|
Post by bhaktirasamrta on Jul 15, 2013 21:49:26 GMT -5
Lal said:
'Qualities and competence' also indicate an "individual nature", not so hard to grasp. Units of energy, molecules floating in the rays of God's divine light, just analogies but it doesn't translate to the jivas being just some sparks or molecules anymore than Krishna being said to have a human-like form means He is human! Human-LIKE form. Jivas have individual forms unique and separate from that of God's form, which only resembles our own. Made in God's image. We jivas can have up to 50 of His qualities, but how does that make us all the same, without swarupa? I may have 10 of those qualities, you may have 19 and 3/4, or someone may have 43 1/2. Does that make us all the same? Knowing we are able to have any of Krishna's qualities (minutely) makes me happy because it means I have always been a real person and related in some way to God, unlike the Pinocchio-vadis who believe the jiva is like a wooden puppet first, then he gets to be real later by good deeds (sadhana bhajan). The story goes: Pinocchio (the jiva) wasn't a real boy in the beginning although he wanted to be, (which is absurd) but because he didn't know what a conscience was, the Blue fairy (Krishna) anointed Jiminy Cricket (guru) to be his conscience. After Pinocchio had proven himself to have good qualities (by practicing the 9 facets of bhakti), even though he died trying to save his creator Geppetto (parampara siddhanta), he was awarded rebirth in the Geppetto family as a real boy (nitya swarupa) and Jiminy got a badge from the Blue fairy that certified him as an official conscience-giver... (bonafide guru award)! (maybe someone can translate that Pinocchio story better than me) Is this where this philosophy of 'jiva being a unit of energy with no basic dasya swarupa' comes from? Is Jiva a blank slate or piece of wood that is then carved into a real conscientious being that makes it's own decisions? Yes, God can do that too, but that's not what we find in our acharya's writings as far as I've read. Has Vaisnavism become infiltrated by this Pinocchio tattva? Was it the Smartas, the Buddhists or the British?
The real story is more complicated but also has a simple side. In Braham Samhita, commentaries by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta S.G. there is a nice verse: Text 21: sa nityo nitya-sambandhah prakrtis ca paraiva sa
'sa'in this case means the 'jiva'; nitya-sambandhah — possessing an eternal relationship... TRANSLATION : The same jiva is eternal and is for eternity and without a beginning joined to the Supreme Lord by the tie of an eternal kinship. He is transcendental spiritual potency.
PURPORT Just as the sun is eternally associated with his rays so the transcendental Supreme Lord is eternally joined with the jivas. The jivas are the infinitesimal particles of His spiritual effulgence and are, therefore, not perishable like mundane things. Jivas, being particles of Godhead’s effulgent rays, exhibit on a minute scale the qualities of the Divinity. Hence jivas are identical with the principles of knowledge, knower, egoism, enjoyer, meditator and doer. Krsna is the all-pervading, all-extending Supreme Lord; while jivas have a different nature from His, being His atomic particles. That eternal relationship consists in this that the Supreme Lord is the eternal master and jivas are His eternal servants. Jivas have also sufficient eligibility in respect of the mellow quality of the Divinity. Apareyam itas tv anyäm prakritim viddhi me paräm. By this verse of the Gitä it is made known that jivas are His transcendental potency. All the qualities of the unalloyed soul are above the eightfold qualities such as egotism, etc., pertaining to His acit (inert material) potency. Hence the jiva potency, though very small in magnitude, is still superior to acit potency or Mäyä. This potency has another name, viz., tatasthä or marginal potency, being located on the line demarcating the spheres of the spiritual and mundane potencies. He is susceptible to the influence of the material energy owing to his small magnitude. But so long as he remains submissive to Krsna, the Lord of Mäyä, he is not liable to the influence of Mäyä. The worldly afflictions, births and rebirths are the concomitants of the fettered condition of souls fallen into the clutches of the deluding potency from a time that has no beginning. " ~Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur. Jivas have always been unique separated persons from the Lord because this is how He increases his own pleasure. The jiva is concluded to be "eternal and is for eternity and without a beginning joined to the Supreme Lord by the tie of an eternal kinship."
|
|
|
Post by Uttamasloka on Jul 15, 2013 21:53:26 GMT -5
Even with your translation it still implies virtually the same thing. “By the qualities” implies the unique qualities of the jiva. These qualities have to come from somewhere. They are not superimposed on the jiva, because that would imply the ‘blank-slate’ concept. And ‘competence’ also implies a capacity or tendency, which also has to come from somewhere. Bhakti purifies one’s nature and qualities, it doesn’t give you qualities, it lets you dovetail your existing qualities that are favorable to devotion.
I have stated above that these qualities exist in the jiva from the start. A jiva is a person, and the fundamental nature of a person is that it possess qualities which embue it with a peronal nature. These qualities must have their source in Krsna, the original person.
Let me paste my statement made in my response to Navena Krsna above:
The jiva’s core svarupa is not complete in and of itself for a relationship with Krsna. Raga infused bhakti has to be added to the mixture, which leads to prema, the next required ingredient, and then one must have an ‘identity’ in Krsna lila, ie: one’s abhimana, or self-conception as a servant, friend, elder or lover. This abhimana is part of one’s sthayi-bhava, your permanent dominant emotional mood. Only then does one become fully qualified for rasa with Krsna. Because these additional ingredients are essential and not present in the jiva - because they are all part of the svarupa-sakti - therefore, the jiva’s original position only represents the potential.
I disagree. Everything in Krsna’s creation is unique. How can jivas, who are persons, not be unique? It makes no sense. I don’t agree with any interpretation of sastra that implies that, eg: Tripurari Swami’s ideas. I don’t interpret it that way at all.
I don’t think the Ramananda Raya reference is valid in this context because it’s not really his ‘svarupa’ per se. FYI, In Dhyanacandra’s smarana-paddhati, Ramananda Raya is Visakha and Svarupa Damodara is Lalita. Srila Prabhupada also states this in CC. Because this is coming from Gopala Guru Gosvami via Vakresvara via Svarupa Damodara, I accept that version.
|
|
lal
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by lal on Jul 16, 2013 0:49:51 GMT -5
Uttama prabhu, you wrote: There are some problems with it, e.g. sva-prakasa doesn't mean "self-effulgent," it means "internally visible," para-prakasa doesn't mean "illuminates others," it means "externally visible", and ksetra-jna doesn't mean "knower of all," it means "knower of the field," which for Krishna is everything, but for the jiva it's talking about the body. There are more problems, but the point is that what is being spoken about are the basic properties of consciousness. My point you were commenting on was that in order for something to be inherently different between the jivas there would have to be something you can explain as different. You wrote: All you're doing is extrapolating an idea or feeling that there must be something different because we are unique, but you can't say what that thing is, only that it manifests in each jiva differently. What exactly are you saying is different besides being different persons? We are each unique in the sense of being different persons, but that's no different than saying every photon from the sun is unique from every other photon. They are all still made of the exact same thing, the only difference is in where they are and how old they are. What exactly is the difference between jivas? There is nothing taught explicitly on what you're teaching on this point. It's simply not taught, it's an extrapolation to say there is some mysterious unique ingredient in every jiva that makes it different than all the rest. You wrote: I have found a lot of copying among a lot of translations, mostly copying from Kusakratha Das. The problem with his translations are well known, while a good Sanskritist, his problem was his eccentric personality which led him to sometimes work very fast and make many careless mistakes. Then there are the problems with Narayana Maharaja's translations into English, he didn't do English translations. They were done by a variety of his followers, some are better than others, it's a mixed bag. You can't take anything at face value in the English translations that are out there for the most part, there are some good translations, but there are many poor ones. What I do whenever I come across something controversial is check the Sanskrit against dictionaries, to make sure they weren't done quickly or by people with little skill. Like how I showed you on the other thread about Bhavollasa Rati, all the available translations of Jaiva Dharma had the same basic mistakes and error for that paragraph (which proved they were copying each other). You wrote: I don't believe they do imply the same thing, the proper translation is in the context of something that changes, the improper one isn't necessarily so. As I show, VCT comments in the proper context, i.e. Rupa Goswami was talking about an evolution of sthayi-bhava based upon competency and qualificiation, not upon inherent nature. VCT goes into more detail on what that qualificiation and competency means, i.e. from sanmanya-rupe (generic bhava), and forwards as you develop more qualification based upon association. The idea that any of this supports the idea of an inherent bhava or svarupa of the jiva is an extrapolation from what they're talking about, they're not saying what you're saying. You said: That's your prerogative, but Gaura-ganoddesa Dipika is the standard work on this topic traditionally accepted by past acharyas as tattva, and cited many times by Prabhupada, for example in the CC:
|
|
|
Post by Uttamasloka on Jul 17, 2013 14:17:16 GMT -5
Your photon logic is faulty. And where are the quotes from our acaryas to back up your position? Either the jiva is a neutral conscious unit or it is a person with a unique combination of personal attributes derived directly from Krsna, which is precisely what BVT said multiple times in the quote I provided previously from JD. BVT even describes the spiritual body as human-like. There’s nothing mysterious about that. And I’ve said that over and over, so I can and have said exactly what it is. It is the unique subset of Krsna’s personal attributes that each jiva has, and which makes them persons. Why is that so hard to grasp? It’s not an extrapolation - it is directly from BVT.
