Academic views, controversies, liberal views, eclectic discussions and so forth. Also, extended debates may be moved here. May contain discussion on views that a devotee may find objectionable.
Laksmi = Visnu tattva? - A few quotes and a debate
dirty hari - Mon, 23 Aug 2004 07:47:44 +0530
From a question by Jagat
QUOTE |
I'd like to see where the words "Vishnu-tattva" are used by anyone in the Rupanuga camp to describe any one of Vishnu's shaktis. Not any of these "Shaktis and Vishnu are one" quotes, but those actual words: "Shakti is Vishnu-tattva." |
Visnu tattva is cognate with Svamsa as well isn't it ? Visnu tattva means identical to Visnu, all pervading etc.
In Krsna Sandarbha Jiva Goswami says there are two types of expansions of Visnu.
"This is confirmed in the Varaha Purana:
The two kinds of expansions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead are : 1. svamsa (personal expansions) and 2. vibhinnamsa (separate persons). The svamsa expansions are unlimitedly powerful. Their form and personality are the same as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself.
There is not the slightest difference between the svamsa expansions and the Original Personality of Godhead. The vibhinnamsa expansions are very weak in comparison to Them."
svamsa-vibhinnamsa-rupe haina vistara
ananta vaikuntha-brahmande karena vihara
svamsa-vistara - caturvyuha, avataragana
vibhinnamsa jiva - ta-ra saktite ganana
Krsna expands Himself in many forms. Some of them are personal expansions, and some are separate expansions. Thus he performs pastimes in both the spiritual and material worlds. The spiritual worlds are the Vaikuntha planets, and the material universes are brahmandas, gigantic globes governed by Lord Brahma. Expansions of His personal self - like the quadruple manifestations of Sankarsana, Pradyumna, Aniruddha and Vasudeva - descend as incarnations from Vaikuntha to this material world. The separated expansions (vibhinnams) are living entities. Although they are expansions of Krsna they are counted among His different potencies. (Caitanya-Caritamrta Madhya 22.8-9)
sei vibbhinamsa jiva - dui ta' prakara
eka - "nitya-mukta," eka - "nityasamsara"
"nityamukta,sri - nitya krsna-carane unmukha
"krsna-parisada" - nama, bhu-je sevasukha
"nitya-baddha" - krsna-haite nitya-bahirmukha
nitya-samsara bhu-je, narakaki-dumkha
sei dose maya-pisaci danda kare tare
adhyatmikadi tapatraya tare jari' mare
The living entities (jivas) are divided into two categories. Some are eternally liberated, and others are eternally conditioned. Those who are eternally liberated are always awake to Krsna consciousness, and they render transcendental loving service at the feet of Sri Krsna. They are to be considered eternal associates of Krsna, and they are eternally enjoying the transcendental bliss of serving Krsna. Apart from the ever-liberated devotees, there are the conditioned souls who always turn away from the service of the Lord. They are perpetually conditioned in this material world and are subjected to the material tribulations brought about by different bodily forms in hellish conditions. Due to his being opposed to Krsna consciousness, the conditioned soul is punished by the witch of the external energy, maya. He is thus ready to suffer the threefold miseries - miseries brought about by the body and mind, the inimical behavior of other living entities, and natural disturbances brought about by the demigods.
(Caitanya-Caritamrta Madhya 22.10-13)
You can look in Prema Ratnavali and Govinda bhasya, although they say the same thing more or less.
Also in Bhaktivedanta's translation of the Kanti Mala commentary on Prema Ratnavali he uses the term Visnu tattva, also there are many other places where cognate terms are used.
Here is Bhaktivedanta Swami's translation from The Bhagavatam
nanu kvacit nitya-mukta jivatvam laksmyah svikrtam, tatraha--praheti. nityaiveti padye sarva-vyapti-kathanena kalakasthety adi-padya-dvaye, suddho 'pity ukta ca mahaprabhuna svasisyan prati laksmya bhagavad-advaitam upadistam. kvacid yat tasyas tu dvaitam uktam, tat tu tad-avista-nitya-mukta jivam adaya sangatamas tu.
Although some authoritative Vaisnava disciplic successions count the goddess of fortune among the ever-liberated living entities (jivas) in Vaikuntha, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in accordance with the statement in the Visnu Purana, has described Laksmi as being identical with the visnu-tattva. The correct conclusion is that the descriptions of Laksmi as being different from Visnu are stated when an eternally liberated living entity is imbued with the quality of Laksmi; they do not pertain to mother Laksmi, the eternal consort of Lord Visnu.
From Govinda Bhasya ( don't ask where, when I copied these verses I forgot to copy the sutra number down, and I don't know who translated it either)
Because she is not different from the Supreme Lord, Goddess Laksmi is also all pervading. In the Smriti-sastra it is said:
Goddess Laksmi is the mother of the worlds. She is the constant companion of Lord Visnu. As Lord Visnu is all pervading, so is she.
To think that Goddess Laksmi is different from Lord Visnu, but still all-pervading, is a false, a heretical idea...
From Prema Ratnavali ( this translation is Bhaktivedanta Swami's from the Bhagavatam)
nityaiva sa jagan-mata
visnoh srir anapayini
yatha sarva-gato visnus
tathaiveyam dvijottama
visnoh syuh saktayas tisras
tasu ya kirtita para
saiva sris tad-abhinneti
praha sisyan prabhur mahan
O best of the brahmanas, Laksmiji is the constant companion of Lord Visnu, and therefore she is called anapayini. She is the mother of all creation. As Lord Visnu is all-pervading, His spiritual potency, mother Laksmi, is also all-pervading.
Lord Visnu has three principal potencies--internal, external and marginal. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has accepted para-sakti, the spiritual energy of the Lord, as being identical with the Lord. Thus she is also included in the independent visnu-tattva.
Narayana Maharaja also uses the term.
"Even while you are in this world, try to learn how to serve Radha-Krsna Conjugal. They are the extreme limit of visnu-tattva. To serve Radha-Krsna Conjugal and to realize something about them, even in the stage of sadhana, is called mukti. Giving up both material bodies (gross and subtle), situating ourselves in our constitutional form, and serving Radha-Krsna is actual mukti."
From Visnu Purana (translation unknown)
tvam mata sarva bhutanam
deva devo harih pita
tvayaitad visnuma cadya
jagad vyaptam caracaram
You are the mother of all creatures, as that God of gods, Hari, is their father. And this universe, consisting of moving and non moving entities, is presently permeated by you, as well as Visnu.
This is from another translation of Prema Ratnavali (translated by Neal Delmonico)
Now, that he is always connected with Laksmi in the Visnu Purana (1.8.15):
11b. She is indeed eternal, the mother of the world, that inseparable Sri (goddess of wealth) of Visnu. Just as Visnu is all-pervading, so indeed is she, O best of the twice born.
12. Visnu has three energies. The one among them who is praised as the highest is that Sri, who is not different from him. So said the master (Mahaprabhu) to his great disciples.
In this, Visnu's three energies, as in the Svetasvatara Upanisad (6.8)
12a. "The higher innate energy of this one is heard of as manifold: knowledge, strength, and activity."
12b. "The master of the primordial matter (energy) and of the knower of the field (the living being), the lord of the guna." (6.16)
And in the Visnu Purana (6.3.610):
12c. "Visnu's energy is accepted as the higher as well as the not higher, called the 'knower of the field', [and] another, a third energy, called ignorance and karma."
That the "higher" is the Sri who is non-different from Visnu is stated there as well (1.9.44-45):
12d. "May that Hari be pleased with us, the pure one whose energy does not fall within the power of time which is made up of kala, kastha, nimesa, and so forth. (6) He, though pure, is said metaphorically to be the lord of Sri (parama) (7); may that Visnu be pleased with us, who is the self of all embodied beings."
That this "higher" is threefold is also stated there as well (1.12.69):
12e. "The maker of joy, the maker of being, the maker of awareness are one in you, the refuge of all. The mixed one which causes pleasure and pain is not in you who are free of the guna."
13. Though Visnu is one and Laksmi, inseparable from him, is also one, they are said to be many through their many self-accomplished garbs. (8)
On Visnu's being many while being only one, as in the Gopala-tapani Upaniad (1.20):
13a. The one, the controller, the all-pervading is Krsna, the worshipable, who though one appears as many. Those steadfast ones who worship him on the altar have enduring happiness, not the others.
Then that of Laksmi, for instance:
13b. "The higher innate energy of this one is heard of as manifold." (See 12c)
14. Although the fullness is the same in all [the divine forms], still there can be a hierarchy created by the manifestation or non-manifestation of his energy. (9)
Thus the fullness of Visnu in all [forms], as in the Vajasaneyaka (Brhad Aranyaka., 5.1.1):
14a. "That is full; this is full. From the full the full arises. Taking away the full of the full, the full alone remains."
And in the Varaha Purana:
14b. "All the bodies of that supreme self are eternal and everlasting, free of loss or gain, never born of nature, full of the highest joy, and always fully aware. All are full of all qualities and free of all flaws."
Now that of Sri, as in the Visnu Purana:
14c. "Thus as the Master of the Universe, the god of gods, Janardana, makes descents, so does his companion Sri. And again, when Hari became the son of Aditi, she was born from the lotus. (10) And when Rama, the descendent of Bhrgu, was born this one became the earth. (11) When he was Rama, she became Sita; in Krsna's birth she was Rukmini. And in the other descents of Visnu, she was his companion. When he is a god she has a goddess' body and when he is a man, she is woman. She fashions her own body according to the body of Visnu."
15. The opinion of the learned is that because of the oneness here (i.e. among all of these descents) there should be innate fullness (in them).
dirty hari - Mon, 23 Aug 2004 07:56:52 +0530
I added a verse from Cc about vibbhinamsa at the beginning.
Jagat - Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:22:43 +0530
Thanks for this, Shiva. I have decided to give this matter some attention finally. I will look into all your quotes. Since you are dependent on translations, I will try to verify whether these translations are valid or not, as well as looking into them contextually, etc.
Since I asked for Vishnu-tattva, I won't accept svAMza as cognate, at least not for the time being. I want to see if those exact words are used anywhere in the original, not in translation.
QUOTE |
You can look in Prema Ratnavali and Govinda bhasya, although they say the same thing more or less.
Also in Bhaktivedanta's translation of the Kanti Mala commentary on Prema Ratnavali he uses the term Visnu tattva, also there are many other places where cognate terms are used. |
I believe you mean Prameya-ratnavali. Bhaktivedanta Swami did a translation of Prameya Ratnavali? I never heard of this. Could you please give more information on this work?
O.K. I found the reference in the Folio. It's in the commentary to Bhag. 6.19.13. I checked the Sanskrit verses and the commentary, and none of them use the term Vishnu-tattva, although admittedly Prabhupada has done so.
I will check the Bengali text he translated, i.e. the Tathya by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. Madhvacharya has quoted two verses from the Brahma-tarka which appear to have cause Saraswati Thakur some thought.
But I admit to being unfamiliar with this chapter of the Bhagavatam, so I'll have to go over it more closely tomorrow and see whether there is any justification to Bhaktivedanta's translation, though a first look says no. (ie., Saraswati Thakur does not seem to use the expression, either.)
But right away it must be said that Madhva is not necessarily going to be considered authoritative in this matter for Gaudiyas. Madhva can say anything he likes, a Gaudiya will not accept it if it does not fit Sri Jiva's siddhanta.
Jagat - Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:59:14 +0530
A quick word on Kantimala. Krishnadeva Sarvabhauma appears to have been a contemporary of Baladeva and his companion when he went to the famous conference in Galta, Jaipur.
Other than Narayan Maharaj's use of the term, I did not see anything like what I asked for. And even there, Narayan Maharaj uses it as Krishna WITH Radha, just like Jiva Goswami does at the end of Krishna Sandarbha. Krishna WITH Radha is the highest manifestation of Vishnu-tattva.
Jagat - Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:26:16 +0530
Once again, I looked over that passage in Baladeva and I still don't see anything that says that Lakshmi IS Vishnu-tattva. We will NOT accept the constant repetition of the idea of oneness to mean that she or Radha IS Vishnu or Krishna. It seems fairly clear that in many of these quotes, the principal goal has been to refute that she is a jiva.
Even the verses from Madhva in his Tatparya to Bhagavatam 6.19.13 draw a distinction between Lakshmi and Vishnu, which is why Saraswati Thakur quotes the Prameya Ratnavali and Kantimala, in order to impede the misconception that Lakshmi is a jiva.
Nevertheless, this is one of your strongest pramans. Saraswati Thakur uses the translation "viSNu-koTitva", which though not "viSNu-tattva" is pretty close. The Sanskrit simply says the familiar, "non-different" (advaita).
By the way, Madhva does not seem to be saying that Lakshmi is a jiva. It would seem rather that by saying, "Lakshmi is the antaryami of the sacrificial act and offering. But Vishnu is the antaryami of even Lakshmi, whereas no one is his antaryami," he gives her a distinct status.
As for Narayan Maharaj, since he is still living, perhaps we can ask him directly what he thinks.
By the way, I don't know what possessed me to commit to this debate last night. I really have too many things to do before the end of the month to commit to leisure activities like this. Forgive me for my haste.
Jagat - Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:26:49 +0530
At the risk of repeating something that might have showed up already in one of the threads discussing this matter, here is a list of references from the (old) Vedabase where ACBSP names three tattvas, namely isvara or visnu, shakti and jiva. In several of these, he identifies jiva and shakti tattvas as belonging to the same category.
E.g. Bhag 1.5.37, 4.15.6, 8.3.17, 10.2.9.
CC. Adi 7.10, 7.15; Madhya 20.173.
KB 52.
Lectures: 690619SB.NV, 721002SB.LA, 730714BG.LON, 731106SB.DEL, 750405CC.MAY, 750910SB.VRN.
Please excuse me for only giving the references. They are for my own benefit and future consultation of the original sources.
Keshava - Tue, 24 Aug 2004 06:13:23 +0530
QUOTE |
ACBSP names three tattvas, namely isvara or visnu, shakti and jiva. In several of these, he identifies jiva and shakti tattvas as belonging to the same category.
|
So, Jagatji, would it be so bad if Laksmi/Radha was a jiva? What I mean is for raganuga bhaktas does this really matter? If she was the greatest jiva or if she was something (shakti tattva) beyond that, how does that actually change anything?
Jagat - Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:47:29 +0530
Actually, for us Gaudiyas, I think it is quite significant. As individual jivas our capacity is very small. Bhakti can control Krishna, but Bhakti is not something that we ourselves control. Bhakti is Radharani. She is more than the best of us, she is an entire tattva in herself.
She is of necessity separate from Krishna, though she is equal and coterminus with him. Wherever he is, she is, because he cannot exist without her.
You see, in the Achintya-bhedabheda viewpoint, we start from the point of view that "Everything is God." Bhagavan is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead." But he is not the entire Godhead.
God is Bhagavan plus his shaktis, from which he is never separated. The jivas are one category of these shaktis. So in this sense we are indeed part of shakti tattva, but in a separate branch, so to speak, from Radha.
The jiva is minute, whereas Radha is vibhu. The jiva is the corresponding aspect of Krishna as infinite chit, in other words finite chit, or infinitesmal chit.
Radha is the corresponding aspect of Krishna as the Supreme Male, God who is sexually differentiated as the purushottama. This is his form of Ananda, and she corresponds to him as the Hladini Shakti, the Supreme Female. She is as different from him as the jiva is, but in a different way, because the Hladini Shakti incorporates Sat and Chit, because each of these -- sat, chit and ananda -- need the previous. You can't have chit without sat, you can't have ananda without sat (existence) and chit (consciousness).
The aNu-cit, the jiva, stands between sat -- mere existence -- and Ananda. That is why he is taTastha zakti. He chooses between the world and Radha. In the world he relates like a miniature Isvara, lording it over. In Radha, he partakes of the bhakti energy to participate fully in the Divine Couple's existence as an ocean of bliss.
Joy is devotion. Radha is the embodiment of devotion. She is a separate tattva. She is not Vishnu. She is not a jiva.
Jagat - Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:24:35 +0530
Hegel speaks of God "realizing himself." This is very appropriate language. God is engaged in an eternal dialectic of self-realization and fulfilment. This is going on on three levels--sat, chit and ananda--just as it does for us. In other words, it goes on through his interaction with his shaktis. Just as for Hegel, it went on between God and His creation. Call it creation (separate from Him) or call it energies (because there is nothing outside of Him), the dynamic of God's ever increasing perfection comes from this interaction. God is not stationary. His self-satisfaction, his completeness, his transcendence are aspects of his sat nature, but when it comes to Ananda, he becomes needy. This is why it is said "saMsAra-vAsanA-baddha-zRGkhalA." Radha is his "ball and chain." He needs her.
This is why I speak of the "needy God." And I see this as extending further, into this world. Prabhupada was wrong to condemn the idea of "daridra Narayan." OK, he was partly right--Narayan, the God of aisvarya, is not needy. But God Himself, svayam Bhagavan, he is very needy. He is a love beggar. He is sitting on Yashoda's lap and he is hungry and he wants to be fed, NOW. He wants to go play with the cowherd boys, he needs to go. His peacock feather tumbles from his head when Radharani gives him a sidelong glance. He needs to have her touch to cool the burning passion in his body. Without need there is no enjoyment. So God succumbs to need.
And in this world, we should train ourselves to recognize Krishna in NEED, not just in opulence. God takes many forms, including that of "the Absence That Needs To Be Filled." And as servants, we are called on to fill those needs on various levels.
That is why it is wrong to neglect the needy, or to say "we only serve the soul and not the body."
Keshava - Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:49:14 +0530
QUOTE |
She is more than the best of us, she is an entire tattva in herself.
|
QUOTE |
She is a separate tattva. She is not Vishnu. She is not a jiva. |
QUOTE |
The jivas are one category of these shaktis. So in this sense we are indeed part of shakti tattva, but in a separate branch, so to speak, from Radha.
|
Can we get some pramanas for these statements?
Is there any place the Gaudiya acaryas have clearly pointed to four ontological tattvas (ie Isvara, Shakti, Jiva and Jagat)?
Any mention of this different branch of Shakti tattva concept?
Please note that according to Ramanuja the jiva in moksha has unlimited chit and ananda. Here in this world we experience asat, achit and nirananda. But in moksha what is the impediment to fully experiencing sat, chit and ananda? Anu or Vibhu of course is there but still we are all eternal, full of knowledge and bliss. There is no limit to our eternality, why should there be any limit to our knowledge or bliss. If there is a limit to our knowledge then there are imperfect senses, the possibility of making mistakes, illusion, and the possibility of cheating. The four defects we experience in this world. How can that be in moksha?
And similarly with perfect knowledge there can be no impediment to bliss. Bliss or ananda does seem to be a subjective experience so I don't exactly know how one can compare one's bliss with another's.
Jagat - Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:00:28 +0530
Shakti as a separate tattva is really a misunderstanding. There are only two things: Isvara and Shakti. God and creation. Jagat and jiva are also shaktis, they are the manifestations of sat (or from another standpoint, bahiranga) and chit (or taTastha), while those we call Shakti (i.e., female counterpart to God's male forms) are the Ananda portion (antaranga). Of course, the sat-chit-Ananda categorization and correlation to the other is somewhat approximative.
Kalkidas - Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:43:02 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Aug 24 2004, 07:19 PM) |
Is there any place the Gaudiya acaryas have clearly pointed to four ontological tattvas (ie Isvara, Shakti, Jiva and Jagat)? |
viSNoH syuH zaktayastisristAsu yA kIrtitA parA |
saiva zrIstadabhinneti prAha ziSyAn prabhurmahAn || 12 ||
12. ViSNu has three energies. The one among them who is proclaimed as the highest is ZrI, who is not different from him. So taught the great master to his disciples.
tatra trizaktirviSNuH yathA zvetAzvataropaniSadi :
parAsya zaktirvividhaiva zrUyate
svAbhAvikI jJAnabalakriyA ca || (ka) ||
In this, ViSNu’s three energies, as [described] in the ZvetAzvatara UpaniSad (6.8):
12a. His higher energy, which is innate to him, is described variously as knowledge, strength, and activity.
pradhAnakSetrajJapatirguNezaH || (kha) ||
and:
12b. ... the master of primordial matter and of the knower of the field [the living being], the controller of the guNa. (Zvet. U., 6.16)
zrIviSNupurANe ca :
viSNuzaktiH parA proktA kSetrajJAkhyA tathA’parA |
avidyAkarmasaMjJA’nyA tRtIyA zaktiriSyate || (ga) || (vi. pu., 6.7.61):
And in the ViSNu PurANa (6.7.61):
12c. ViSNu’s energy is proclaimed as higher as well as lower, called the ‘knower of the field;’ [and] another, a third energy, is accepted called ignorance and action (karman).
paraiva viSNvabhinnA zrIrityuktaM tatraiva (vi. pu., 1.9.44-45):
kalAkASThanimeSAdikAlasUtrasya gocare |
yasya zaktirna zuddhasya prasIdatu sa no hariH ||
procyate paramezo yaH yaH zuddho’pyupacArataH |
prasIdatu sa no viSNurAtmA yaH sarvadehinAm || (gha) ||
That the “higher” [power] is ZrI who is non-different from ViSNu is stated there [in the ViSNu PurANa (1.9.44-45)] as well:
12d. May Hari be pleased with us, the pure one whose power is not under the control of time which is made up of units like kalA, kASThA, nimeSa, and so forth. He, though pure, is said metaphorically to be the Lord of ZrI (paramA); may that ViSNu, who is the Self of all embodied beings, be pleased with us.
eSA paraiva trivRdityapyuktaM tatraiva (vi. pu., 1.12.69):
hlAdinI sandhinI saMvittvayyekA sarvasaMzraye |
hlAdatApakarI mizrA tvayi no guNavarjite || (Ga) ||
That this “higher” [power] is threefold is also stated there (1.12.69) as well:
12e. The giver of pleasure, the supporter of being, and the bringer of awareness are one in you, who are refuge of all. The mixed one which causes pleasure and pain is not in you who are free of the guNa.
