appearence as Krishna and His job of running the whole cosmos is where the Bheda comes in to play.


I disagree. Bheda as used by Vedantists is NOT difference in personality or purpose but an essential difference specifically the difference between Isvara, Jiva and Jagat. There is no Bheda between different forms of the Lord. No Vaisnava school accepts this (with the possible exception of the Gaudiyas, though we can even find Gaudiya texts that seem against this idea).
dirty hari - Mon, 26 Jul 2004 06:56:44 +0530
Maybe I didn't make my point clear enough, I know what you are saying and it's not different then what I am saying, let me clarify.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Bheda between isvara and cit or antranga sakti would be in the form and personality. 
This is not true Bheda in the Vedantic sense.

For example according to Pancaratra Agama Isvara as (Para) Vasudeva exhibits all six qualities jnana, aisvarya, shakti, bala, tejas, and virya in full. Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha although non-different from Vasudeva exhibit two of these qualities each in full.


When I say Isvara I mean the aspect of God that is doing the actual work of running all of the cosmos. It's not that there is a body or form that is doing that work. That work is being done in an inconceivable way. God is all pervading energy and consciousness, the needs of the cosmic manifestation's maintenance are being taken care of by the all pervading aspect of God. There is no personality that is necessary to display nor any form that is necessary to display. So even though Isvara parama Krishna...sarva karana karanam, it's not that the form and personality of Krishna is actually doing the work of controlling and causing.

At the same time that Krishna is controlling and causing all of reality, He is also aloof from that, He is not doing that. Both are true. The aspect of Krishna that runs the cosmos is one with Krishna and different from Krishna because Govinda is only manifest as He is, for lila.

So Vasudeva, Pradyumna etc, they are all expansions of Krishna, they are Krishna, yet they are different in that they are manifesting different activities, and less personal qualities. They are the same exact all pervading Supreme lord, but they are distinct in their manifestation from Govinda, who alone displays all of the male qualities that god possesses.

From Govinda Bhasya

QUOTE
In this way it is said that although the Lord's forms present a very wonderful variety, still They are all one in essence. Although this truth was also described in sütra 3.2.14, the merciful teacher of Vedänta repeats the same teaching so this very difficult topic may be clearly understood.

The Supreme Lord is identical with each of His forms. They are all Him. That a certain form of the Lord is His original form, or an expansion of that form, or an expansion of the expansion is determined only by how much of His powers the Lord chooses to display when He manifests that form. Only in that way are some forms of the Lord considered higher and others less high. The great devotees of the Lord declare:

The Lord’s forms are considered greater or lesser on the basis of how much of His transcendental power the Lord chooses to manifest when He reveals them.



QUOTE
QUOTE
For exampe as isvara God need display no form nor personality, everything is controlled beyond anyone else's vision. God is controlling and manifesting reality without the need to display form or personality.
"Need" is not the point. The point is what is the relationship between the personal and impersonal aspects?


The impersonal aspect of God is not purely impersonal. You cannot separate fire and heat, in the same way the impersonal aspect of God is impersonal only in the sense that it is not directly involved in any kind of relations with people. For instance there is sunshine, and there is God who manifests sunshine in this physical world. The sunshine would be considered an impersonal force because you wouldn't talk to it or interact with it as if it is a person. At the same time it is existing as an energy of a person, controlled by a person, and totally dependent on a person. So even though it acts in an impersonal way, it cannot really be separated from the person who is consciously manifesting it from his own self same conscious energy.


QUOTE
QUOTE
Whereas the various personal forms of Godhead are different in that their concern is not controlling and manifesting reality, rather their sole purpose is in display of personality and pastimes.

  Krishna as Govinda is simply enjoying lila, Krishna as Maha Vishnu, Yoga Maya etc is running the show.
Don't these two quotes above contradict one another? Are not the forms of Maha Visnu, etc who are "running the show" not personal forms?



No. They are universal forms, cosmic forms, they are forms in a metaphoric sense.

QUOTE
From the SAtvata-tantra:


viSNos tu trINi rUpANi
puruSAkhyAny atho viduH
ekaM tu mahataH sraSTR
dvitIyaM tv aNDa-saMsthitam
tRtIyaM sarva-bhUta-sthaM
tAni jJAtvA vimucyate


"For material creation, Lord KRSNa's plenary expansion assumes three ViSNus. The first one, MahA-ViSNu, creates the total material energy, known as the mahat-tattva. The second, GarbhodakazAyI ViSNu, enters into all the universes to create diversities in each of them. The third, KSIrodakazAyI ViSNu, is diffused as the all-pervading Supersoul in all the universes and is known as ParamAtmA. He is present even within the atoms. Anyone who knows these three ViSNus can be liberated from material entanglement."


From Cc Madhya lila 20.278-80

"The first form of Lord Visnu is called Maha-Visnu. He is the original creator of the total material energy. The innumerable universes emanate from the pores of His body. These universes are understood to be floating in air as the Maha-Visnu exhales. They are like atomic particles that float in sunshine and pass through the holes of a screen. All these universes are thus created by the exhalation of Maha-Visnu, and when Maha-Visnu inhales, they return to His body. The unlimited opulences of Maha-Visnu are completeIy beyond material conception."


Visnu means all pervading, so Visnu's form is really formless in the truest sense of the word. If you are all pervading then you just go on and on in all directions, you have no boundaries, therefore no form. The descriptions of Visnu's form are metaphorical. They are used to give an idea of How God is doing what he does. Like saying Maha Visnu is laying there and Brahmandas are emanating out of the pores of His skin. This is not literal, there is no skin. But when we see Visnu as possessing a form of all pervading energy then the "skin" would be the energy of God, and the Brahmandas would be emanating from the energy or skin of Maha Visnu.

QUOTE
QUOTE
So even though Krishna is in fact isvara parama, sarva karana karanam, the difference between Krishna's appearence as Krishna and His job of running the whole cosmos is where the Bheda comes in to play.
I disagree. Bheda as used by Vedantists is NOT difference in personality or purpose but an essential difference specifically the difference between Isvara, Jiva and Jagat. There is no Bheda between different forms of the Lord. No Vaisnava school accepts this (with the possible exception of the Gaudiyas, though we can even find Gaudiya texts that seem against this idea).