Besides maya-sakti, ie: inert matter, EVERYTHING that Krsna manifests is a unique person, even His saktis. What additional quotes from our acaryas can you supply to solidly support your position?
Every jiva in the spiritual world is a unique individual person. Every jiva in the material world is a unique individual person, albeit conditioned. How is that possible unless the jivas are unique persons to start with? We have a false ego and we have a real ego, which the false ego covers. What is the meaning of that real ego? If you say it’s only a sense of “I am” and nothing more, then I say that is impersonalistic and that is absolutely not supported by the acaryas. Show me quotes that prove this conclusively. The Paramatma-sandarbha’s list of the jiva’s attributes does not conclusively rule out what I’m saying, nor does it incontrovertably support your ideas.
It’s exactly like a human birth. By karma, one gets a combination of qualities (a conditioned svarupa) that predisposes them to a particular varna for which they are ideally suited. It’s the same principle played out at all levels. The material world is a reflection of the spiritual world and those who animate it, ie: the jivas, have personal attributes at their core svarupa level to make that possible.
Being a unique person, a jiva has the ‘potential’ to have a transcendental relationship with Krsna because it is nityera krsna dasa, and based on the unique combination of personal attributes in the jiva, derived directly from Krsna - solely and specifically for that ultimate purpose - there is a natural predisposition towards a particular type of relationship with Krsna (not an dormant rasa), providing, and only if, all of the other svarupa-sakti ingredients are attained per raganuga-sadhana-bhakti and the mercy of one’s guru and Krsna. That is what the acaryas are saying all throughout their books. Please provide your full explanation of this process as I have done.
The idea that one gets their specific relationship/rasa from one’s guru is not supported by any acaryas, and the principle of association with devotees does not equate to that conclusion. That is a faulty extrapolation. It is already shown per JG that one is attracted to a specific rasa/rati only after many lifetimes of samskaras. It does not happen in the very first lifetime that you meet a Vaisvnava guru.
It takes multiple lifetimes of exposure to Krsna lila in the association of devotees, which insures that you’re connected to the bona fide source of this knowledge. The devotees don’t give you your rasa either. You are attracted due to your own individual nature and its inclinations, however conditioned they may be. All of the many lifetimes of sadhana-bhakti take place while we are conditioned, so that is obviously not an impediment.
Following JG’s explanations, if a guru ‘gave’ us the same rasa as his own, it would have been instilled many lifetimes ago, and if this is our last lifetime, it’s not because our guru in this lifetime gave us his rasa - it was already established before. But JG says that some people have an attraction to many rasas/ratis and therefore they cannot be fixed in one rasa/rati and thus they do not have what it takes in that lifetime. Does that mean they never had a guru who gave them his rasa or they never practiced bhakti in their previous lives? It is obviously an evolutionary process based on each individual’s personal nature and inclinations as stated by all of the acaryas, faulty translations notwithstanding.
The whole idea that you get your rasa from your guru, ie: the same rasa he has, completely removes any personal desires or choice in the matter and that eliminates pure love, because love must be given by the individual freely and willingly. Krsna wants ‘our’ love, not the love someone else gave us. We are inspired by our guru’s love for Krsna as well as by other devotee’s love, but we don’t get their love, we develop our own.
We invoke the descent of prema by our own unique personal desires and commitment - we choose and we desire. That is our free will, however insignificant it may be. I don’t accept your idea that free will is an illusion and you haven’t proven it. BVT does not agree with that idea either as my previous quotes prove. Your idea makes us spiritual blobs that just get stamped by our gurus with bhakti, prema, a spiritual personality, a relationship, etc and that is unacceptable and not in line with any of the acaryas. Quite the contrary.
If we have no unique personal attributes at the root level, then why does Krsna want to associate with us and thus stay with us eternally as the Supersoul? That is a personal relationship if ever there was one. Who exactly does Krsna want to have a relationship with if it’s not a person? How can an undifferentiated unit of consciousness be an eternal servant? It makes no logical sense, and there is nothing taught that goes against what I’m saying either.
And what about the jivas who do not choose to go to maya-sakti, but instead go directly to the svarupa-sakti? Who stamps them with a personality and a rasa, and which rasa is it? Obviously they are eligible by their very natures, and once the svarupa-sakti ingredients are added, they can begin their relationship with Krsna according to their individual eternal natures.
There are several books of the acaryas that formed the core of the presentation in my book, which were translatd by Bhanu Swami, namely: BRS, UN, RVC, CS. After reviewing several versions of some of these books I determined that Bhanu Swami did not copy from anyone else, so that point is moot. SNM’s version of JD was translated from Hindi, hardly a cryptic language, by several qualified devotees. JG’s BS was translated by Satya Narayana Dasa Babaji, an accepted Sanskrit scholar.
Because you are pushing the translation issue, I now have to ask bluntly - what are your qualifications as a translator, academic or otherwise? How many books of the acaryas have you translated and have they been validated by other scholars as high quality accurate renditions? Why should we accept your corrections, especially if you just looked up words in a Sanskrit dictionary? Unless you can establish some valid criteria in this regard, your criticism of the translations is questionable at this point, and certainly nowhere near strong enough to challenge or change what I have presented.
I have show a broad concensus among the various translations I used. Most of what you have done is challenge bits and pieces of my position here and there. Now it’s time for you to present a brief but comprehensive summary of the process as you understand it, and give solid conclusive quotes from our acaryas to back up your position. That is exactly what I’ve done here and fully in my book.
If you’re going to continuously challenge everything based on wrong translations, then we’re not going to get anywhere. In that case, you’ll have to translate all of these books yourself and get them certified by bonafide Sanskrit scholars so we can know for certain that you are fully qualified to translate these books and that your renditions are superior to all others, and that they correctly represent what the acaryas originally stated. Otherwise, why should we accept your translations, just because you looked something up in a Sanskrit dictionary?
A request: please stop repeating the notion that I am supporting the idea of an ‘inherent bhava in the jiva’. I’ve made my position more than clear repeatedly. It serves no purpose to repeatedly take the argument there. It is a distortion of what I’m saying and a distraction from the core issues we’re discussing.
The sthayi-bhava is completely about one’s nature in the context of one’s relationship in Krsna’s lila. It evolves after one has perfected their sadhana-bhakti, where the initial desires for a specific relationship take root. At the point of one’s sthayi-bhava manifesting, there is no more evolution from one relationship to another - it is fixed. It is all a crystallization of one’s core personal nature specifically according to one’s attained relationship and identity.