(Prameya-ratnAvalI, 1.12, translation by Nitaidasji)
dirty hari - Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:54:05 +0530
Jagat-How does this from Jiva Goswami fit into your concept of Radha et al as being separate persons from Krishna and also not being Visnu.
QUOTE |
The two kinds of expansions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead are : 1. svamsa (personal expansions) and 2. vibhinnamsa (separate persons). The svamsa expansions are unlimitedly powerful. Their form and personality are the same as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself.
There is not the slightest difference between the svamsa expansions and the Original Personality of Godhead. The vibhinnamsa expansions are very weak in comparison to Them. |
And this in Cc
QUOTE |
sei vibbhinamsa jiva - dui ta' prakara eka - "nitya-mukta," eka - "nityasamsara" "nityamukta,sri - nitya krsna-carane unmukha "krsna-parisada" - nama, bhu-je sevasukha "nitya-baddha" - krsna-haite nitya-bahirmukha nitya-samsara bhu-je, narakaki-dumkha sei dose maya-pisaci danda kare tare adhyatmikadi tapatraya tare jari' mare
The living entities (jivas) are divided into two categories. Some are eternally liberated, and others are eternally conditioned. Those who are eternally liberated are always awake to Krsna consciousness, and they render transcendental loving service at the feet of Sri Krsna. They are to be considered eternal associates of Krsna, and they are eternally enjoying the transcendental bliss of serving Krsna. Apart from the ever-liberated devotees, there are the conditioned souls who always turn away from the service of the Lord. They are perpetually conditioned in this material world and are subjected to the material tribulations brought about by different bodily forms in hellish conditions. Due to his being opposed to Krsna consciousness, the conditioned soul is punished by the witch of the external energy, maya. He is thus ready to suffer the threefold miseries - miseries brought about by the body and mind, the inimical behavior of other living entities, and natural disturbances brought about by the demigods. (Caitanya-Caritamrta Madhya 22.10-13) |
Is Radha svamsa or vibbhinamsa in your understanding ? If neither can you show where this is stated ?
Jagat - Wed, 25 Aug 2004 04:02:11 +0530
I admit that this is something of a problem. I still haven't reviewed Bhagavat-sandarbha and Radha-krishna-archana-dipika where he deals with these questions.
My feeling is that the terms of the debate are set out in this way in Vedanta, i.e., assessing the distinction or non-distinction of jivas from ishvara. Then the Shakti question is dealt with separately. But the two debates have not been entirely harmonized, leaving some loose ends. But this will require study that I don't really have time for at this moment.
Sometimes the jiva is called "shakti" or "prakriti" (Gita 7.5) and sometimes "amsa" (Gita 15.7) etc., or "purusha" (Gita 13.19-20). Each of these terms seems to be coming from a different source tradition that was amalgamated into the Gita. I just had Mangal Maharaj on the phone for an hour explaining to me that "amsa" in Gita 15.7 must mean the Paramatma, because the jiva is not an amsa, or at least not the right kind of amsa. I told him to write it down because I could not really follow his reasoning. (The commentaries all clearly say vibhinnamsa).
Certain Vaishnava sects consider the Gaudiyas to be hidden Shaktas, because they give this special category or status to Shakti. Needless to say, they argue like you that a supplementary and unnecessary category has been created.
dirty hari - Wed, 25 Aug 2004 07:13:09 +0530
QUOTE |
I just had Mangal Maharaj on the phone for an hour explaining to me that "amsa" in Gita 15.7 must mean the Paramatma, because the jiva is not an amsa, or at least not the right kind of amsa. I told him to write it down because I could not really follow his reasoning. |
How did he argue that the jiva is not an amsa ? Bhedabheda seems to demand this.
QUOTE |
Needless to say, they argue like you that a supplementary and unnecessary category has been created. |
I don't say like that. I say the Sakti category is easily misunderstood, not that it is unecessary. I say the Sakti category i.e Cit Sakti is identical to Visnu. The distinction of the variety in that Sakti i.e Hladini, Samvit, Sandhini, are meant to teach us about the nature of God. But like Bhaktivinoda says:
Durga Devi says: "I am Your loving partner in your delightful Vrndavana pastimes in the form of Your internal pleasure potency". We perceive from the statement of Durga Devi that this energy is non-dual. In the transcendental feature, this energy is present as Srimati Radhika and in the material form manifests as the material energy.
The detailing of the Sakti is important. But ultimately they are non dual. From Sandhini Sakti the form of Krishna is manifest, From Hladini Shakti the form of Radha is produced. But really Sandhini and Hladini are a single Shakti, one energy that is being detailed so we can learn about how God thinks.
What is Sakti ? Sakti is the potency, the power/energy of God. God is Sakti. God is energy/potency/power, an infinite field of superconscious multi dimensional energy. Plus the ability to do pretty much anything with the energy-that-is-Him. So God is Sakti and Saktiman. Energy and the controller of the energy.
The teachings of Cit Sakti and Maya Sakti and Tatastha Sakti are to educate us. But really everything is part of one Acintya Sakti. There really is no separate Sakti. Just categorizing of one infinite Acintya Sakti. Cit Sakti and Maya Sakti are therefore described by Bhaktivinoda as non-dual, there is no difference. We categorize them as different depending on what activity is being done.
Jiva Sakti also is categorized as a unique Sakti, but it isn't. It is the same and different. Different only because we are not the whole thing. Everything but the jiva is non dual. Cit Sakti and Maya Sakti are the same thing.
Whatever form Cit Sakti takes i.e Krishna, Radha, Baladeva, is non dual as well. It is all just different shapes and forms with the same all pervading consciousness. These are all Svamsa. They are all various forms the one all pervading consciousness/energy manifests.
So why the categorizing of the Cit Sakti into Hladini and Sandhini and Samvit.
Again, it is to teach us about the nature, the mind of God. Baladeva Vidyabhusana describes it:
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
Krishnadas Kaviraja also tries to explain:
Caitanya-Caritamrta Madhya lila 8.154-155
sac-citanandamaya krsnera svarupa
ata eva svarupa-sakti haya tina-rupa
anandamse hladini sadamse sandhini
cid-amse samvit ya're jnana kari' mani
Lord Krsna is sac-cidnananda-vigraha the transcendental form of eternity, knowledge, and bliss. Therefore His personal energy (svarupa-sakti, the internal energy of the Lord) has three different forms. Hladini is His energy of ecstasy, beauty, sweetness, charm, harmony; sandhini, His energy of eternal existence, or reality; and samvit, of cognizance, knowledge, awareness.
We are being told that the Hladini aspect is the aspect of the Cit Sakti that displays the Lord's ecstasy, beauty, sweetness, charm, harmony. And from Baladeva, we are told that the lords various transcendental qualties are manifest through the Hladini Sakti.
The Sandhini aspect manifests Krishna, the aspect of eternal existence. But the Hladini aspect is manifesting the lords personal qualities. That is Radha.
Mahaprabhu Himself is the absolute truth. He is Male on the outside i.e all powerfull and eternal. But He is female on the inside. This is what the categorizing is meant to teach us. God is ultimately female. A single all pervading being, who enjoys life as a beautiful teenage girl.
dirty hari - Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:16:56 +0530
radha-purna-sakti, krsna-purna-saktiman
dui vastu bheda nai, sastra-paramana
mrgamada, tara gandha-yaiche aviccheda
agni, jvalate-yaiche kabhu nahi bheda
radha-krsna aiche sada eka-i svarupa
lila-rasa asvadite dhare dui-rupa
Kishalaya - Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:04:17 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Aug 25 2004, 04:02 AM) |
I admit that this is something of a problem. |
As Keshava ji pointed out the problem can be done away with. However it is very doubtful that will be done because:
QUOTE |
As individual jivas our capacity is very small. Bhakti can control Krishna, but Bhakti is not something that we ourselves control. Bhakti is Radharani. She is more than the best of us
|
Second, I am yet to understand if Radha has the capacity to "fully" satisfy Krishna, what is the need for the jivas? They seem to be an unnecessary appendage. Their presence or absence adding no substantial value to Krishna. If Radha needs friends and associates, she can just "produce" them from within her (non-different from herself yet different) at mere will. It seems that the baddha jivas are some sort of a burden who somehow sometimes get some perepheral place in the whole scheme of lila.
Third, who all are internal energies and who is jiva in the spiritual world? Ok! Radha is internal energy. Sakhis? Manjaris? Parents? Friends? Are all intya siddhas internal energy and the saadhanaa siddhas are jivas? or is there a gradation of categories from the jiva to the internal energy?
Jagat - Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:13:16 +0530
Keshavji also sent me the following in a PM. I don't think he'll object if I paste it here:
QUOTE |
Yes, I understand that there is only Saktiman and Sakti. And that Matter is also a Shakti. parasya shakti vividhaya sruyate. The thing that makes matter so different from the other shaktis is that it is jada or inert an has no chit or conciousness. If we see things like that and we also acknowledge Isvara as the independant, controller, sustainer, etc. Then Radha/Laksmi and the Jivas are in the same category of dependent, controlled, sustained, etc. Neither Radha/Laksmi or the Jivas are svatantra but they are both paratantra. Therefore I feel from that standpoint and also to stop us slipping into real dualism (where ther are two Gods, Laksmi and Narayana, or Radha and Krsna) we have to accept Radha/Laksmi in the same ontological category as the Jivas. This is not to say that She is equal to any Jiva but certainly similar in nature though pre-eminent. |
So it looks like my siddhanta is being attacked on all fronts. Some of my answers have already been given, but I agree that these need further clarification and a proper analysis of the shastras.
Shivaji, we have seen all these quotes of the oneness of Shakti and Shaktiman. You know very well that we do not take them in the same way that you do. I have already said earlier in this thread that I suspect that there are two discrete discourses, one dealing with jiva and the other with Shakti that have not been fully integrated. This needs investigation, I agree. But before going on in debate with Dirty Hari, I would like to see if he can find ONE Gaudiya authority anywhere--Iskcon, Gaudiya Math, Babaji, academic scholar, who will agree that this is a legitimate interpretation of Shakti tattva according to the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. I don't mean that you quote someone, but that you show him your arguments and get that person's stamp of approval. Your entire argument is based on scriptural statements emphasizing the oneness of God and His energies, but your conclusions are clearly at variance with those of the sampradaya.
It is quite possible that you have been given some kind of divine insight into the mind of Rupa Goswami, or perhaps you have seen beyond Rupa who himself misunderstood the mind of Chaitanya, but I will reserve judgment.
(2) Keshavaji, my point is that there are three shaktis--representing sat, chit and ananda. These are progressive. Jada has sat, but no chit or ananda. Jiva has sat and chit, but in itself, no ananda. This is because of its alignment with jaDa. The full Shakti has all three. Thus when aligned with this inner potency, the jiva experiences its full ananda potential.
(3) Kishalaya also wants to give the full potential for ananda to the jiva. But this is a misunderstanding of his taTastha condition. Bhakti will be our own, because the jiva is individual and his bhakti must be voluntary. But that bhakti comes through grace. Grace is part of the Hladini Shakti's functioning.
I won't deny that I still feel a little fuzziness here. Unfortunately, I am really unable to do the kind of concentrated research and thought that this subject requires at this moment.
Satyabhama - Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:24:59 +0530
QUOTE |
God is ultimately female. A single all pervading being, who enjoys life as a beautiful teenage girl. |
Really?
Kishalaya - Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:04:14 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Aug 25 2004, 06:13 PM) |
Kishalaya also wants to give the full potential for ananda to the jiva. But this is a misunderstanding of his taTastha condition. Bhakti will be our own, because the jiva is individual and his bhakti must be voluntary. But that bhakti comes through grace. Grace is part of the Hladini Shakti's functioning.
|
What I am really uneasy about is the concept that jiva is just a container for hlaadini and Bhagavaan is enjoying that shakti and jiva is the container by accident. This is a very impersonal philosophy to say the least. In a personal philosophy, it is the *INDIVIDUAL* who is the center of concern, therefore Bhagavan enjoys through interacting with the *INDIVIDUAL*, not just any shakti. Otherwise, in your philosophy, the jivas are an expendable receptacle for hlaadini. (Reminds me something about recruiting jivas) You can't "merge" the jiva into hlaadini, then the jiva will become internal energy, so that option is out.
Grace is an active component in all schools, but it is mostly the manifestation of the jiva's pure nature that happens through grace when she is able to enter lila and render bhakti.
Actually I can understand what you are getting at. And you do not need all this shakti business to put it down squarely. What you are trying to say is that the Absolute Truth is "Bhagavaan + Internal Energy" - a cohesive unit. And although self sufficient manages through its (their) inifnite grace to engage in a loving relationship with the infinitesimal jiva. In this case the purpose of the jiva is quite clearly brought out. To display the infinite grace of "the cohesive unit".
Jagat ji, my other confusion still stands, in Gaudiya vaishnavism, who other than Radha is internal energy? I have heard Nanda and Yasoda are also internal energies. Or are there categories between the jiva and the "supreme" manifestation of internal energy? Is there a boundary where we can say, Ok this side internal energy and that side jivas.
dirty hari - Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:45:55 +0530
Jagat-I'm not sure what kind of citation you are looking for. Can you give an example ? (make something up)
Keshava-Matter is Brahman is it not ? Brahman is conscious, anything comprised of Brahman is conscious. While matter may appear to be inert to the naked eye, in the new physics it is seen in a totally new light. Matter is a fluctuation of energy. It can be broken down into it's smallest (they think) component parts. What they have found has led many physicists from atheism to belief in God. Matter is self organizing. It arranges itself. From a starting point of non density, simple energy, matter is created, it arranges itself into a solid substance, giving itself density. This is a complete mystery. The holy grail in physics right now is the search for "the god particle". The idea is that matter should have no density, it should have no weight, no actual three dimensional existence. But it does, this is totally mystifying to physicists.
Here is a bit from the following article, the article describes how the new physics demands that there is a controller over matter, otherwise what they perceive is impossible i.e matter appears to make conscious choices at the quantum level
God as the machine It's a long article, 4 pages, but worth it.
QUOTE |
To get a sense of the challenge of describing physics as a software program, picture three atoms: two hydrogen and one oxygen. Put on the magic glasses of digital physics and watch as the three atoms bind together to form a water molecule. As they merge, each seems to be calculating the optimal angle and distance at which to attach itself to the others. The oxygen atom uses yes/no decisions to evaluate all possible courses toward the hydrogen atom, then usually selects the optimal 104.45 degrees by moving toward the other hydrogen at that very angle. Every chemical bond is thus calculated.
If this sounds like a simulation of physics, then you understand perfectly, because in a world made up of bits, physics is exactly the same as a simulation of physics. There's no difference in kind, just in degree of exactness. In the movie The Matrix, simulations are so good you can't tell if you're in one. In a universe run on bits, everything is a simulation.
An ultimate simulation needs an ultimate computer, and the new science of digitalism says that the universe itself is the ultimate computer — actually the only computer. |
Kishalaya-Sri Jiva Gosvamin presents the following thesis in his Priti-sandarbha (10)12:
In the spiritual world, the Supreme Lord has unlimited spiritual forms, all are expansions of Himself illuminating that world. With each one of those forms, the Lord enjoys pastimes with a single individual liberated jiva
Kishalaya - Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:13:35 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Aug 25 2004, 10:45 PM) |
Kishalaya-Sri Jiva Gosvamin presents the following thesis in his Priti-sandarbha (10)12:
In the spiritual world, the Supreme Lord has unlimited spiritual forms, all are expansions of Himself illuminating that world. With each one of those forms, the Lord enjoys pastimes with a single individual liberated jiva |
Thank you DH, I just hope, its the literal meaning that we stick to.
BTW, I still have to understand in what way the ananda less jiva is transformed into an individual with ananda? The problem here is if the ananda component is really separate from the svarupa of the jiva even in the liberated stage, then I can't say Bhagavaan is interacting with the individual. He is interacting with hlaadini, the jiva being a mere facilitator. Indeed a very sorry state of affairs. However, if we say hlaadini becomes a part of jiva, then there is a change in the svarupa of the jiva on liberation and we have to accept it as a part of internal energy - and thus all the "non-difference with Bhagavaan" thing applies.
An alternative explanation is that the jiva is already sat, cit,
and ananda. However, because of its being infinitesimal, it is liable to be covered by maya. On receiving bhagavat kripa, that covering of maya is removed forever and thus its pristine nature as a devotee of Bhagavaan is revealed in its full glory.
dirty hari - Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:55:44 +0530
Ananda is something you experience. It is not something that has a three dimensional or solid objective reality, it is the experience a conscious being has of ecstacy, pleasure, bliss, humor etc. Is bliss something that exists apart from a person's experience of it, subjectively ? No.
Hladini is a term meant to teach us about what God considers to be enjoyable. God enjoys through Hladini, or rather the form God enjoys with is Female. The jiva when liberated comes under the influence of the Hladini, and that is the source of bliss for the devotee. The jiva is not a container for Hladini, the jiva comes under the influence of Hladini, or Radha et al.
The jiva is always tatastha, in between Cit and Maya Sakti, Yoga Maya or Maha Maya, always a separate category, unique. When the soul is conditioned he sometimes enjoys and sometime suffers. This enjoyment is the perverted form of Hladini.
Since Yoga Maya and Maha Maya are the same thing, hladini is present in material bliss in it's illusory form. That is you can enjoy various pleasures, but they are enjoyed in ignorance of the true nature of reality. You may enjoy a comedy, or sex, or whatever, that is enjoying hladini in a shadow way. Because God is actually manifesting that enjoyment, and manifesting your enjoyment of it, but you are ignorant of this dynamic, therefore it is a shadow or perverted form of hladini.
When the jiva is liberated, then you come under the jurisdiction of the pure form of Hladini. Ananda or bliss can be experienced in the conditioned state or the liberated state. The difference is in your awareness, your ability to perceive.
When you are liberated then you perceive reality in truth. Then you are under Hladini. You are created to be enjoyed. Therefore when you attain perfection, you come under the Hladini, or enjoying jurisdiction. Ananda is enjoyed in it's fullest capacity when you fullfill your purpose; to be enjoyed. God enjoys through rasa, with other people
Madhava - Thu, 26 Aug 2004 02:25:31 +0530
Since this topic is hardly a copy/paste any longer, I've moved it over to the controversy corner.
Jagat - Fri, 27 Aug 2004 04:49:51 +0530
I went last night to read Radha Krishnarchana Dipika, just to refresh my memory on how Jiva argues the question. His method is to follow the last part of Laghu-bhagavatamrita, in which the hierarchy of devotees is given, ending with the gopis and Radha. This is the same series as found in the Brihad Bhagavatamrita.
The argument actually begins with the ArAdhanAnAM sarveSAM verse, which shows that we must worship the devotees in order to please Krishna.
So to start with, I would have to side more with Keshava on this question than with Shiva. Admittedly, Jiva is taking us somewhere else in his discussion, but he wants to anchor us in the consciousness that Radha is a devotee, at the top of the hierarchy.
But clearly we have some kind of special thing going on with guru-tattva also, this interaction of jiva/Shakti/Vishnu tattva. Liminal it's called, I think.
Nice verse from Gopala Champu at the beginning of RKAD, in arya chandas:
lakSmIr abhitaH strItamA gopyo lakSmItamAH prathitAH |
rAdhA gopItamA ced asyAH kA samA rAmA ||
Lakshmi is, in all respects, the best of women.
The gopis are reputed to be the best of the Lakshmis.
So if Radha is supreme among the gopis,
what woman can claim to be her equal? (Gopala Champu 1.1.25)
Actually, this Gopala Champu quote illustrates quite well how Jiva proceeds. After establishing the supremacy of the gopis beyond even Lakshmi, he stops and turns to the question of Shakti. This section is based on Bhagavat-sandarbha 117. He first starts with a quick resume of the earlier part of Bhagavat-sandarbha to set his discussion of shakti into context.
Kishalaya - Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:47:39 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Aug 27 2004, 04:49 AM) |
The argument actually begins with the ArAdhanAnAM sarveSAM verse, which shows that we must worship the devotees in order to please Krishna. |
Actually this is the kind of twist that Gaudiyas like very much for "submission" to Guru. Don't you think Jagat ji, that worship of the devotees just for the sake of worshipping them because they are devotees of Krishna and not just in order to please Krishna is a more worthy goal. I bet none here would have had the kind of love, affection and "sacrifice" (all big words) for their Guru had it not been the case what they want in their heart of hearts was exactly manifested in their Guru's heart. Otherwise why is it that some have changed Gurus two to three times over. All this submission to Guru is easier said than done. The renegade jiva is in its condition because of its inability to be a devotee, in the first place. It is only love and compassion that has any ability to penetrate through this hard covering, not some "fear tactic" in Krishna's name. "If you do not submit, Krishna will hate you." So much for a God ! The responsibility is with the person at the higher post. The sacrifice is more demanding there. As demonstrated by God Himself, Krishna and Caitanya, sacrificing Their personal interests for others - to do anything possible that could be done to attract. Spirituality is not about arm twisting.
Kishalaya - Fri, 27 Aug 2004 19:35:27 +0530
Actually I must apologize here. I think I have overstepped my limits.