Well yes among most Vedantists they do not get into the details of God's variety of forms and personas, that doesn't mean that it is wrong. They are more concerned with detailing the basic nature of reality. The vaisnavas and especially the Gaudiya vaisnavas take it to another level. We can say that Krishna and Radha are bhedabheda, they are one soul in different forms and personas, or we can say Krishna is bhedabheda from Durga or Narayana etc. It is of an altogether different kind of Bheda then that of the Vedantic concerns with explaining isvara, jiva and pradhana.

I was speaking of the bheda between the varities of manifestation within Cit sakti, which is exclusionary to jiva and pradhana. There is difference between Krishna and other manifestations of Isvara, they are not essential differences though, just cosmetic.

If you are asking for the difference between Isvara and Cit Sakti or antaranga, then there is no real difference. The difference is only in the specific manifestation or specific activity. Cit Sakti is the complete spiritual potency, which means that is the aspect of God which enagages soley in "spiritual" actions. Any manifestation of Cit Sakti is therefore only exhibited for pastimes sake.

QUOTE
From Brahma Samhita 5.46

"The light of one candle being communicated to other candles, although it burns separately in them, is the same in its quality. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda who exhibits Himself equally in the same mobile manner in His various manifestations."



On the other Hand Isvara is also non different then jivas and maya sakti, the difference between Cit sakti and Isvara, and Jiva/maya sakti and Isvara, is that Isvara is really completely non different in the strictest ultimate sense from the Cit sakti and the maya sakti, while ABSOLUTELY ONE and DIFFERENT from the jiva sakti.

In other words everything in the strictest sense is totally non different except for jiva and isvara.

We can take that apart and make minor difference between isvara and maya sakti, and isvara within Cit sakti, but those differences are more about categorizing variety within Cit or Para or antaranga sakti and the mayic manifestation of that sakti, and they are different only in the sense of the difference between Govinda and Ramachandra. Difference in amount, quality and activity rather then in essence.
Keshava - Mon, 26 Jul 2004 09:54:35 +0530
QUOTE
Maybe I didn't make my point clear enough, I know what you are saying and it's not different then what I am saying, let me clarify.


If you want to clarify things please don't introduce more confusing terminology. My general opinion of your last post is that you seem to be mixing terms in an attempt to make arguments based on the English meanings of certain words rather than actually giving statements based on sastra. Forgive me if I am wrong but that's my impression.

Thanks for the quote from GB which sutra is that? I read 3.2.14-17 Arupa Adhikaranam and your quote was not from there as that section established the "reality" of a form(s) for Brahman all of which are Himself i.e. non-different from His essential being (as compared with others whose form is subordinate to their atmas). So yes, we agree on this. All Vaisnava acaryas agree on this. However it proves not only that Krsna's form is real but Visnus, etc is (are) also. Unlike your statement:

QUOTE
QUOTE
Are not the forms of Maha Visnu, etc who are "running the show" not personal forms?


No. They are universal forms, cosmic forms, they are forms in a metaphoric sense.


If we say that Maha Visnu, etc has no personal form and is metaphorical then we can also say the same about Krsna.

as is stated in GB 3.2.14

saccidAnanda rUpAya kRSNAyAkliSTakAriNe (gopAla pUrva tApanI)

"Salutation to that Krsna, the destroyer of pain, whose form is Being, Intelligence and Bliss."

and also

govindaM saccidAnanda vigraham (atharva zirasa)

"Govinda whose form is Being, Intelligence and Bliss."

but in fact the siddhanta of the sutra is given as "The Lord has no form distinct from His Self" not that some of His stated forms are metaphorical.

QUOTE
Visnu means all pervading, so Visnu's form is really formless in the truest sense of the word.


Yes, Visnu means all pervading. But that does not mean that He does not pervade everything personally. You already gave the purport by SP explaining how the purusa avataras expand and finally from Ksirodaksayi Visnu the Lord personally expands and enters each body (along with the jivas) and each atom of matter.


QUOTE
If you are all pervading then you just go on and on in all directions, you have no boundaries, therefore no form.


No that is your conception. The sastirc conception is that the personal form of the Lord expands unlimitedly and thus exists within everything.

QUOTE
The descriptions of Visnu's form are metaphorical.


Please give a sastic quote to substantiate this.


QUOTE
Well yes among most Vedantists they do not get into the details of God's variety of forms and personas, that doesn't mean that it is wrong.


Bold statement. I don't agree. Madhva and Ramanuja certainly do.


QUOTE
We can say that Krishna and Radha are bhedabheda, they are one soul in different forms and personas, or we can say Krishna is bhedabheda from Durga or Narayana etc. It is of an altogether different kind of Bheda then that of the Vedantic concerns with explaining isvara, jiva and pradhana.


If you are going to use those technical terms that are used by most people in general to mean another thing then you need to provide evidence that Gaudiya acaryas use those terms in those contexts and then also evidence of what the different nuances attached to those terms as a result of using them like that are. Otherwise there will be confusion.

QUOTE
I was speaking of the bheda between the varities of manifestation within Cit sakti, which is exclusionary to jiva and pradhana. There is difference between Krishna and other manifestations of Isvara, they are not essential differences though, just cosmetic.


Please explain exactly why and how the differences "between the varities of manifestation within Cit sakti" are also NOT "cosmetic" as are the so-called differences "between Krishna and other manifestations of Isvara"? That is the point. There cannot be essential differences between God and His internal energies.

As you later say:
QUOTE
If you are asking for the difference between Isvara and Cit Sakti or antaranga, then there is no real difference.


again then why say:
QUOTE
I was speaking of the bheda between the varities of manifestation within Cit sakti


Please explain the following, it does not seem to make sense:

QUOTE
On the other Hand Isvara is also non different then jivas and maya sakti,  the difference between Cit sakti and Isvara, and Jiva/maya sakti and Isvara, is that Isvara is really completely non different in the strictest ultimate sense from the Cit sakti and the maya sakti, while  ABSOLUTELY ONE and DIFFERENT from the jiva sakti.


What does this mean and what is this based on?

QUOTE
In other words everything in the strictest sense is totally non different except for jiva and isvara.


This seems to be a new form of Vedanta that I have not seen before. To paraphrase:
Everything (which Vedanticly can only mean Jagat, cause nothing else is left) is abheda or non-different to Isvara except the Jivas. Or again ONLY the Jivas are bheda or different from Isvara but Jagat is not.

