Conciliating Some Adavaita and Dvaita Thesis

[Guest guest]

 

 

An interesting aspect to be considered while discussing with followers of other darsans (specially with mayavadis) is that sastra do admit 3 different kinds of realizations of the Absolute Truth, as follows:

 

vadanti tat tattva-vidas / tattvam yaj jnanam advayam

brahmeti paramatmeti / bhagavan iti sabdyate

 

"The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are identical. Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan." (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.11)

 

While postulating his jiva-tattva, Sankara has placed all sort of jivas into the same platform. No surprise. Many acaryas of other lines has done the same. But some recent Acaryas, following savisesa-abheda-vada line, and specially Sri Jiva, Visvanatha Cakravartipada and Baladeva Vydiabhusana had mentioned different kinds of baddha-jivas, or jivas bounded by maya. They had classified these different jivas according their different svarupa (intrinsic nature), that cannot be changed.

 

According them, these baddha-jivas are of three kinds:

 

1) Brahmajyoti-gata - those jivas who perform sadhana with the objective of attaining the oneness of jiva and Brahman, who attain brahma-jyoti or brahma-sayujyia.

 

2) Aisvarya-gata - those whose sadhana is based on fondness for opulence attain salokya-mukti (residence in the same planet) with the parikaras of Vaikuntha.

 

3) Madhurya-gata - those whose sadhana is imbued with the love of sweetness, after being released from maya taste rasa of happiness derived from prema in dhamas suitable for that, such as Nitya-Vrindavana.

If we consider that brahma-sayujiya muktas should be placed at Brahman, and their svarupa is eternally placed at that aspect of the Absolute Truth, Sankara's instruction on jiva-tattva, such as 'brahma satyam jagan mithya jivo brahmaiva naparah' are to be considered as bona fide if the aim is only to attain this kind of mukti. But its interpretation that jiva has no real and eternal existence is out of question to be discussed.

 

Any further comment?

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

They had classified these different jivas according their different svarupa (intrinsic nature), that cannot be changed.

 

So is your conclusion that some of us are only destined to attain the brahma-jyoti, and therefore there is no chance to attain Krishna prema?

 

[Guest guest]

This is not my conclusion, this is our acaryas conclusion as this information on jiva's different origin and different svarupas is found in Jaiva-dharma.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

So what will happen to a person destined for brahma-jyoti who performs bhakti? And what was the use of Sri Chaitanya distributing vraja-prema to all if it wasn't actually attainable except to those who were inherently devotees of that nature? These are natural questions that will come up.

[Guest guest]

According Cakravartipada's opinion, mumuksus are of two kinds (Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu-bindu):

 

1) brahma-sayujiya-muktas

 

2) isvara-sayujiya-muktas

 

Some also states that only isvara-sayujyia-muktas who are seeking after visaya-tattva's oneness are real mumuksus. Jivas may have svarupa in this position; i.e., the Absolute Truth personal aspect (visaya-tattva) is fit to absorb some jivas' svarupas. One may merge in Sri Krsna's form.

The Brahman aspect of the Absolut Truth cannot do it completely. Jiva may have a regress to that material jagat after being placed at this position. So brahma-sayujyia mukti is merely a temporary stage in jiva's evolution. This event corroborates Sankara's thesis of brahma satyam jagan mithya jivo brahmaiva naparah.'

 

For certain, aisvarya-gata-jivas also won't attain krsna-prema, as their svarupa doesn't allow it. They may have many different kinds of prema sucha as Vaikuntha-prema, Ayodhya-prema, Dvaraka-prema, Mathura-prema, but not the real krsna-prema, that we consider as Vraja-prema.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Guest guest]

>> So what will happen to a person destined for brahma-jyoti who performs bhakti?

 

Bhakti gives the fruit of all sort of sadhanas. Bhakti is like a desire tree. If one performs any limb of bhakti with the desire to attain moksa, for certain he will attain it. It is not that bhakti is an exclusivity of pure bhaktas who have no other desire besides Sri Krsna's pleasure.

