Laksmi = Visnu tattva? - A few quotes and a debate

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.



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



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)



From Prema Ratnavali ( this translation is Bhaktivedanta Swami's from the Bhagavatam)


Narayana Maharaja also uses the term.



From Visnu Purana (translation unknown)



This is from another translation of Prema Ratnavali (translated by Neal Delmonico)

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.

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?

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.

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)

And this in Cc

Is Radha svamsa or vibbhinamsa in your understanding ? If neither can you show where this is stated ?

How did he argue that the jiva is not an amsa ? Bhedabheda seems to demand this.

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:



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:



Krishnadas Kaviraja also tries to explain:



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.

As Keshava ji pointed out the problem can be done away with. However it is very doubtful that will be done because:

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?

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.

Really?

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.

Kishalaya-Sri Jiva Gosvamin presents the following thesis in his Priti-sandarbha (10)12:

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.

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.

Which, unfortunately, I and my fellow sufferers are yet to see !

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.

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.

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

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.

I agree. Seems like I've heard this before somewhere.

?

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.

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.

Raganuga means never having to say you're sorry.

These are pastimes Keshava ji

Sorry!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

From Jaiva Dharma



Also from Jaiva Dharma



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




And this translation is written in an article by B.B BODHAYAN MAHARAJ, translation unknown, Maybe Puri Maharaja.

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.

I accept this. It is there but covered. Due to the contraction or covering of chit or jnana.

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.

Agreed. It is fully manifest in moksha.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 (?)

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?

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?

Thank you

Why would that be odd?

Where is a jIva defined exclusively as that which takes birth and death? What about nitya-siddha-jIvas?

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.

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?

Personally, I never consider beauty until I am able to scripturally qualify what is the beauty in question.

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.

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.

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:

Hare Krishna

Bhakta David

They are synonyms. Logical equivalence.

Hare Krishna

Bhakta David

Maybe

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.

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

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

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

Davidji, what has this to do with the question?

This is again completely besides the point.

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.

Again too vague. What kind of expansions. Ultimately we are all expansions. Janmadyasya yatah.

Again too vague. We are all empowered by Narayana/Krsna.

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

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

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.

Please provide a specific reference this, preferably with the Sanskrit.

Not at all.

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.

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?

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.htm

I 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

Begging you pardon, with all adequate respect, but Bhaktivinoda, too, is a modern author.

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?

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.

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?

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

Yes, I bring this point up and others like it. See my previous posts.

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.

Not WOULD, COULD He exist? Most certainly, although She exists eternally with Him on His chest.

Right, and there can be only one supremely independent being.

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.

Jagat,

Who are Mohini's saktis? If She is Visnu Tattva then does She have male saktis? Or do you consider Her incomplete?

Keshava

What you are referring to would be similarity (sAdRSyatA) not non-difference (abheda).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Just trying to crack an insider joke, apparently with little success. Should have added a ton of smilies there.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

No need for you to state it. We all agree on that.

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.

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?

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?

Visnu tattva cannot be subordinated to anything or anyone. Visnu tattva is supreme.

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.

I take it that he means avatAra-forms, collectively known as svAMza in Gaudiya-theology.

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.

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?

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?

Well, maybe not have seen God but I suspect He wouldn't be too far away.

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.

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

Tomorrow, I'll check this out and get back to you.

Sort of leaves you with a "she isn't either" feeling.

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?

but at the same time:

Are not these two statments contradictory? How can Laksmi be independent and dependent?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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 - 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."

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!

I hope DH is also invited

But what about our poor DH ?

So how do we cope with that?

I just think he needs to get in touch with his feminine side.

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... 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.

My dear, you have hit the nail on the head! Lakshmi mata knows where the real fun is! (In serving and loving Sri Hari).

Just as manic-depressive as any other Brijabhasi.

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...

Upps! She is everywhere!

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!

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.