If I have misunderstood your declaration please let me know.

QUOTE
We can take that apart and make minor difference between isvara and maya sakti, and isvara within Cit sakti, but those differences are more about categorizing variety within Cit or Para or antaranga sakti and the mayic manifestation of that sakti, and they are different only in the sense of the difference between Govinda and Ramachandra. Difference in amount, quality and activity rather then in essence.


Then why say that there is an essential difference between the Jivas and Isvara? In fact there is no essential difference between any of the three (Isvara, Jiva or Jagat). Only internally there is distinction. Why say that matter is essentially the same as God and the Jiva is not. Jivas are sat cid ananda and Isvara is also. If anything one could come to the conclusion that Jagat is essentially not Brahman (this is Madhvas position, although the also posits that the Jiva is only like Brahman)

and yet:

sarva khalvidam brahma

and

yato va imani bhutani jayante, etc Taittiriya Up.

Definition of Brahman from Taittiriya Up. "That from which everything emanates, by which everything is maintained and into which everything enters that is Brahman"

or

janmad yasya yathah BS 1.1.2

"(Brahman) is that from which everything emanates"

Therefore everything is essentially Brahman.

The above texts clearly prove the essential oneness of everything (Isvara, Jiva, and Jagat). I could quote more abedha srutis but I think that those suffice. Of course there are bheda srutis also that's why everyone except the fanatics (Madhva and Sankara) have some sort of compromise position between abheda and bheda. But I have never heard anyone uphold the abheda of Isvara and Jagat while expressing the total bheda of Isvara and Jiva.
Kishalaya - Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:55:52 +0530
QUOTE

everyone except the fanatics (Madhva and Sankara) have some sort of compromise position between abheda and bheda


Keshavji, I understand you did not mean to use the word "fanatic" in any disparaging manner. I guess both of them (Madhva, at least, for sure) would have thought of the objection. The tattva-vaadis have an elaborate system of logic built to support their conclusions which, I agree, sometimes seem way too much. However it would be unfair to criticize them without giving them a chance to defend themselves which, as you would already know, they are *very* capable of.

Apart from abheda being aesthetically inferior to the human psyche, it has a number of problems being grasped by the intellect. Therefore, in my humble opinion, Madhva's philosophical position deserves somewhat more consideration (and respect) than what the West usually accords to it.

Madhva is very clear that Brahman is not the material cause of Prakriti. Statements of Shruti like:

sarvam khalu idam brahma, Madhva feels, need interpretation based on the hierarchy of evidence:

http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/upanishad.html#section_4

One must understand that the sentimental position of the "read shaastra as it is" school does not stand up to critical examination. One cannot escape interpretation. Take, for instance, the above shruti statement. Even Shankara would require "some" interpretation, otherwise its face value meaning would be "All this is Brahman". This inevitably leads to a philosophy like what DH is proposing.

As for:

yato va imani bhutani jayante

It cannot be a-priori concluded (or denied) that Brahman is the material cause of Prakriti. It could also be interpreted that Brahman is the instrumental cause of Prakriti.

Same explanation goes for:

janmad yasya yathah

It is also interesting to note that Brahma-suutras, by itself, is not scripture. It is an exposition of logic building up a philosophy (based on scripture which it declares - shaastra yonitvaat).

Another thing to understand here is that schools accepting abheda tattva, nevertheless accept difference of entity with the "non-difference" being attributed to some form of saadrishyataa (similarity). Take, for example, Baladeva's notion of Brahman being the material cause of Prakriti. However, as long as Prakriti is in its state, it is still a different *entity* from Brahman.

While reading an overview of Nyaaya Siddhaanjana of Swami Desikan (of course an english translation, but I have no reason to doubt the english translation of a practitioner equipped with a PhD, apart from the fact that what was being conveyed was amply clear), I found an interesting interpretation of the sharira-shariri bhaava - a central tenet in Ramanuja's philosophy. The definition of sharira is put down as:

1. That which is used for the purpose of the shariri
2. That which is controlled by the shariri
3. That which subsists solely on the support of the shariri

This definition by itself does not require any kind of "non-difference" between the shesha (enjoyed) and the sheshi (enjoyer).

With regards,
Kishalaya
dirty hari - Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:41:33 +0530
QUOTE
The above texts clearly prove the essential oneness of everything (Isvara, Jiva, and Jagat). I could quote more abedha srutis but I think that those suffice. Of course there are bheda srutis also that's why everyone except the fanatics (Madhva and Sankara) have some sort of compromise position between abheda and bheda. But I have never heard anyone uphold the abheda of Isvara and Jagat while expressing the total bheda of Isvara and Jiva.



You misquoted me here. I said the Jiva and Isvara are the only absolutely ONE AND DIFFERENT.

As far as jagat or maya sakti, I presented quotes that back up my position from Sri Caitanya and Bhaktivinoda. Since Madhava is asking me not to post so many quotes go back to the first page for those quotes.

The Basic idea is that God has one energy, Acintya Sakti, that is expressed in a variety of ways, when that energy is used for material purposes then it is called maya sakti, when it is used for spiritual purposes it is called Cit sakti.

The jiva is tatastha sakti, it exists with the tendency to either come under the influence of cit sakti or maya sakti, therefore it's called borderline potency, it is neither cit or purely God, nor is it maya sakti or mundane by nature. It can exist in either realm, but it is eternally neither.

Jiva is never the same as God nor matter. We are part God and part ourself, Jiva sakti.

As far as Visnu having a form, well of course Visnu can take a form, but the idea I was getting at is that the cosmic form or the Paramatma version of Visnu has no specific form. It's not like there is a four armed male figure within every atom, or in a gigantic cosmic form. These sastric ideas are metaphors. If there is no reason to take a form i.e so someone will see it, then there is no reason to manifest a form. So Visnu as Maha Visnu, Paramatma etc, is never seen by anyone, he is not visible to our eyes, just like we cannot see Brahman. Visnu is Brahman plus consciousness and the will and ability to control Brahman, there is no necessity for God to manifest a Bhagavan form (personality, physical form, beauty, etc) while he is maintaining the universe.

Of course God could, but what would be the point ?