 

What was the use of Sri Chaitanya distributing vraja-prema to all if it wasn't actually attainable except to those who were inherently devotees of that nature?

 

To distribute Vraja-prema is a confidential purpose of Sri Mahparabhu's avatara. Those who may have svarupa to attain it will do it, others will have benefit with His sankirtana movement by increasing their grade into sanatana-dharma's evolution until their final destination, according their svarupa's adhikara.

 

The siddhanta established by our acaryas is that jiva's svarupa cannot be changed.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Bhakti gives the fruit of all sort of sadhanas. Bhakti is like a desire tree. If one performs any limb of bhakti with the desire to attain moksa, for certain he will attain it. It is not that bhakti is an exclusivity of pure bhaktas who have no other desire besides Sri Krsna's pleasure.

But what will be the result of someone who performs bhakti desiring Krishna prema, but his nature is that he belongs to the brahma-jyoti. For him bhakti will have no actual fruit, nothing greater than jnana, vairagya, etc.

 

The siddhanta established by our acaryas is that jiva's svarupa cannot be changed.

But what is the jiva's svarupa? Sri Chaitanya says jivera svarupa haya krishnera nitya dasa. According to him everyone's svarupa is as a servant of Krishna. Thus how is it possible for them not to attain service to Krishna by engaging in Krishna bhakti?

 

[Guest guest]

>> Sri Chaitanya says jivera svarupa haya krishnera nitya dasa. According to him everyone's svarupa is as a servant of Krishna. Thus how is it possible for them not to attain service to Krishna by engaging in Krishna bhakti?

 

The whole sloka says:

 

jivera svarupa haya krsnera nitya-dasa

krsnera tatastha-sakti bhedabheda prakasa

 

So, it can also be said that jiva is a transformation of tatastha-sakti, and his svarupa should be tatastha, or marginal. Therefore jiva's svarupa may vary according any sadhana, and he should be fit to be placed at any aspect of the Absolute Truth in spite of any kind of sadhana. This may be considered as the literally meaning of this sloka.

 

But according the point of view of some very high personalities in Sri Caitanya's line, sadhana, that is fruit of jiva's desires and association may assists in manifesting the svarupa of the jiva, but it cannot change his svarupa. According our acaryas, jiva has his own siddha-svarupa; his inherent name, form and so on that are all eternal. Each of the innumerable individual jivas has his own separate svarupa, but the jiva has forgotten this because of being covered by maya.

 

To illustrate this assertive, they say that according Sri Brhad-bhagavatamrtam, when Sri Narada and Sri Uddhava saw Gopa Kumara, they ascertained tha he was constitutionally a parikara in sakhya-rasa. He had the association of Narada, Uddhava, Hanuman and many others, and also has performed many sadhanas, but no-one could change his natural sakhya-bhava. If association could change one's inherent service, then why didn't Sriman Mahaprabhu, Rupa and Sanatana change Vallabha's svarupa of Sri Rama's devotee? There are many other examples, such as the association of the gopis could not change Uddhva's svarupa (Dvaraka-prema).

 

Jiva's svarupa cannot be compared to a spotlessly clear crystal and that his siddha-svarupa appears according his sadhana and association.

 

Sri Rupa Goswami has said: nitya siddhasya bhavasya prakatyam hrdi sadhyata: "It is not that sadhana (engaging in Krishna bhakti) produces something entirely new. Rather, sadhana is performed exclusively to bring about the manifestation of that perfect bhava which is in the svarupa of the jiva."

 

If one should consider literally jivera svarupa haya krsnera nitya-dasa, then what is the meaning of diversity of lokas into Paravyoma Vaikuntha? There are other amsas of Krsna and their respective dasas. According a literally understanding, all jivas should be placed as a servant of Krsna into the same loka, and only in dasya prema, no other moods are allowed. No diversity is allowed.