Well, SP acknowledged both versions in that quote, and in another quote he states that Svarupa Damodara is Lalita and Ramananda Raya is Visakha. GGD is one of the standard works in this regard and Dhyanacandra’s smarana-paddhati is another (although lesser known) and it was fully embraced by BVT in Jaiva-dharma, so that’s good enough for me.
The lineage that BVT gives in JD is: Lord Caitanya > Svarupa Damodara > Vakresvara Pandit > Gopala Guru Gosvami > Dhyanacandra Gosvami. Except for DG, the rest were contemporaries having direct association with one another. Thus, DG’s paddhati is based on direct knowledge from SD, so it must be accepted as absolutely conclusive and even moreso than GGD. In cases like these where there are conflicting statements, everyone must choose based on their own inner guidance.
|
|
|
Post by Navina Krsna dasi on Jul 18, 2013 8:03:42 GMT -5
To all the participants and readers of this discussion, please forgive me for my delayed reply. Jai Śrī Rādhe! Uttamasloka Prabhu said: Certainly I did note and acknowledge your statement about taṭastha-śakti above. Now please allow me to present my understanding and the vision of this subject matter. For some reason I was guided from within to approach this subject matter from different viewpoint - from the viewpoint that " Everything is Brahman"; not just 'Brahman', but the Supreme Brahman, Kṛṣṇa, as the Cause of ALL Causes, the Absolute Truth. All across the śāstra you'll find that we are to study, discuss and finally understand what is Brahman by carefully studying the difference between matter and spirit and by studying the nature of both. Furthermore, all across the śāstra it is taught that ' I am Brahman' - ' ahaṁ brahmāsmi' - as part and parcel of the Supreme Brahman. So, these are the actual and ultimate definitions of the self and the Super Self even though the definition that I-am-tatastha-śakti is also true, but I-am-Brahman is superior to that definition so it must be accepted as such. By studying the subject matter of Brahman from the śāstra and the teaching of acintya-bhedābheda tattva, I understand how it is inclusive rather than exclusive in itself. In other words, the 'formula' would be something like: *it* or *that* *IS* -AND- *ISN'T* - both at the same time. Or - it is black *AND* white, rather than - it is black *OR* white. That is how my tiny brain comprehends this subject. So while contemplating the subject, I was guided in a direction of understanding Brahman and then I realized that I cannot understand a 'part' without understanding the 'whole' first and reference/relation of the 'part' to the 'whole'. Nevertheless, the definition about the nature of taṭastha-śakti given above is still confusing. Śāstras say that it is a mixture of both energies, material and spiritual. But what do we actually know about the details of that particular śakti and all other unlimited śaktis of the Lord and their inconceivable and wonder-full works? "The Lord is endowed with unlimited potencies (parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate), which are summarized as three, namely external, internal and marginal. The external potency manifests this material world, the internal potency manifests the spiritual world, and the marginal potency manifests the living entities, who are mixtures of internal and external. The living entity, being part and parcel of Parabrahman, is actually internal potency, but because of being in contact with the material energy, he is an emanation of material and spiritual energies." [SB 7.3.34, purport] So it is not clear as to how can anything 'spiritual' (particularly bhakti) be 'absent' from the spiritual energy that we, as living entities, possess for eternity? Here are just some of many quotes that can be found all accross the śāstras that state that we do possess that energy, naturally: "This brings up the question of who Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī is and what Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa is. Actually Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa is the exchange of love. This is not ordinary love; Kṛṣṇa has immense potencies, of which three are principal: the internal, the external and the marginal potencies. In the internal potency there are three divisions: saṁvit, hlādinī and sandhinī. The hlādinī potency is the pleasure potency. All living entities have this pleasure-seeking potency, for all beings are trying to have pleasure. This is the very nature of the living entity. At present we are trying to enjoy our pleasure potency by means of the body in this material condition. By bodily contact we are attempting to derive pleasure from material sense objects. We should not think, however, that Kṛṣṇa, who is always spiritual, tries to seek pleasure on this material plane like us. In the Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa describes the material universe as a nonpermanent place full of miseries. Why, then, would He seek pleasure in the material form? He is the Supersoul, the supreme spirit, and His pleasure is beyond the material conception." [CC Introduction]
"In order to avoid such errors, we should understand what Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa actually is. Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa display Their pastimes through Kṛṣṇa's internal energy. The pleasure potency of Kṛṣṇa's internal energy is a most difficult subject matter, and unless one understands what Kṛṣṇa is, one cannot understand it. Kṛṣṇa does not take any pleasure in this material world, but He has a pleasure potency. Because we are part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, the pleasure potency is within us also, but we are trying to exhibit that pleasure potency in matter. Kṛṣṇa, however, does not make such a vain attempt. The object of Kṛṣṇa's pleasure potency is Rādhārāṇī; Kṛṣṇa exhibits His potency, or energy as Rādhārāṇī and then engages in loving affairs with Her. In other words, Kṛṣṇa does not take pleasure in this external energy but exhibits His internal energy, His pleasure potency, as Rādhārāṇī. Thus Kṛṣṇa manifests Himself as Rādhārāṇī in order to exhibit His internal pleasure potency. Of the many extensions, expansions and incarnations of the Lord, this pleasure potency is the foremost and chief." [CC Introduction]
Śrīla Prabhupāda: "The meaning of life is to enjoy. But now you are on a false platform of life, and therefore you are suffering instead of enjoying. Everywhere we see the struggle for existence. Everyone is struggling, but what is their enjoyment in the end? They are simply suffering and dying. Therefore, although life means enjoyment, at the present moment your life is not enjoyment. But if you come to the real, spiritual platform of life, then you'll enjoy." [The science of self-realization] From these quotes it follows that, we, the living entities, since we constantly desire pleasure and enjoyment, do possess this hlādinī-śakti - who is none other than Supreme Goddess and Queen of Bhakti - Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī - the pure and full embodiment of Kṛṣṇa's hlādinī-śakti. It says it is natural for all living entities, or 'by default' it is there in them. It doesn't matter if they're conditioned or liberated souls or what their level of consciousness is, covered or uncovered, perverted or non-perverted - it is always there. So how much far and wide do we have to look to find this particular energy in us? The conclusion is the self-evident fact that we are fully infused in the Supreme Spirit and His Spiritual energies, constantly, without cessation. This Supreme Spirit is the sole base of any existence, material or spiritual, or mixed (!) and it can never go away from us, regardless of our condition. How much we are conscious of all that, that is another story, but it doesn't change a thing in the definition that we are first and foremost Brahman - simply because we are emanated from that Supreme Brahman and have our share in it, directly and individually. Although it is said that everything rests on Kṛṣṇa and at the same time, He is not really there, still it is all HIS and everything is Him and in Him and there isn't anything that isn't in Him because He is the Supreme Personality, the Absolute. It is not possible to separate anything from Him ever. What follows are some more quotes mostly taken from the Vedānta-sūtra with commentaries by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa which I wanted to share with those who are interested. Hopefully it will bring more transcendental pleasure into this wonderful kṛṣṇa-kathā. Please forgive me for not citing the exact pada, adhikaraṇa or sūtra; I simply had no time for that. And regarding the quality of translation: my experience is - if the Supersoul doesn't illuminate you from within, you won't understand what was meant even with the most perfect translation. And if He does mercifully illuminates you, some bad or even wrong translations won't confuse you. And we know that He is our best Friend and best Advisor. "Originally, Kṛṣṇa's energy is spiritual, and the energy known as the living entity is also spiritual." [Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.7.61]
"When material faults are destroyed, the soul's qualities become revealed. The soul's qualities are eternal. They are never created." [Vedānta-sūtra]
In the Bhagavad-gītā (15.7) Lord Kṛṣṇa explains: "The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts."