QUOTE
No that is your conception. The sastirc conception is that the personal form of the Lord expands unlimitedly and thus exists within everything


God is a person, that doesn't necessarily mean that God has to always manifest a form while doing the work of cosmic maintainence. He has a non physical form, a form of pure spiritual energy, it is infinite and all pervading, it is not a form in the sense of 3 dimensions and shaped like a human. The idea is that the person exists everywhere, not necessarily an actual human like form. So really we are talking about transformations of God's being/energy. God only manifests human forms or any kind of 3 dimensional form like a human when he/she is interacting with humans. Otherwise there is no reason or purpose to do that. God is equally present everywhere, this doesn't mean that there are an infinite number of human forms of atomic size in every atom. Rather it means that God is a field of energy. God is the consciousness of that energy, and God has full control over that energy. We are talking about an infinite amount of energy, with a single consciousness that is comprising it and totally energized by it and controlling it. The idea of a form is used to teach the concept that God is a person, not just impersonal Brahman, God can manifest a form if desired is the point.

QUOTE


QUOTE
I was speaking of the bheda between the varities of manifestation within Cit sakti, which is exclusionary to jiva and pradhana. There is difference between Krishna and other manifestations of Isvara, they are not essential differences though, just cosmetic.





Please explain exactly why and how the differences "between the varities of manifestation within Cit sakti" are also NOT "cosmetic" as are the so-called differences "between Krishna and other manifestations of Isvara"? That is the point. There cannot be essential differences between God and His internal energies.


I qualified that with this

"If you are asking for the difference between Isvara and Cit Sakti or antaranga, then there is no real difference. The difference is only in the specific manifestation or specific activity. Cit Sakti is the complete spiritual potency, which means that is the aspect of God which enagages soley in "spiritual" actions. Any manifestation of Cit Sakti is therefore only exhibited for pastimes sake. "

So you are creating a argument where none exists, I said the same thing you did.

By bheda among Cit Sakti I made it clear that I meant external differences, form, pastimes, activity, etc.

I know that other vaisnava groups and vedantists don't necessarily use Bheda or abheda as liberally as I do, but I always qualify and explain in detail what I mean, so I really don't understand some of your arguments, I am not conversing with non gaudiya's here, I expect that the devotees here don't need me treating them like they are in other sampradyas.


QUOTE
Then why say that there is an essential difference between the Jivas and Isvara? In fact there is no essential difference between any of the three (Isvara, Jiva or Jagat). Only internally there is distinction. Why say that matter is essentially the same as God and the Jiva is not. Jivas are sat cid ananda and Isvara is also. If anything one could come to the conclusion that Jagat is essentially not Brahman (this is Madhvas position, although the also posits that the Jiva is only like Brahman


Matter is 100% God, Jiva is God plus uniqueness from God. So they are not the same. God needs something different then himself to relate to in terms of friendship and love. Matter is not a unique energy from God, Jiva is.

Not that we are completely unique from God, just that we are made of God, and we are a modified bit of God. Bhaktisiddhanta explains this in the Brahma samhita

" The supremacy of Śambhu is subservient to that of Govinda; hence they are not really different from each other. The nondistinction is established by the fact that just as milk treated with acid turns into curd so Godhead becomes a subservient when He Himself attains a distinct personality by the addition of a particular element of adulteration. This personality has no independent initiative.( controlled by isvara, not like visnu tattva who is independent ) The said adulterating principle is constituted of a combination of the stupefying quality of the deluding energy ( subject to illusory energy ), the quality of nonplenitude of the marginal potency ( localized, not all pervading )and a slight degree of the ecstatic-cum-cognitive principle of the plenary spiritual potency( whereas Visnu is the source of all of these ). This specifically adulterated reflection of the principle of the subjective portion of the Divinity is Sadāśiva, in the form of the effulgent masculine-symbol-god Śambhu from whom Rudradeva is manifested. In the work of mundane creation as the material cause."

Although this is describing Sambhu, really it is also talking about the nature of the jiva and how the jiva causes the material world to exist through mundane ego, this link goes into detail on the concept, it's pretty esoteric but it might help

B.S 5.8 and also verses 9, 10 and 11.
Kishalaya - Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:48:15 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Jul 26 2004, 02:39 AM)
Afterall what is the essential nature of the jiva. God is svatantra (independent) the jiva is paratantra (dependent). God is the enjoyer, the jiva is the enjoyed. God is the master, the jiva is the servant.  God is the controller, the jiva is the controlled. God is the supporter and sustainer, jiva is supported and sustained. Do I need to go on? By these definitions does not Radha fit the jiva category?


(In continuation to the point you have made above)

There is danger in giving stress to shakti to a point where it threatens the independence of Ishvara. Vedaanta denounces such shakta-vaada:

BS 2.2.42:

utpatyasambhvaat

Shakti, by itself, cannot cause creation.

My English Translation of Govinda Bhaashya seems to attribute the quotation of a verse from Padma Puraana, to Baladeva Vidyabhuushana (if Baladeva really quotes this, then the genuineness of the verse does not really matter):

shrutayah smritischaiva yuktayashca iishvaram param
vadanti tad viruddham yo vadet tasmaan na caadham

The shrutis, the smritis and reasonings, all are unanimous in declaring that the Lord is the supreme. There is no greater "adham" than he who declares anything against this.

Also kindly refer:
http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.ph...indpost&p=20256
(in view of the sheer verbosity of dirty hari's posts)
Kalkidas - Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:35:02 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Jul 26 2004, 08:11 AM)
The Basic idea is that God has one energy, Acintya Sakti, that is expressed in a variety of ways, when that energy is used for material purposes then it is called maya sakti, when it is used for spiritual purposes it is called Cit sakti.

The jiva is tatastha sakti, it exists with the tendency to either come under the influence of cit sakti or maya sakti, therefore it's called borderline potency, it is neither cit or purely God, nor is it maya sakti or mundane by nature. It can exist in either realm, but it is eternally neither.

