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

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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?

Very well put.

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.

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!

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)

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

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?

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

Please give a sastic quote to substantiate this.

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

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.

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:

again then why say:

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

What does this mean and what is this based on?

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.

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.

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

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

(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)

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...

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.

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

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

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.

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.

It is very difficult for me to understand your cryptic messages!

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.

All that I speak comes from experience.

Both Rhodes scholars? (Or as I once heard a devotee butcher the term, "a roadside scholar").

Google is the Everyman's Oxford.

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.

I can agree till:

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

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

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.

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

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:

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