"By using the word "sanātana" (eternal), the Lord refutes the idea that the living entities referred to here are the temporary external bodies in which the eternal souls reside. In this way it is seen that the individual spirit souls are part and parcel of the Supreme and have an relationship with Him. the Supreme is the creator and dominant in other ways also, and the individual spirit souls are dependent on Him. The nature of the individual spirit souls is described in the following passage of Padma Purāṇa:
From Padma Purāṇa: "The individual spirit soul is the shelter of knowledge, has knowledge as one if his qualities, is consciousness, is beyond the world of matter, is never born, never changes, and has one form, a spiritual form."
"The soul is atomic, eternal, is present by consciousness everywhere in the material body, is by nature full of spiritual bliss and knowledge, has a sense of individual identity, is unchanging, is a witness within the body, is eternal, and is different from the Supreme."
"The soul can never be burned, cut, moistened, withered, or killed. It has these and many more qualities. It is part and parcel of the Supreme."
"Thus the word 'ma' refers to the individual spirit soul. The soul is the knower of the field of activities. The soul is spiritual. The soul is an eternal servant of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The soul is never the servant of anyone else."
"The phrase "evam-adi-gunaih" (with these and many more qualities) refers to the soul's other qualities, such as his ability to perform actions, to experience sensations, to attain enlightenment, and to enlighten others...." [From the purport by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa]
"The individual spirit souls are said to be created because they are effects of the Supreme. The Supreme Personality of Godhead has two potencies, and these are said to be His effects. Here is what makes these two potencies different. One potency is the pradhāna and other inert, unconscious, not alive potencies that are meant to be objects of enjoyment and various experiences. The other potency is the individual spirit souls, who are not inert, dull matter, but are conscious, alive beings, and who are able to enjoy and perceive various experiences. These two potencies share one common feature: that they are both the effects of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this way the scriptural description of the souls' creation is not contradicted. In this way the scriptures are correct, and in this way, also, the individual spirit souls are never born." [Vedānta-sūtra, purport by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa]
"The soul's consciousness is never destroyed." [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5.14]
"The soul does not become conscious merely by contact with the mind, for soul and mind are both indivisible and cannot interact. Turning away from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the soul obscures its natural spiritual knowledge. Turning towards the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the soul revives its natural spiritual consciousness. This is described in the Smrti- śāstra:
"As by washing away the dirt that covered a jewel, the jewel's splendor is not created but merely uncovered, so by removing the dirt of materialism that covered the soul, the soul's splendor is not created, but merely uncovered."
The Chāndogya Upaniṣad (8.12.3) describes the activities of the liberated souls: sa tatra paryeti jaksan krīḍan ramamāṇaḥ "In the spiritual world the individual spirit soul eats, plays, and enjoys." Therefore action by itself does not bring pain and unhappiness to the soul, rather it is the bondage of the three modes of nature that brings unhappiness. This is so because the three modes of nature obscure the reality of the soul's spiritual nature."
"Brahman is present in the body of the individual spirit soul in two ways: as kriyā-śakti (the potency of action), which is also known as prāṇa, and as jñāna-śakti (the potency of knowledge), which is also known as prajñā. Both are manifested from Brahman. These two potencies remain within the body of the individual spirit soul, and also leave it together at the time of death."
A quote from Kṛṣṇa book: In the Caitanya-caritāmṛta it is stated, ekalā īśvara kṛṣṇa: "Kṛṣṇa is the only Supreme God." Āra sava bhṛtya: "All others are His servants." Yāre yaiche nācāya, se taiche kare nṛtya: "The Supreme Lord, as He desires, is engaging all living entities in different activities, and thus they are exhibiting their different talents and tendencies." [Kṛṣṇa Book Volume 2, Chapter 32 - Prayers by the Personified Vedas]
Quotes from Śrī Īśopaniṣad: "The supreme ātmā, or soul, is the Lord Himself, and the minute ātmā is the living entity. The supreme ātmā, or Paramātmā, alone maintains all the individual minute beings, for the Supreme Lord wants to derive pleasure out of their affection. The father extends himself through his children and maintains them in order to derive pleasure. If the children obey the father's will, family affairs will run smoothly, with one interest and a pleasing atmosphere. The same situation is transcendentally arranged in the absolute family of the Parabrahman, the Supreme Spirit.
The Parabrahman is as much a person as the individual entities. Neither the Lord nor the living entities are impersonal. Such transcendental personalities are full of transcendental bliss, knowledge and life eternal. That is the real position of spiritual existence, and as soon as one is fully cognizant of this transcendental position, he at once surrenders unto the lotus feet of the Supreme Being, Śrī Kṛṣṇa." [Śrī Īśopaniṣad, Mantra 7, purport]
Śrī Īśopaniṣad invocation: "The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance."
From the purport: All facilities are given to the small complete units (namely the living beings) to enable them to realize the Complete Whole. All forms of incompleteness are experienced due to incomplete knowledge of the Complete Whole. The human form of life is a complete manifestation of the consciousness of the living being, and it is obtained after evolving through 8,400,000 species of life in the cycle of birth and death. If in this human life of full consciousness the living entity does not realize his completeness in relation to the Complete Whole, he loses the chance to realize his completeness and is again put into the evolutionary cycle by the law of material nature.
|
|
|
Post by Navina Krsna dasi on Jul 18, 2013 8:32:53 GMT -5
Lal Prabhu said: To understand the cause of the all uniqueness, or differences among jivas and everything created, you first have to understand the nature of the Supreme Brahman, Supreme Spirit, Krsna, the Absolute Truth. Some of the bases of the Spirit and spiritual nature is constant activity, diversity and variegatedness. This fact is obvious to everyone even in this material world, starting with these material bodies. And the material world is nothing but perverted reflection of the spiritual world. Or perhaps you'd say that our senses are impure, imperfect and unable to percieve these things clearly? Lal: I'd say that they only talk about another quality of the Spirit: constant expansiveness due to yet another quality of the Spirit - unlimitedness. Even Krsna, the Supreme Brahman, the Cause of All Causes is constantly expanding. In one sense, one would say that even He doesn't know Himself fully because of His constant expansion. So why wouldn't jivas, who have the same spiritual nature, expand too - according to all different kinds of conditions (association, qualification, or whatever)? From the Kṛṣṇa Book Volume 2, Chapter 32 - Prayers by the Personified Vedas: Therefore, the personified Vedas worshiped (the Lord) to the best of their ability, and at the end they spoke as follows.
"Our dear Lord, although Lord Brahmā, the predominating deity of the highest planet, Brahmāloka, and King Indra, the predominating demigod of the heavenly planet, as well as the predominating deities of the sun planet, the moon planet, etc., are all very confidential directors of this material world, they have very little knowledge about You. Then what to speak of ordinary human beings and mental speculators? It is not possible for anyone to enumerate the unlimited transcendental qualities of Your Lordship. No one, including the mental speculators and the demigods in higher planetary systems, is actually able to estimate the length and breadth of Your form and characteristics. We think that even Your Lordship does not have complete knowledge of Your transcendental qualities. The reason is that You are unlimited. Although it is not befitting in Your case to say that You do not know Yourself, it is nevertheless practical to understand that because You have unlimited qualities and energies and because Your knowledge is also unlimited, there is unlimited competition between Your knowledge and Your expansion of energies."
SP continues: The idea is that because God and His knowledge are both unlimited, as soon as God is cognizant of some of His energies, He perceives that He has still more energies. In this way, both His energies and His knowledge increase. Because both of them are unlimited, there is no end to the energies and no end to the knowledge with which to understand the energies.
God is undoubtedly omniscient, but the personified Vedas say that even God Himself does not know the full extent of His energies. This does not mean that God is not omniscient. When an actual fact is unknown to a certain person, this is called ignorance or lack of knowledge. This is not applicable to God, however, because He knows Himself perfectly, but still His energies and activities increase. Therefore He also increases His knowledge to understand it. Both are increasing unlimitedly, and there is no end to it. In that sense it can be said that even God Himself does not know the limit of His energies and qualities.