 

But what will be the result of someone who performs bhakti desiring Krishna prema, but his nature is that he belongs to the brahma-jyoti. For him bhakti will have no actual fruit, nothing greater than jnana, vairagya, etc.

 

We don't known the statistics of such cases: A jiva performs krsna-bhakti desiring krsna-prema and finally he attains brahma-jyoti. It is said, however, that Paramatma is the propter of jiva's desires, and He will place him in the situations suitable to the development of his svarupa. Actually, jiva is not the kartta of his actions.

 

Cases of frustrated jivas who are transferred to a wrong place are also mentioned in Bhrad-bhagavatamrta, when Gopakumara did not feel happy at Vaikuntha, Ayodhya, and so on. But he finally has attained a destiny suitable to his own svarupa. And also he was not completely aware of his final destiny until he got it.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu 1]

 

As SD says, this is the view of some of Acharyas in his line. However, discriminating between Jivas, is something that I never heard before. Also, I know Brahman, but I have no idea what Brahma-Jyoti is.

 

We will end up merging in the impersonal brahmajyoti, only to again fall down to the material world continuously.

Out of curiosity, is this what those Acharyas said? It is definitely not Advaita, according to which Moksha is the end of duality and after which there is no return to the material world. Why, there is no more material world !

 

Cheers

 

------------------

Dear is Plato, but dearer still is Truth - Aristotle

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-09-2001).]

[Guest guest]

So in other words, you or I may actually be brahmajyoti souls, and in that case our bhakti, diksha, sadhu-sanga, and harinama are just a waste of time?

 

It said that a sad-guru can see his disciples svarupa and drive them according. If we are being attracted by Sriman Mahaprabhu's movement we may have some connection with it, otherwise the Paramatma would drive us in some other direction. There is no scarcity of different sampradayas, philosophies, sadhanas, and so on, any jiva can be conducted to his path very easily.

 

It is also stated that those who are seeking after the realization of the Brahman aspect of the Absolute Truth should face severe hardships during millions of lifetimes to attain it. By His infinite mercy, Mahaprabhu is also giving them a special opportunity to attain this goal in this Kali-yuga, with a very simple form of sadhana, such ours practices of sankirtana, sadhu-sanga, diksa, and so on. We cannot compare this kind of sadhana with those described in Puranas and followed by some brahma-vadis such as Lomasa, Marici, Aranya Muni, and others.

 

There is no loss or diminution in this path! Why to consider our practices as just a waste of time if our svarupa will finally be revealed as not belonging to Vraja? Vraja svarupa is very rare, not even Prahlada, Narada, Dhurva, Bharata, Ambarisa and many others exalted bhaktas have this svarupa. Why to consider everyone who is being now attracted by Sri Caitanya's movement as a Vrajabasi?

 

Besides, brahma-jyoti souls will be very happy in this position, what is wrong with this? We should say that they are being cheated by following Mahaprabhu's process?

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Guest guest]

Out of curiosity, is this what those Acharyas said? It is definitely not Advaita, according to which Moksha is the end of duality and after which there is no return to the material world. Why, there is no more material world !

 

Yes, all of the savisesa-abheda-vada acaryas including Ramanuja, Madhva, and ours, follow the doctrine that brahma-sayujiya-mukti is not the end of the road. The end of duality does not mean the end of the process, or the final aim. This is only a temporary position, that may be considered eternal if you employ a material measure of time. Some smrti say something like the life span of a million Brahmas, others say during all the nap of Maha Visnu, we just can not appreciate a time like that, it is impossible. But not sanatana.

 

[shvu 1]

Yes, all of the savisesa-abheda-vada acaryas including Ramanuja, Madhva, and ours, follow the doctrine that brahma-sayujiya-mukti is not the end of the road.

 

Madhva denies the whole concept of Mukti according to Advaita of becoming one with Brahman. So I would say this does not apply to him. I am not sure about Ramanuja's position on this.