However what I wanted to convery was that as a Rupaanugaa, your words have authority on matters Rupaanugaa, but I would not take the words of Rupaanugaa aachaaryas or the Rupaanugaas in general for things outside their scope. Of course, if you say so, then surely the Rupaanugaa mercy (manjari bhaava etc.) must be obtained in the manner you describe, but I would not accept that very same interpretation as applying universally. Suffice it to say that there are Guru tattvas and Guru disciple relationships which do not operate in the same manner in which the Rupaanugaas deal with the issue.
Jagat - Fri, 27 Aug 2004 19:57:39 +0530
Raganuga means doing away with the fear motive.
Kishalaya - Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:02:23 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Aug 27 2004, 07:57 PM) |
Raganuga means doing away with the fear motive. |
Which, unfortunately, I and my fellow sufferers are yet to see !
Jagat - Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:21:14 +0530
I also received a PM with the following:
QUOTE |
I disagree with your statement. I have been subject to manipulation by fear tactics. However, unfortunately I cannot tell you exactly HOW I was manipulated, without revealing so much of my inner sentiments. I can only ask: is raganuga sadhana only for manjaris of Radha and sakhaas of Krishna? |
I answered that as follows:
I cannot speak for individuals who might misunderstand what raganuga means. There are many who rightly observe that one can engage in so-called raganuga with a vaidhi mentality. That is rather odd, but not altogether surprising. Illusion has a way of insinuating itself into its own negation.
With regards to your specific question, I can understand the problem here. I tend to sympathize, but Rupa calls seeking other rasas like friendship or parenthood "sambandhanuga" rather than "raganuga." But I get the impression that the distinction is not always made, at least not in popular discourse, and that all are often conflated under the raganuga rubric. I'd have to look at Priti-sandarbha a little more closely to see if Jiva makes any distinction or not.
This seems to be changing topic, however, so I think that we may need to split this thread.
Satyabhama - Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:42:13 +0530
QUOTE |
Rupa calls seeking other rasas like friendship or parenthood "sambandhanuga" |
Parenthood, definitely. I would wonder about friendship, because there is no familial bond. Oh well, time to hit the books and find out, I suppose.
Keshava - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:59:51 +0530
QUOTE |
Jagat Aug 25 2004, 02:43 AM
Jiva has sat and chit, but in itself, no ananda. This is because of its alignment with jaDa. The full Shakti has all three. Thus when aligned with this inner potency, the jiva experiences its full ananda potential. |
As you know Brahman is defined as sat, chit and ananda. Everything is Brahman, therefore everything is ultimately sat, chit and ananda. It is the contraction or covering of chit or jnana that leads to the state of nir-ananda in the jiva. This contraction or covering is due to beginningless karmas however we cannot say that the jiva is essentially without ananda.
So I cannot agree with this statement Jiva has sat and chit, but in itself, no ananda.
Ramanuja clearly states that the jnana and ananda of the Jiva in moksha is unlimited. Just as there is no limit to the experience of sat. Due to being anu and not vibhu the Jiva may not have the power to create universes, etc, but there is no difference in the essential nature of one form of Brahman and another. That's what Vedanta is all about.
Anando brahmeti vyajAnAt | AnandAddhyeva khalvimAni bhUtAni jAyante | Anandena jAtAni jIvanti | AnandaM prayantyabhisaM vizantIti | taittirIyopaniSad 3.6
Keshava - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:07:27 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Aug 25 2004, 07:15 AM) |
Keshava-Matter is Brahman is it not ? Brahman is conscious, anything comprised of Brahman is conscious. |
Sure, I agree. I did not mean to start an argument over the nature of matter. Thanks for the article. I am aware of the "new" physics.
Keshava - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:11:38 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Aug 25 2004, 08:43 AM) |
An alternative explanation is that the jiva is already sat, cit, and ananda. However, because of its being infinitesimal, it is liable to be covered by maya. On receiving bhagavat kripa, that covering of maya is removed forever and thus its pristine nature as a devotee of Bhagavaan is revealed in its full glory. |
I agree. Seems like I've heard this before somewhere.
Madhava - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:22:34 +0530
I don't think we've yet looked at the issue in terms of the division of
puruSa and
prakRti. It closely resembles the idea of
zaktimAn and
zakti.
What we know as the
antaraGga-zakti is often called the
parA-prakRti, while the
jaDa-jagat (
![smile.gif](http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif)
) is the
aparA-prakRti. Therefore, Krishna would essentially be
puruSa and Radha would essentially be
prakRti.
Now, is prakRti considered viSNu-tattva?
Kishalaya - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:27:02 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Aug 28 2004, 01:11 AM) |
Seems like I've heard this before somewhere. |
?
Madhava - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:35:33 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Aug 27 2004, 09:29 PM) |
QUOTE | Jagat Aug 25 2004, 02:43 AM
Jiva has sat and chit, but in itself, no ananda. This is because of its alignment with jaDa. The full Shakti has all three. Thus when aligned with this inner potency, the jiva experiences its full ananda potential. |
As you know Brahman is defined as sat, chit and ananda. Everything is Brahman, therefore everything is ultimately sat, chit and ananda. It is the contraction or covering of chit or jnana that leads to the state of nir-ananda in the jiva. This contraction or covering is due to beginningless karmas however we cannot say that the jiva is essentially without ananda.
So I cannot agree with this statement Jiva has sat and chit, but in itself, no ananda.
|
Jagadananda's reasoning is derived from the conception of antaraGga-zakti having the three faculties, namely sandhinI, samvit and hlAdinI, in full. It is a fact that the jIva, aligned with jaDa, does not possess the full faculty of hlAdinI. The full faculty of hlAdinI is realized when one attains the stage of prema and is plunged into the rapture of bhakti-rasa-sevA.
That, of course, is Gaudiya philosophy. Hence, if you take the the statement of Jagat while considering sandhinI, samvit and hlAdinI as synonymous with sat, cit and Ananda respectively, you will understand his rationale and agree with what he is saying.
The problem, however, lies in the parallels that are drawn above. They are not, in fact, entirely synonymous concepts that may be interchanged at will.
The relevant section in Caitanya Caritamrita, which I believe is an early source, if not the origin of the parallels, says: AnandAMze hlAdinI, sad-aMze sandhinI, cid-aMze samvit. These three zaktis are thus considered aMzas of these three fundamental constituents of Brahman, rather than synonymous with them.
Kishalaya - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:41:54 +0530
Two simple questions. Can any Gaudiya clarify?
1. Does the svaroopa of the jiva change on liberation which in Gaudiya terms would be "achieving prema"? I mean, does hlaadini become a part of jiva's svaroopa?
2. Who are jivas and who are antaranga shakti on the other side of the great divide? Is there any boundary between the liberated jivas and the antaranga shaktis?
Keshava - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:43:11 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Aug 26 2004, 01:19 PM) |
Nice verse from Gopala Champu at the beginning of RKAD, in arya chandas:
lakSmIr abhitaH strItamA gopyo lakSmItamAH prathitAH | rAdhA gopItamA ced asyAH kA samA rAmA ||
Lakshmi is, in all respects, the best of women. The gopis are reputed to be the best of the Lakshmis. So if Radha is supreme among the gopis, what woman can claim to be her equal? (Gopala Champu 1.1.25)
Actually, this Gopala Champu quote illustrates quite well how Jiva proceeds. After establishing the supremacy of the gopis beyond even Lakshmi, he stops and turns to the question of Shakti. |
OK I agree this is a nice quote, however it only sets the stage for a discussion because in and of itself it does not state the ontological status of Radha, the gopis (some of who may be expansions and other of whom may be jivas according to GV), Laksmi(s) or for that matter even women. All it does is compare them without mentioning what category any of them belong to.
Please continue, I'm interested to see where this leads.
PS Perhaps someone would like to address the following:
a. Laksmi was born from the ocean of milk
b. According to diksha homa vidhi in HBV the yoni on the homa kunda represents Laksmi and needs to be washed prior to use. This is stated to be symbolic of Laksmi's Rtu snana after her menstrual period.
So it would seem that Laksmi manifests pastimes of being "born" and having a period. Being "born" is pretty easy to explain away due to Visnu and His retinue also incarnating many times. But it seems really strange that any goddess, let alone Laksmi would have to share in a part of the sinful reation passed on by Indra to women in the form of their periods. Does this mean that accordingly Laksmi also (like other women) got the benediction of always being lustly.
Sorry if the above doesn't seem politically correct. I mean no disrespect to women (or goddesses), but these stories are there in the same sastras that are being used to give some special ontological status to these ladies. I am not trying to totally discredit the puranas, including the Bhagavatam, but just pointing out that there are parts of them that need explaining. I am happy to hear the explanations.
Keshava - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:46:22 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Aug 27 2004, 04:27 AM) |
Raganuga means doing away with the fear motive. |
Raganuga means never having to say you're sorry.
Kishalaya - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:51:00 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Aug 28 2004, 01:43 AM) |
But it seems really strange that any goddess, let alone Laksmi would have to share in a part of the sinful reation passed on by Indra to women in the form of their periods. Does this mean that accordingly Laksmi also (like other women) got the benediction of always being lustly.
|
These are pastimes Keshava ji
Sorry!
Madhava - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:54:12 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Aug 27 2004, 10:11 PM) |
Two simple questions. Can any Gaudiya clarify?
1. Does the svaroopa of the jiva change on liberation which in Gaudiya terms would be "achieving prema"? I mean, does hlaadini become a part of jiva's svaroopa? |
When the jIva attains prema-siddhi, his being (call it svarUpa, the gist of his being) becomes imbued with hlAdinI, which intensifies as one takes birth in the prakaTa-lIlA of Sri Krishna and associates with the nitya-pArSadas. Through this association, (s)he is propelled to even grander heights of prema through the stages of sneha, mAna, praNaya and so forth, each being of successively greater intensity. This culminates in the madanAkhya-mahAbhAva of hlAdinI-svarUpa Sri Radha.
QUOTE |
2. Who are jivas and who are antaranga shakti on the other side of the great divide? Is there any boundary between the liberated jivas and the antaranga shaktis? |
As documented by Krishnadas Kaviraja, the Vraja-gopIs are considered manifestations of hlAdinI, and the cowherdboys, parents and so forth of Krishna arise from sandhinI. I would therefore conclude that the jIvas are those who are originally of this world, since the term jIva-zakti is considered synonymous with taTastha-zakti, or the manifestation presides on this side of the Viraja. Those who have never been in the taTastha would therefore not be really jIvas in this sense.
These are somewhat cumbersome issues, not the least due to the application of terminology in different ways in different contexts, that need to be carefully studied. And truly, pasting in loads of translatiosn will be the least effective way of doing this, for those of you who thought of doing just that.
Jagat - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 03:10:18 +0530
I just explained "in itself, no ananda" on another thread. Ananda is seated in relationships. That's why.
There is an ananda of sorts in the atomic jiva in kaivalya, but boff !
And my quote is "raso vai saH. rasaM hy evAyaM labdhvAnandI bhavati."
dirty hari - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 03:36:51 +0530
Can someone translate this ? If you can do word for word, even better :
sarva-zaktiH zrI-bhagavatA kRSNena rAdhAyAm AropitA, abhedatvAt | svayaM nirviNNaH parama-rasa-mayaH paramAnanda-svarUpaH | nirguNaH prakRteH paro nitya-prakAzas tathApi rAdhAyAz cAbhedatvAt | tasmin bhagavati sarva-zaktitvaM sa-guNatvaM prAkRtatvaM nirUpitam ||
Jagat - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 03:59:18 +0530
I'm sorry, I am going to be away for the weekend, starting now. I'll continue with the Bhagavat-sandarbha section when I return, as well as translating Dirty Hari's sentences. Could you give the source for those, DH?
Kishalaya - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 13:03:56 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Aug 28 2004, 01:54 AM) |
When the jIva attains prema-siddhi, his being (call it svarUpa, the gist of his being) becomes imbued with hlAdinI,
I would therefore conclude that the jIvas are those who are originally of this world, since the term jIva-zakti is considered synonymous with taTastha-zakti, or the manifestation presides on this side of the Viraja. Those who have never been in the taTastha would therefore not be really jIvas in this sense.
These are somewhat cumbersome issues, not the least due to the application of terminology in different ways in different contexts, that need to be carefully studied. And truly, pasting in loads of translatiosn will be the least effective way of doing this, for those of you who thought of doing just that. |
Those two answers do not really mesh well, unless of course we say that it is needed for taxonomy purpose. Those who went later are "called" jivas and the original inhabitants are "called" antaranga shakti. It seems by a gradual change in the svarupa of the jiva, the jiva is itself becoming a part of antaranga shakti. Very much possible (However I don't know if it would be scripturally correct to say that there is a change in the svarupa of the jiva). One definition of Brahman is "One who is great and makes others great" (Sanskrit I can't seem to remember now). Couple this with Shruti statements like "brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati" and vedaanta saying "bhoga maatra saamya lingaat ca" - Except for jagat vyaapaar (creation etc.), in matters of enjoyment the liberated soul is equal to Brahman.
Kishalaya - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 13:07:14 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Aug 28 2004, 03:10 AM) |
"raso vai saH. rasaM hy evAyaM labdhvAnandI bhavati." |
Actually there is no contradiction in this. The tattva-vaada school says that the jiva is actually its own svarupa deha covered by a number of material layers by bhagavad icchaa only. Once the layers are removed, the hidden relationship (and the corresponding ananda) shines forth.
Madhava - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 17:58:25 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Aug 28 2004, 09:33 AM) |
Those two answers do not really mesh well, unless of course we say that it is needed for taxonomy purpose. Those who went later are "called" jivas and the original inhabitants are "called" antaranga shakti. It seems by a gradual change in the svarupa of the jiva, the jiva is itself becoming a part of antaranga shakti. Very much possible (However I don't know if it would be scripturally correct to say that there is a change in the svarupa of the jiva). One definition of Brahman is "One who is great and makes others great" (Sanskrit I can't seem to remember now). Couple this with Shruti statements like "brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati" and vedaanta saying "bhoga maatra saamya lingaat ca" - Except for jagat vyaapaar (creation etc.), in matters of enjoyment the liberated soul is equal to Brahman. |
Well, as I said, this is just technicalities of terminology here. If you defined jIva as that who resides struggles in this world (mamaivAmza jIva-loke ityAdi), then there would be no jIvas on the other side of Viraja.
It is a question of defining jIva. Does anyone know of a single, precise definition?
Practically, the only difference between the manifestations of antaraGga-zakti and the mukta-jIvas would be that the antaraGga-zakti-prakAza would have been, and also remain, the role-models for the newcomers who are keen on sharing their bhAva-sevA.
As has been noted in earlier threads, the sakhIs and mañjarIs have been described as Radha's kAya-vyUha-rUpa, thus making them all essentially manifestations of antaraGga-zakti. This has to do with the theory of the jIva's attaining a particular svarUpa, which is a bit outside the scope of this topic, and has been touched in some earlier topics.
Dhyana - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:21:41 +0530
Keshava wrote:
"So it would seem that Laksmi manifests pastimes of being "born" and having a period. Being "born" is pretty easy to explain away due to Visnu and His retinue also incarnating many times. But it seems really strange that any goddess, let alone Laksmi would have to share in a part of the sinful reation passed on by Indra to women in the form of their periods. Does this mean that accordingly Laksmi also (like other women) got the benediction of always being lusty?"
Maybe, maybe? Who knows...
Consider this verse from Kavyaprakasha (an eleventh century work on poetics, which quotes verses from various sources -- usually without reference -- to illustrate the use of various poetic devices). This particular verse is number 137 and it's in Prakrit.
viparIare lacchI bamhaM daTThUNa NAhikamalaThThaM
hariNo dAhiNaNaM rasAkulA jhatti Dakkei
Here's the translation by J. Moussaieff Masson (co-author of the antology "The Peacock's Egg: Love Poems from Ancient India). It's actually a translation and explanatory commentary rolled in one.
The goddess Laksmi
loves to make love to Vishnu
from on top
looking down she sees in his navel
a lotus
and on it Brahma the god
but she can't bear to stop
so she puts her hand
over Vishnu's right eye
which is the sun
and night comes on
and the lotus closes
with Brahma inside
dirty hari - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 23:22:06 +0530
QUOTE |
It is a question of defining jIva. Does anyone know of a single, precise definition?
|
From Jaiva Dharma
Srila Jiva Gosvami describes the Supreme Person in these words:
"The Absolute Truth is one. Still, by His inconceivable potency He is manifested in four ways: 1. svarupa (His original form), 2. tad-rupa-vaibhava (His incarnations), 3. jiva (the individual spirit souls), and 4. pradhana (the material energy). These four features are like: 1. the interior of the sun planet, 2. the sun's surface, 3. the sunlight, and 4. the reflection of the sun."
This example of course, explains only a small part of the Lord's nature. His svarupa (original form) is His form of eternity, knowledge and bliss. His svarupa-vaibhava (manifestations of His form) are His spiritual abode, name, associates and paraphernalia. The jiva-sakti is the abode of the numberless eternally liberated and conditioned individual souls, who are tiny particles of spirit.
Also from Jaiva Dharma
Vrajanatha: I say this: If the individual souls are like sparks from a blazing fire or atomic particles of sunlight, then what is the function of the jiva-sakti potency?
Babaji: Krsna is self-effulgent, like a blazing fire or the sun. Krsna is like a blazing fire. In the centre of the fire is the cit-sakti (svarupa sakti), it is present in fullness. In addition to the centre there is also a great expanse illuminated by the fire. The same way the Krsna-sun illumines a great area with sunlight. The rays of sunlight are particles of His internal potency (svarupa sakti). Those atomic particles that constitute those rays of sunlight are the individual spirit souls. The internal potency (svarupa sakti) manifests the Krsna-sun planet itself. The sunlight emanating from that planet is manifested by the cit-sakti (svarupa sakti) and the individual particles of light are manifested by the jiva-sakti. Therefore the individual spirit souls are manifested by the jiva-sakti. This is described in the following words of the Svetasvatara Upanisad (6.8):
"The Lord's spiritual potency is manifested in many different ways."
In this way the Lord's spiritual potency manifests the jiva-sakti-sunlight, which shines on the borderline (tata) of the spiritual and material worlds. In this way the eternal individual spirit souls are manifested.
Now here is more from Jaiva Dharma. I will give two different translations of the same words, They differ slightly so I thought both would give a fuller understanding.
First by Narayana Maharaja
The cit-sakti is the full manifestation of Lord Krsna's potency. Whatever she creates is eternally perfect (nitya-siddha). The individual spirit souls are not eternally perfect. By engaging in the activities of devotional service (sadhana) they may become perfect (sadhana-siddha) and thus enjoy spiritual bliss exactly like that enjoyed by the eternally perfect (nitya-siddha) beings.
The four kinds of gopi-friends (sakhi) of Srimati Radharani are eternally perfect beings (nitya-siddha). They are manifested from the form of Srimati Radharani, who is the cit-sakti Herself.
All the individual spirit souls are manifested from Lord Krsna's jiva-sakti. The cit-sakti is Lord Krsna's complete potency (purna-sakti). The individual souls (jiva-sakti) are counted among Lord Krsna's incomplete potencies (apurna-sakti). From the complete potency complete and perfect things are manifested. From the incomplete potency all the individual souls, who are atomic fragments of consciousness, are manifested.
Lord Krsna manifests different kinds of entities according to the different kinds of potencies He employs to create them. When He is manifested in His cit-sakti, He appears as Krsna and as Narayana, the master of Vaikuntha. When He is manifested in the jiva-sakti, He appears as Baladeva, His pastime form (vilasa-murti) in Vraja. When He is manifested in the maya-sakti, He appears as the three forms of Karanodakasayi Visnu, Garbhodakasayi Visnu and Ksirodakasayi Visnu.
In Vraja He appears in His original form, as Krsna, a form manifested by His complete potency. Appearing as Baladeva, He manifests His sesa-tattva (nature of Lord Sesa). In this way He manifests the eight kinds of services the eternally liberated associates offer to Him. Again in Vaikuntha He appears as Sesa-Sankarsana and manifests the eight kinds of service His eternal associates offer to Lord Narayana. Lord Sankarsana incarnates as Maha-Visnu. He becomes the resting-place of the jiva-sakti and appears as the Supersoul in the hearts of all the individual souls residing in the material world.
And this translation is written in an article by B.B BODHAYAN MAHARAJ, translation unknown, Maybe Puri Maharaja.
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. 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 three 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 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 three modes. Therefore the principle is that only the jiva-sakti manifests jivas and not the cit-sakti.
Keshava - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 23:42:06 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Aug 27 2004, 09:52 AM) |
What we know as the antaraGga-zakti is often called the parA-prakRti, while the jaDa-jagat ( ) is the aparA-prakRti. Therefore, Krishna would essentially be puruSa and Radha would essentially be prakRti. |
According to Sri Ramanuja there is a type of spiritual matter in Vaikuntha called suddha sattva. This is what you are calling parA prakRti, not Laksmi/Radha.
Madhava - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 23:42:55 +0530
DH, you need to come up with original sources and with the original Sanskrit included. Otherwise, chances are we are just recycling misconceptions here.
Keshava - Sat, 28 Aug 2004 23:53:51 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Aug 27 2004, 10:05 AM) |
|
QUOTE |
Jagadananda's reasoning is derived from the conception of antaraGga-zakti having the three faculties, namely sandhinI, samvit and hlAdinI, in full. |
I accept this. It is there but covered. Due to the contraction or covering of chit or jnana.
QUOTE |
It is a fact that the jIva, aligned with jaDa, does not possess the full faculty of hlAdinI. |
I don't agree. Sorry to split hairs here but the jiva does possess it, everything possesses it, however it cannot be realized or expressed fully in the conditioned state. It is however inherently a part of the jiva and it is inherently a part of everything. If it were not then it would be coming from outside as Kishalaya was remarking. It would be an artificial imposition on the jiva and not the jiva's innate nature.