For this reason, the Vedas say that God is beyond the capacity of our knowledge. Abāṅmanasagocara: to understand the length and breadth of God is beyond the jurisdiction of our mental speculation. Therefore, a person who is actually learned and sane does not claim to be God, but tries to understand God, making distinctions between spirit and matter. By such careful discrimination, one can clearly understand that the Supreme Soul is transcendental to both the superior and inferior energies, although He has a direct connection with both. In the Bhagavad-gītā, Lord Kṛṣṇa explains that although everything is resting on His energy, He is different or separate from the energy.
The verses of Veda-stuti are to be considered the essence of all Vedic knowledge.
|
|
lal
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by lal on Jul 18, 2013 18:51:22 GMT -5
Uttama prabhu, you wrote:
It's standard across many works of the past acharyas to compare the jiva to a photon from the sun and Krishna to the sun.
Prabhupada also said the jiva comes from Brahman, and his godbrother Sridhar Maharaja said the jiva comes from a "uniform" sheet or plane of consciousness (he meant Brahman).
Anything in English from Jaiva Dharma or any of the Thakur's work needs to be checked for mistakes, unfortunate, but true. I provided a quote from VCT in BRSB about samanya-rupa, how the bhakta starts out with a generic type of bhava, and then develops into a distinct sthayi-bhava due to association. That is what has been taught on this topic. Samanya-rupa, which means "general, non-specific, generic," and similar words; and svaccha-rupa, which means "transparent, clear," or even "pure," in the sense of a blank slate, or a pure transparently clear substance, like a clear piece of glass which has yet to be transformed into a work of art, i.e. at first the rupa is yet to have developed into a specific sthayi-bhava, which develops through association. That doesn't mean it's given by a guru, just that at first we are all alike, and by association we develop into our siddha-svarupa sthayi-bhava.
We are each unique persons, but that doesn't mean we are different in any other way from each other than being different individuals. The idea of the sthayi-bhava being inherently different in a jiva from other jivas due to some inherent unique difference in each jiva, is not taught, it's an extrapolation---and really makes no sense, i.e. there aren't that many different sthayi-bhava', but there are unlimited numbers of jivas. It is taught that each is it's own individual self, blessed with the same potential (50 of Krishna's qualities in minute ways).
Translating Sanskrit isn't difficult, the "problem" is that most words have many different meanings, making context extremely important in a translation. Which is why the tradition points out that a Vaishnava is best suited to translate Vaishnava texts, they understand the context and intent better than a non-Vaishnava, or someone not trained in Vaishnava philosophy. As for my qualification, well, that's subjective. Let's look at the translation of sva-praksasa and para-prakasa in the quote you provided from Jaiva Dharma to show how the most important things are context and understanding the intent---and also not going too quickly, which leads to sloppy work, i.e. not very good, even if the translator is very qualified.
They have sva-prakasa as "self-effulgent," and para-praksasa as "illuminates others." Those are possible translations, but it's not what those words mean in the context they were written. Svaprakasa and paraprakasa are basic well-known concepts about the nature of atma in Vedic philosophy. Svaprakasa means that the nature of the self, sva, is that it's visible to or conscious of itself; that it sees it's self by it's self; that it's visible to it's self by it's self. You can also translate it is as self-effulgent because prakasa has many meanings, but self-effulgent means what exactly? It's not a very exact term, philosophically speaking. Does it mean the atma glows with light? No, svaprakasa in the context of the philosophy on the nature of consciousness means that the self is conscious of, or visible to itself by itself, e.g. internally visible; and conversely paraprakasa means the self is visible externally to the self, i.e. to others. You can translate paraprakasa as "illuminates others," but that isn't the context or intent, it's not meant to be about the self as a light source or as a teacher, it simply means that the self is able to be perceived by or seen by others, not directly, but indirectly through the actions of the body, words, etc.
A problem arises in translations for even very well trained Vaishnava translators when they do the work quickly, simply because of the great number of possible translations for words. Because of the many different meanings of words, if you go quickly you can easily make a wrong choice. Kusakratha's work suffers from this problem, there are lot's of obvious mistakes made because of carelessness rather than his lack of skill, which was very good.
As for Narayana Maharaja's translations from Hindi, the same problem applies, Hindi also has many translations for words. Did you know one of his books translated into English (I forget which one) was disavowed by his sangha because it was so bad? It was done by one of his followers who took it upon themself to do the work, and the mistakes were just too many to be acceptable, but it was published by their sangha and that book is still widely available on the Internet under Narayana Maharaja's name.
Or look at the paragraph from Jaiva Dharma I showed on the other thread on Bhavollasa Rati, which was full of obvious simple errors. One of the two translations I showed is from the English translation of Narayana Maharaja's free online version. I'm not sure where the other is from, but I think it's Kusakratha, you can tell the obvious mistakes were due to not taking time to get it right, it wasn't choosing words out of context, it was simply quick and sloppy to completely leave out the part about manjaris aging to 14, and the other mistakes. Plus it showed one copied from the other, I'm not sure which was published first. Sarvabhavana's version (in the Vedabase) has the same exact mistakes, so he obviously copied from one or both of those as well.
The lesson is, that if you're going to present something controversial, make sure to get the original, the many translations may have been done by very qualified people, but due to wanting to get the work done quickly, sloppiness creeps in and mistakes are made.
|
|
|
Post by Uttamasloka on Jul 20, 2013 1:20:26 GMT -5
Navina:
All manifested energies of Krsna exist within an endless variety of hierarchies, so even though the tatastha-sakti jiva is brahaman, the definition of tatastha takes precedent over brahman in defining the jiva. The fact that the jivas are brahman is part of what makes them the same as Krsna (beda), and the fact that jivas are tatastha is part of what makes them different (abeda).
The tatastha-sakti is not a partial emanation from maya-sakti. That is not the correct understanding of SP’s purport above, nor is it what he meant. From Jaiva-dharma:
Vrajanatha: Is there any material component in the jiva’s original constitution?
Babaji: No, the jiva is created solely from the cit-sakti. He can be defeated – that is, covered by maya – because he is minute by nature and lacks spiritual power, but there is not even a scent of maya in the jiva’s existence.
Because the tatastha-sakti is not a full or complete manifestation of the internal potency, and that is why it is in a class by itself. The seed of bhakti must be planted by the guru. As was stated by VCT in my previous post, “bhakti begets bhakti.”
The hladini-sakti is not fully present in the jivas. When SP states that ‘all living entities have this pleasure-seeking potency’, he means that it is partially there because of the ananda portion of the jiva’s sat-cit-ananada nature, which represents the jiva’s ‘eligibility’ for being endowed with the full hladini-sakti in the form of prema.
The samvit, hladini and sandini saktis are part of the svarupa-sakti only, and are not directly present in the tatastha-sakti by definition, regardless of the fact that the jivas are brahman. That is the correct tattva regarding the jiva’s marginal nature. It is not logical or correct to extrapolate in that way, ie: the jivas are brahman, therefore they possess all spiritual attributes in full. From Jaiva-dharma:
Vrajanatha: What is the tatastha-svabhava (marginal nature)?
Babaji: It is the nature that enables one to be situated between both worlds, and to see both sides. Tatastha-svabhava is the eligibility to come under the control of either of the saktis. JD, Page 356
Your conclusion is not correct. It is not a valid extrapolation. The svarupa-sakti cannot ever be covered by maya, and because the jivas can be covered by maya, therefore we can conclude that they do not possess anything from the svarupa-sakti. The tendency for enjoying pleasure that is present in tatastha-sakti is the ananda feature, which is not the full hladini-sakti. They are not one and the same, although they are related. It is incorrect to assume that all of Krsna’s energies are exactly the same simply because Krsna is the source. It doesn’t work like that. Here is more from Jaiva-dharma that explains these details:
Vrajanatha: So maya has nothing whatever to do with creating the svarupa of the jivas – this has to be accepted. At the same time, I have also clearly understood that the jiva is by nature subject to the influence of maya. Now I want to know, did the cit-sakti create the jivas and give them their tatastha-svabhava (marginal nature)?