Jiva is never the same as God nor matter. We are part God and part ourself, Jiva sakti.

puruSa evedaM sarvam | yadbhUtaM yacca bhavyam |
utAmRtatvasyezAnaH | yadannenAtirohati || 2 ||

2. Purusa alone is all this, what has been and what is to be,
and he is the lord of immortals, who grow further by means of
food.

etAvAnasya mahimA | ato jyAyAaMzca pUruSaH |
pAdo'sya vizvA bhUtAni | tripAdasyAmRtaM divi || 3 ||

3. Such is his greatness, and greater than this is Purusa: a
quarter of him is all beings, three-quarters of him the immortal
in heaven.

tripAdUrdhva udaitpuruSaH | pAdo'syehAbhavAtpunaH |
tato viSvaNvyakrAmat | sAzanAnazane abhi || 4 ||

4. Three-quarters of Purusa went upward, but a quarter of
him was here below. From that he spread out in all directions
into what eats and does not eat.

(PuruSasUktam, Rg Veda, X.90, translation Nitaidasji)


I wonder, are these three quarters in heaven also consist of jivas? If it is not so, and if Lord can't really experience love for Him-/Herself as you said previously, then I assume, He/She is quite unhappy being, because He/She can experience true love only to one quarter of existence... crying.gif
Kalkidas - Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:53:34 +0530
Brhadaranyaka Upanisad agrees, that Absolute Itself can't feel joy, so It divides in Purusha/Prakriti to enjoy... biggrin.gif Just like our acaryas tells, not like Shivaji... cool.gif Sorry, I failed to find transliteration online, therefore, I'm posting only translation (by Max Müller):

1. In the beginning this was Self alone, in the shape of a person (purusha). He looking round saw nothing but his Self. He first said, 'This is I;' therefore he became I by name. Therefore even now, if a man is asked, he first says, 'This is I,' and then pronounces the other name which he may have. And because before (pûrva) all this, he (the Self) burnt down (ush) all evils, therefore he was a person (pur-usha). Verily he who knows this, burns down every one who tries to be before him.

2. He feared, and therefore any one who is lonely fears. He thought, 'As there is nothing but myself, why should I fear?' Thence his fear passed away. For what should he have feared? Verily fear arises from a second only.

3. But he felt no delight. Therefore a man who is lonely feels no delight. He wished for a second. He was so large as man and wife together. He then made this his Self to fall in two (pat), and thence arose husband (pati) and wife (patnî). Therefore Yâgñavalkya said: 'We two are thus (each of us) like half a shell.' Therefore the void which was there, is filled by the wife. He embraced her, and men were born.

4. She thought, 'How can he embrace me, after having produced me from himself? I shall hide myself.'

She then became a cow, the other became a bull and embraced her, and hence cows were born. The one became a mare, the other a stallion; the one a male ass, the other a female ass. He embraced her, and hence one-hoofed animals were born. The one became a she-goat, the other a he-goat; the one became a ewe, the other a ram. He embraced her, and hence goats and sheep were born. And thus he created everything that exists in pairs, down to the ants.

5. He knew, 'I indeed am this creation, for I created all this.' Hence he became the creation, and he who knows this lives in this his creation.
(Br. U. 1.4.1-5)
dirty hari - Tue, 27 Jul 2004 00:46:49 +0530
QUOTE
Again I come back to the Madhva and/or Tengalai position on the status of Radha (Sri) i.e. that She is the topmost jiva.

Afterall what is the essential nature of the jiva. God is svatantra (independent) the jiva is paratantra (dependent). God is the enjoyer, the jiva is the enjoyed. God is the master, the jiva is the servant.  God is the controller, the jiva is the controlled. God is the supporter and sustainer, jiva is supported and sustained. Do I need to go on? By these definitions does not Radha fit the jiva category?


In Gaudiya thought Radha is identical to Krishna, she is Isvari, Visnu tattva, independent, enjoys more then Krishna, she is the personification of enjoyment. She is not like a jiva in Gaudiya thought. In this other thread I give plenty of evidence to show Radha's position as supreme over everyone.

QUOTE
Before you reject this idea out of hand please remember that it is the accepted position of several major Vaisnava schools and also take a moment to think of the some other eternally liberated personality in the spiritual world. Are they jivas or not? Are nitya siddha, ragatmika devotees in Goloka jivas or not? Why should it be any different for Radha?



Whatever other religions believe is not my concern. In Gaudiya thought Radha is the original Goddess, the female aspect of Krishna, all Goddess's are Her expansions and plenary portions, She is the complete female personality of Godhead, as Krishna is the supreme male personality of Godhead.

Whatever variety of jivas in whatever situation they are in, that doesn't have anything to do with Radha's position. At least in Gaudiya thought. This was Mahaprabhus main contribution in theological vedanta, the supremacy of Radha over everyone and every other conception.

The basic idea is that Hladini Sakti is the aspect of God that enjoys. She is the Hladini personifed. People tend to misunderstand Radha. They think of Her as the enjoyed. In truth she is the supreme enjoyer. The whole purpose of Mahaprabhus lila was to teach this single point.

That is: Krishna does not enjoy as much as Radha. This is because Radha is the enjoying Sakti of Krishna. She is the form Krishna takes to enjoy. Female and male forms are not equal in enjoying capacity. The female form was created purely to enjoy. The female body can enjoy much more then a male body, it was created to enjoy as much as possible. The male body is a lesser enjoying vehicle.

Radha or the Hladini Sakti, the pleasure potency, is the enjoying potency. Krishna was unable to enjoy like Radha, so he wanted that, and that is Mahaprabhus lila in a nutshell. It is a metaphor to instruct us that god ultimately enjoys as a Female much more then as a male. So Really Radha is the ultimate manifestation of God's personality. She is the ultimate servant of God because She is the form God takes for the ultimate enjoyment. So she is God and the ultimate servant of God in one.

From Govinda Bhasya

QUOTE
By touching the goddess of fortune, who is actually Himself, the Lord enjoys transcendental bliss. It is like a person gazing at his own handsomness in a mirror

Different from His spiritual potency (para sakti) is the potency of the Lord's form (svarupa-sakti). The Sruti-sästras and other scriptures explain that through the svarüpa-sakti the Supreme Lord manifests as the best of males, and through the parä sakti the Lord manifests His various transcendental qualities.

Manifesting as the Lord's pleasure potency (hladini sakti), the parä Sakti appears as Sri Rädhä, the jewel of teenage girls


QUOTE
Gaudiyas obviously identify Radha as antaranga which by it's very etomological definition is an internally differentiated part not an external separated part like matter or the jivas. It is also not surprising that Gaudiyas take this one step further even ascribing difference between Krsna and Narayana


Gaudiya thought does not make an essential difference between Narayana and Krishna. The only difference is in the amount of power or personal qualities, etc that the lord chooses to reveal in any Visnu tattva persona. Narayana and Krishna are one and the same in Gaudiya thought.