QUOTE |
The full faculty of hlAdinI is realized when one attains the stage of prema and is plunged into the rapture of bhakti-rasa-sevA. |
Agreed. It is fully manifest in moksha.
QUOTE |
The problem, however, lies in the parallels that are drawn above. They are not, in fact, entirely synonymous concepts that may be interchanged at will.
The relevant section in Caitanya Caritamrita, which I believe is an early source, if not the origin of the parallels, says: AnandAMze hlAdinI, sad-aMze sandhinI, cid-aMze samvit. These three zaktis are thus considered aMzas of these three fundamental constituents of Brahman, rather than synonymous with them. |
OK, this is something new to me. I would like you to elaborate on this please. And also if Jagat could give his comment on this. I don't see the difference but I am willing to concede that there could be one. Please try to convince me that there is a difference and that it makes a difference to this argument.
Madhava - Sun, 29 Aug 2004 00:00:27 +0530
If you don't mind, I'll return to this early next week, when Jagat is back from the holiday too. It so happened that today, as I was buillding something for our altar, I sliced off two neat little pieces off my left hand's middle and ring fingers, and consequently have them wrapped up with three stitches in the ring finger, and my typing speed is down to a quarter of the normal. So it seems my GD holiday just got a bit extended, as far as more elaborate discussions are concerned, anyway.
Keshava - Sun, 29 Aug 2004 00:09:50 +0530
QUOTE |
Those who have never been in the taTastha would therefore not be really jIvas in this sense.
|
Sorry, I don't understand, is there any way someone can be a jiva in one sense and not a jiva in another sense? This is getting very fuzzy here. I don't think you will find any other form of Vaisnavism that states that there are no jivas amongst the Nitya Siddha/Divya Suri associates of the Lord in Vaikuntha/Goloka. This may be a particular Gaudiya doctrine.
By the way many people see their Guru as a Nitya Siddha/Parisada/Divya Suri. Does this mean that if we see our Guru in this way that we are admitting that s/he is not a jiva?
Personally I am more impressed by a person who is a jiva/nitya baddha who applies his/herself to the process and gets prema/moksha than a Nitya Siddha/Parisada/Divya Suri (apparently non jiva?) who comes here just to make a lila of showing us the process.
Can someone therefore please point to a nitya baddha/jiva (apart from Ajamila) who was actually liberated by following the process? If not we have a problem here, don't you think?
Keshava - Sun, 29 Aug 2004 00:16:01 +0530
QUOTE |
It so happened that today, as I was buillding something for our altar, I sliced off two neat little pieces off my left hand's middle and ring fingers |
Comfrey is the thing to use on your fingers. It is miraculous for this sort of thing. My wife cut a piece off her finger and put it back on and applied comfrey tincture and took comfrey orally as well and now she has complete feelling back and no problem at all.
Madhava - Sun, 29 Aug 2004 01:45:06 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Aug 28 2004, 08:39 PM) |
Sorry, I don't understand, is there any way someone can be a jiva in one sense and not a jiva in another sense? This is getting very fuzzy here. I don't think you will find any other form of Vaisnavism that states that there are no jivas amongst the Nitya Siddha/Divya Suri associates of the Lord in Vaikuntha/Goloka. This may be a particular Gaudiya doctrine. |
Agreed, it is fuzzy. We need to pick this apart from the very beginning. Including the definition of a jIva. We need to pick apart and specifically define all the elements in the debate. But, as I said, more on this on Monday.
dirty hari - Sun, 29 Aug 2004 01:56:23 +0530
Madhava- I looked at the Gaudiya Grantha, they don't have Jaiva Dharma. Is there an online version in Bengali ?
Here is another version of the same stuff, from the gaudiya math, they say it is translated by "Bengali Scholars". This one and the one used by BB Bodhayana Maharaja are almost identical and seem to be better then Narayana Maharaja's.
QUOTE |
QUOTE | The full faculty of hlAdinI is realized when one attains the stage of prema and is plunged into the rapture of bhakti-rasa-sevA. |
I don't agree. Sorry to split hairs here but the jiva does possess it, everything possesses it, however it cannot be realized or expressed fully in the conditioned state. It is however inherently a part of the jiva and it is inherently a part of everything. If it were not then it would be coming from outside as Kishalaya was remarking. It would be an artificial imposition on the jiva and not the jiva's innate nature
|
Just like the jiva is a tiny manifestation of the whole, also it's capacity for Hladini is tiny. You wouldn't say that the jiva has all the powers of Sandhini or Samvit, nor does the jiva have full capacity for Hladini. Hladini will never be fully expressed in the jiva, nor will Sandhini nor Samvit. Only the full potency expresses these potencies in Full.
"From the full (purna) comes the full, from the incomplete (apurna)comes the incomplete" [Jaiva Dharma]
Madhava is not saying the Jiva is lacking the hladini in the conditioned state, he says the jiva's full potential is realized when free from conditioned existence. It's "faculty" or ability is not present in the conditioned state because the "faculty" for experiencing hladini in it's fullest amount for the jiva, is covered over. What is the faculty for experiencing the hladini for the jiva ? This is the nitya siddha jiva svarupa. The faculty is the jiva freed from mudane qualities. Then hladini manifests to that jiva in it's fullest form. The jiva is called tatastha exactly because it is neither Cit nor Maya, it can be under the influence of either. Hladini in it's pure form is available only when the jiva comes under the influence of the Cit Sakti. When it is under Maya Sakti, then that hladini takes on the form of sense enjoyment and mental enjoyment alone, it is not the full pleasure potency. The jiva does not intrinsically possess Hladini. Hladini is the experience that a jiva can have. In either it's shadow form in the Mayic realm, or in it's uncovered pure form in the Cit realm.
There is no objective reality that is "pleasure". All pleasure is subjective. For example, if you eat a mango that is pleasurable, but after 50 mangos, the pleasure is gone. Sex also is the same, any type of pleasure can lose it's pleasure quotient if over done. Pleasure is subjective to the person. So the jiva does not possess hladini at any time, it comes under either the full hladini or the shadow hladini. It can experience full pleasure, or mixed pleasure and pain. It possesses the ability for hladini to be experienced.
The jiva is not made of bliss or pleasure. That is hladini. The jiva is made of tatastha, it lacks hladini, it lacks knowledge, and it lacks independent eternal existence. The jiva can experience pleasure, knowledge, and eternality/existence. The jiva is a kind of tabula rasa, it never possesses anything other then it's own nature, which is existence/consciousness. That consciousness can experience Hladini, or knowledge or continual existence only as a gift, as an addition to it. This is why it's called tatastha. It is incomplete. It is not the same as Cit or Maya Sakti. It has no intrinsic capability other then to exist.
So it's not that the jiva has no hladini etc, the essential difference is control. The jiva is comprised of God, and God is in full control over him. The jiva has no control over his own nature, therefore really does not possess anything but existence/consciousness as it's intrinsic nature. While you can say it is a minute part of the whole and therefore possesses the same as the whole, in minuteness, In truth this is just basic understanding. If we go deeper, we can understand that since the jiva has no control, therefore the jiva does not possess anything. Possession means control. If you cannot control what you are and what you can experience, then you do not possess it.
This is the essential difference between Cit and Jiva Sakti. Control. Cit Sakti entities are complete, as Bhaktivinoda stated. The complete entities come from the complete Sakti. Cit Sakti and Maya Sakti (Cit acting in mundane realm) control, Jiva is controlled. Cit Sakti is the resorvior, the jiva can swim in the resorvior. Cit is independent and manifests forms like Krishna from Sandhini and Radha from Hladini, which are personifications of Cit. Jiva is dependent and therefore never really possesses anything, it never controls anything, and never will. It can only experience that which is given to him/her, it has no intrinsic nature other then to exist, be conscious, and be receiving of Cit or Maya Sakti.
Madhava - Sun, 29 Aug 2004 02:04:04 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Aug 28 2004, 10:26 PM) |
Madhava- I looked at the Gaudiya Grantha, they don't have Jaiva Dharma. Is there an online version in Bengali ? Here is another version of the same stuff, from the gaudiya math, they say it is translated by "Bengali Scholars". This one and the one used by BB Bodhayana Maharaja are almost identical and seem to be better then Narayana Maharaja's. |
We really need to drill back to the original authors. Bhaktivinoda is a secondary author whose works derive from the more foundational granthas of the sampradaya. Having the Bengali here wouldn't make much difference. We should mainly concern ourselves with Jiva's sandarbhas and Baladeva's Vedanta-bhasya in resolving this issue. If you wish to take advantage of Bhaktivinoda's works in this regard, you can track down his reasoning to earlier sources, look from where he cites from to back up his points and so on.
dirty hari - Sun, 29 Aug 2004 02:16:39 +0530
QUOTE |
We really need to drill back to the original authors. Bhaktivinoda is a secondary author whose works derive from the more foundational granthas of the sampradaya. Having the Bengali here wouldn't make much difference. We should mainly concern ourselves with Jiva's sandarbhas and Baladeva's Vedanta-bhasya in resolving this issue. If you wish to take advantage of Bhaktivinoda's works in this regard, you can track down his reasoning to earlier sources, look from where he cites from to back up his points and so on |
That's subjective. It depends on who you take as authoritative. Why should someone accept Jiva or Baladeva as more relevant then Bhaktivinoda ? We can also reject Baladeva as some do, saying he was influenced by Madhva. Or even Jiva can be rejected and we can say only Sanatana or Ramananda Raya are trustworthy. So when you say "we have to go back to the original authors", we end up having to ask, why do we accept them ? Why are they better then later authors ? It's all subjective. Jiva is no more authentic then Bhaktivinoda or Narayana Maharaja or Ananta Das Pandita, objectively speaking. All these concepts are purely theoretical and can neither be proven nor disproven objectively. This is why Krishna says "acaryam mam vijaniyam". There is no single authority other then Krishna. All acaryas are equally valid, they all channel the message of Krishna.
Madhava - Sun, 29 Aug 2004 02:25:13 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Aug 28 2004, 10:46 PM) |
That's subjective. It depends on who you take as authoritative. Why should someone accept Jiva or Baladeva as more relevant then Bhaktivinoda ? We can also reject Baladeva as some do, saying he was influenced by Madhva. Or even Jiva can be rejected and we can say only Sanatana or Ramananda Raya are trustworthy. So when you say "we have to go back to the original authors", we end up having to ask, why do we accept them? Why are they better then later authors ? It's all subjective. Jiva is no more authentic then Bhaktivinoda or Narayana Maharaja or Ananta Das Pandita, objectively speaking. All these concepts are purely theoretical and can neither be proven nor disproven objectively. This is why Krishna says "acaryam mam vijaniyam". There is no single authority other then Krishna. All acaryas are equally valid, they all channel the message of Krishna. |
Well, that may be so for you, but here we regard the writings of the Goswamis as the foundation. It is commonly accepted among Gaudiyas that they are the final word when it comes to our siddhanta. With due respect to him, Bhaktivinoda is not in the same league of authority with the Goswamis here.
I would not have mentioned even Baladeva, had it not been for his commentary on Vedanta, which again is an original source text.
The foundation in the context of the Goswamis is understood as that with which other conclusions need to comply, and that from which their authority is derived. Bhaktivinoda's writings derive authority, they are not an independent authority, except perhaps for his circle of followers.
Such are the rules of the game here.
dirty hari - Sun, 29 Aug 2004 02:33:12 +0530
I also accept the Goswamis as the foundation. Yet you seem to have missed the point of what I wrote. The parampara is made up of equals, just because the original members were the original members, that doesn't automatically make future members lesser in their realization and writings. This idea of yours that we cannot accept anyone but the goswami's as empowered writers is not supported by them. They are accepted, and others after them are accepted as well. Otherwise why read anything other then the Goswamis ? If no one is able to teach on their level, it stands to reason that no other opinions or writings have any real necessity. We might as well throw out everything else.
Madhava - Sun, 29 Aug 2004 02:38:44 +0530
The rest elaborate on what the Goswamis say. And yes, you could throw out the rest if you wanted, there would still be plenty enough in the Goswamis' writings for you for a long time. Personally I do not understand why people spend so much time reading other works and neglect the originals. It just breeds confusion.
Anyway, that's the policy here. We don't treat everyone as equal authorities. There is a descending gradation of authority. If you want to discuss that, start a separate thread.
Kishalaya - Sun, 29 Aug 2004 03:34:35 +0530
QUOTE |
It is a question of defining jIva. Does anyone know of a single, precise definition?
|
What I was aiming at is the understanding that jiva is essentially an atomic entity - "anu caitanya" and that God is all-pervading - "vibhu caitanya". Now, according to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Radha, being hlaadini svaruupa is described as "non-different" from Krishna - God. I would therefore assume that she is understood as "vibhu" here. This slant is also present in one school of Sri Vaishnavism, but they are very clear as to who all are Vibhu. It is Lakshmi only, apart from Vishnu, who is all pervading by her svaruupa and as far as other consorts such as Bhu and Neela are concerned, even though manifestations of Sri, are somehow monadic in their nature. The same goes for other nitya suuris. They may be omnipresent by virtue of their infinite knowledge (?)
QUOTE |
As has been noted in earlier threads, the sakhIs and mañjarIs have been described as Radha's kAya-vyUha-rUpa, thus making them all essentially manifestations of antaraGga-zakti.
|
The problem comes when we start asking who among these liberated are vibhu caitanya (and thus have ontological parity with God) and who are anu caitanya. And if only Radha is vibhu, why not Chandravali, Rukmini, Satyabhama and so on till some newly acquainted manjari who is now supposed to have become an "expansion" of Radha? Is there any clearcut statement that only Radha is vibhu and not others?
Satyabhama - Mon, 30 Aug 2004 03:46:55 +0530
QUOTE |
This slant is also present in one school of Sri Vaishnavism, but they are very clear as to who all are Vibhu. It is Lakshmi only, apart from Vishnu, who is all pervading by her svaruupa and as far as other consorts such as Bhu and Neela are concerned, even though manifestations of Sri, are somehow monadic in their nature. |
Do you know if they also differentiate between Mahalakshmi (four-armed form, counterpart of Sriman Narayana) and "Sridevi" in Her two-armed form as She often appears with Bhudevi?
Keshava - Mon, 30 Aug 2004 16:05:43 +0530
QUOTE (Satyabhama @ Aug 29 2004, 12:16 PM) |
QUOTE | This slant is also present in one school of Sri Vaishnavism, but they are very clear as to who all are Vibhu. It is Lakshmi only, apart from Vishnu, who is all pervading by her svaruupa and as far as other consorts such as Bhu and Neela are concerned, even though manifestations of Sri, are somehow monadic in their nature. |
Do you know if they also differentiate between Mahalakshmi (four-armed form, counterpart of Sriman Narayana) and "Sridevi" in Her two-armed form as She often appears with Bhudevi?
|
Kishalaya is speaking of the Vadakalai branch of Sri Vaisnavism. The other branch, the Tengalais accept Laksmi as a jiva whereas the Vadakalais accpet Her as God and able to independently give moksha just like Sriman Narayana. The Tengalais contend that this is in fact Dualism or the creation of two Gods (something which is against the spirit and letter of Vedanta).
As to whether anyone of them differentiates between caturbhuja Mahalaksmi and dvibhuja Sridevi the answer is "NO". There is no distinction amongst either group.
Another point brought up by Kishalaya is that although the Vadakalais accept Sridevi (Laksmi) as equal to Narayana they as he said do not accept anyone else as being so. So the other consorts of the Lord like Bhudevi and Niladevi are considered jivas and so are all the attendants in Vaikuntha, like Garuda, Visvaksena, etc.
My question to Vadakalais has always been: Since you consider Bhudevi and Niladevi (and others like Vidvaksena, Garuda, etc) to be all pervasive through their unlimited knowledge (remember according to Ramanuja the jiva has unlimited knowledge and bliss in moksha) why can't you just accept Sridevi in the same way? Why is She different?
Satyabhama - Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:20:57 +0530
QUOTE |
As to whether anyone of them differentiates between caturbhuja Mahalaksmi and dvibhuja Sridevi the answer is "NO". There is no distinction amongst either group. |
Thank you
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 01:43:34 +0530
Hari Bol Prabhus,
I found that it is somewhat odd that a vaisnava would not consider the consort of Narayana. Laksmi, a Vishnu Tattva.
I am no expert true but is this not the Ramanuja Sanmpradaya who worships Narayana?
http://www.srivaishnavan.comINTRODUCTION
Srivaishnavism aims at God-realisation within the framework of our normal wordly activities. The term Vaishnavism denotes the system developed by Sri Ramanuja where Vishnu & his consort Godess Sri(Lakshmi) are accepted as Supreme Being. Godess Lakshmi is the mother of the entire creation, being the consort of Lord Vishnu. Being inseparable from Him(Nityanapetam Sriyam), she acts as the mediatrix(purushakara) between man & God . She is also reckoned to be an Acharya or teacher in this tradition. This system of Sri Ramanuja is also therefore known as Sri Sampradaya. It is for reasons such as these that the system of Sri Ramanuja is called Srivaishnavism.
Sri Ramanuja is the systematiser of Srivaishnavism as it is followed today. Srivaishnavism is as old as Vedas. In the introductory verse of Sri Bhasya(the commentary on Brahma Sutras), Sri Ramanuja traces this philosophy to the Upanishads. It is believed that sage Vyasa, Bhodayana, Guhadeva & others have brought out this philosophy but their writings are not available except for the references by Sri Ramanuja.
Hare Krishna
Bhakta David
Madhava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 01:52:39 +0530
QUOTE (Bhakta David @ Sep 9 2004, 11:13 PM) |
I found that it is somewhat odd that a vaisnava would not consider the consort of Narayana. Laksmi, a Vishnu Tattva. |
Why would that be odd?
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:16:56 +0530
Madhava
I would not posit Laksmi as a jiva tattva, one who takes birth and death.
I am talking of Narayana's (Vishnu) consort.
Hare Krishna
Bhakta David
Madhava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:24:31 +0530
QUOTE (Bhakta David @ Sep 9 2004, 11:46 PM) |
I would not posit Laksmi as a jiva tattva, one who takes birth and death. |
Where is a jIva defined exclusively as that which takes birth and death? What about nitya-siddha-jIvas?
Satyabhama - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:25:50 +0530
some do put Her in the category of nitya-siddha jiva
some say she is ishvara tattva ie. able to grant moksha
on Her own etc., etc.
I dunno, people say lots of things
![smile.gif](http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif)
I say, I do not know! It does not bother me much either way. For me She is the ever-compassionate Mother, who stands on the right side of the Lord, while Her best friend and co-wife Bhudevi stands on the left, and together they (kindly, gently) pester the Lord on behalf on Their sinning children (us).
If Sri Hari turns to the right, there is Sridevi pleading with Him. If He is somewhat moved but still not totally convinced, perhaps, He turns to the left, and there is Bhudevi with Her pleading eyes. Whatever
tattva these Ladies are, they are so so sooooo loveable, and they love us very much. And that's that, if you ask me!
Attachment:
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:30:30 +0530
Hari Bol
I would argue that Narayana-Laksmi are emanations of Radha Krishna. Laksmi is the source of further emanations as lower demigods.
Hare Krishna
Bhakta David
Madhava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:38:55 +0530
QUOTE (Bhakta David @ Sep 10 2004, 12:00 AM) |
I would argue that Narayana-Laksmi are emanations of Radha Krishna. Laksmi is the source of further emanations as lower demigods. |
I dare say that this wouldn't solve the debate between the Vadakalais and the Tengalais. I believe they've been at it for a good while, and this solution, in all its simplicity, probably didn't fit the standard they expect for a solution.
If you'd been carefully reading up on this and related debates, you'd know this wouldn't solve it in the Gaudiya context either.
Satyabhama - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:39:13 +0530
Sarasijanayane saroja haste dhavaLataraaM shukagandhamaalyashobhe.
bhagavati harivallabhe manojJNe tribhuvanabhuutikari prasiidamahyam..
Isn't She lovely?
Attachment:
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:39:23 +0530
Hari Bol Prabhus
Vishnu Tattvas have bodies of sac cid ananada vigraha. Eternity, bliss, and knowledge. Sri Isopanisad
I would posit Laksmi as having a body of sac cid ananda vigraha.
Nitya siddhi jiva I believe come here to the material world to help the Nitya siddhi baddha. They take on a material body but are liberated.
Hare Krishna
Bhakta David
Madhava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:52:43 +0530
QUOTE (Bhakta David @ Sep 10 2004, 12:09 AM) |
Vishnu Tattvas have bodies of sac cid ananada vigraha. Eternity, bliss, and knowledge. Sri Isopanisad |
That isn't said anywhere in the Isopanishad.
Yes, manifestations of viSNu-tattva have bodies of sac-cid-Ananda. That doesn't mean that everything having a sac-cid-Ananda-vigraha is viSNu-tattva. Everyone in Vaikuntha and Goloka has such a form. Are they all viSNu-tattva? When you go there, attaining a sac-cid-Ananda-svarUpa, will you be viSNu-tattva?
babu - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:54:06 +0530
QUOTE (Satyabhama @ Sep 9 2004, 09:09 PM) |
Isn't She lovely? |
Personally, I never consider beauty until I am able to scripturally qualify what is the beauty in question.
Satyabhama - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:55:32 +0530
Good! I get Her all to myself then?
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:58:06 +0530
Hari Bol
Madhava
Sri Isopanisad confirms that Krishna has a body of sac cid ananda vigraha. I am only stating that Laksmi has one also. I agree with your other comments on sac cid ananada vigraha entirely.