Babaji: No, the cit-sakti is paripurna-sakti, the complete potency of Krsna, and its manifestations are all eternally perfect substances. The jiva is not nitya-siddha, although when he performs sadhana, he can become sadhana-siddha and enjoy transcendental happiness like the nitya-siddhas, eternally perfect beings. All the four types of Srimati Radhika’s sakhis are nitya-siddha, and they are direct expansions (kaya-vyuha) of the cit-sakti, Srimati Radhika Herself.
All the jivas, on the other hand, have manifested from Sri Krsna’s jiva-sakti. The cit-sakti is Sri Krsna’s complete sakti, whereas the jiva-sakti is His incomplete sakti. Just as the complete tattvas are all transformations of the complete potency, similarly, innumerable atomic, conscious jivas are transformations of the incomplete sakti. JD, Page 358
Therefore, the jivas do not possess samvit, hladini or samvit saktis. They are sat-cit-ananda but they are in an incomplete marginal position - tatastha.
|
|
|
Post by Uttamasloka on Jul 21, 2013 18:16:40 GMT -5
Yes, I know about these analogies, as does everyone. My particular issue was regarding your inference that this means there is no differentiation between the jivas due to this commonality. That is the faulty aspect to which I was referring. The most important differentiation between the jivas is due to their being individual unique persons, which I proved with references from BVT’s JD.
I accept that there may be some errors as such, but the whole chapter on Jiva-tattva is consistent and conclusive and not supportive of your position. That cannot be ascribed solely to translation errors. I don’t accept that at all, especially without conclusive and thorough evidence validated by someone qualified. BVT supports my position that the jivas are all unique individual persons from the start.
That is not at all what is presented in that chapter on sthayi-bhva in BRS, and it is only what has been taught by those who do not understand the facts. Your understanding is completely wrong and it is a misrepresentation of what is presented there. In that chapter it describes the different types of rati but it says absolutely nothing about it being a progressive development towards one’s sthayi-bhava. First of all there is this verse:
The rati takes on a specific type (one of the five, ie: santa, dasya, etc) according to the individual nature of the devotee. Just as the sun takes on various forms when reflected through crystals and other items, the rati takes on various forms when manifesting in different individuals. BRS 2.5.7
Jiva Gosvami’s commentary:
The example of the reflection of the sun in crystal and other items is used to illustrate the variety that rati assumes in different individuals, and not to illustrate that those who receive rati have only some reflection, and not genuine rati. Because of particular differences, five distinct conditions appear which are given five different names.
JG states clearly that the differences in rati are due to the individual nature of each devotee, which are not attributes that were attained by association, but are inherent in each devotee, because they are unique individual persons as jivas. No mention is made in this verse or commentary about receiving these differences from one’s guru or other devotees. Rather it is, “Because of particular differences”. Association with like-minded devotees refines and properly channels these tendencies and qualities, but these inclinations are not derived solely or specifically from such association.
The unique nature of each devotee is the crystal being referred to here, and the sun is rati, which, when reflected through each individual, results in a specific type of rati towards Krsna because of that devotee’s unique personal nature. It is a misunderstanding to say that the devotees are reflecting the attributes of those they associate with. That is not what JG is saying at all.
Now, later on in BRS we have these verses:
svaccha-suddha-rati:
When rati manifests many varieties because the practitioner associates with various types of devotees and performs various practices, it is called svaccha-rati (transparent). BRS, 2.5.12
When a devotee’s rati, like a clear crystal, becomes similar in form to that of the devotee to whom he is attached, it is called, svaccha-rati. 2.5.13
From Jiva Gosvami’s commentary:
This verse shows how devotee association acts as the seed of rati. Through association with various types of devotees, various types of sadhana, which are like watering the seed, will be performed. This will produce various bhavas in the practicing devotee. The type of suddha-rati previously mentioned, which produces such variety in a devotee is called, svaccha-rati. The cause of variety is explained in verse 13. The devotee’s rati, like a crystal, takes on the form similar to that of another devotee to whom he is attached.
...However, this svaccha-rati is included in suddha-rati because the particular tastes it manifests are temporary (rather than permanent as in the four main ratis). This also agrees with the later statement in verse 21, which describes suddha-rati (which includes svaccha-rati) as being devoid of distinctive taste. Suddha-rati has no mixture of the tastes found in the other types of rati, such as priti-rati (ie: dasya-rati, sakhya-rati, etc).
Here we see in BRS that association with devotees who have a specific rati can be a cause of rati in another devotee in a reflective (crystal) sense, but this does not have a permanent effect because, “the particular tastes it manifests are temporary”. Therefore it is absolutely not a progressive development. This is simply one particular type of rati (svaccha-suddha-rati), and if it were the main process for developing permanent rati, it would have been identified as such, but it isn’t. Not even close.
Thus the irrefutable conclusion is that permanent rati (sthayi-bhava) in one of the four main rasas - dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, madhurya - manifests in one’s heart due to one’s individual personal nature, ie: the svarupa of each jiva, after many lifetimes of exposure to Krsna lila (samskaras) in the association of devotees (of course). That is the correct understanding of the evolutionary development that takes place on the path of bhakti.
Devotees don’t even know or properly understand the rati of any pure devotees they are associating with, because such devotees do not reveal these things to neophytes or even madhyama devotees. That would only be revealed in confidence when a devotee is qualified to begin raganuga-bhakti.
When a devotee has awakened an attraction to a specific rati, it is then that they seek out the association of advanced devotees having that specific rati/bhava, so they can learn further from them about the proper sadhana and bhajana that will nourish their own aspirations to attain that type of relationship with Krsna. That’s how it works. That’s what they get from that like-minded association. That is what is taught by our acaryas.
Now you’ve accepted the unique personal nature of each jiva. THAT is the whole point. Nothing else has to be different. And once again, you’re putting words in my mouth - I never said anything about jivas having an inherent sthayi-bhava. Why are you doing that? What purpose does it serve? Why distort my position like that?
There is a HUGE difference between having an inherent pre-disposition or nature due to being a unique person, versus having a fully developed sthayi-bhava.
So the question is, do you know the author’s intent better than those who translated these works, and why is that so? Again, what are your qualifications in that regard that would make us favor your translations? And how could you possibly know if someone was translating quickly? That’s just a speculative assumption without any direct evidence. You are trying to invalidate my position based on this questionable translation issue and I’m not buying it.
Your analysis of the JD translation is a moot point also, because you’ve already accepted the unique individual personal nature of each jiva. Uniqueness does not mean that they are simply not any other jiva; it means they have unique personalities, which means they have a unique subset of Krsna’s personal qualities, because there is no other source of personal attributes. That is not an extrapolation. That is common sense, simple, irrefutable logic and it’s what BVT presents in JD.
And because all of the acaryas in all of their books repeatedly say things like, “according to one’s taste, or inclination, or preferences, or desires, or attraction, or nature, or choice,” it’s more than clear what the implications are. Not one single acarya ever says, “according to the rasa your guru gave you” in any of their books.
Nonetheless, you still haven’t proven anything that significantly or even moderately defeats what I’ve presented. And you still haven’t given your explanation regarding how the process works, ie: how and why the jivas develop their attraction to a particular rasa and how that develops into the perfectional stage, with quotes from all the acaryas, just as I have done in my book and in this discussion.
You appear to be supporting the same position as Tripurari Swami and Satya Narayana Dasa Babaji, that it is the guru who ‘gives his bhava and rasa to the disciple and that the disciple follows their guru into Vraja. None of the acaryas support that at all. Certainly, one’s guru gives the seed of bhakti and the appropriate knowledge and guidance, and it is by the guru’s mercy that one progresses on the path to perfection. That is a given. Now let’s hear your version.
|
|
|
Post by Ameyatma das on Aug 2, 2013 2:37:40 GMT -5
I was recently listening to Srila Prabhupada speaking on NOD in the series given in Vrndavana, 1972.