From Govinda Bhasya

QUOTE
The Supreme Lord is identical with each of His forms. They are all Him. That a certain form of the Lord is His original form, or an expansion of that form, or an expansion of the expansion is determined only by how much of His powers the Lord chooses to display when He manifests that form. Only in that way are some forms of the Lord considered higher and others less high. The great devotees of the Lord declare:

The Lord’s forms are considered greater or lesser on the basis of how much of His transcendental power the Lord chooses to manifest when He reveals them.
Jagat - Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:47:14 +0530
Forgive me if I have not been following this thread as closely as I perhaps should. I will definitely try to follow up eventually.

========

First of all, in general, I feel that there are certain limitations in arguing purely from shastra. I don't want to minimize, but I am very wary of the calls to substantiate everything with scriptural references.

There is always the possibility that someone has insight that he cannot substantiate, and there has to be some leeway for this, otherwise we will get caught in a straightjacket where only the person who has the most arcane knowledge wins, rather than the person who has the most meaningful interpretation.

So though it may be reasonable to ask someone to ask for scriptural substantiation, especially if he goes against customarily accepted interpretations, we should allow someone to attempt to build a persuasive argument and examine it on its own merits.

The point I am making here is ultimately complex and arises from a variety of considerations, including our own right to interpret, the validity of other, even traditional interpretations, etc.

When discussing with others, orthodoxy alone cannot be the exclusive arbiter. Each of us has underlying reasons for taking a position, rational and irrational. This applies equally to the orthodox and the heterodox. If we want to engage another person in debate, we must understand where he or she is coming from, in every sense of the word.

====================

I still am not sure that I understand what Shiva is saying, as indeed it pains me to even contemplate the results of all his speculations. Perhaps I misunderstand, I don't know.

I hear Shiva claiming some kind of adherence to Gaudiya Vaishnava principles; he reads the books of the Goswamis, and yet comes to the conclusion that the Goswamis are wrong when they identify service to Radha in the form of a manjari as the highest ideal.

The reason I feel uncomfortable with [what I understand of] Shiva's presentation is what seems to be a misunderstanding about the source of Radha's pleasure. She enjoys more because love and service are greater in her, not because she possesses some kind of greater sensual capacity.

This is why the distinction between ashraya and vishaya is so integral to the Gaudiya conception.

Radha is greater than Krishna because bhakti is greater than God. Gaudiyas choose to serve Radha rather than Krishna in order to participate in her love, not in order to usurp Krishna's role.

Service means serving her in the way she wants to be served, and we understand how to do that by following the acharyas in our line. Service to Radha means participating in her love for Krishna.

Talasiga - Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:03:43 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Jul 26 2004, 11:18 AM)

.......There is danger in giving stress to shakti to a point where it threatens the independence of Ishvara. Vedaanta denounces such shakta-vaada:
..........................

biggrin.gif
You are raising "Vedaanta"
and yet you have difficulty
understanding the vedaanta-ic premise that love is all pervasive ?

Even the Gaudiyas are more vedaanta-ic than this.
dirty hari - Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:48:24 +0530
Jagat, I have tried to make it clear that the things you say about rasa lila are not untrue, just that they are relative to the lila. The descriptions of the rasa between Radha and Krishna, etc., are what appear in the lila. But there is an internal reality that is understood when we can fully understand the big picture.

It's not that the descriptions of the Gaudiya rasa acaryas are not correct, it is that they are describing what takes place in the actual lila. But there is more to it when we understand Radha and Krishna's ontological position. The internal reality is not the same as the external reality. Just like in the lila, the jivas have no awareness of the situation they are in, there is an internal reality that they are unaware of. They don't see Radha and Krishna as we can.

We can understand that Krishna is Bhagavan, we can understand that Goloka is the highest realm in all of reality. There is a difference between what happens in lila and what the factual inner nature of that lila is in truth.
Jagat - Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:58:46 +0530
Talasiga raised questions about apparent contradictions in my attitude toward scripture, as expressed above.

What I was refering to here is a kind of bad faith debating tactic. Everyone's realizations or speculations have some merit, as everyone has some intelligence, a degree of inner guidance from the Supersoul, and valid experiences in the world.

When we engage in dialogue, we have to decide what our goals are: Are we out to simply win or to achieve some kind of mutual benefit? Am I out to convert the other person or to enhance my own understanding and that of my counterpart? If my personal goal is spiritual advancement, then I have to be careful about how I handle these things.

More often than not, we are governed by ego considerations, and our goal is to enhance our own status in some way--either by denigrating our opponent or by showing just how grand we ourselves are. Ideally, when someone else is expressing a thought, we must start by accepting that it has some merit--at least from that person's point of view. What this merit is and why the person thinks it has merit are questions that we should ask ourselves before going on.

In the case of complex philosophies like Vedanta and Shakti-tattva there are a large number of questions. It is not enought to simply toe the party line without understanding exactly what is at issue. What is the point that is being made when we personify shakti, which after all means "power, strength or energy"?

The question "why is it important?" is at the bottom of everything. And the answer cannot be, "Because someone else said so." At least, not if we really want to progress. This is the real difference between "laukiki sraddha" and "sastriya sraddha."

dirty hari - Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:59:47 +0530
As far as the manjari idea as that being the purpose of human life, there is a purpose to that kind of teaching.

First you should understand that very few people ever really follow that path, it is really meant for very few. It's purpose is, as all sadhanas purpose is, to elevate your consciousness. I wouldn't be overly attached to a specific conception of your eternal self if you haven't as of yet dealt directly with Radha Krishna.

Since it is the attitude of devotion, of pleasing the other that is at the heart and soul of the whole thing, we should not become unwilling to change as our understanding of what is desired of us changes.

The fact is that God is with us at all times, if we were perfect in our understanding then there would be no reason for God to not deal with you directly. Until we have direct interaction we should realize that we are not yet perfect in our understanding.
Madhava - Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:13:02 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Jul 27 2004, 04:18 PM)
It's not that the descriptions of the Gaudiya rasa acaryas are not correct, it is that they are describing what takes place in the actual lila. But there is more to it when we understand Radha and Krishna's ontological position. The internal reality is not the same as the external reality. Just like in the lila, the jivas have no awareness of the situation they are in, there is an internal reality that they are unaware of. They don't see Radha and Krishna as we can.