Hare Krishna
Bhakta David
Madhava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:01:11 +0530
QUOTE (Bhakta David @ Sep 10 2004, 12:28 AM) |
Sri Isopanisad confirms that Krishna has a body of sac cid ananda vigraha. I am only stating that Laksmi has one also. I agree with your other comments on sac cid ananada vigraha entirely. |
It doesn't say that anywhere. If it does, quote the verse. I just read through it to confirm this, and it doesn't say that anywhere. The closest you get is verse 16 and the reference to a kalyANatama-rUpa.
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:06:17 +0530
Hari Bol Prabhus
This is from Tripurari who concurs with the position that I have stated. I am not a Tripurari follower.
"God engaged in lila is not, as some philosophers misconstrue, an example of Brahman contaminated by maya. According to the Gita there is nothing higher than Krsna (mattah parataram nanyat). It is not that he is a lesser expression of Brahman."
Q. Are the gods and goddesses actually expansions of Sri Sri Laksmi and Narayana?
A. In the material world, the gods and goddesses known as devas are partial manifestations of Laksmi and Narayana, who are themselves expansions of Radha and Krsna, respectively. The devas are divine in the sense that they are empowered by Narayana and his consort Laksmi. The individual souls who achieve posts as devas are very pious devotees. This, however, is not the case for Siva and Devi, who are manifestations of divinity in a class of their own. Siva is a transformation of Visnu. This transformation has been compared to milk becoming yogurt. Siva's consort, Devi, is an expansion of Laksmi, who is herself an expansion of Radha.
Bhagavad-gita says that men of small knowledge worship the devas and receive fruits that are limited and temporary. It also says that those who worship demigods go to the abodes of the demigods, while those who worship Krsna reach his supreme abode (Bg. 7.23 and 9.25).
Hare Krishna
Bhakta David
Madhava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:10:03 +0530
All of that is common knowledge. That aside, you would do well to refer to original sources instead of contemporary authors if you intend to present references that would bring about a meaningful resolution.
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:12:40 +0530
Madhava
Try Brahma Samhita for this verse. Sac cid anananda vigraha. It is totally implied in the first verse however.
Mahaprabhu excavated Sri Brahma Samhita.
Hare Krishna
Bhakta David
babu - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:14:18 +0530
Or when you cite Sri Isopanishad and leave the verse cited unknown.
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:18:57 +0530
Hari Bol Prabhus
errata. If Laksmi Narayana are emanations of Vishnu this will confirm as well as from what I have seen Sri Sampradaya as posted supra.
Jagat are you lurking out there?
By Bhaktisiddhanta
Brahma-samhita
TEXT 1
TEXT
isvarah paramah krsnah
sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah
anadir adir govindah
sarva-karana-karanam
SYNONYMS
isvarah--the controller; paramah--supreme; krsnah--Lord Krsna; sat--
comprising eternal existence; cit--absolute knowledge; ananda--and absolute
bliss; vigrahah--whose form; anadih--without beginning; adih--the origin;
govindah--Lord Govinda; sarva-karana-karanam--the cause of all causes.
TRANSLATION
Krsna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal
blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He
is the prime cause of all causes.
PURPORT
Krsna is the exalted Supreme entity having His eternal name, eternal form,
eternal attribution and eternal pastimes. The very name "Krsna" implies His
love-attracting designation, expressing by His eternal nomenclature the acme of
entity. His eternal beautiful heavenly blue-tinged body glowing with the
intensity of ever-existing knowledge has a flute in both His hands. As His
inconceivable spiritual energy is all-extending, still He maintains His allcharming
medium size by His qualifying spiritual instrumentals. His all accommodating
supreme subjectivity is nicely manifested in His eternal form. The
concentrated all-time presence, uncovered knowledge and inebriating felicity
have their beauty in Him. The mundane manifestive portion of His own Self is
known as all-pervading Paramatma, Isvara (Superior Lord) or Visnu (All fostering).
Hence it is evident that Krsna is sole Supreme Godhead.
His unrivaled or unique spiritual body of superexcellent charm is eternally unveiled
with innumerable spiritual instrumentals (senses) and unreckonable attributes
keeping their signifying location properly, adjusting at the same time by His
inconceivable conciliative powers. This beautiful spiritual figure is identical
with Krsna and the spiritual entity of Krsna is identical with His own figure.
The very intensely blended entity of eternal presence of felicitous cognition
is the charming targeted holding or transcendental icon. It follows that the
conception of the indistinguishable formless magnitude (Brahman) which is an
indolent, lax, presentment of cognitive bliss, is merely a penumbra of intensely
blended glow of the three concomitants, viz., the blissful, the substantive and
the cognitive. This transcendental manifestive icon Krsna in His original face
is primordial background of magnitudinal infinite Brahman and of the allpervasive
oversoul. Krsna as truly visioned in His variegated pastimes, such as
owner of transcendental cows, chief of cowherds, consort of milk-maids, ruler of
the terrestrial abode Gokula and object of worship by transcendental residents
of Goloka beauties, is Govinda. He is the root cause of all causes who are the
predominating and predominated agents of the universe. The glance of His
projected fractional portion in the sacred originating water viz., the personal
oversoul or Paramatma, gives rise to a secondary potency--nature who creates
this mundane universe. This oversoul's intermediate energy brings forth the
individual souls analogously to the emanated rays of the sun.
This book is a treatise of Krsna; so the preamble is enacted by chanting His
name in the beginning.
Hare Krsihna
Bhakta David
Madhava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:23:00 +0530
QUOTE (Bhakta David @ Sep 10 2004, 12:42 AM) |
Try Brahma Samhita for this verse. Sac cid anananda vigraha. It is totally implied in the first verse however. |
Yes, I am aware of this. However, Brahma Samhita is not Isopanishad. You need to be careful with your sources. If possible, always quote the Sanskrit. If not, at least give a specific reference to chapter and verse etc.
On the Radha - Lakshmi connection, you could have cited for example CC 1.4.90 (sarva-lakSmI-gaNera tiGho hana adhiSThAna) or BrS 44 (zaktir eka chAyeva yasya ... durgA). You need to focus on primary sources on issues like this.
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:37:27 +0530
Hari Bol Prabhu
By Bhativinode Thakura
Sri Tattva sutra
Sutra 7
QUOTE |
If someone claims, "The Lord is different from His potency", then I reply, "No. It is not so, for they are not different." |
Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura
If someone claims that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the creator of the worlds, is different from His potency, then this sutra is spoken to refute him. Because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not different from His many potencies, the potencies are not different from Him. This is described in the following words of the Nyaya-sastra:
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of all potencies, is not different from His potencies."
In the Svetasvatara Upanisad (6.8.) it is said:
"The Lord's potencies of knowledge, power and action share His own nature. They are not different from Him."
In Visnu Purana (1.22.53) it is said:
"Just as the illumination of a fire, which is situated in one place, is spread over, the energies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Parabrahman, are spread all over the universe."*
In the Markandeya Purana, Devi-mahatmya, the sage explains:
QUOTE |
"O king, now I will describe to you the glories of the goddess. By her power she sustains the entire world.
"She is the potency of Lord Visnu. From her comes transcendental knowledge. You and many others have attained transcendental knowledge by her grace." |
Hare Krishna
Bhakta David
Satyabhama - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:39:41 +0530
Ok, Lakshmi is Vishnu's Sri sakthi. Lakshmi is inherent in Vishnu, and is not separate from Him. That does not necessarily mean she is ishvara tattva. It also does not mean she is NOT ishvara tattva.
Madhava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:47:43 +0530
David,
And the point of these quotes being?
You don't need to quote pages of something everybody already knows, especially if most of it isn't relevant.
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:01:30 +0530
Madhava Prabhu
On page 48 and 49 of The Bhagavata by Bhativinode:
The Supreme Possesor of power Sri Krishna is inseparably coupled with His antaranga-shakti or power inhering His Own Figure... In other words Swarupa or antarnaga shakti is one and all perfect. She is the "Predominated Absolute."... She has her own figure,viz. that of Sri Radhika....Jivas or individual souls are detachable infinitesimal emanations of the tatastha-shakti sharing the essence of spiritual power.
Thakura states the Goddess is non-different.
Hare Krishna
Bhakta David
Satyabhama - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:04:46 +0530
Why do people use the term "non-different" rather than "the same"?
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:18:55 +0530
Satyabhama prabhu
QUOTE |
Why do people use the term "non-different" rather than "the same"? |
They are synonyms. Logical equivalence.
Hare Krishna
Bhakta David
Satyabhama - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:23:46 +0530
QUOTE |
They are synonyms. Logical equivalence. |
Maybe
Keshava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:26:25 +0530
QUOTE |
I am no expert true but is this not the Ramanuja Sanmpradaya who worships Narayana?
|
I can see that you are not an expert. So let me enlighten you. Ramanuja or Sri Sampradaya not only worships Narayana but also all His incarnations such as Rama, Krsna, Nrsimha, etc. It is not that we ONLY worship Narayana. Secondly we do so along with his retinue especially giving prominence to Mahalaksmi or Sri Devi who acts in the capacity of a mediatrix between the jivatmas and the Lord.
QUOTE |
I found that it is somewhat odd that a vaisnava would not consider the consort of Narayana. Laksmi, a Vishnu Tattva.
|
Actually it is strange that you should say this. My experience is that there is absolutely NO Vaisnava sampradaya that accepts Laksmi/Radha as Visnu Tattva. (Even Gaudiyas do not accept Her as exactly equal to the Lord. If She is so, then why do you not put tulasi leaves on her feet like you do for all other Visnu Tattva deities?) To do so would be tantemount to accepting two Gods. What some Vaisnavas say is that She is like God but still does not have the power to manifest the creation, etc. The Vadakalai versus Tenkalai debate (two branches of the Sri Sampradaya) centers around whether or not She is capable of giving Moksha independently of Narayana/Krsna and whether or not She is all prevading by Her svarupa or not.
Otherwise Madhvas, Tenkalais, and most other Vaisnavas do not accept the above.
Because your experience is only with Gaudiya Vaisnavsim you think this strange but in actual fact it is the orthodox Vedantic conclusion.
Keshava
Keshava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:30:26 +0530
QUOTE |
Sri Isopanisad confirms that Krishna has a body of sac cid ananda vigraha. I am only stating that Laksmi has one also |
Narayana/Krsna's body is sac cid ananda, Laksmi/Radha's body is sac cid ananda and everyone elses body in Goloka/Vaikuntha is sac cid ananda. So what? This proves nothing. It says nothing about what tattva the personality is. Ramanuja even posits a type of spiritual matter in Vaikuntha called suddha sattva. It is also sca cid ananda.
Keshava
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:34:29 +0530
Sri Brhad Bhagatamrtam
by
Srila Sanatan Goswami
Keshava have you studied logic? Please reconsider.
QUOTE |
QUOTE I am no expert true but is this not the Ramanuja Sanmpradaya who worships Narayana? I can see that you are not an expert. So let me enlighten you. Ramanuja or Sri Sampradaya not only worships Narayana but also all His incarnations such as Rama, Krsna, Nrsimha, etc. It is not that we ONLY worship Narayana. Secondly we do so along with his retinue especially giving prominence to Mahalaksmi or Sri Devi who acts in the capacity of a mediatrix between the jivatmas and the Lord. |
QUOTE |
Actually it is strange that you should say this. My experience is that there is absolutely NO Vaisnava sampradaya that accepts Laksmi/Radha as Visnu Tattva. (Even Gaudiyas do not accept Her as exactly equal to the Lord. If She is so, then why do you not put tulasi leaves on her feet like you do for all other Visnu Tattva deities?) To do so would be tantemount to accepting two Gods. What some Vaisnavas say is that She is like God but still does not have the power to manifest the creation, etc. The Vadakalai versus Tenkalai debate (two branches of the Sri Sampradaya) centers around whether or not She is capable of giving Moksha independently of Narayana/Krsna and whether or not She is all prevading by Her svarupa or not. |
Prabhu Keshava: You have a very narrow view. The Brahma Sampadaya does overwhelmingly. I am providing the classic texts here. Gaudiya Math and ISKCON do totally. This another selection that is arguing Vishnu Tattva according to such.
Srila Sanatana Gosvami explains that this is described in Vishnu Purana:
"O best of the brahmanas, Lord Vishnu's transcendental potency, Srimati Laksmi-devi, is His constant faithful companion. She is eternal and she is the mother of the entire material universe. She is all-pervading, just as Lord Vishnu is."
"Laksmi-devi appears in different forms corresponding to the forms of Lord Vishnu. When the Lord appears as a demigod, she assumes a demigod-like form, and when He appears in a human-like form, she assumes a human-like form."
169 Devoted to Him, she always stays on the Lord's chest. As Lord Krsna manifests His different incarnations, she manifests her incarnations as His devoted consorts.
170 She is like a great mystic perfection among the other goddesses of fortune. She is the queen of all opulences. As the giver of material opulences, she is neglected by the devotees, the liberated and they who aspire for liberation.
Hare Krishna
Bhakta David
Satyabhama - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:37:24 +0530
QUOTE |
"O best of the brahmanas, Lord Vishnu's transcendental potency, Srimati Laksmi-devi, is His constant faithful companion. She is eternal and she is the mother of the entire material universe. She is all-pervading, just as Lord Vishnu is." |
Davidji, what has this to do with the question?
Keshava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:45:23 +0530
QUOTE |
"God engaged in lila is not, as some philosophers misconstrue, an example of Brahman contaminated by maya.
|
This is again completely besides the point.
QUOTE |
According to the Gita there is nothing higher than Krsna (mattah parataram nanyat). It is not that he is a lesser expression of Brahman." |
This is a very impresise quote. On face value it can be interpreted in many ways.
1. There is nothing higher than Krsna meaning Narayana.
2. There is nothing higher than Krsna meaning only Vasudeva Krsna (who spoke the Gita).
3. There is nothing higher than Krsna meaning Vrndavan Krsna (although he didn't actually speak the Gita)
4. This also leaves the door open to say that although there is nothing higher there can be something or someone equal to Krsna.
Sorry this is too vague.
QUOTE |
In the material world, the gods and goddesses known as devas are partial manifestations of Laksmi and Narayana, who are themselves expansions of Radha and Krsna, respectively. |
Again too vague. What kind of expansions. Ultimately we are all expansions. Janmadyasya yatah.
QUOTE |
The devas are divine in the sense that they are empowered by Narayana and his consort Laksmi. |
Again too vague. We are all empowered by Narayana/Krsna.
QUOTE |
This, however, is not the case for Siva and Devi, who are manifestations of divinity in a class of their own. Siva is a transformation of Visnu. This transformation has been compared to milk becoming yogurt. Siva's consort, Devi, is an expansion of Laksmi, who is herself an expansion of Radha. |
Again too vague. If it's simply the difference between milk and yoghurt then some people will prefer milkshakes and others lassi.
Jagat if you read this please answer this question:
If Laksmi/Radha = Narayana/Krsna then does Siva/Devi also equal them?
Keshava
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:57:02 +0530
Satyabhama
QUOTE |
QUOTE "O best of the brahmanas, Lord Vishnu's transcendental potency, Srimati Laksmi-devi, is His constant faithful companion. She is eternal and she is the mother of the entire material universe. She is all-pervading, just as Lord Vishnu is."
Davidji, what has this to do with the question? |
This is falling into a circular argument. If one goes to the Brahma Sampradaya of which many of you once were are a part, A Vishnu Tattva will have an immediate expansion as consort who is also a Vishnu Tattva as the Vedas are an emanate system.
It is interstesting because the Bhaktivinode and Sanatana Goswami purports here are used in that line. If you go to the sites of these modern speakers in this line this is overwhelming. I see no problem.
Hare Krishna
Bhakta David
Madhava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:01:16 +0530
QUOTE (Satyabhama @ Sep 10 2004, 01:34 AM) |
Why do people use the term "non-different" rather than "the same"? |
They are not, in fact, entirely synonymous or logically equivalent. For example, non-difference can refer to something identical yet separate, such as non-difference in shape, as with two cars of the same model, or non-difference in quantity, as with water in a glass and water in a well. They are still not same in all respects, although they are essentially non-different. You use the word same when you refer twice to a distinct, individual item or entity, while you may use non-different while referring to two or more separate factors which share a prominent degree of similarity in some or all respects.
Madhava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:03:34 +0530
QUOTE (Bhakta David @ Sep 10 2004, 02:04 AM) |
"O best of the brahmanas, Lord Vishnu's transcendental potency, Srimati Laksmi-devi, is His constant faithful companion. She is eternal and she is the mother of the entire material universe. She is all-pervading, just as Lord Vishnu is." |
Please provide a specific reference this, preferably with the Sanskrit.
Satyabhama - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:04:15 +0530
Madhava, that was exactly I was getting at. I had hoped Bhakta David would've given a similar reply!
Keshava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:11:06 +0530
QUOTE |
This is falling into a circular argument. |
Not at all.
QUOTE |
A Vishnu Tattva will have an immediate expansion as consort who is also a Vishnu Tattva as the Vedas are an emanate system. |
Not only is this not correct. But you have not given any sastra pramana (proof) for it. And what do you mean by "as the Vedas are an emanate system"? The Vedas are eternal, they are not created even by God. No Vaisnava Sampadaya says that the Vedas are created.
QUOTE |
It is interstesting because the Bhaktivinode and Sanatana Goswami purports here are used in that line. If you go to the sites of these modern speakers in this line this is overwhelming. I see no problem.
|
Neither the quotes of modern writers nor those of Bhaktivinode nor even of Sanatana Goswami are absolute sastra pramana. If you wish to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt you have to quote from the Veda (sruti). All Gaudiyas may accept Sanatana Goswami but not all of them accept Bhaktivinode and when dealing with those who owe alleigence to other sampradayas one should give a common pramana from sruti otherwise it is simply sampradayic dogma. Similarly one should be able to give logical proof to those nastikas (who don't accept the Vedas).
My logical proof that Laksmi/Radha is not equal to Narayana/Krsna is that if She were there would be two Gods. No Vaisnava sampradaya accepts that. Neither do most other religions. If at all a religious person accepts more than one supreme God then they would be polytheistic and not just stop at accepting two Gods but would be open to accepting many. So logically if we accept Laksmi/Radha as God, why can we not accept Bhudevi/Satyabhama as God, and by extension you and I as God?
Do you see the problem now?
Satyabhama - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:19:44 +0530
Well, I think that according to those who DO accept Lakshmi as ishvara tattva, Bhudevi and Niladevi, though amsas of Lakshmi, are supposed to be (nitya siddha) jivas...
anyway, in my view, Lakshmi's existence depends on the existence of Vishnu and not the other way round. So that gives some indication of Her ontological status.
And I do say "I think" and "in my view" because I do not have the quotes... Sorry I do not have scriptural references. I'm not good at this sort of thing!
And by the way, since you mentioned Her, Bhudevi is my ishta devi and number one Heroine!
(Just giving a "shout out" to my Lady!)
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:25:23 +0530
Haribol Prabhus
Easy things first:
QUOTE |
Not only is this not correct. But you have not given any sastra pramana (proof) for it. And what do you mean by "as the Vedas are an emanate system"? The Vedas are eternal, they are not created even by God. No Vaisnava Sampadaya says that the Vedas are created. |
The Vedas ARE AN EMANANT SYSTEM. This is in contrast to Christianity which is
ex-nihilo. This is to state the Great Historical Monotheism created everything from a void. If you consulted any Christian scholar worth their salt or any Comparitive Religion 101 course this will be true.
Balarama is the first expansion of Krishna. This proves that the Vedas are emanate.
The Verse cited is 168 of Sanatana Goswami and I do not have the sanskrit.
Here is the site:
http://www.bvml.org/index.htmI agree that there is a difference here. I do not find it totally distressing, actually interesting.
Vedabase would yield the perspective in the Brahma Gaudiya line.
Hare Krishna
Bhakta David
Madhava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:29:36 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Sep 10 2004, 02:41 AM) |
Neither the quotes of modern writers nor those of Bhaktivinode nor even of Sanatana Goswami are absolute sastra pramana. |
Begging you pardon, with all adequate respect, but Bhaktivinoda, too, is a modern author.
QUOTE |
My logical proof that Laksmi/Radha is not equal to Narayana/Krsna is that if She were there would be two Gods. No Vaisnava sampradaya accepts that. Neither do most other religions. If at all a religious person accepts more than one supreme God then they would be polytheistic and not just stop at accepting two Gods but would be open to accepting many. So logically if we accept Laksmi/Radha as God, why can we not accept Bhudevi/Satyabhama as God, and by extension you and I as God? |
Indeed, this is at the core of the matter. If Vishnu or Krishna is God, Vishnu-tattva, (and I suppose he is!), then his expansions are Vishnu-tattva, too. Then, what of the expansions of Radha? And I do not only refer to Lakshmi (or vice versa with Sri-sampradaya), but the Vraja-devis and so forth. The lakSmI sahasra-zata saMbhrama sevyamAnam (BrS 28), the thousands of Lakshmis, are interpreted as the Vraja-devIs who serve Sri GokulanAtha. vraja-devI-gaNa ... tAGra kAya-vyUha-rUpa (CC 1.4.79), they are the vyUha-expansions of her form. Where, then, do we draw the line? When does it stop being God, or Vishnu-tattva?
Shall we just conclude, sarvaM khalv idaM brahma (ChUp 3.14.1)? That would be Vedantic, undisputably orthodox.
In this vein, let me ask whether Brahman is God, as in Vishnu-tattva? What of those, then, who attain sAyujya-mukti, do they become Vishnu-tattva? Do they become the same, or do they become nondifferent? Or do they cease as individuals altogether, making consideration of becoming redundant?
