Is Kali Ma Krishna's energy?

December 10, 2004

From Jiva Goswami

Durga is also described in Narada-pancaratra, in the following conversation of Sruti and Vidya:

Durga is the supreme goddess. She is an incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. She is the transcendental potency of the Lord. She is manifested from the form of Lord Maha-Vishnu.

Simply by understanding her one immediately attains the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is not otherwise.

Durga is the personal potency of Lord Krishna, and therefore she is Lord Krishna Himself. For this reason Durga should not be considered manifested from a portion of the Lord's illusory potency Maya. This fact is confirmed by the following statement of the Nirukti:

Even is one continually worships her, Durga is still difficult to understand.

In the Sammohana Tantra, Durga herself declares:

I am Durga. I possess all virtues. I am not different from Sri Radha, the eternal, supreme goddess of fortune.

She is identical with Gokula's queen Sri Radha, who possesses a great treasure of love for Krishna. By her grace the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of all living entities, is easily understood.

Sometimes Goddess Durga is also described as the supreme controller. This is also correct because there is no difference between the potencies and Lord Krishna, the master of all potencies. This is confirmed by the following words of the Gautamiya Tantra:

Krishna is Durga. Durga is Krishna. One who sees that they are different will not become liberated from the cycle of repeated birth and death.

Durga is an expansion of Radha. Durga is Maha Maya. Maha Maya and Yoga Maya are the same thing in different capacities. Bhaktivinoda describes that when engaged in spiritual affairs it is called Yoga Maya, when it is engaged in material affairs it is called Maha Maya, Visnu Maya, Durga etc.

They are not two distinct things. The idea is just like the difference bewteen Govinda and Maha Vishnu. There is no real difference, they are qualitatively the same thing, both are the same supreme lord. But Govinda exists within the arena of Yoga Maya, and Maha Vishnu exists in the real of Maha Maya. The idea is that Maha Vishnu creates the material realm, even though he is Krishna, he does work in the material realm. Durga is the same thing. She is an expansion of Maha Vishnu, and expansion of Radha Krishna, they are all the same exact person and thing. They are called different names depending on their specific function.

Therefore Jiva Goswami said :

"In the Sammohana Tantra, Durga herself declares:

I am Durga. I possess all virtues. I am not different from Sri Radha, the eternal, supreme goddess of fortune.

She is identical with Gokula's queen Sri Radha, who possesses a great treasure of love for Krishna. By her grace the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of all living entities, is easily understood."

The idea is that she is a Svamsa expansion of Krishna

In Krsna Sandarbha Jiva Goswami says there are two types of expansions of Visnu.

Quote:

"This is confirmed in the Varaha Purana:

The two kinds of expansions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead are : 1. svamsa (personal expansions) and 2. vibhinnamsa (separate persons). The svamsa expansions are unlimitedly powerful. Their form and personality are the same as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself.

There is not the slightest difference between the svamsa expansions and the Original Personality of Godhead. The vibhinnamsa expansions are very weak in comparison to Them."

Quote:

"Srila Jiva Gosvami describes the Supreme Person in these words:

"The Absolute Truth is one. Still, by His inconceivable potency He is manifested in four ways: 1. svarupa (His original form), 2. tad-rupa-vaibhava (His incarnations), 3. jiva (the individual spirit souls), and 4. pradhana (the material energy). These four features are like: 1. the interior of the sun planet, 2. the sun's surface, 3. the sunlight, and 4. the reflection of the sun."

This example of course, explains only a small part of the Lord's nature. His svarupa (original form) is His form of eternity, knowledge and bliss. His svarupa-vaibhava (manifestations of His form) are His spiritual abode, name, associates and paraphernalia. The jiva-sakti is the abode of the numberless eternally liberated and conditioned individual souls, who are tiny particles of spirit."

So Durga is not a jiva. Durga is Krishna in the work of the mundane world. Therefore she is not called the Cit potency, but called the A-Cit potency because the Cit potency is given the name Cit potency only when engaged in spiritual activities. So even though Durga is Radha Krishna, she is not catgorized as Cit Sakti, even though she is God.

Therefore Brahma Samhita says :

"The dislocated portions of the Divinity, viz., Prajapati and Sambhu, both identifying themselves as entities who are separate from the divine essence, sport with their respective non-spiritual (acit) consorts, viz., Savitri-devi and Uma-devi, the perverted reflections of the spiritual (cit) potency. The Supreme Lord Vishnu is the only Lord of the spiritual (cit) potency, Rama or Laksmi."

Brahma [prajapati] and Sambhu [shiva] are "dislocated portions of divinity who identify themselves as separate from the divine essence" the same as all enlightened jivas.

Their consorts however are not the same as they are. They are "perverted reflections of Cit", they are God doing work in the material world. That is what Durga or Maha Maya is. It is God engaged in mundane work. Cit and A-Cit are the same thing in different capacities.