 

According to Madhva, he who thinks that everything is Brahman without Bedha, will not find any kind of Mukti. He will go to the worlds for the faithless. Something like Hell.

 

Cheers

 

 

------------------

Dear is Plato, but dearer still is Truth - Aristotle

[shvu 1]

 

About the topic of the thread:

 

The Advaitin accepts most of Dvaita on the Vyavaharika level. That is, he will accept all duality as real until the point of Moxa. But that is it. There is no way the Advaitin will accept eternal bedha.

 

The Dvaitin will not accept any part of Advaita. Hence, it is impossible to reconcile the two.

 

Cheers

 

 

------------------

Dear is Plato, but dearer still is Truth - Aristotle

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Brahma-jyoti is a gaudiya usage for the impersonal Brahman. In their conception there are three features of the Absolute Truth, namely brahman (brahma-jyoti), paramatma, and bhagavan. Impersonalists who attain mukti merge themselves into this brahmajyoti (or spiritual light), but according to Gaudiyas, they do not actually lose their identity, and they again fall down after unlimited units of non-existent time (or simply an immeasurable duration).

 

Besides, brahma-jyoti souls will be very happy in this position, what is wrong with this? We should say that they are being cheated by following Mahaprabhu's process?

 

They are being cheated out of service to Lord Krishna, which some consider the inherent quality of all souls (or as Prabhupada says, the sanatana dharma). To attain the position of impersonal brahmananda is considered by some as a hellish situation, as there is no opportunity to render service to Lord Krishna. It would be better to remain within the material world and engage in service to the Lord then to attain impersonal liberation, or so they say.

 

Now, is it cheating if the Lord promises, "You will come to Me." and "Do not fear!" yet in reality they do not get to attain his abode of service? Some would say yes.

 

[shvu 1]

 

... In their conception there are three features of the Absolute Truth, namely brahman (brahma-jyoti), paramatma, and bhagavan. Impersonalists who attain mukti merge themselves into this brahmajyoti (or spiritual light)...

Got it. According to the Gaudiya Philosophy, Mukti as found by merging with Brahman is also possible, but is temporal. How is Paramatman differentiated from Bhagavan wrt Bhakti or otherwise?

 

Cheers

 

 

------------------

Dear is Plato, but dearer still is Truth - Aristotle

[Gauracandra 1]

I don't know, but I have my doubts. This reminds me of a posting from a long time ago. I asked for some information on a Raghavendra Swami (still would like some more background on his pastimes). Then someone said that his (Raghavendra's) line believed that all souls were constitutionally either in the mode of goodness, passion, or ignorance, and that these traits were permanently unchangeable. This seemed very restrictive on the soul. Thus a bad soul was always bad and would eternally be so. Now I'm hearing that some souls are meant only to merge into the Brahmajyoti? Is that all they have to look forward to? Something doesn't seem to strike me right about this.

 

Gauracandra

[Gauracandra 1]

Opps... missed one point. Not to blaspheme a Vaisnava like Sri Raghavendra Swami, I wanted to clarify that it was pointed out, way back when, that nowhere did Sri Raghavendra Swami, nor Sri Madhvacharya, make any such statements about a soul permanently being in the mode of goodness, passion, or ignorance, forever stuck in that guna. Just wanted to clarify.

 

Gauracandra

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

So in other words, you or I may actually be brahmajyoti souls, and in that case our bhakti, diksha, sadhu-sanga, and harinama are just a waste of time? We will end up merging in the impersonal brahmajyoti, only to again fall down to the material world continuously.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Originally posted by shvu:

How is Paramatman differentiated from Bhagavan wrt Bhakti or otherwise?

 

They say Paramatma can be realized or attained by the process of ashtanga yoga, but since Paramatma is only a witness and sanctioner of karma, there is no possibility to interact with him in service. As a result the realized soul becomes like a fish out of water, suffocating for lack of service to the Lord. From that stage of realization it is possible for the soul to either turn to the conception of Bhagavan or the conception of Brahman and continue his path.