Madhava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:34:19 +0530
QUOTE (Bhakta David @ Sep 10 2004, 02:55 AM) |
Balarama is the first expansion of Krishna. This proves that the Vedas are emanate. |
Can you tell me, when did either Balarama or the Vedas first emanate? Or are they rather emanating all the time, without a beginning, without an end? Can God start emanating new stuff if he so wishes, and can he stop emanating that which has always emanated?
We call God with many names according to his various functions. Why don't we start calling him the Great Emanator.
QUOTE |
The Verse cited is 168 of Sanatana Goswami and I do not have the sanskrit. |
Hmm... I've never heard of a text called the Sanatana Goswami book. Which text might that be? Any more specific links to that site, even?
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:49:50 +0530
Haribol Prabhus
The text at hand:
Sri Brhad Bhagatamrtam
by sanatan Goswam.
Krishna is the original Vishnu. They all Vishnu Tattvas exist eternally of course. Krishna is the Original Vishnu than Balarama is second. There are inifinite in number. They can emanate any amount of spiritual or material matter, the latter is due to accomadating the Jiva tattvas.
This is the part the Judeo-Christian-Islamic side denies as they all believe in Genesis ex-nihelo or from a void. Enough said.
The Vedas are eternal and Godhead in any form can present such as needed for the fall souls. All the souls in Vaikuntha know such as they are now sac-ananda vigraha.
I believe that Godhead is argued as always expanding without any loss sac -cid ananda. We would not call such they great emanator because there is no scripture describing such all though in rasa-lila this is implied (expansion). I will not go there.
Hare Krishna
Bhakta David
Madhava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:51:47 +0530
QUOTE (Satyabhama @ Sep 10 2004, 02:49 AM) |
Anyway, in my view, Lakshmi's existence depends on the existence of Vishnu and not the other way round. So that gives some indication of Her ontological status. |
Indeed, this is a good yard-stick on God-ness. God is svarAt, independent. If there were no others, would he exist? If there were no Lakshmi, would Narayana exist? If there were no Narayana, would Lakshmi exist? Then, who is in the ontologically dependent position? The one with the dependent position cannot be the supremely independent being.
Now. of course all of this makes Krishna's Godhood totally dubious, but then again nobody in Vraja gives a damn about that anyway...
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 06:06:09 +0530
Haribol Prabhus.
Attempting to solve this by logic is not going to be easy. If persons have their different perceptions I am willing to accept and respect those issues. There are those where the implications are more direct and for others less.
Your servant
Bhakta David
Jagat - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 06:35:16 +0530
Dear Satyabhama,
Hari appears in a male form. Yet he is beyond duality. How can this be? Because alone he is not God. Without his female counterpart, he is only half of himself.
God is not complete without his shaktis. Of course, impersonal Brahman does not need shaktis. Bhagavan does.
Jagat - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 06:36:34 +0530
David, Could you look up "emanent" in the dictionary. I am not sure that you have the right spelling. Thanks.
Jagat
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 07:33:19 +0530
Hari Bol
Jagat
Here is the Catholic refutation of said term by St Thomas Aquinas.
I answer that, As said above (44, 2), we must consider not only the emanation of a particular being from a particular agent, but also the emanation of all being from the universal cause, which is God; and this emanation we designate by the name of creation. Now what proceeds by particular emanation, is not presupposed to that emanation; as when a man is generated, he was not before, but man is made from "not-man," and white from "not-white." Hence if the emanation of the whole universal being from the first principle be considered, it is impossible that any being should be presupposed before this emanation. For nothing is the same as no being. Therefore as the generation of a man is from the "not-being" which is "not-man," so creation, which is the emanation of all being, is from the "not-being" which is "nothing."
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/104501.htmDo you have an opinion on Laksmi as Vishnu Tattva?
Hare Krishna
Bhakta David
Keshava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:03:30 +0530
QUOTE |
She is all-pervading, just as Lord Vishnu is."
|
Dear David ji, you are assuming (incorrectly) that only God can be all pervading and therefore if one is all pervading one is equal to God. This is not correct. According to Sripad Ramanuja even the Jiva is able to attain a type of all prevasiveness in moksha due to the expansion of it's knowledge/consciousness which was in a contracted/covered state in this material world. Laksmi/Radha (like all of us) is all pervading in this sense and not in the same exact way as Narayana/Krsna (God) is. Isvara/God/Narayana/Krsna pervades everything by His svarupa whereas others in moksha pervade by their unlimited jnana.
I do not know how the Madhvas justify it but this is the doctrine of the Tengalai Sri Vaisnavas. The Vadakalais partially agree with you and similarly quote Visnu Purana however I still challenge you that if Laksmi/Radha is exactly equal to Narayana/Krsna then why is it that we are told to approach Narayana/Krsna through Her and why does She not receive Tulasi leaves on her feet in worship or have the eternal weapons and other paraphenalia of the Lord? Why also are there not Vaisnava temples dedicated soley to Her if She is simply another form or Avatara of the Lord as Sri Mohini Devi is? Please answer all these questions.
No doubt Laksmiji is very important to us as the supreme Lord's consort and a mediatrix to Him. And to show how important She is to us, She is the adi guru of the Sri sampradaya (even named after Her). We wear Sri curna as well as tilaka on our bodies (but we have not supreseded the tilaka with sri curna as some Gaudiyas do with Radha Kunda clay), we have not only deities of her with Narayana but in each temple She has her own sanctum sanctorum.
Contrast this with Vrndavana where many of the temples do not even have a manifest deity of Radha. Admittedly this probably is from a time when the goddess was not emphasised as since that time Radha has certainly become more prominent even to the point of eclipsing Krsna in some forms of Vaisnavism like Radha Vallabha sampradaya and some forms of extreme Gaudiya practice.
QUOTE |
Laksmi-devi appears in different forms corresponding to the forms of Lord Vishnu. |
Obviously they are two distinct entities. Otherwise this statement would not make sense. Having said that, there cannot logically be two distinct supreme personalities of Godhead? This would be a form of true dualism which is NOWHERE found in the Vedic scriptures.
QUOTE |
Devoted to Him, she always stays on the Lord's chest. As Lord Krsna manifests His different incarnations, she manifests her incarnations as His devoted consorts. |
Rukmini is an incarnation of Laksmi. According to Sri Vaisnavas Radha or Napinnai or Pinnai is an incarnation of Nila devi. Satyabhama is an incarnation of Bhudevi, so is Sita according to some (Sita was born of the earth and went back to the Earth.) Lord Varaha's consort was Bhudevi. So my question is, are Bhu and Nila devis also God/Visnu tattva? No one accepts that. Then why should we accept Laksmi as being so? Bhu and Nila are seated right next to Laksmi in Vaikuntha with Lord Narayana, just as Rukmini and Satyabhama stand on either side of Lord Krsna in Dvaraka, or some say Radha and C------vali (don't want to offend anyone) are corresponding consorts of Krsna in Vrndavan. And they accompany him on all his descents as different avataras as I just described. Even Sri Caitanya had two consorts Visnupriya and Laksmipriya. Which one of them was Visnu Tattva/God? And which one was not? And also if either Visnupriya and/or Laksmipriya are Laksmi/Radha then is not also Gadadhara Laksmi/Radha. Not only that but Mahaprabhu Himself is a mixture of Krsna and Radha. And while we are at it, is Advaita Acharya Mahavisnu or Siva or both or do Gaudiya's even care or know or think that it matters. So to summerize Mahaprabhu is Radha Krsna, his consorts Lakmsipriya and Visnupriya (either one or both are Laksmi and or Bhu devi) and Gadadhara is Radha also and Advaita is either Mahavisnu or Siva or both. Just sounds a bit complex and redundant to me. It seems to me that Gaudiyas are not real clear on some of these points.
But again as far as all pervasiveness goes. So What? What does this prove? I already explained to you how all pervasiveness is not a quality only manifest by God. If it were then we could not have deities of demigods or great saints. Those deities are infact pervaded by the unlimited jnana of those personalities in moksha. Otherwise they must all be either pervaded by no one or the supreme Lord. If they are pervaded by no one that amounts to idol worship and if they are pervaded by the supreme Lord then we may worship deities of Prabhupada, Siva, Ganesha and Krsna all as the supreme. Take your choice. Either be an atheistic idol worshiper or a mayavadi (advaitin) worshiper of any so-called form of Brahman.
The only logical philosophical conclusion is that the deity of the saint and the deity of Laksmi is pervaded by the unlimited consciousness of those personalities in moksha. By the way this is why deities of saint are not traditionally worshiped during the saints lifetime. Sri Vaisnavas do not believe in jivan mukti they only accept videha mukti. Even then the example of Sripad Ramanuja is there. During his lifetime several deities of him were installed. The most famous of which was installed at his birthsite in Sri Perumbadur. At the time of opening the eyes (netronmilinam) of the deity it was observed that small drops of blood came from the living Acharya's eyes due to the use of the shrp instruments on the deities eyes. This story is given as proof that the acharya pervaded his deity. How could he do that, was he God? No, it can only be done by God or by those who are liberated (due to their unlimited jnana). Admittedly this story may or may not be factual, because as I said Sri Vaisnavas do not accept jivan mukti. But the philosophical point that it portrays is certainly clear. A jiva can be all pervading by his conciousness/knowledge. Therefore this is not a proof of Godship.
QUOTE |
She is like a great mystic perfection among the other goddesses of fortune. |
So are you trying to say according to this there are more goddesses of fortune who are distinct from Laksmi. Are they all equal to Narayana too? Let's get serious! Certainly there can be more goddesses of fortune but they are either incarnations of Laksmi or other jivas they are NOT more distinct supreme beings in their own right.
QUOTE |
She is the queen of all opulences. |
Right, She is the Queen NOT the King. She is different from Narayana who is the King. So that's what I am saying She is different and therefore not equal to Narayana. She is not greater (no one is), She is not equal (no one is) and therefore logically She must be inferior to Narayana (as everyone is). There is only one Supreme, only one shelter, only one sustainer, only one enjoyer, only one maintainer, only one independent. And everyone else including Laksmi is inferior, less than supreme, taking shelter of Him, sustained by Him, enjoyed by Him, maintained by Him, and dependent on Him.
He is svatantra and we (including Laksmi) are paratantra. He is Sesi and we are sesa. etc. Got it?
QUOTE |
As the giver of material opulences, she is neglected by the devotees, the liberated and they who aspire for liberation.
|
Not relevant. Unless you consider that She gives material opulences meaning conversely that She does NOT give liberation or moksha. If She also gives moksha like Narayana then why was this not mentioned here. And also if She does do this then why do the devotees neglect Her? Certainly those endeavoring for moksha would not want to neglect Her if She could give moksha. So do you have any sastric quote that says that She can directly and indepenently give moksha? This is the real test of God. Only God can give moksha.
Keshava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:35:30 +0530
QUOTE |
Begging you pardon, with all adequate respect, but Bhaktivinoda, too, is a modern author.
|
You are correct. I stand corrected. I wrote in haste and lumped them both in the same sentence. However from some points of view Bhaktivinode could be considered not so modern. And others might also consider Sanatana as modern. Really modern and ancient are sort of rekative terms.
QUOTE |
the thousands of Lakshmis, are interpreted as the Vraja-devIs who serve Sri GokulanAtha. vraja-devI-gaNa ... tAGra kAya-vyUha-rUpa (CC 1.4.79), they are the vyUha-expansions of her form. Where, then, do we draw the line? When does it stop being God, or Vishnu-tattva?
|
Yes, this is my point exactly. Where do we draw the line? Of course it is easiest to draw the line right between Radha and Krsna, but is it correct? I am not convinced that the easiest explanation it the correct one but at the same time I have more problems with Radha being Visnu tattva that if She were not.
QUOTE |
Shall we just conclude, sarvaM khalv idaM brahma (ChUp 3.14.1)? That would be Vedantic, undisputably orthodox. |
Finally if we take this ad absurdum we come to this point and become advaitins. Whatever we may individially think or follow (which in my view is mostly academic) we have all got to admit that Vaisnavism in whatever form we find it is more about the difference and less about the non-difference. That is another reason I prefer to go with the difference camp. Radha and Krsna are different, essentially and therefore only one of them is Visnu tattva.
QUOTE |
In this vein, let me ask whether Brahman is God, as in Vishnu-tattva? |
Brahman is NOT God. Isvara is God. Brahman is Isvara, Jagat and Jiva. Isvara, Jagat and Jiva are all Brahman, you cannot say Brahman is only God or God is only Brahman and the jivas and jagat are not. The Madhvas say this. They say that the jiva is a pratibimba or reflection of Brahman. It is like Brahman but not Brahman. They say only Isvara is Brahman and Brahman is only Isvara. (I'd actually like to know what they say Laksmi is! But I can bet you it's not Brahman.)
QUOTE |
What of those, then, who attain sAyujya-mukti, do they become Vishnu-tattva? |
That is a very good question. Vadakalai and Tengalai Sri Vaisnavas disagree on this also.
I don't know whether the Tengalais accept sayujya as actually merging into the body of God or just merging with the suddha sattva (spiritual matter in Vaikuntha), in either case they accept it as a permanent state beyond the Viraja river in paramapada from which one does not return or change.
The Vadakalais do not accept sayujya as a permanent state beyond the Viraja. It is a heavenly place where persons who meditate on and realise their souls reside. It is not actual moksha for them.
A kevali is one who by various sadhanas realises his atman. That means the soul gets emancipated from the bondage of matter and can enjoy its inherent omnipresence, omnipotence and omnijubilance. But it enjoys itself in utter isolation devoid of the company of God or of another soul. It resides in a special abode called kaivalya. This kaivalya is situated in the material universe within the boundary of the viraja river. Hence the emancipated kevalis soul is liable to fall down and return to the bondage of matter. It can also meditate on God from kaivalya and attain true moksha.
This is a summary of what the Vadakalais believe.
Keshava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:53:39 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Sep 9 2004, 02:21 PM) |
|
QUOTE |
Indeed, this is a good yard-stick on God-ness. God is svarAt, independent. |
Yes, I bring this point up and others like it. See my previous posts.
QUOTE |
If there were no others, would he exist? |
Certainly, the Veda tells us that Brahman at some un-understandable point was ONE. But the real question is not WOULD He exist but COULD He exist alone? And the answer is yes, of course He could exist alone because He is svatantra or independent.
QUOTE |
If there were no Lakshmi, would Narayana exist? |
Not WOULD, COULD He exist? Most certainly, although She exists eternally with Him on His chest.
QUOTE |
Then, who is in the ontologically dependent position? The one with the dependent position cannot be the supremely independent being. |
Right, and there can be only one supremely independent being.
QUOTE |
Now. of course all of this makes Krishna's Godhood totally dubious, but then again nobody in Vraja gives a damn about that anyway... |
I don't see why?
Are you saying that in lila Krsna seems dependent on the love of Radha and therefore He is the dependent one and therefore this is a proof of His NOT being the supreme independent being.
Anyway that's all lila. But actually even in lila aren't They dependent on each other, so that we cannot really say who is more dependent or less dependent?
Whatever we think it seems certain that all the great acharyas accept Krsna as Visnu Tattva (whether you accept Him as the original/Avatari or not/Avatara does not make any difference to me)
If we try to figure out the Goddesses we just get confused, as men have from time immemorial.
Keshava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:56:34 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Sep 9 2004, 03:05 PM) |
Hari appears in a male form. Yet he is beyond duality. How can this be? Because alone he is not God. Without his female counterpart, he is only half of himself.
God is not complete without his shaktis. |
Jagat,
Who are Mohini's saktis? If She is Visnu Tattva then does She have male saktis? Or do you consider Her incomplete?
Keshava
Kishalaya - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:47:02 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Sep 10 2004, 05:01 AM) |
QUOTE (Satyabhama @ Sep 10 2004, 01:34 AM) | Why do people use the term "non-different" rather than "the same"? |
They are not, in fact, entirely synonymous or logically equivalent. For example, non-difference can refer to something identical yet separate, such as non-difference in shape, as with two cars of the same model, or non-difference in quantity, as with water in a glass and water in a well. They are still not same in all respects, although they are essentially non-different. You use the word same when you refer twice to a distinct, individual item or entity, while you may use non-different while referring to two or more separate factors which share a prominent degree of similarity in some or all respects.
|
What you are referring to would be similarity (sAdRSyatA) not non-difference (abheda).
Kishalaya - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:47:21 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Sep 10 2004, 06:35 AM) |
Hari appears in a male form. Yet he is beyond duality. How can this be? Because alone he is not God. Without his female counterpart, he is only half of himself.
God is not complete without his shaktis. Of course, impersonal Brahman does not need shaktis. Bhagavan does. |
Hari does not "appear in a male form", He *IS* God. The *PERSON* - Hari is God. He is *NEVER* anytime half or whatever - pUrNasya pUrNaM AdAya pUrNaM evAvaSishyate. You cannot take anything out of the *PERSON* Hari and make Him half. Terrestrial mathematics fails here. Here 1 - x is still 1.
This is not about patriarchy. There is no shame in a female submitting before the greatest and the most noble male. Wolf, Steinem and other feminists would have absolutely no qualms in submitting before Krishna if they knew His nature. Women wanting to throw themselves at Krishna - "hanging from every limb of His", as you would put it, is because He is such.
A God who is not supremely independent is an impotent God, His mercy having no meaning because it comes from compulsion, not out of compassion. No orthodox Vaishnava position will agree that Ishvara depends on His shaktis (the connotation of "cannot"). Ishvara exists on His own account and on nobody else, others exists on the sankalpa (the will) of the Lord.
Kishalaya - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:29:21 +0530
QUOTE |
Brahman is NOT God. Isvara is God. Brahman is Isvara, Jagat and Jiva. Isvara, Jagat and Jiva are all Brahman, you cannot say Brahman is only God or God is only Brahman and the jivas and jagat are not. The Madhvas say this. They say that the jiva is a pratibimba or reflection of Brahman. It is like Brahman but not Brahman. They say only Isvara is Brahman and Brahman is only Isvara. (I'd actually like to know what they say Laksmi is! But I can bet you it's not Brahman.)
|
Actually for some Brahman = God = Ishvara.
Rigveda 1/164/46
ekam sad viprA bahudA vadanti
Truth is one. But the learned call by different names.
BhAgavatam 1.2.11:
vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvaḿ yaj jn~Anam advayam
brahmeti paramAtmeti
bhagavAn iti Sabdyate
Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, ParamAtmA or BhagavAn.
So the existence of this "impersonal" Brahman is disputed by a lot of Vaishnavas.
Even Vedanta says it is brahman which is the object of inquiry, and also gives a clearcut definition of brahman (God, Ishvara) - janmAdy asya yatah - that from which all this is created etc. (maintained and dissolved). Except for Brahman (God, Ishvara), no other entity has the prerogative of creation etc.
According to mAdhvas (AFAIK), Lakshmi is the eternal consort of Ishvara and the only mukta AtmA (liberated jiva) in material creation.
QUOTE |
What of those, then, who attain sAyujya-mukti, do they become Vishnu-tattva? |
Sayujya as "becoming one" with Ishvara is a concept peculiar to Gaudiya vaishnavism. In other vaishnava traditions sAyujya is considered the highest form of liberation because it provides an intimate communion with Ishvara. In the English translation of Govinda bhASya, I see Baladeva has his own interpretation of sAyujya.
1. mukta inside ishvara
2. ishvara inside mukta
3. mukta having physical proximity to an external form of ishvara.
While the first two conditions are ever present for a mukta AtmA, the feelings of separation are caused by the distancing from the external form of ishvara.
Even other Vaishvava traditions (which I have read), accept that a mukta has the choice of being without a body or possess a body at will because he/she is satyasankalpa in mukti. With a body, the mukta can interact with this "external" form of Ishvara.
Jagat - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:23:01 +0530
Thanks for the definition of "emanant," David. When you spell "ex nihilo," "ex nihelo" in the same sentence, it gives cause for doubt.
Clearly we do not agree with Thomas Aquinas here at all.
Jagat - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:34:30 +0530
David, Just a personal request. If you are going to engage in a rather deep and weighty theological matter, it would be good if you wrote a little more seriously. Don't throw away sentences like "enough said" "I won't go there" because we do not necessarily understand what you mean.
You need to spell out your thoughts a little more clearly and also reread them to check for grammar and spelling. Try to be unambiguously clear.
Thank you.
Jagat - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:54:33 +0530
This remains a very interesting discussion, admittedly still full of unresolved problems for me.
Obviously the Mayavadis have a problem with God as having attributes because this implies dualities. Maleness is the supreme attribute of duality, so how can maleness be a specific attribute of the Supreme who is beyond duality?
Though I agree with Keshava on the fact that difference is more important than non-difference, the non-difference really is the starting point. Nothing exists outside of God.
Mohini is a lila form of Vishnu. Vishnu can appear in different forms without shaktis--as renunciates, etc. In the original forms he appears accompanied by his shaktis.
Anyway, as usual, I am scared of the intellectual effort that is still entailed by pursuing this matter, as it really requires (for me) a rereading of everything from the Upanishads to the modern day all over again with fresh eyes.
If I had to explain the apparent duality or plurality of God when seen as Radha-Krishna, I would have to take the orthodox Gaudiya position that Krishna is God and Radha is his Shakti.
After writing which, I added and then erased: "But these are roles, not absolute positions."
Kishalaya - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:22:29 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Sep 10 2004, 04:54 PM) |
the non-difference really is the starting point. Nothing exists outside of God. |
This is actually a very difficult position. To maintain the pristine nature of bhagavAn untouched by any defect, all bhedAbheda positions have to do some jugglery like acintya, apRthak siddhi and so on.
