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.

How is the Acintya of Acintya-bheda-abheda defined? - Looking at original sources



Keshava - Thu, 12 Aug 2004 10:05:51 +0530
I have split these posts into a separate topic to help us study further the origin of the concept of acintya-bhedAbheda and the meaning of acintya therein. I would be welcome if someone would cite original Gaudiya sources, such as Sri Jiva's Sandarbhas, to this end. - Madhava

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

QUOTE
The concept of the "inconceivable" is always present in all the schools.


Yes, perhaps with the exception of Dvaita.

QUOTE
The very definition of God includes the word "inconceivable" (otherwise how is He God?). However, the applicability of the concept seems to be quite well defined.


Naturally, but this is NOT how the word is normally used by Gaudiyas. The word "acintya/inconceivable" used in acintyabhedabedha is what I am talking about. The different philosophical schools labeled Dvaita, Bheda, Abheda, Bhedabheda, Visistadvaita, etc. all speak about about their conceptions of the difference and sameness between Isvara, Jagat and Jiva, the three Vedantic tattvas. For example Ramanuja does NOT say that the realionship between the Jiva and Isvara is inconceivable. In fact he conceives of it like the relationship between the body and soul ie sarrira-sarriri bhava. One may say that this is NOT FULLY conceivable because the full nature of Brahman is inconceivable. However that is besides the point. It is a understandable conception. It is not a cop out. To simply label something as inconceivable is of course in itself a definition or conception. Nothing is gained by the word just as nothing is gained by the Advaitins with their anirvacaniya (cannot be described by words). It something truely cannot be described by words then even that description is incorrect. Just like the other Advaita fantasy that there can be something which is neither real nor unreal. Ludicrous. Similarly we gain nothing from defining the relationship between the three tattvas as acintya or inconceivable.

Even more than this the thing that irks me the most is that I have heard many Gaudiyas use this word "acintya-bhedabheda/inconceivably one and different whenever they feel the need. When any old problem presents two solutions a devotee is likely to just shrug and say "Well, I guess it's acintyabhadabheda!." This catch phrase even if it can be accepted as a Vedantic philosophy cannot and should not be used to answer all and sundry philosophical discussions.
dirty hari - Thu, 12 Aug 2004 10:32:24 +0530
Keshava-I believe the reason acintya bhedabheda is used by Gaudiyas has to do with giving the school it's own unique name. Bhedabheda, Dvaitadvaita, and Visisthadvaita and then Acintya Bhedabheda. The inconceivable aspect of course is there in all of Vedanta, I don't think the adding of acintya was meant to create an "out" for a lack of philosophical understanding by those who may use it that way. Just like you mention the body and soul concept, the gaudiya concept has always been like sparks and a fire, or sun and the shine for jiva/Isvara, and fire and heat for Isvara/sakti.
Kishalaya - Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:56:47 +0530
QUOTE

Yes, perhaps with the exception of Dvaita.


Dvaita has never claimed that Brahman can be completely grasped by the intellect. However I suppose you were not talking about that.

Although the manner in which I usually write may make people think otherwise, my approach to an analysis, is to put myself in the position of the propounders and try to figure out what they were thinking and why, rather than try to force the conceptions that I am comfortable with, right from the beginning. (DH, kindly spare me your reply)

QUOTE

One may say that this is NOT FULLY conceivable because the full nature of Brahman is inconceivable.


A-B-A has just put one more subject matter under the heading of the "inconceivable". Not without reason - "shrutes tu shabda muulatvaat". Baadaraayana himself has not failed to take exclusive recourse to scriptures when the philosophy seemed to give under the weight of his own line of reasoning.

Frankly, I doubt that the casual approach to the word "achintya" that is so very prevalent, usually in ISKCON circles, would make Jiiva Gosvaami happy.

QUOTE

However that is besides the point. It is a understandable conception.


According to Dvaita, this is just a rephrasing of their philosophy (minor points here and there debatable)

QUOTE

It is not a cop out. To simply label something as inconceivable is of course in itself a definition or conception. Nothing is gained by the word


But what can be done if the matter is really like that. Afterall, it cannot be expected that reality present itself in a manner which makes our intellectual faculty comfortable. Attempts can be made, and a lot of them have been made. What Jiiva Gosvaami is trying to point out is that the total understanding of such a relationship is impossible. Philosophies can be built around analogies which are, more or less, close and perhaps has more to do with the comfort level of the faithful concerned. I would say, his concept of shakti and shaktimaan, for him, is also an analogy which he would not like to print on a T-shirt as "the equation of reality".

QUOTE

just as nothing is gained by the Advaitins with their anirvacaniya (cannot be described by words). It something truely cannot be described by words then even that description is incorrect. Just like the other


In fact it is the very nature of sad asad vilakshana tattva that is anirvacaniiya. There is no need to find tight logical fallacies where the speaker did not intend such a thing. May be, by the word "anirvacaniiya", some idea is being conveyed, not a challenge to prove it false there and then. While taking such a literalistic approach, one may misunderstand the underlying intent and shoot off in a tangent. Had it been so simple to throw away, we wouldn't have tons of philosophical literature being thrown between schools in each successive generation.