 

[Guest guest]

 

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has instructed His followers to consider Sankara as an Acarya, and pay our respects to him. Therefore, he should not be considered as an ordinary jiva. His followers should also have attained the same realizations that he has instructed in samadhi.

 

In our conciliatory thesis, we are asking; "Who are those kind of jivas suitable to attain the realization in samadhi trance of the precept: 'brahma satyam jagan mithya jivo brahmaiva naparah?'

 

We cannot simply deny the realization of this premise, the correct approach should analyze who has the proper adhikara to observe the Absolute Truth in that way.

 

As we posted before, our acaryas classify mumuksus in two general classes (here we are obviously only consider mumuksus as having the proper adhikara for this kind of realization): 1) brahma-sayujiya-muktas; and 2) isvara-sayujiya-muktas.

 

The instructions given by Mahaprabhu to Rupa Goswami at Prayaga concerning jiva's svarupa, states that the intrinsic nature of jiva (svarupa) is actually his sthay-bhava, the cannot be changed by any process of sadhana and that is eternal.

 

Following this reasoning, only some santa-bhaktas whose rati is predominated by sama, equanimity or peace of mind, may be the adhikaris for this kind of realization. Not others.

 

Srila Cakravartipada in his Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhi-bindu sates that santa-bhaktas are of two kinds:

 

1.) Atmarama - those who take pleasure in the self, such as Catuhsana, who are devoid of mamata (sense of possessiveness towards Bhagavan), but who are firm fixed (nistha) in the Absolute Truth in His aspect as Bhagavan, and who are following bhakti-marga. Those jivas can attain santa-rasa.

 

2.) Tapasvi-gana - those who adopt yukta-vairagya and practice bhagavat-bhajana, knowing that without bhakti mukti cannot be attained. Such persons have faith in bhakti as they take up the limbs of bhakti with a desire for mukti. They are mainly jñanis. These jivas cannot attain santa-rasa.

 

If we consider that a jiva cannot have his svarupa in Brahman, as there no sthay-bhava is manifested, only atmarama jivas and at the same time isvara-sayujyia-muktas, may attain this kind of absolute realization, and no other kind of jivas.

 

To corroborate our thesis, we should consider the following sloka from Srimad Bhagavantan:

 

kamad dvesad bhayat snehad

yatha bhaktyesvare manah

avesya tad-agham hitva

bahavas tad-gatim gatah

(SB 7.1.30)

" Countless people reached liberation simply by thinking in Bhagavan with great attention and abandoning all sinful activities. But that attention can also be caused by lustful desires, feelings of enmity, fear, affection or by devotional service."

 

So, isvara-sayujyia-muktas who are thinking in Bhagavan as visaya-tattva in deep meditation and at the same time are devoid of mamata, can really merge in Bhagavan's form, as in that position sthay-bhava is eternally present as santa-prema.

 

So, these kind of jivas may have the absolute realization of Sankara's assertive of 'brahma satyam jagan mithya jivo brahmaiva naparah', not the others.

 

Any further comment on that thesis?

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu 1]

...it was pointed out, way back when, that nowhere did Sri Raghavendra Swami, nor Sri Madhvacharya, make any such statements about a soul permanently being in the mode of goodness, passion, or ignorance, forever stuck in that guna.

niichochcha bhavangataha

 

The Jivas are headed for higher or lower states.

 

Actually Madhvacharya did say that the Guna of a Jiva is Svaroopa [own nature]. So a Jiva is by nature, Sattvic, Rajasic or Tamasic. And this is permanent and unchangeable. Only the Sattvic Jiva can attain Mukti. From this follows that there are some Jivas which will never attain Mukti. The Madhva philosophy also has the concept of eternal damnation. Basham the Indologist writes that it is possible that this idea may have been borrowed from the eternal hell of christians because none of the other Vedantic traditions of that time, supported this concept.