Kishalaya - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:26:47 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Sep 10 2004, 04:54 PM) |
Maleness is the supreme attribute of duality, so how can maleness be a specific attribute of the Supreme who is beyond duality? |
How is maleness an attribute of duality? If beauty, opulence are all the attributes of bhagavAn, then to push non-duality, we need to say bhagavAn is also ugly, poor etc.
Duality or dvanda is when one sees one's existence separate from the existence of bhagavAn.
Madhava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:36:58 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Sep 10 2004, 08:23 AM) |
QUOTE | Now. of course all of this makes Krishna's Godhood totally dubious, but then again nobody in Vraja gives a damn about that anyway... |
I don't see why?
|
Just trying to crack an insider joke, apparently with little success. Should have added a ton of smilies there.
Satyabhama - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:42:40 +0530
QUOTE |
Now. of course all of this makes Krishna's Godhood totally dubious, but then again nobody in Vraja gives a damn about that anyway... |
Yes Yes yessssss!
He's God ok, but He's just so damn cute! And whether Lakshmi or Radha or other shaktis are "ishvara tattva" or not, they are damn cute too.
Madhava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:45:32 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Sep 10 2004, 02:56 PM) |
How is maleness an attribute of duality? If beauty, opulence are all the attributes of bhagavAn, then to push non-duality, we need to say bhagavAn is also ugly, poor etc. |
Indeed. However, one would then argue that God adopts those attributes through his various manifestations (or shall we have, emanations?). Then again, we are begging the question: Are they still God, or are they "diluted" forms of God, the jIvas roaming about the creation?
Evidently there is a limit to how far this "God must be both" idea may be pushed. Do we expect God to be the perfect and complete antithesis of himself at all times and in all respects? For example, he is supremely benevolent. Would he then not also have to be heinously evil? Wouldn't this essentially create an anti-God, a Satan if you will, when brought to the extreme?
babu - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:49:32 +0530
Its an absolute science. Whoever one loves the most, they are Creator.
Satyabhama - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:51:07 +0530
QUOTE |
Hari appears in a male form. Yet he is beyond duality. How can this be? Because alone he is not God. Without his female counterpart, he is only half of himself.
God is not complete without his shaktis. Of course, impersonal Brahman does not need shaktis. Bhagavan does. |
Jagatji, even when the Lord's shaktis are not present outside, they are still *present*. The lord always has "srivatsa" mark on His chest. Sri is always present, because She is inherent in Vishnu. She IS His shakti. He is not INCOMPLETE without Her... He is not and cannot be "without Her" because She is simply inherent in Him. She is the "shakti" of Vishnu.
But we do say that She is His shakti, and not that He is Her "shakti."
None of this solves the question though: when Lakshmi is manifest as a separate Person, is She ishvara tattva or not?
Satyabhama - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:52:46 +0530
Then again if you need Her to be the Supreme Person rather than Him, probably that would be ok with Them...
I dunno?
Kishalaya - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:58:08 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Sep 10 2004, 05:45 PM) |
Evidently there is a limit to how far this "God must be both" idea may be pushed. Do we expect God to be the perfect and complete antithesis of himself at all times and in all respects? For example, he is supremely benevolent. Would he then not also have to be heinously evil? Wouldn't this essentially create an anti-God, a Satan if you will, when brought to the extreme? |
But a female God is an antithesis of a male God. So to say that the idea of God - the supreme existence, being male is a concept suffering with duality, one would have to accept these other weird arguments. Just as Keshava ji pointed out (though not exactly analogous) if you accept two Gods, then why not three or three hundred and thirty million Gods?
The point to note is - the position of two Gods - one male and one female is not being contested - this could well be the case based on some shastric quotes. But what is being argued against is the notion that the concept of God being male is necessarily burdened with duality.
babu - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:58:25 +0530
Will the real Isvara please stand up?
Kishalaya - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:17:52 +0530
On the sidenote, mAdhvas opine that the non-dual substance (advaya tattva) that is referred to here is that the form/body of God is not separate from Him. He does not have body-soul distinction. In fact, all personal qualities of God are God Himself.
Jagat - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:43:50 +0530
I don't see how you can avoid "achintya" when talking about God. How do Madhvas deal with texts like "sarvaM khalv idaM brahma" etc.
Kishalaya - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:49:42 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Sep 10 2004, 06:43 PM) |
I don't see how you can avoid "achintya" when talking about God. How do Madhvas deal with texts like "sarvaM khalv idaM brahma" etc. |
Of course there is acintya when dealing with God, but its applicability in defining the relationship between Brahman, jiva and prakriti is not found necessary.
God is immanent - so sarvaM khalu idam brahma - without God's sankalpa, nothing will withstand. This interpretation is better than applying achintya wholesale.
Kishalaya - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:12:44 +0530
http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_06/msg00173.htmlAmong the passages that have rich philosophical import, three deserve special attention. One such passage is, 'sarvaM khalu idam Brahma tajjalan.h iti snAta upAsita'. This passage makes a reference to Nasadiya hymn of the Rg Veda and brings out the central point made in that hymn, viz., the supreme God alone functions in `praLaya' water (tajjalan). It further brings out his two characteristics viz. He is all pervasive (idam) and has all attributes (sarvam). Thus this passage informs us that the Supreme God is all-pervasive and possesses all attributes. He alone functions in pralaya water during pralaya.
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:02:54 +0530
Keshava Prabhu
QUOTE |
She is all-pervading, just as Lord Vishnu is."
Dear David ji, you are assuming (incorrectly) that only God can be all pervading and therefore if one is all pervading one is equal to God. This is not correct. According to Sripad Ramanuja even the Jiva is able to attain a type of all prevasiveness in moksha due to the expansion of it's knowledge/consciousness which was in a contracted/covered state in this material world. Laksmi/Radha (like all of us) is all pervading in this sense and not in the same exact way as Narayana/Krsna (God) is. Isvara/God/Narayana/Krsna pervades everything by His svarupa whereas others in moksha pervade by their unlimited jnana. |
I am stating that only a Vishnu Tattva can be Godhead. A Jiva Tattva can have the qualities of Vishnu Tattva but not be a Vishnu Tattva. One's position is to serve Vishnu Tattva. This may be intregal to the Bhakti schools.
Laksmji is presented as Vishnu Tattva in the Brahma Sampradaya. Laksmiji the Goddess is always found with Narayana. Therefore as the subordinated ABSOLUTE she is protected by Vishnu in a four handed form. There are infinite Vishnu Tattvas and Vedas of which we can only perceive a minute fragment of a drop. If you enter Vaikuntha and see Laksmiji face to face you have seen God.
Bhakti Ki Jaya!
Bhakta David
Bhakta David - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:33:04 +0530
Hari Bol Prabhus
Baladeva Vidyabhusana's Govinda Bhasya, here he says Rukmini is a form of Krishna, it's in bold type.
This is from
Sutra 42: "The Many Forms of the Supreme Personality of Godhead"
"The Many Forms of the Supreme Personality of Godhead
Samsaya (doubt): Must one always worship Lord Hari as
Krishna or is it possible to worship Him in another form also?
Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): Because this passage
ends the Upanishad the proper interpretation is the worship of
Lord Hari must always be directed to the form of Lord Krishna
alone.
Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author
of the sutras gives His conclusion.
Sutra 43
tan nirdharananiyamas tad drishtaih prithag hy apratibandhah phalam
tat - of that; nirdharana - of determination; a - not;
niyamah - rule; tat - that; drishtaih - by what is seen;
prithak - distinct; hi - indeed; a - not;pratibandhah - obstruction;
phalam - fruit.
There is no restriction in that regard. It is different
because of what is seen. Non-obstruction is the result.
Purport by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana
There is no rule that says one must worship Lord Hari in His
form as Krishna only and not in His form of Lord Balarama or any
of His other forms. Even when He is a tiny infant as Yasoda's
breast, Lord Krishna is always all-pervading, all-knowing, and full
of bliss. How is that known? The sutra explains: "tad-
drishtaih" (Because of what is seen). In Gopala-tapani
Upanishad (2.48) it is said:
yatrasau samsthitah krishnas
tribhih saktya samahitah
ramaniruddha-pradyumnai
rukminya sahito vibhuh
catuh-sabdo bhaved eko
hy omkaras hy amsakaih kritah
"Lord Krishna, accompanied by His three potencies and
by Balarama, Aniruddha, Pradyumna, and Rukmini, stays in
delightful Mathura Puri. These four names are identical with the
name Om."
Lord Balarama and the other incarnations are all forms of
Lord Krishna and so They also should be worshiped. That is the
meaning.
Your Servant
Bhakta David
Madhava - Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:09:59 +0530
David, please take the trouble to properly format things you copy and paste in. No ragged margins, no double spaces.
In fact, I would urge you to return to your previous posts and edit them into a proper format we can easily read.
Keshava - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:42:33 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Sep 10 2004, 01:24 AM) |
|
QUOTE |
Mohini is a lila form of Vishnu. Vishnu can appear in different forms without shaktis--as renunciates, etc. In the original forms he appears accompanied by his shaktis. |
So are you saying that although the sastra says that Laksmi eternally resides on the chest of Narayana that she does not reside on the chest of Mohini?
Also what do you mean by "original forms"? Surely by definition there is only ONE original form? We may differ over what or who that form is but surely anything original is ONE only.
QUOTE |
If I had to explain the apparent duality or plurality of God when seen as Radha-Krishna, I would have to take the orthodox Gaudiya position that Krishna is God and Radha is his Shakti. |
Right, I agree 100% that this is the Gaudiya viewpoint. So you have to admit that this veiwpoint stops short of "Krishna is God and Radha is God(dess)", right? And if it stops short then She is not exactly God. Then She must be essentially something else. Only two other categories of Vedantic Tattva are accepted, Jiva and Jagat. That's my case in a nutshell.
QUOTE |
After writing which, I added and then erased: "But these are roles, not absolute positions." |
I'm glad you erased this as I really don't know what to make of it. I do agree though that for Gaudiyas the emphasis is more on the roles played by the personalities than on their essential nature.
Keshava - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:08:34 +0530
QUOTE |
I am stating that only a Vishnu Tattva can be Godhead. |
No need for you to state it. We all agree on that.
QUOTE |
A Jiva Tattva can have the qualities of Vishnu Tattva but not be a Vishnu Tattva. |
No, here you are being very imprecise. A Jiva CANNOT have ALL the qualities of Visnu Tattva. If he does he IS VisnuTattva. But as I said the Jiva can have some qualities like all pervasion through unlimited knowledge/consciousness in moksha and this does not make him Visnu Tattva.
QUOTE |
One's position is to serve Vishnu Tattva. This may be intregal to the Bhakti schools. |
Correct. And is it no also integral to the Bhakti Schools that Laksmi also serves Narayana. Then how is She in a different position to the Jivas?
QUOTE |
Laksmji is presented as Vishnu Tattva in the Brahma Sampradaya. |
No, She is not. She is presented as Visnu's shakti which is not the same thing. That's the whole point of this discussion. The jivas are also a type of shakti of the Lord. So is matter and everything. Antaranga, Tatastha and Bahiranga are the three categories of shaktis that are innumerated by the Gaudiyas. We are discussing whether Antaranga shakti equates 100% to Visnu tattva. It has been stated that other parisads of the Lord in Goloka are expansions of Antaranga shakti. Yet some personalities like Bhudevi and Niladevi are considered jivas.
By the way you state that "Laksmji is presented as Vishnu Tattva in the Brahma Sampradaya." like it's a fact so please give us the quote where this is stated. Sanskrit please. I think that you only think that it has been stated actually it has never been stated directly in those terms. My question is if what you say is truely the Gaudiya standpoint then why is it NOT stated clearly directly in those terms?
QUOTE |
Therefore as the subordinated ABSOLUTE she is protected by Vishnu in a four handed form. |
Visnu tattva cannot be subordinated to anything or anyone. Visnu tattva is supreme.
QUOTE |
If you enter Vaikuntha and see Laksmiji face to face you have seen God.
|
Again this is a very imprecise statement, not based on any sastra. Please provide sanskrit pramana for such a view. Otherwise I reject this idea as sentiment. Laksmi is NOT God.
Madhava - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:10:26 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Sep 10 2004, 11:12 PM) |
Also what do you mean by "original forms"? Surely by definition there is only ONE original form? We may differ over what or who that form is but surely anything original is ONE only. |
I take it that he means
avatAra-forms, collectively known as
svAMza in Gaudiya-theology.
Keshava - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:41:02 +0530
QUOTE |
"Lord Krishna, accompanied by His three potencies and
by Balarama, Aniruddha, Pradyumna, and Rukmini, stays in
delightful Mathura Puri. These four names are identical with the
name Om." |
Sorry David ji I don't know where you got this translation from but here is the actual translation of this verse given in Govinda Bhasya Vedanta Sutra 3.3.43 quoting Gopala Tapani Upanisad:
"Lord Krsna resides there surrounded by the three, namely Balarama, Aniruddha and Pradyumna. And He has His energy also Rukmini. The one syllable Om manifests in these above mentioned four forms (Vasudeva=half matra, M = Aniruddha, U = Pradyumna and A = Sankarsana)."
(if the sanskrit is needed to confirm this translation I can provide it)
OK, what is your point with this page long post? I am reading the same thing you are and all I see is the following:
Lord Krsna and three of his potencies (Balarama, Aniruddha and Pradyumna) are all equally worshipable. Your text does say "accompanied by three right, not four. It is not 3 and Balarama, etc, the 3 are Balarama, etc. So Rukmini is not included (obviously Baladeva does not accept her as Visnu tattva/God). And this makes perfect sense because the four mentioned Lord Krsna (Vasudeva), Balarama (Sankarsana), Pradyumna and Aniruddha are the four members of the catur vyuha mentioned in Pancaratra literature. They are all 100% Visnu tattva/God. However as you can see Rukmini is not included.
Thanks for this quote which proves my point.
Keshava - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:45:07 +0530
QUOTE |
I take it that he means avatAra-forms, collectively known as svAMza in Gaudiya-theology. |
Right, that's what I thought. So if you mean svamsa then please say so. That is the whole argument. It's so much clearer/easier to use the sanskrit terms.
Question: Is Radha svamsa?
She must be either svamsa or vibhinnamsa, right?
Madhava - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:01:13 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Sep 11 2004, 12:15 AM) |
Question: Is Radha svamsa?
She must be either svamsa or vibhinnamsa, right? |
She is nowhere listed as such, nor indeed as either of the two. If one category of viSNu-tattva should be picked, as in the diagram, it would be vaibhava-prakAza. However, I do not think this is the case, as she is not anywhere listed as such, either.
It appears that she is God's mystery. She has been left out of the Vedantic loop altogether, for reasons of national security perhaps?
babu - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:02:00 +0530
QUOTE (Bhakta David @ Sep 10 2004, 02:32 PM) |
If you enter Vaikuntha and see Laksmiji face to face you have seen God. |
Well, maybe not have seen God but I suspect He wouldn't be too far away.
Bhakta David - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:44:50 +0530
Hari Bol Prabhus,
Here is from the first post of dirtyhari:
Here is Bhaktivedanta Swami's translation from The Bhagavatam
nanu kvacit nitya-mukta jIvatvaM lakSmyAH svIkRtaM, tatrAha—prAheti. nityaiveti padye sarva-vyApti-kathanena kalAkASThety Adi-padya-dvaye, zuddho ’pIty uktA ca mahAprabhunA svaziSyAn prati lakSmyA bhagavad-advaitam upadiSTam. kvacid yat tasyAs tu dvaitam uktaM, tat tu tad-AviSTa-nitya-mukta jIvam AdAya saGgatamas tu.
Although some authoritative Vaisnava disciplic successions count the goddess of fortune among the ever-liberated living entities (jivas) in Vaikuntha, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in accordance with the statement in the Visnu Purana, has described Laksmi as being identical with the visnu-tattva. The correct conclusion is that the descriptions of Laksmi as being different from Visnu are stated when an eternally liberated living entity is imbued with the quality of Laksmi; they do not pertain to mother Laksmi, the eternal consort of Lord Visnu.
Swamiji is saying there is a statement in the Visnu Purana and claims that Mahaprabhu has said such.
What does Babaji state?
Your Servant
Bhakta David
Madhava - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 04:10:06 +0530
This is not Swamiji stating. Swamiji says: "In the Kanti-mala commentary on the Prameya-ratnavali, there is this statement..."
According to GVA, Kanti-mala is a commentary by Krishnadeva Vedantavagisa (Sarvabhauma). I take it that this is the same Krishnadeva who accompanied Baladeva to Jaipur.
Perhaps someone with this
TIkA can look up the statement in its context. To give you the context in the original grantha, the verse referred to is the following (already quoted in this thread):
atha nitya-lakSmIkatvaM yathA viSNu-purANe -
nityaiva sA jagan-mAtA viSNoH zrIr anapAyinI |
yathA sarva-gato viSNus tathaiveyaM dvijottama || [ViP 1.8.17]
Then, his always being connected with Laksmi, as [is stated] in the Visnu Purana (1.8.15):
"She is indeed eternal, the mother of the world, that unfailing Srı [goddess
of wealth] of Visnu. Just as Visnu is all-pervading, so indeed is she, O best of the twice born."
If she is always with Vishnu, it logically follows that she is wherever he is, and therefore is as pervasive as he is. Following this verse comes the part on what Mahaprabhu has taught:
viSNoH syuH zaktayas tisras tAsu yA kIrtitA parA |
saiva zrIs tad-abhinneti prAha ziSyAn prabhur mahAn || 12 ||
"Visnu has three energies. The one among them who is proclaimed as
the highest is Srı, who is not different from him. So taught the great master to his disciples."
The point being proven here is that the original Lakshmi is forever Lakshmi, and is not a position that a
mukta-jIvA can attain. Similarly, we might extend the idea, the original Radha is forever Radha, and no
mukta-jIva can become Radha, although they can become her
vyUha-forms, the
vraja-sundarIs.
This passage is not meant to address her position in regards to Vishnu-tattva, and it is evident to anyone who cares to look up the context. It is a good idea to study scriptural statements in the proper context to see the point the text truly aims at.
You can
grab a copy of Prameya-ratnavali at Nitai's book garden. Download Vedanta-sara, Prameya Ratnavali is included in the text, starting from page 139.
Madhava - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 04:52:17 +0530
Some further input from Prameya-ratnavali, drawing from Vishnu-purana, with Delmonico's annotations.
zrI-viSNu-purANe (6.7.61) ca—
viSNu-zaktiH parA proktA kSetrajJAkhyA tathAparA |
avidyA-karma-saMjJAnyA tRtIyA zaktir iSyate || (ga) ||
And in the Visnu Purana (6.7.61):
"Visnu’s energy is proclaimed as higher as well as lower, called the ‘knower of the field;’ [and] another, a third energy, is accepted called ignorance and action (karman)."
paraiva viSNv-abhinnA zrIr ity uktaM tatraiva (vi.pu. 1.9.44-45)—
kalA-kASThA-nimeSAdi-kAla-sUtrasya gocare |
yasya zaktir na zuddhasya prasIdatu sa no hariH ||
procyate paramezo yaH yaH zuddho’py upacArataH |
prasIdatu sa no viSNur AtmA yaH sarva-dehinAm || (gha) ||
That the “higher” [power] is Srı who is non-different from Visnu is stated
there [in the Visnu Puran a (1.9.44-45)] as well:
"May Hari be pleased with us, the pure one whose power is not under the control of time which is made up of units like kAla, kaSThA, nimeSa, and so forth. He, though pure, is said metaphorically to be the Lord of Srı (paramA); [30] may that Visnu, who is the Self of all embodied beings, be pleased with us."
= = =
30) The question posed and answered by this statement is that if Visnu is said to be pure, that is unmixed or undivided, then how can he be called the lord of Srı? If Visnu and Srı are non-different, how can one of them be said to be the lord of the other? The author of the Visnu Purana says that such statements are to be taken metaphorically only. The Purana, then, supports the non-difference of Visnu and Srı and is thus cited by the author of this text as an authority for his assertion of that non-difference.
Followed by this, Baladeva begins to present the more familiarly resounding Gaudiya-content, qualifying the oneness, or non-difference:
eko’pi viSNur ekApi lakSmIs tad-anapAyinI |
sva-siddhair bahubhir vezair bahur ity abhidhIyate || 13 ||
"Though Visnu is one and Laksmı, inseparable from him, is also one, they are said to be many through their many self-accomplished garbs." [32]
= = =
32) Krishnadeva quotes a passage from the Narada-pancaratra in which it is said:
Just as the jewel in different parts is blue, yellow, and so forth and thus assumes different forms, so does the Lord assume different forms through different types of meditation.
The jewel referred to here, he says, is a Vaidurya jewel which from different angles appears to be blue, yellow, and so forth. Thus though the highest truth is one, it appears as two, as the highest male and as the highest female.
Following this, Baladeva goes on to discuss the
parA-zakti, qualifying Lakshmi as the
zakti-aspect of Godhead.
Thus we are effectively in square one, the quandary of
zakti-tattva. Citing the well-known passage of Svetasvatara, as well of Vishnu-purana, Baladeva has elaborated on the various
zaktis of Vishnu. Thus we are again faced with the division into
zakti and
zaktimAn, and the question: At which point, as
zakti expands and qualifies herself, does she stop being nondifferent from
zaktimAn? Or, is all
zakti at all times non-different from Hari? That would essentially render everything in existence non-different from him.
All these statements of Sri being
with Vishnu indicate an apparent need for division despite the two being declared one. Are we, then, faced with two gods, again? Or are we faced with supreme God and subordinate God? Or, are we faced with One Whole God when the two appear side by side, rendering each individually less than the full God?