In lecture one he states;
" Everyone has a particular relationship with Krsna in his original constitutional position. That will be revealed gradually as you advance in devotional service in the prescribed rules and regulations as they are directed in the sastras and by spiritual master. When you are trained up properly, you come to the platform of raga marga, then your relationship, that is called svarupa siddhi. So svarupa siddhi is attained at a certain stage. Just like svarupa siddhi, desire for sex life is there in every human being, but when the boy and girl come to the mature stage, it becomes manifested. It is not learned artificially. similarly the raga marga, svarupa siddhi becomes revealed or manifest.."
And in lecture three;
" One has to become free from the contamination of this bodily concept of life. That is called sarvo padi virnirmuktam, tat paritvena nirmalam, when our spiritual body becomes revealed, the material body contamination is washed off; nirmala. At that time the senses remain. Senses are there, it is simply covered by the material energies. The senses are there. The living entity is not niraka. The living entity has got hands, legs, everything; spiritual. Just like I have got my body. This body is covered by the shirt. Because I have got hand, the shirt has got hand. Otherwise where from this hand comes?
Unless the spiritual soul has got hands and legs, how have we got these material hands and legs? Therefore the conclusion is that the spirit soul has form. As Krsna has got form, sac cit ananda vigraha, similarly, spirit soul, jivatma, being part and parcel of Krsna, it has got form..."
Uttamasloka prabhu's presentation directly parallels Srila Prabhupada's points he is making here ie that we are all intrinsically unique individuals who can potentially manifest that original individuality and nature through the process of bhakti yoga.
When Srila Prabhupada makes statements like;
" Everyone has a particular relationship with Krsna in his original constitutional position. " and " when our spiritual body becomes revealed ", it's very difficult to understand things in any other way.
It may be said that Srila Prabhupada was simplifying the understanding and that it is actually alot more complex than that. But according to how I read these statements by Srila Prabhupada, the basic, essential tattvas are very clear; that we all have a unique individual nature, and that original nature is revealed through following the process of bhakti-yoga given by the spiritual master.
|
|
|
Post by inahdji on Oct 17, 2013 16:12:02 GMT -5
in an attempt to be scholarly, i have begun analyzing this conversation. one thing i note in the qualities of the jiva
4) it is free of transformation (vikara-rahita)
if this is being understood correctly, how could it be possible that the jiva could NOT have personality? and if not, how could it gain one?
|
|
|
Post by Uttamasloka on Apr 24, 2014 18:23:02 GMT -5
I haven't visited this thread in quite a while, but I just came across this verse and commentary from Brihad-bhagavatamrita, which further corroborates my position, that the jivas are individual persons with attributes similar to Krsna, being His parts and parcels:
The jivas always have their own identities, different from that of the Supreme. But they are parts of the Supreme and cannot exist separate from Him, and this rules out the difference called vijatiya. BB, 2.2.195
Sanatana Gosvami's Commentary:
This verse establishes the actual way that Brahman is advayam, free from all dualities. The jivas, it is true, belong to categories other than Brahman, such as the category of things that have finite size. In that sense they are different from Brahman.
But in other respects they are non-different from Him: They are expansions of the same creative living force of which Brahman’s own supreme personality consists, and they are His integral parts, naturally sharing many of His qualities. Thus although they are individuals and eternally remain so, they are not entirely separate from the Absolute, Brahman, the Supreme Person.
|
|
vishnudas
New Member
BRS 1.4.14 if one takes shelter of Rägänugä Sädhana one usually attains unalloyed Prema.
Posts: 33
|
Post by vishnudas on Apr 26, 2014 2:58:47 GMT -5
Srila Rupa Goswami:
All the eternally perfected devotees have eternal and blissful qualities just like Lord Mukunda. Their supreme love for Krsna is millions and millions of times more than their love for their own self or body. (Brs. 2.1.290)
Of course this refers to the nitya siddhas, so it would seem that there is a difference quantitatively in the qualities shared by Krsna with the average "finite-sized" jiva and the nitya siddha . But the potential is there in each jiva to attain by there own individual merit/bhakti "many of His qualities" - but never all of them. The jiva's actual illusion of separateness from the Supreme Person would necessarily increase the more distance there is from the path of Bhakti and sadhu-sanga.
So as Jiva Goswami was quoted about the rati which takes on various forms when manifesting in different individuals, it can only be because of unique differences in each jiva. Having been allotted free will, they can choose what part they wish to play in His Lila. The tattva again shows achintya bheda bheda.... jivas appear separate and unique yet they are integral parts of that same Supreme All-Attractive Cause of all causes, Who shares His amita and achintya qualities with them.
|
|
|
Post by Uttamasloka on Jun 30, 2014 19:54:58 GMT -5
There is a thread on Gaudiya Vaisnavism Real & Apparent about the svarupa of the jiva, ie: is it inherent or obtained via sadhu-sanga? As part of the thread, Dulal Candra prabhu posted a link to the discussion I had with Tripurari Swami about this subject, from which this thread on my forum was started. The original Harmonist thread was part of the review of my book.
The following is an excerpt from a biography of Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Maharaja, a disciple of SBSST, SP's sannyasa guru, and the guru of Srila Narayana Maharaja. It was posted by Govinda Greamme Vass:
The youngest in that assembly, Śrīpāda Bhakti Vikāśa Hṛṣikeśa Mahārāja, was very inquisitive about tattva. Full of humility, he folded his hands and said, “For a long time I have had a doubt about the svarūpa of the jīva. I have scrutinized many Gosvāmī literatures, and I have also asked my senior godbrothers, but so far my doubt has not been dispelled.
In Sanātana-śikṣā in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Madhya-līlā 20.108) it is stated that the jīva is Kṛṣṇa’s nitya-dāsa and has manifested from Kṛṣṇa’s taṭasthā-śakti:
jīvera ‘svarūpa’ haya—kṛṣṇera ‘nitya-dāsa’ kṛṣṇera ‘taṭasthā-śakti’, ‘bhedābheda-prakāśa’
“From this verse it seems that the quality of being the servant of Kṛṣṇa is eternally latent in the very constitution of the living being. Consequently his service, his name, his form and so on must be present in some form or other in his constitutional nature, which is now covered by māyā. However, it can also be said that, since the jīva is a transformation of taṭasthā-śakti, his svarūpa should also be taṭasthā: ‘guru-kṛṣṇa-prasāde pāya bhakti-latā-bīja – by the mercy of guru and Kṛṣṇa the living being receives the seed of the bhakti creeper’ (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 19.151).
From this point of view it seems that the jīva is constitutionally an infinitesimal particle of consciousness who obtains the bhakti-latā-bīja by the mercy of guru and Kṛṣṇa. In that case, the nature of his perfected condition will be in accordance with the nature of the seed he receives.
“Śrīla Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura also supports this idea in Śrī Prema-bhakti-candrikā : sādhane bhābiba jāhā siddha-dehe pāba tāhā, rāga pathera ei se upāya. This verse informs us that perfection will be in accordance with whichever type of sādhana is practised. “Superficially, it seems that there are two contradictory points of view. Is it that some specific service tendency is eternally present in the eternal form of the jīva, and that perfection is attained accordingly? Or is it that one’s method of devotional practice determines the perfected condition that one finally attains? Please, kindly clear up my confusion in this matter.”
When prapūjya-caraṇa Yāyāvara Mahārājajī heard this question, he became overjoyed and humbly requested pūjyapāda Śrī Śrīmad Bhakti Rakṣaka Śrīdhara Mahārāja to answer. Prapūjya-caraṇa Śrīdhara Mahārāja was highly knowledgeable in the Vaiṣṇava scriptures and was an erudite philosopher. He began to answer this profound question.