 

Cheers

 

------------------

Dear is Plato, but dearer still is Truth - Aristotle

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-10-2001).]

[Gauracandra 1]

niichochcha bhavangataha

 

The Jivas are headed for higher or lower states

Doesn't this quote, though, suggest that the Jiva is not permanently in a given state (high or low)? If the Jiva is headed for something, that means they are not in that position at the moment. If you are heading for something, that means you are in process, a state of change.

 

Gauracandra

 

 

[shvu 1]

 

Doesn't this quote, though, suggest that the Jiva is not permanently in a given state (high or low)?

Yes, the state is not permanent. It is the intrinsic nature of the soul that remains unchanged. The state itself, depends on the sadhana/karma of the Jiva.

 

Upwards (to liberation) go those situated in sattva; the rajasic stay in the middle; those situated in abominable qualities and deeds, the taamasicas, go to the lowest state.

 

- The Gita.

 

This verse is quoted to support his view. niichochcha bhavangataha is one of the 9 tenets of the Madhva Philosophy. They provide quite detailed logic to support their tenets.

 

The question now is, how does one determine the true nature of himself/herself? Maybe if people come to know that Moksha is not possible for them, then they may as well, stop trying . I wonder if this point was not debated by the opponents at any time.

 

Cheers

 

 

------------------

Dear is Plato, but dearer still is Truth - Aristotle

[Guest guest]

>> To attain the position of impersonal brahmananda is considered by some as a hellish situation, as there is no opportunity to render service to Lord Krishna. It would be better to remain within the material world and engage in service to the Lord then to attain impersonal liberation, or so they say.

 

Yes, some consider it as a hellish situation, but not everyone.

 

There is a very impressive narrative in smrti about Aranya Muni's desire of brahma-sayujiya-mukti. He was an obstinate suitor of this kind of mukti. We would not follow any advise contrary his desire, not even from his father, another great Muni called Krsna Dvapayana. After reading some srutis and their comments by advaitavadis he was fully convinced that he would be happy forever in the brahma-jyotih.

 

He has subjected himself to some very difficult tapasyas, vows and so many austerities of hatta-yoga to control his senses and mind and attain samadhi. He seek after the association of great self-realized souls, and some very exalted personalities told him that Janaka Maharaja has an expert in mukti. Aranya Muni has followed these instructions and went to Mithila to have association with Janaka Maharaja.

 

Janaka Maharaja gave in so many instructions regarding mukti, that not even Brahmaji could give! Aranya Muni was very serious in his sadhana and finally he had attained mukti after leaving his material body.

 

He was very confident that he would find himself in a brahmananda state, with no form, no qualities, no aspects at all, but instead of this we was now a four armed being, very opulent, in a very majestic realm, full of people like him. He was so dedicated to his sadhana that he had surpassed the brahma-jyotih realm! He has attained salokya-mukti!

 

He got very upset with that situation, and very unhappy, and we wet to complain with the boss of the place, Vaikunthapati Narayana. Sri Narayana told him that unfortunately his condition was now eternal and that he could not change it anymore. However, as Aranya Muni's father was a bhakta and Sri Narayana had made a vow to always be subservient to His bhaktas desires, Aranya Muni could come back to bhu-mandala. That happened because in his samadhi Krsna Dvapayana saw the sorrow of his son, and asked Sri Hari to give him back from Vaikuntha.

 

Aranya Muni came back, but actually he could never attain the brahma-jyotih in spite of his several tentatives in many lifetimes! Later we become well-known as Sukadeva Goswami.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu 1]

 

A quick question.

 

I can understand the concept of love, but what does service to Bhagavan mean? Service implies a server and someone served. The served obviously is benefited by the service. If Krishna is being served by Jivas, what is the benefit that he derives out of this service?

 

Cheers