I'd say you have the polarities reversed here. The realm of rasa is the inner realm, since it is the realm and realization that brings about the greatest degree of ananda to both Hari and his pArSadas, and therefore that realm is the highest truth. What you call "inner" is in fact the external, less relishable realm that those who pursue Vraja-rasa voluntarily leave behind in due course as their anurAga grows higher and higher.

The taTastha-position, in which we are able to observe what we consider philosophical truths, is an underdeveloped state, albeit more developed than gross absorption in the mayik world. If we prefer the position of an ontological observer, independent in our dreams alone, we fall short of gaining a position that is truly for us in the grand scheme of creation, a living spark blazing in flames, filled with saMvit and hlAdinI, made of sandhinI, and established in a blissful union with the Lord. Neglecting that, we are truly the Nowhere Man.

It is not that we are ignorant of such philosophical truths. It is that we consider them inferior in the hierarchy of ontological realizations. The principle of rasa is the ultimate defining factor, the last word in reality. The mind of Hari defines reality, on that we all agree. What he enjoys the most is the ultimate reality.
Jagat - Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:18:14 +0530
I agree with you on several points, Shivaji. I am all for understanding the underlying tattva of the lila. And the philosophy of Vedanta is certainly what that is all about.

In fact, I was just listening to a Christian gentleman I respect very much on the radio, Tom Harpur, who quoted that oft-used definition of myth: "Something that never was but is always happening." His comments were based on the failure of the search for the "historical Jesus." Neither a purely literal interpretation of lila, even a historical one, nor a dogmatic understanding of siddhanta are adequate to our spiritual needs.

From this point of view, then, I think that the manjari conception is meant for everyone as an orientation to the world. To me, Radha Krishna's lila is something "that never was, but is always going on." My participation in that lila is as a manjari, as a servant, however imperfect, of the "ever more perfect Union" (to quote Bill Clinton's speech from last night!).

Why not my own union? Because I am an infinitesmal portion of God's infinite potencies, and my perfection does not come as a splintered fragment, but through aligning myself with the central point of all his energies, which like me is conscious and is named Radha. Radha is the central point of loving service to Krishna. We cannot serve Krishna other than through her and her expansions.

Indeed, you are right, when we say Krishna, we often mean Radha. In fact, "Krishna" is usually shorthand for Radha-Krishna. But our identity is inextricably linked to that of Radha.

Trivial pursuits question: What do Tom Harpur and Bill Clinton have in common? Besides that they are both currently in the top ten of the Canadian non-fiction best-seller list.
Kishalaya - Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:37:15 +0530
QUOTE (Talasiga @ Jul 27 2004, 08:03 PM)
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Jul 26 2004, 11:18 AM)

.......There is danger in giving stress to shakti to a point where it threatens the independence of Ishvara. Vedaanta denounces such shakta-vaada:
..........................

biggrin.gif
You are raising "Vedaanta"
and yet you have difficulty
understanding the vedaanta-ic premise that love is all pervasive ?

Even the Gaudiyas are more vedaanta-ic than this.

It is very difficult for me to understand your cryptic messages!
dirty hari - Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:58:09 +0530
QUOTE
I'd say you have the polarities reversed here. The realm of rasa is the inner realm, since it is the realm and realization that brings about the greatest degree of ananda to both Hari and his pArSadas, and therefore that realm is the highest truth. What you call "inner" is in fact the external, less relishable realm that those who pursue Vraja-rasa voluntarily leave behind in due course as their anurAga grows higher and higher.


You misunderstand what I mean by internal and external. You take it to mean emotions etc. I was using the terms to mean the difference between what is perceived as true in the lila itself by the jivas in that lila, and the factual truth that is hidden from the jivas in that lila.



QUOTE
The taTastha-position, in which we are able to observe what we consider philosophical truths, is an underdeveloped state, albeit more developed than gross absorption in the mayik world. If we prefer the position of an ontological observer, independent in our dreams alone, we fall short of gaining a position that is truly for us in the grand scheme of creation, a living spark blazing in flames, filled with saMvit and hlAdinI, made of sandhinI, and established in a blissful union with the Lord. Neglecting that, we are truly the Nowhere Man.


All that I speak comes from experience.
braja - Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:59:01 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Jul 27 2004, 12:48 PM)
Trivial pursuits question: What do Tom Harpur and Bill Clinton have in common? Besides that they are both currently in the top ten of the Canadian non-fiction best-seller list.

Both Rhodes scholars? (Or as I once heard a devotee butcher the term, "a roadside scholar").
Jagat - Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:14:29 +0530
Boy, I didn't think it would be found out that quickly!
braja - Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:25:10 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Jul 27 2004, 01:44 PM)
Boy, I didn't think it would be found out that quickly!

Google is the Everyman's Oxford. wink.gif
Kishalaya - Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:45:33 +0530
QUOTE

More often than not, we are governed by ego considerations


Dear Jagat ji,

Perhaps your reference is to the Madhvas. I would humbly like to present a point of view which in a previous occasion was taken in a very wrong manner, in this very forum.

It takes some detachment to see virtue in an enemy. That's easier said than done. While granted that the general attitude of the Madhvas do not make it easy to deal with them, still there are lot of things one can learn, and one of them is "not to go search for the backdoor when challenged". They even give you choice of weapon. While ego considerations may be there, the "interaction", if accepted, is based on some common ground. The general attitude of their opponents usually is a cop out while continuing to use bad language behind their back. While it is definitely not polite on their part also, to use strong language, in my humble opinion, they seem to have earned it.

I have fought tooth and nail with the Madhvas trying to justify Gaudiya Vaishnavism (or the ISKCON view of Gaudiya vaishnavism) but over the years, I seem to have gained some insight into their modality of thinking, and I can't help but appreciate it. And that requires quite a bit of effort.