QUOTE

Advaita fantasy that there can be something which is neither real nor unreal. Ludicrous.


It attracts doubt because, in addition to its being somewhat absurd, there seems to be no mention of this peculiar category in the scriptures. In any case, categories like these find mention in naastika schools like Jainism.

QUOTE

Similarly we gain nothing from defining the relationship between the three tattvas as acintya or inconceivable.


The Gaudiyas, however, can just point to the entirety of the Shrutis in its direct simple interpretation to nail their point. Of course, this does get them into trouble, sometimes, when philosophers like DH pop up. Economy of words, it seems, is a luxury that philosophers can never really afford.
Madhava - Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:28:20 +0530
I've split this into a separate topic to explore the issue further.

I believe Sri Jiva is given credit for the term. Surprisingly, I did a quick search for "acintya-bhedAbheda" with a couple of variants, and it failed to show up in the Sandarbhas. Where was it first used?
Madhava - Fri, 13 Aug 2004 02:57:24 +0530
Can anyone point me to a place where acintya-bhedAbheda was first discussed using that term?
Madhava - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 00:29:50 +0530
You can find the discussions on Elkman's ideas and otherwise on Caitanya, Sridhar Svami and Shankara in this thread.
Madhava - Thu, 02 Sep 2004 18:37:27 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Aug 12 2004, 11:27 PM)
Can anyone point me to a place where acintya-bhedAbheda was first discussed using that term?

Seriously, can no-one point me to an early source in which this term was used? How recently was it coined? I recall hearing Jiva would have been the first to use it.
Bhakta David - Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:17:31 +0530
Haribol Prabhus

Here is the link with a few citations.

http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/bmgs/caitanya/tattva.htm

Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu accepted the doctrine of Sri Madhvacarya, while at the same time recognizing certain important aspects contained in the tattva of the other three Vaisnava sampradayas. Lord Caitanya brought these teachings together in the perfection of prema dharma.

Lord Caitanya's own words, as quoted by Sri Jiva Goswami:

"From Madhva I will take two essential teachings: his complete rejection and defeat of the Mayavadi philosophy and his service to the deity of Krishna, accepting Him as an eternal spiritual personality.

From Ramanuja, I will accept two teachings: the concept of devotional service, unpolluted by karma and jnana, and service to the devotees.

From Vishnuswami's teachings I will accept two elements: the sentiment of exclusive dependence on Krishna and the path of raga-marga, or spontaneous devotion.

From Nimbarka, I will take two very important principles: the necessity of taking shelter of Srimati Radharani and the high esteem of the gopi's love for Krishna."


Your Servant

Bhakta David
Madhava - Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:45:38 +0530
QUOTE (Bhakta David @ Sep 12 2004, 10:47 PM)
Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu accepted the doctrine of Sri Madhvacarya, while at the same time recognizing certain important aspects contained in the tattva of the other three Vaisnava sampradayas. Lord Caitanya brought these teachings together in the perfection of prema dharma.

Lord Caitanya's own words, as quoted by Sri Jiva Goswami:

Unfortunately, this is not a direct reference to Jiva's writings. This is quoted from the 16th chapter of the parikrama-khaNDa of Bhaktivinoda's Navadvipa-dhama-mahatmya.

Now that you cited it, the idea of two principles from each sampradAya is rather peculiar, as we examine that in the light of the idea of our belonging to the Madhva-tradition. If I had to place those eight elements into a successive order of forming a unique characteristic in our tradition, in contrast to that which is rather general among all Vaishnavas, I would list them as follows:

1. The necessity of taking shelter of Radha. (Nimbarka)
2. The high esteem of the gopIs' love for Krishna. (Nimbarka)
3. The path of rAga-bhakti. (Vishnusvami)
4. Service to the devotees. (Ramanuja)
5. The concept of pure, unadulterated bhakti. (Ramanuja)
6. Exclusive dependence on Krishna. (Vishnusvami)
7. Service to the deity of Krishna. (Madhva)
8. Total rejection of mAyAvAda. (Madhva)

The sequence of the last five may vary, but I believe that comes close to how much each of the themes is featured in the writings of our tradition. The first three are certainly by far the most specific in terms of what defines us as Gaudiyas.

Interestingly, as we have observed before, we seem to have much more common with the Nimbarkis and the Vallabhis (the tradition of Vishnusvami) than we do with the Madhva-tradition.
-ek - Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:32:43 +0530
QUOTE
Can anyone point me to a place where acintya-bhedAbheda was first discussed using that term?


Have you seen the mega entry in GVA? There is a lot of stuff about it. The term is acintya-bhedAbhedavAda. Jiva probably never used this expression. He refers to acintyatva in bhagavat-sandarbha 15 (Puridas edition). He refers to BhP 3.33.3.