From Jaiva Dharma ;

"In truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead has only one potency. When she performs spiritual actions, she is called spiritual potency or Radhika, and when she performs material actions, she is called the material potency or Durga, or maya."

sumedh · December 11, 2004

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

In my opinion, we better not make decisions on our own by reading the books rather consider the conclusions of our Acharyas. Shiva prabhuji thinks that Krishna and Durga are identical according to the opinion of Jiva Goswami. This is what Srila Prabhupada has to say:

SB 10.1 additional notes

To give service to the Lord, yogamaya appeared along with mahamaya. Mahamaya refers to yaya sammohitam jagat, "one who bewilders the entire material world." From this statement it is to be understood that yogamaya, in her partial expansion, becomes mahamaya and bewilders the conditioned souls. In other words, the entire creation has two divisions--transcendental, or spiritual, and material. Yogamaya manages the spiritual world, and by her partial expansion as mahamaya she manages the material world. As stated in the Narada-pancaratra, mahamaya is a partial expansion of yogamaya. The Narada-pancaratra clearly states that the Supreme Personality has one potency, which is sometimes described as Durga. The Brahma-samhita says, chayeva yasya bhuvanani bibharti durga. Durga is not different from yogamaya. When one understands Durga properly, he is immediately liberated, for Durga is originally the spiritual potency, hladini-sakti, by whose mercy one can understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead very easily. Radha krsna-pranaya-vikrtir hladini-saktir asmad. The mahamaya-sakti, however, is a covering of yogamaya, and she is therefore called the covering potency. By this covering potency, the entire material world is bewildered (yaya sammohitam jagat). In conclusion, bewildering the conditioned souls and liberating the devotees are both functions belonging to yogamaya.

...

Therefore it is to be concluded that the maya which drags a person from the Supreme Personality of Godhead is called jadamaya, and the maya which acts on the transcendental platform is called yogamaya.

SB 10.2.11-12 purport

Because Krsna and His energy appeared simultaneously, people have generally formed two groups--the saktas and the Vaisnavas--and sometimes there is rivalry between them. Essentially, those who are interested in material enjoyment are saktas, and those interested in spiritual salvation and attaining the spiritual kingdom are Vaisnavas. Because people are generally interested in material enjoyment, they are interested in worshiping Mayadevi, the energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Vaisnavas, however, are suddha-saktas, or pure bhaktas, because the Hare Krsna maha-mantra indicates worship of the Supreme Lord's energy, Hara. A Vaisnava prays to the energy of the Lord for the opportunity to serve the Lord along with His spiritual energy. Thus Vaisnavas all worship such Deities as Radha-Krsna, Sita-Rama, Laksmi-Narayana and Rukmini-Dvarakadhisa, whereas durga-saktas worship the material energy under different names.

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

The quotes from Srila Jiva Goswami are expositions of the abheda aspect of Lord and His energy. The bheda aspect of distinction between energetic and energy, predominator and predominated, enjoyer and enjoyed have been stressed over and over again. In particular the statement that Durga is God is incorrect, for then at least one of the following has to be shown from the writings of our Acharyas:

-- She is ParaBrahman, Paramatma, Parameshvara

-- She has the six opulences in full as given by Parasara Muni

-- She has all the sixty opulences upto the level of Lord Narayana as mentioned by Srila Rupa Goswami

-- She is visnu tattva

Just mentioning the abheda aspect is not enough. Similiar arguments are made by Advaitins using statements like "He desired to become many" which are expositions of the abheda aspect only and they say precisely the same thing, that advaita is the highest level of understanding and dvaita is the preliminary level.

Sometimes we think that there are probably higher things in the books of our previous acharyas and that Srila Prabhupada has given a preliminary understanding only, but the fact is that he has given the highest and perfect knowledge in his books. He (and other acharyas) has given the clear distinction between Lord Vishnu and other dieties as being His servitors. This is what Srila BhaktiSiddhanta says:

"Q: -- What deliberation is there in the Brahma Samhita?