This is not to say that I consider their philosophy the final word in the description of reality. Personally, I have beliefs that would neither be accepted by Sri Vaishnavas, nor by the Madhvas, and definitely about which the orthodox Gaudiyas seem very concerned. If I were to try to defend my faith, I would be struck down even before I end my first sentence. And here, I would rather be defeated by honest challengers, irrespective of their considerations (such as ego) than by those who on one hand cannot muster enough strength to stand up to an honest challenge but who nevertheless cannot stop from damaging criticism of those who do not necessarily adhere to their belief system. In any case all this does not stop me from seeing the good in any sampradaya, gaudiya vaishnavism included.

QUOTE

From this point of view, then, I think that the manjari conception is meant for everyone as an orientation to the world.


I can agree till:

QUOTE

To me, Radha Krishna's lila is something "that never was, but is always going on."


but not any further, at least, not as a general guidance to *all* of humanity, because:

QUOTE

Everyone's realizations or speculations have some merit, as everyone has some intelligence, a degree of inner guidance from the Supersoul, and valid experiences in the world.


QUOTE

There is always the possibility that someone has insight that he cannot substantiate


I am not quoting all this just for fun, but because I have faced very difficult situations when I was not able to explain my thought patterns to the Gaudiya vaishnavas who would not accept anything other than their own philosophy as *the* philosophy of life!

Of course, I realized soon that it is too presumptuous to think that one can bind the infinite to a particular philosophy.

With regards,
Kishalaya
Jagat - Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:00:27 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Jul 27 2004, 02:15 PM)
Perhaps your reference is to the Madhvas.

No, myself mainly.

Well, this is why there are sampradayas in the first place. And that is a bit of a concern for a sectarian website like this one.

Anybody can come here and say anything they like, just to stir things up. How are we to deal with that kind of thing? If one possessed the ideal siddha personality, he could immediately sense the motivation behind the tormented soul who simply finds pleasure in tormenting others, and cure his disease with the gift of insight... Ah well, maybe tomorrow.

So we are attached to our sectarian viewpoint, I'll admit it.

When I say that manjari bhava is applicable universally, I mean that it is not something that needs to be kept secret until one has chanted 64 rounds a day for 27 years, six months and three days. Manjari bhava can be an orienting principle for someone who has never touched a mala.

Manjari bhava is about serving the fountainhead of Bhakti, and recognizing that we don't really need God, what we need is bhakti. Radha is Krishna's mercy. Manjari bhava means that we surrender to the one who already has Krishna under her control, and not that we try to find ways to subjugate him ourselves.

Actually, it cannot be done by anyone but Radha, but as a friend of mine nicely put it, "She needs all the help she can get, so she's constantly out there enlisting recruits." Out of her lila, she needs us to fetch the tambul or bring scented water. This is achintya. We are simultaneously necessary and completely insignificant--all depending on whether Radha makes use of us or not.

We only talk about Krishna so that we can understand Radha. But we cannot understand Krishna without Radha.

But there are two things involved: there is vichar and there is ruchi. You cannot expect to change a person's ruchi through vichar, though the contrary may happen. If you have no fixed ruchi, then you should keep on looking. If you have found a ruchi, get yourself initiated. Ruchi is first, vichar follows.

And once you have a certain samskara, it is incorrect to try to change your ruchi; you should then direct your vichar towards understanding your ruchi. In other words, if you have a fixed ruchi for your ishta-devata--Krishna, Narayan, Radha-Krishna, Shiva, Nrisingha, whoever--then you should attempt to follow the vichar of your sampradaya.

Finally, others should respect a bhakta's ruchi, like Mahaprabhu respected the ruchi of Murari Gupta, or Rupa and Sanatan respected that of Anupam. No one should try to impose a ruchi through quoting shastric injunctions. Ruchi is the same as sva-dharma.

Kishalaya - Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:12:50 +0530
QUOTE

No, myself mainly.

smile.gif

You don't really expect everybody to be so naive!

QUOTE

Anybody can come here and say anything they like, just to stir things up.


The only mention was that there is a group who see your deity (or rather one of your deities) in a different manner. It was struck down by saying that it was against the wishes of the deity by referring to orthodox Gaudiya cannons. Of course, flames flew both ways, so I am also to blame somewhat!

As for the rest of your post, I can't make you understand, you are committed to your vichaara *some* of which I don't agree with, and I have no desire to convert anybody. Just to give you a glimpse, if Radha is Krishna's mercy then perhaps Krishna is Radha's gift. In any case, this statement itself may send shivers down your spine, so no need to continue!

However I do agree with:

QUOTE

others should respect a bhakta's ruchi
Kishalaya - Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:35:26 +0530
Jagat ji,

Yet another attempt to "get your goat"! biggrin.gif (I did not read this part previously)

QUOTE

If you have no fixed ruchi, then you should keep on looking. If you have found a ruchi, get yourself initiated.


QUOTE

In other words, if you have a fixed ruchi for your ishta-devata--Krishna, Narayan, Radha-Krishna, Shiva, Nrisingha, whoever--then you should attempt to follow the vichar of your sampradaya.


Perhaps this is a comment on what I have in my profile. However, whatever I mention there is my "fixed ruchi". Multiplicity of ishta devas (and devis). Some call it anarchy, I call it paradigm shift. I have read here in another thread that a babaji was told squarely by Raadhaa to join Satyabhaamaa's retinue because of his vacillating faith. These kinds of strictures, I am not able to empathize with. For me, both Raadhaa and Satyabhaamaa are dear to Lord Hari, and thus, both are worshipable. I wouldn't like to choose between either of my eyes. I want both! That such a thing is "a-priori" impossible is not substantiated anywhere, and even if it is, I would prefer to stick to my idiosyncrasy because it makes a lot of sense, both to my head and to my heart. I prefer to steer clear of "vichaar" (sampradayas) which requires such exclusivity. On the other hand, however, I do not share the disdain that some may have for making one particular manifestation, philosophically and theologically, superior to others. Such exclusive devotion, I understand, is needed to realize the prayojan of the tradition.

Some have commented that this is "vaidhi" bhakti. However, for the individual, this is mere terminology, just a word. It does not change the reality of his universe. For me, and others like me, our ruchi is filled with more raaga than can be found anywhere else. One devotee (initiated in ISKCON, orthodox Gaudiya vaishnavism, heterodox Caitanya lineage and practicing for the past twenty five years) told me that in his realization there are several Golokas and the jiva will go where she fits. I find this very reassuring.

With regards,
Kishalaya