Baladeva got more into it, but even he does not seem to have used the term. If you want to know who was the first to use the exact expression, it's probably going to be found in some writing after Baladeva. Are you still interested? I could do some more research.

-ek
Madhava - Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:26:10 +0530
No, as a matter of fact I haven't. I'll have to look this up tonight.

Yes, I would indeed be interested in knowing the factual source. This is again one of these amazing things, ideas you take for granted turn out to be very recent. We should collect all these together.

Is there an earlier term for the conception?
nitai - Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:31:56 +0530
The classic source for the idea of acintya-bhedAbheda is found in Sri Jiva's Sarva-samvadini on the Bhagavat-sandarbha. Here is what he says:

tasmAt svarUpAdabhinnatvena cintayitumazakyatvAdbhedaH, bhinnatvena cintayitumazakyatvAdabhedazca pratIyate iti zaktizaktimatorbhedAbhedAvevAGgIkRtau, tau cAcintyAviti

Baladeva does not accept this idea. I don't think he liked it much. Instead he appealed to the MAdva idea of vizeSa as bheda-pratinidhi, that is not real bheda but a subsitute for bheda.

I discussed these ideas to some degree in the introduction to my translations of the Vedanta-sara and the Prameya-ratnavali (First Steps in Vedanta) if anyone is interested.
JD33 - Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:08:57 +0530
Nitai dasji - Can you kindly explain more fully what you have written above....Please! biggrin.gif
nitai - Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:47:09 +0530
Alright, JD33, just for you.

The following passage is very simple Sanskrit, almost uncharacteristically simple for Sri Jiva, but it contains in a nutshell his reflection on the nature of reality and his critique the previous partial views of Sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva. My sense is that he basically accepts them all, but finds them incomplete.

tasmAt svarUpAdabhinnatvena cintayitumazakyatvAdbhedaH, bhinnatvena cintayitumazakyatvAdabhedazca pratIyate iti zaktizaktimatorbhedAbhedAvevAGgIkRtau, tau cAcintyAviti

"Therefore, because of being unable to think of it (sakti) as non-different from the true essence (ie saktimat) difference is perceived and because of being unable to think of it as different non-difference is perceived. Thus, the difference and non-difference of sakti and saktimat are accepted and they are both unthinkable. "

As I mentioned before, Baladeva must have certainly been aware of this teaching, but he apparently preferred the idea of vizeSa, borrowed from Madhva. Perhaps he felt uneasy with the unthinkable part of the equation. Vedantic discussion is, after all, a form of manana or thinking.
JD33 - Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:44:24 +0530
ok - good - thank you

Anything else you can explain and elaborate on................?
nitai - Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:37:18 +0530
Another Acintya-bhedabheda sighting from the Sarva-samvadini, this time on the Paramatma-sandarbha:

Jiva says:

svamate tvacintyabhedAbhedAvevAcintyazaktitvAt

"in my own opinion there are unthinkable difference and non-difference, because there is unthinkable power"

JD33 - Sun, 21 Nov 2004 01:58:58 +0530
Thank you - thats all I really need to know.
Madanmohan das - Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:00:52 +0530
Interesting, but how did it become the name of the doctrine? On reflection one might have expected our doctrine to be called Parinamvad or Sakti-parinam vad?
I was going through what I thought to be relevent portions of CC, but could not find any referance. Only about acintya sakti to the sannyasis at Kasi and the bhedAbheda in referance to the jiva in Sanatana siksa, but not both terms together.
nitai - Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:34:52 +0530
I am not sure when Acintya-bhedAbheda-tattva or vAda became the identification for the Caitanya tradition of theology. I think that it must have occurred in the 19th century when British Orientalists were trying to make sense of all of the diverse views they encountered in India. One of them must have interviewed a learned Vaisnava who was familiar with Sri Jiva's work. The label stuck. It would be interesting to find the first reference to it as the name of a school of Vedanta. It seems clear that even in the time of Baladeva (18th century) Acintya-bhedAbheda-vAda was not the standard or universal way of identifying the tradition. As far as I know Baladeva never mentions it. Even Sri Jiva in the last passage I quoted simply calls it his own opinion (svamate). It is as far as I know an new view point. It seems to be the result of Jiva's learned and thoughtful reflection on nearly the whole of the Sanskritic tradition of learning that he received.

The problem with such names as Parinama-vada or Sakti-parinamavada is that they do not distinguish the Caitanya tradition from other traditions that can also be called Pv or Spv. Many of the tantric and Saivite traditions fall into those categories as well. It is the same problem that arises when one puts forward the claim that the commentary on the Brahma-sutras that we accept is the Bhagavata Purana. So many traditions accept the Bhagavata as authoritative that it hardly serves to distinguish the Caitanya tradition at all.

There is much more to be said about Jiva's brilliant idea and his relationship to the traditions before him, but that can be left for another time.

JD33, certainly you need to know more, much, much more. Keep on reading.