“The nature of the living entity is compared to an atomic conscious particle of the spiritual sun, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. The living being has been described in the Gosvāmī literatures as the vibhinnāṁśa-tattva of brahma. The meaning of vibhinnāṁśa-tattva is that when Bhagavān, who possesses the potency to make the impossible possible (aghaṭana-ghaṭana-paṭīyasī śakti ), is equipped only with His atomic conscious jīva-śakti, then His expansion (aṁśa) is called a vibhinnāṁśa-jīva. However, when that same Bhagavān is replete with all of His potencies, then His expansion is called svāṁśa. Thus the vibhinnāṁśa jīvas are eternal. It is certain that their methods of bhagavat-sevā, and their names, forms and so on are inherent. Yet the jīva’s transcendental form and characteristics remain concealed because he is covered by māyā.
By the grace of Bhagavān, one’s inherent svarūpa becomes manifest as one performs bhajana in the company of saintly persons (sādhus) and becomes freed from māyā. It is also certain that, unless one has sādhu-saṅga, release from māyā and the manifestation of the svarūpa are both quite impossible. For this reason, sādhu-saṅga is absolutely essential. “It is inconsistent to suppose that the svarūpa of the jīva manifests according to the type of sādhu-saṅga one has. For example, not even the association of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and His associates could change the hearts of Anupama Gosvāmī and Murāri Gupta. Murāri Gupta is considered to be Hanumān, Śrī Rāmacandra’s associate. Śrīman Mahāprabhu pointed out to him that Śrī Kṛṣṇa is adorned with more sweetness than Śrī Rāmacandra, and furthermore that Śrī Kṛṣṇa is also the origin of all incarnations (avatārī ). After hearing from Mahāprabhu, Murāri Gupta vowed to give up Śrī Rāmacandra and to perform kṛṣṇa-bhajana.
“But when he came before Śrī Mahāprabhu the next day he began to cry, saying, ‘I took a vow before You to worship Śrī Kṛṣṇa, but I could not sleep the whole night. On the one hand, I have offered my head at the feet of Śrī Rāmacandra and I cannot leave Him. On the other hand I cannot transgress Your order. Either way, I cannot continue living.’ As he spoke he fell down at Śrī Mahāprabhu’s feet. Śrīman Mahāprabhu lifted him up and embraced him, saying, ‘You are so fortunate; you are an eternal associate of Śrī Rāmacandra. The way in which you are serving Him is auspicious for you. I am overflowing with joy to see your ecstatic sentiments.’
“Later on, when Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was in Śrī Raṅgam during His tour of South India, He met with Śrī Vyeṅkaṭa Bhaṭṭa, Śrī Trimalla Bhaṭṭa, Śrī Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī and Vyeṅkaṭa Bhaṭṭa’s son Gopāla Bhaṭṭa. Śrīman Mahāprabhu quoted from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and other scriptures regarding the supremacy of the sweetness of Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s form and other attributes. He proved the pre-eminence of Vrajendra-nandana Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s loveliness, and consequently their hearts were changed. They accepted initiation in the kṛṣṇa-mantra and they all became engaged in serving Kṛṣṇa, following the sentiments of Vraja.
“One noteworthy point here is that, according to our Gosvāmīs, Śrī Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī is Tuṅgavidyā Sakhī in vraja-līlā and Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī is Śrī Guṇa Mañjarī. For pastime purposes, they both appeared in South India and were performing their sādhana-bhajana after accepting initiation in the Śrī sampradāya, but constitutionally, they were gopīs of Vraja. Although they had already been initiated into the Śrī sampradāya, they were attracted to the service of Śrī Kṛṣṇa by the influence of Śrīman Mahāprabhu’s association.
“Śrī Rūpa and Sanātana similarly told their younger brother Śrī Vallabha, also known as Anupama, about the beauty and sweetness of Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s svarūpa and the ultimate superiority of His loving dalliances, His prema-vilāsa. They also advised him to perform kṛṣṇa-bhajana. Anupama was very much influenced by his brothers’ words and took dīkṣā in the kṛṣṇa-mantra, expressing the desire to perform kṛṣṇa-bhajana. However, early the next morning he fell crying at their feet and said:
raghunāthera pāda-padma chāḍāna nā yāya chāḍibāra mana haile prāṇa phāṭi’ yāya
Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Antya-līlā 4.42) I have sold my head at the feet of Śrī Raghunāthajī. Please be merciful to me so that I may serve His lotus feet birth after birth. My heart breaks simply at the thought of giving up His lotus feet. “Śrī Rūpa and Sanātana were very happy to hear the words of their younger brother. Praising and congratulating him, they took him in their arms and embraced him. “From this it is evident that sādhu-saṅga assists in manifesting the svarūpa of the jīva, but sādhu-saṅga cannot change his svarūpa.”
To add further insight into this excerpt, here is Tripurari Swami's response to the above:
Swami Tripurari: These are not actually SM's or KM's words. It is a recreation of a discussion that took place decades earlier for which there was no recording. That said, some do say (for whatever reason/I have my own conjecture) that one's svarupa is fixed and inherent, but the scriptural fact is that one's svarupa is a bhava deha constituted of svarupa sakti, and bhava/svarupa sakti is not inherent in the tatastha jiva. as we have seen elsewhere in other discussions. Bhava is a blessing, not something inherent in the jiva. Nor can it be covered by maya sakti, whereas the jiva can. it is have bhava/prema.a bhava deha inherent in it it could not be covered anymore than one could fall from Vaikuntha.
Furthermore the Bhagavatam teaches that the svarupa is bestowed. Narada, for example was "awarded" (prayujamane) his svarupa with vina and all (SB 1.6.28). In Brhat-bhagavatamrta 2.2.208 in SG's tika he writes that " "A special potency of Bhagavan enables devotees to obtain bodies comprised of eternity, knowledge, and bliss." And in the fourth adhyaya of Vedanta-sutra, which is about prayojana tattva, it is explained in the tikas of Sri Baladeva and Nimbarkacarya that in bhava one can be blessed in accordance with one's desire to serve with a spiritual form (sorry I don't have the text here to look up the relevant sutras). But therein it is clearly explained that upon liberation one attains the "svarupa" of oneself, meaning ones inherent nature as a jiva, and ON TOP OF THAT one can attain through bhakti/bhava a form to serve in should one so desire.
Examples of nitya siddhas or others who have already attained svarupa siddhi not being influence by association is not really evidence that one's svarupa is not a result of association.
Then, this exchange followed…
Govinda Graeme Vass: Thanks, Dulal Chandra Dasa . The link you posted is the reason for my question. I am puzzled that Sridhara Swami's comments appear to be closer to Uttamasloka Prabhu's position than to Swami Tripurari 's postion.
Govinda Graeme Vass: Thank you, devotees, for your deep and interesting comments. So the biography may not be accurate. Are there accurate statements from BR Sridhara Swami on this topic? Swami Tripurari: He said it both ways at different times. And that seems to be the case with all who say (at times) it is inherent.
Bhagavat Maharaja: I concur with Swami Tripurari I have heard it both ways from Various Sadhus in various Gaudiya Maths.
|
|
|
Post by niscala on Jul 15, 2014 8:15:34 GMT -5
TS: And in the fourth adhyaya of Vedanta-sutra, which is about prayojana tattva, it is explained in the tikas of Sri Baladeva and Nimbarkacarya that in bhava one can be blessed in accordance with one's desire to serve with a spiritual form (sorry I don't have the text here to look up the relevant sutras). But therein it is clearly explained that upon liberation one attains the "svarupa" of oneself, meaning ones inherent nature as a jiva, and ON TOP OF THAT one can attain through bhakti/bhava a form to serve in should one so desire.
This interpretation seems very strange as rupa means form. How can one attain a spiritual form on top of ones inherent spiritual form- svarupa? I take it therefore to mean that one not only attains the spiritual form which is one's self identity, but on top of that, the form is suitable to serve in, if we so desire, as opposed to a form unsuitable for service- one in santa rasa.
|
|