Madhava - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 05:03:35 +0530
Keshava, those Sri Vaishnavas who do not consider Lakshmi to be jIva, but do not consider her viSNu-tattva either (if I understood correctly), how do they categorize her?
babu - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 05:53:27 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Sep 10 2004, 11:22 PM) |
All these statements of Sri being with Vishnu indicate an apparent need for division despite the two being declared one. Are we, then, faced with two gods, again? Or are we faced with supreme God and subordinate God? Or, are we faced with One Whole God when the two appear side by side, rendering each individually less than the full God? |
For reasons of aesthetics alone, they really look great together. What else could compliment the Supreme Male except for the Supreme Female. Of all that we know to be handsome and strong and masculine, romantically intertwined and mutually fullfilling all that we know to be beautiful and blessed and feminine.
The need for division? One doesn't have fun until there is Two.
Supreme or Subordinate God? Two to tango... varied steps for the different roles.
Bhakta David - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 06:16:28 +0530
Hari Bol Prabhus
QUOTE |
(Madhava @ Sep 10 2004, 11:22 PM) All these statements of Sri being with Vishnu indicate an apparent need for division despite the two being declared one. Are we, then, faced with two gods, again? Or are we faced with supreme God and subordinate God? Or, are we faced with One Whole God when the two appear side by side, rendering each individually less than the full God? |
Laksmi should be afforded the honour of Radha. As one moves further from Goloka Vrndaban to Mathura and towards the material world Narayana and Laksmi, who are expansions of Krishna and Radha, are the source and fountain for many demigods who are jivas. Some consider Laksmi a jiva.
There is a pluralism here that I see is systematic in this sense no one is making such distintions up yesterday and these teachings have been propagated as parampara purports in authorised lines.
Hare Krishna
Bhakta David
Keshava - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:11:10 +0530
OK, I'm just going to quote the whole purport from the ACBVS Bhagavatam:
"Lord Visnu is the supersoul even of Laksmidevi, but no one can be the supersoul of Lord Visnu, for Lord Visnu Himself is the spiritual supersoul of everyone."
According to Madhvacharya there are two tattvas or factors. One is independent, and the other is dependent. The first tattva is the supreme Lord, Visnu, and the second is the jiva tattva. Laksmidevi being dependent on Lord Visnu is sometimes counted among the jivas. The Gaudiya Vaisnavas, however, describe Laksmidevi in accordance with the following two verses from Prameya Ratnavali of Baladeva Vidhyabhusana. The first verse is a quotation from the Visnu Purana.
Nityaiva sA jagan mAtA
ViSNoH zrIr anapAyinI
YathA sarva gato viSNus
TathaiveyaM dvijottama
ViSNoH syuH zakayas tisras
TAsu yA kIrtitA parA
Saiva zrIz tad abhinneti
PrAha ziSyAn prabhur mahAn
“O best of the brahmanas, Laksmiji is the constant companion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Visnu, and therefore she is called anapAyinI. She is the mother of all creation. As Lord Visnu is all pervading, His spiritual potency, mother Laksmi, is also all pervading. Lord Visnu has three principal potencies – internal, external and marginal. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has accepted para sakti, the spiritual energy of the Lord, as being identical with the Lord. Thus she is also included in the independent visnu tattva.”
In the kAnti mAlA commentary on the Prameya ratnavali there is this statement: nanu kvacit nitya mukta jIvatvaM lakSmyAH svIkRtaM, tatrAha, - prAheti. Nityaiveti padye sarva vyApti kathanena kalAkASThety Adi padya dvaye, zuddho’pIty uktA ca mahAprabhunA svaziSyAn prati lakSmyA bhagavad advaitam upadiSTam. Kvacid yat tasyAs tu dvaitam uktam, tat tu tad AviSTa nitya mikta jIvam AdAya saGgatamas tu. “Although some authoritative Vaisnava disciplic successions count the goddess of fortune among the ever-liberated entities (jivas) in Vaikuntha, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in accordance with the statement in the Visnu Purana, has described Laksmi as being identical with the visnu tattva. The correct conclusion is that the descriptions of Laksmi as being different from Visnu are stated when an eternally liberated living entity is imbued with the quality of Laksmi; they do not pertain to mother Laksmi, the eternal consort of Lord Visnu.”
SB6.19.13 purport
Keshava - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:18:25 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Sep 10 2004, 01:33 PM) |
Keshava, those Sri Vaishnavas who do not consider Lakshmi to be jIva, but do not consider her viSNu-tattva either (if I understood correctly), how do they categorize her? |
Tomorrow, I'll check this out and get back to you.
Madhava - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:50:49 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Sep 11 2004, 12:41 PM) |
OK, I'm just going to quote the whole purport from the ACBVS Bhagavatam: |
Sort of leaves you with a "she isn't either" feeling.
babu - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 18:26:40 +0530
I wonder even if God isn't confused by all this as Laksmi seems to have His Head spinning at times.
Keshava - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:53:16 +0530
OK, now that I put in the whole purport of ACBVS on this Laksmi/Jiva issue (SB 3.19.13) I want to look at it and ask some questions.
QUOTE |
Lord Visnu is the supersoul even of Laksmidevi |
How can it be maintained that Laksmi is Visnu tattva if she has a supersoul ie Visnu? Is this conept not incompatible with her being Visnu?
QUOTE |
Laksmidevi being dependent on Lord Visnu is sometimes counted among the jivas. |
but at the same time:
QUOTE |
Thus she is also included in the independent visnu tattva. |
Are not these two statments contradictory? How can Laksmi be independent and dependent?
QUOTE |
Although some authoritative Vaisnava disciplic successions count the goddess of fortune among the ever-liberated entities (jivas) in Vaikuntha |
Are these Vaisnava disciplic successions still considered "authoritative" even though they say that Laksmi is a jiva? Or is he saying that although they say Laksmi is a jiva they are still authoritative except for this issue? Or is he saying that they are not authoritative because of thinking this but would be otherwise? Does it really matter what one thinks on this issue?
QUOTE |
Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in accordance with the statement in the Visnu Purana, has described Laksmi as being identical with the visnu tattva. |
Is there any proof of this statement? Do we see the Goswamis agreeing with Baladeva or have we got several different trains of thought on this matter even within Gaudiya Vaisnavism?
Madhava - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:02:31 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Sep 11 2004, 06:23 PM) |
QUOTE | Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in accordance with the statement in the Visnu Purana, has described Laksmi as being identical with the visnu tattva. |
Is there any proof of this statement? Do we see the Goswamis agreeing with Baladeva or have we got several different trains of thought on this matter even within Gaudiya Vaisnavism?
|
I do not believe you can legitimately derive this equation from Prameya-ratnavali and Krishnadeva's tika, as far as I've been going over them. As I pointed out, even Prameya-ratnavali itself seems to just drop the issue at "she is zakti", leaving the relationship of zakti and zaktimAn open.
QUOTE |
Are these Vaisnava disciplic successions still considered "authoritative" even though they say that Laksmi is a jiva? Or is he saying that although they say Laksmi is a jiva they are still authoritative except for this issue? Or is he saying that they are not authoritative because of thinking this but would be otherwise? Does it really matter what one thinks on this issue? |
I believe there is an attempt here to reconcile the matter by saying that such statements refer to the jIvas who attain the position of Lakshmi's vyUha-forms, but that it does not apply to the original Lakshmi. Of course it is another matter whether the said traditions would accept this reconciliation.
Bhakta David - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:04:04 +0530
Hari Bol Prabhus
QUOTE |
QUOTE Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in accordance with the statement in the Visnu Purana, has described Laksmi as being identical with the visnu tattva. |
This position is consitent with Bhaktivinode's epistemology regarding this in The Bhagavata Its Philosophy, Ethics and Theology. This book is a starter for many devotees in his writing.
The problem is the word Shakti.
Page 46.
QUOTE |
Sri Krishna is possessed of infinite power (Shakti). Three aspects of His Shakti are distinguishable by the individual soul. These three aspects are Swarupa=shakti, jiva-shakti and maya shakti.
The power of Sri Krsihna stands to Him in the attributive reference. The personality of Shakti is therefore, that of the counter-whole of the Absolute in her three aspects of their transformations. The Infinite Aspects of the Divine Personality Himself emanating from the Figure-in-Himself (Swayamrupa), are related to Sri Krishna as Servitor Divinities Who are possesors of power. |
There is no doubt that Bhaktivinode presents Laksmi as Visnu Tattva.
This epistemology is consitent in said authors writings, Prabhupada, and GM trained Sannyasis.
Hare Krishna
Bhakta David
There is a possibilty that others may be interpolating a lower Shakti definition over Laksmi.
Madhava - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:15:04 +0530
QUOTE (Bhakta David @ Sep 11 2004, 08:34 PM) |
There is no doubt that Bhaktivinode presents Laksmi as Visnu Tattva. |
Oh, but there is every doubt on that. You cannot just proclaim conclusions like this, unless you have a direct statement where he says, "Lakshmi is viSNu-tattva." Short of that, considering the attributes mentioned that conflict with the independence of Vishnu, there is every doubt on this.
Kishalaya - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:17:04 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Sep 11 2004, 02:10 AM) |
I take it that he means avatAra-forms, collectively known as svAMza in Gaudiya-theology. |
Jagat-ji wrote and erased:
But these are roles, not absolute positions.
Is the expansion chart defining roles or absolute positions, especially in the context of the svAMza avatArs?
Madhava - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:19:32 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Sep 11 2004, 08:47 PM) |
Is the expansion chart defining roles or absolute positions? |
Absolute positions.
Kishalaya - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:26:02 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Sep 11 2004, 11:19 PM) |
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Sep 11 2004, 08:47 PM) | Is the expansion chart defining roles or absolute positions? |
Absolute positions.
|
So would not the position of Radha as shakti vis-a-vis Krishna as shaktiman be also an absolute position. Where the possessor of shakti - its controller - is shaktiman.
Madhava - Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:50:17 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Sep 11 2004, 08:56 PM) |
So would not the position of Radha as shakti vis-a-vis Krishna as shaktiman be also an absolute position. Where the possessor of shakti - its controller - is shaktiman. |
Yes, zakti and zaktimAn are absolute, ontological positions. They are not played out, they are.
The chart presented is prepared on the basis of Rupa's Laghu-bhagavatamrita and Krishadasa's Caitanya Caritamrita drawing from the same.
It is telling that the pUrva-khaNDa of the text, discussing kRSNAmRta, has no mention of Radha. Here is an outline of the contents chapter by chapter:
1. svayaMrUpa-vilAsa-svAMzAveza-prakAza-lakSaNa-bhagavat-tattva-nirUpaNam - This section discusses the general divisions of bhagavat-tattva.
2. puruSAvatAra-guNAvatAra-nirUpaNam - Within the category of svAMza, this chapter elaborates on the three Purushas and the guNa-avatAras.
3. lIlAvatAra-nirUpaNam - Within the same, forms such as Matsya, Kurma etc.
4. atha manvantarAvatArAH - Then, the Manus, and also the yuga-avatAras and the concepts of prabhava and vaibhava.
5. parAvasthA-nirUpaNam - Reviewing the superiority of Sri Krishna and other prominent forms, namely Rama and Narasimha, and some related topics.
These five chapters of the first khaNDa cover bhagavat-tattva, and Radha is not mentioned even once! That should be telling in itself. On the other hand, the second, much shorter khaNDa, in which the bhaktAmRta is discussed, the Vraja-devIs are featured, lead by Sri Radha.
If she were truly bhagavat-tattva, or viSNu-tattva (the two are undoubtedly synonymous), it is hard to conceive why she wouldn't have been mentioned in the first division as a particular variety of bhagavat-prakAza. This text is, after all -- in contrast to some scattered quotes -- a definitive outline of siddhAnta particularly on this matter.
Kishalaya - Sun, 12 Sep 2004 00:01:17 +0530
What I was trying to get at is when you ascribe the status of shaktiman to one and shakti to another, you naturally give a superior ontological status to one - namely the shaktiman. If they are absolutely at par, then this distinction of shakti and shaktiman is simply superfluous.
babu - Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:15:30 +0530
Why the superior ontological position of shaktiman? One is served and the other is servant. Being the pitiful humans that we are and suffering so at the onslaughts of history and secular authorities, how could we not have a conditioned predisposition to give superiority to the served?
Hari Saran - Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:07:58 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Sep 11 2004, 09:41 AM) |
"The correct conclusion is that the descriptions of Laksmi as being different from Visnu are stated when an eternally liberated living entity is imbued with the quality of Laksmi; they do not pertain to mother Laksmi, the eternal consort of Lord Visnu." SB6.19.13 purport |
My question: Does Bhumi Devi somehow represents the eternal liberated living entity whom acquired the quality of Laksmi Devi but do not pertain to mother Laksmi's Tattva, the eternal consort of Vishnu?
Kishalaya - Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:17:49 +0530
QUOTE (babu @ Sep 12 2004, 07:15 PM) |
Why the superior ontological position of shaktiman? One is served and the other is servant. Being the pitiful humans that we are and suffering so at the onslaughts of history and secular authorities, how could we not have a conditioned predisposition to give superiority to the served? |
What you have said counts as an opinion only.
yathA tathA vA vadadhAtu lampato mat prANa nAthas tu sa eva nA paraH
The last sikshashtakam confirms the "patriarchal" stereotype - it's unavoidable
![smile.gif](http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif)
- otherwise you will end up gobbling the theology.
The key difference is - who is the prANa nAtha.
babu - Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:09:44 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Sep 12 2004, 06:47 PM) |
QUOTE (babu @ Sep 12 2004, 07:15 PM) | Why the superior ontological position of shaktiman? One is served and the other is servant. Being the pitiful humans that we are and suffering so at the onslaughts of history and secular authorities, how could we not have a conditioned predisposition to give superiority to the served? |
What you have said counts as an opinion only. yathA tathA vA vadadhAtu lampato mat prANa nAthas tu sa eva nA paraH The last sikshashtakam confirms the "patriarchal" stereotype - it's unavoidable ![smile.gif](http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif) - otherwise you will end up gobbling the theology. The key difference is - who is the prANa nAtha. |
Yes, just an opinion... or theory to explain the going wrongness of one trying to understand their ontological position as servant that Goddess is just another servant... She is "not just one of us."
And too, I think this word "bhakta" has one meaning in the gaudiya traditions and in getting translated to servant, it somehow had the "love" squeezed out of it.
Yes, key is "who is the prANa nAtha."
Kishalaya - Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:10:05 +0530
The maleness of God (or bhagavat tattva as Gaudiyas would call Krishna) is inherent in the theology. Bhakta being servant is not "untrue" - the motivation is different - it is by choice - and that comes out of love.
You can't escape it. Krishna is a lampat - debauchee - enjoying so many different girls on one hand and marrying so many women in another place - while the women - pure and supremely chaste - not even the real husbands of the vraja vadhus are supposed to touch them.
Now just think in a manner where somebody might want to right the wrong done - Women having different men for themselves, one of them being Krishna.
Frankly, equality and more so a demand for it, facilitates business, not love ! (Opinion)
Madhava - Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:16:59 +0530
Let us rephrase the question. Lakshmi = Bhagavan?
Kishalaya - Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:33:20 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Sep 13 2004, 05:16 PM) |
Let us rephrase the question. Lakshmi = Bhagavan? |
Unless of course you are willing to accept two Gods! Then also the customary social mores will prevail. Narayana can take more than one wife but Lakshmi taking more than one husband (other than Narayana) is doubtful!
Madhava - Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:36:28 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Sep 13 2004, 03:03 PM) |
Unless of course you are willing to accept two Gods! Then also the customary social mores will prevail. Narayana can take more than one wife but Lakshmi taking more than one husband (other than Narayana) is doubtful! |
Now that woud be a sight! Lakshmi surrounded by dozens of Narayanas serving her!
Kishalaya - Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:39:38 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Sep 13 2004, 05:36 PM) |
Now that woud be a sight! Lakshmi surrounded by dozens of Narayanas serving her! ![laugh.gif](http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/html/emoticons/laugh.gif) |
I hope DH is also invited
Satyabhama - Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:57:51 +0530
Hello! Lakshmi = Bhagavati!
Sarasija-nilaye saroja-haste
Dhavala-taraan-shuka-gandha-maalya-shobhe
Bhagavati Hari-Vallabhe manogne
Tribhuvana-bhooti-kari-praseeda-mahyam
(Hey, multiple Krishnas/Narayanas is allowed. Probably not serving, however.
![smile.gif](http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif)
)
Kishalaya - Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:06:07 +0530
QUOTE (Satyabhama @ Sep 13 2004, 05:57 PM) |
(Hey, multiple Krishnas/Narayanas is allowed. Probably not serving, however. ) |
But what about our poor DH ?
Madhava - Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:09:27 +0530
QUOTE (Satyabhama @ Sep 13 2004, 03:27 PM) |
Hello! Lakshmi = Bhagavati! |
So how do we cope with that?
Satyabhama - Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:15:19 +0530
QUOTE |
But what about our poor DH ? |
I just think he needs to get in touch with his feminine side.
Satyabhama - Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:22:18 +0530
QUOTE |
So how do we cope with that? |
What's to cope with? She's our revered Goddess. She's Sriman Narayana's wife. Even if She turns out to be isvara tattva, She's still the (softer) feminine side. If She has all the qualities and powers of Lord Narayana... for instance, even if She has the power to grant moksha "by Herself," I don't think she acutally would, because that would be taking the masculine role. Sorry if that sounds old-fashioned, but...
![smile.gif](http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif)
Kind of like how Seeta could've rescused Herself from Ravana and burned Lanka to the ground easily, but She did not. That was Rama's place. She wanted Rama to rescue Her.
Anyway, She's so approachable. You can talk to Her. "Hey, I want to reach Your Husband. Can you convince Him?" Ok, She's Narayana's primary consort. They work in conjunction. When Lakshmi is by Herself, I feel She's not ishvara tattva. When She's standing next to Narayana, suddenly I feel "ok, maybe She is."
I don't know Madhava, I suppose we will just have to "cope" with all this somehow.
Kishalaya - Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:31:01 +0530
There is no fun in being equal and Lakshmi is certainly not going to miss out on that
Satyabhama - Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:32:52 +0530
QUOTE |
There is no fun in being equal and Lakshmi is certainly not going to miss out on that |
My dear, you have hit the nail on the head! Lakshmi mata knows where the real fun is! (In serving and loving Sri Hari).
babu - Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:21:20 +0530
QUOTE (Satyabhama @ Sep 14 2004, 09:39 PM) |
No matter who what or where the Lord is; in Vrindavana even... Lakshmi cannot resist the beauty of His chest, and resides there *permanently* ![smile.gif](http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif)
But yes, Bhudevi is not bothered by the animal part. She just loves Him so much! ![smile.gif](http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif)
Besides, Bhumi was covered from head to toe in moss and mud and muck. She was so ashamed to appear before Her beloved Lord not in Her usual splendor. So the Lord appears as a boar, so She will not feel embarassed to appear before Him. And Lord Varaha lifts Bhumi up out of the muck, and She is crying and trembling with fatigue, and He, also covered with mud, just holds Her close. Such intimacy and such love passes between them at that time... Bhumi presses Her cheek against Govinda's cheek and just weeps.
This is God. |
Satyabhama - Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:22:41 +0530
Are you okay, babu?
babu - Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:40:34 +0530
QUOTE (Satyabhama @ Sep 14 2004, 09:52 PM) |
Are you okay, babu? |
Just as manic-depressive as any other Brijabhasi.
Satyabhama - Wed, 15 Sep 2004 04:00:43 +0530
![smile.gif](http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif)
I understand.
Satyabhama - Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:02:06 +0530
Can we have a separate Bhudevi thread? I think we're now well away from the original subject.
Hari Saran - Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:12:22 +0530
QUOTE (Satyabhama @ Sep 13 2004, 07:06 PM) |
Don't you just love Her attitude? ![smile.gif](http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif) |
Satyabhama,
Thanks again to share this nice mood about Bhumi Mata! It is just as if looking at it with whole new light; Bhur-Loka, a beautiful island shaped as lotus flower in the middle of universe, kindly giving shelter and chance to innumerous jivatamas to develop love of God.
Good
Seva! Radhe !
BDW; Sorry for not replying promptly, I’m using the library’s computer. I can’t come all the time.
She is right there somewhere...
![user posted image](http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/planetarium/mahavishnu.jpg)
Upps! She is everywhere!
Kishalaya - Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:08:16 +0530
QUOTE (babu @ Sep 12 2004, 07:15 PM) |
Why the superior ontological position of shaktiman? One is served and the other is servant. Being the pitiful humans that we are and suffering so at the onslaughts of history and secular authorities, how could we not have a conditioned predisposition to give superiority to the served? |
Actually I can sympathize with your position. Jagat ji, also, has been trying to say something on these lines. Men, in this world, seem to have a certain attitude which on the long run leads to a somewhat sorry image and history is indeed testimony. However, that does not apply to God. That's all that I was saying.
Moreover, I wouldn't like to be the spokesperson of those who I can never represent, in this lifetime, at least. They should take up their own cause.
What prompted me to write this. Well! something!
Madhava - Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:23:25 +0530
QUOTE (Satyabhama @ Sep 15 2004, 04:32 AM) |
Can we have a separate Bhudevi thread? I think we're now well away from the original subject. |
Attention everyone: There is a separate
Bhudevi thread now, please post in there about her. I have split off a couple of recent posts and merged them there, in case you're wondering where your posts disappeared.
Satyabhama - Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:31:21 +0530
Sorry, I couldn't find it earlier.
![tongue.gif](http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/html/emoticons/tongue.gif)
Thanks