A: -- The Brahma Samhita has refuted Pancho-pasana. It is the eternal duty of all jivas to serve Krishna, the Lord of all Lords. All the other deities are His servitors. Their function is only to carry out Govinda's commands. They will never acquire liberation, who conceive of the deities as the different names and bodies of Vishnu instead of knowing them as His servitors. In five Shlokas of the Brahma Samhita have been described the natures of the five deities, named above: (1) "I (i.e., Brahma) adore the Primaeval Lord Govinda, in pursuance of whose order the Sun-God, the King of the planets and the eye of this world, performs his journey mounting the wheel of Time." [23] (2) "I adore the Primaeval Lord Govinda, Whose Lotus-like Feet are always held by Ganesa on the head in order to obtain power for his function of destroying all the obstacles of the three worlds." [24] (3) "I adore the Primaeval Lord Govinda, in accordance with whose will Durga, His external potency, conducts her function as the creating, preserving and destroying agent of the world" [25] (4) "I adore the Primaeval Lord Govinda, Who transforms Himself as Sambhu for performing the work of destruction, just as milk is transformed into curd which is neither the same as, nor different from, milk" [26] (5) "I adore the Primaeval Lord Govinda, Who manifests Himself as Vishnu in the same manner as one burning candle communicates its light to another candle which, though existing separately, is of the same quality as the first. [27]"

There is also no provision for worshipping Goddess Durga in the Vaishnava philosophy except for facilitating devotional service to Lord Krishna. For these reasons the comparison drawn between Krishna/MahaVishnu and Radha/Durga is incorrect.

December 11, 2004

You make a strange argument. First you say that Jiva Goswami and I are wrong, and then you quote Srila Prabhupada wherein he says the exact same thing I did.

You then conclude that Durga is not God, or Visnu Tattva.

How did you come to this conclusion ?

There are only two types of living entities. There are Svamsa and Vibhinnamsa. God and jivas. So Durga is either God or Jiva. Since she is described as an expansion of Yoga Maya, and an expansion of Maha Vishnu, as identical to Radha, as Lord Krishna Himself etc, by Jiva Goswami. We can conclude these words to be accurate and not subject to mundane interpretation by people who don't understand what and who Durga is.

Also Bhaktivinoda says:

"The question is raised again: do we sometimes compare Durga Devi to be a transcendental associate within the precincts of Gokula?

yes! In the spiritual world Durga Devi is called YogaMaya. She is present as the seed-form in the changes of the spiritual energy.

For this reason, she considers herself non-different from the original internal energy of the spiritual world."

Durga is Yoga Maya in the spiritual world. What is Yoga Maya ? Yoga Maya does the work of managing the affairs of the spiritual world, just like Maha Maya does the same for the material world. Yoga Maya is Cit Sakti, non different the Radha Krishna. She is not a jiva.

Why would Jiva Goswami say :

"Durga is the personal potency of Lord Krishna, and therefore she is Lord Krishna Himself. For this reason Durga should not be considered manifested from a portion of the Lord's illusory potency Maya."

What is the personal potency ?

That is the Cit Sakti also called Antaranga Sakti and Swapura Sakti.

Caitanya-Caritamrta Madhya lila 8.154-155

sac-citanandamaya krsnera svarupa

ata eva svarupa-sakti haya tina-rupa

anandamse hladini sadamse sandhini

cid-amse samvit ya're jnana kari' mani

Lord Krsna is sac-cidnananda-vigraha the transcendental form of eternity, knowledge, and bliss. Therefore His personal energy (svarupa-sakti, the internal energy of the Lord) has three different forms. Hladini is His energy of ecstasy, beauty, sweetness, charm, harmony; sandhini, His energy of eternal existence, or reality; and samvit, of cognizance, knowledge, awareness."

From Bhaktivinoda's The Bhagavat:

(Antaranga=Internal or Cit or Swarupa)

"Antaranga-shakti

Antaranga is that which pertains to the proper Entity of the Absolute Person. It is also called Swarupa-shakti for this reason. The literal meaning of the word antaranga is "that which belongs to the inner body." Shakti is rendered as "power."

So I don't why you insist that she is not Svamsa [Vishnu Tattva]. I don't why you disagree with Jiva Goswami's conclusions where he says Durga is Krishna. Nowhere will you find the jiva's described as Krishna, nowhere will you find the jiva's called the supreme controller.

From Jiva Goswami:

"Sometimes Goddess Durga is also described as the supreme controller. This is also correct because there is no difference between the potencies and Lord Krishna, the master of all potencies."

Nowhere will you find jiva's called Yoga Maya or Maha Maya or identical to Radha, or as being Krishna's personal energy.

From Jiva Goswami:

"Durga is the personal potency of Lord Krishna, and therefore she is Lord Krishna Himself."

"Krishna is Durga. Durga is Krishna. One who sees that they are different will not become liberated from the cycle of repeated birth and death."

Why do you disagree with all this ?

Never will you see any non Vishnu tattva person described like the above.

Sometimes Shiva is described in a somewhat similar way, but never as being the personal potency, and never as being Maha Maya or an expansion of Yoga Maya and Maha Vishnu. Or as being identical to Radha and Krishna. Shiva is sometimes given respect as being similar to Vishnu tattva because he carries out the will of Vishnu. But he is always given the explicit status as not being Vishnu tattva, never is he given the status of Durga, He is not an expansion of Vishnu i.e Vishnu Tattva. Durga is.

From Jiva Goswami:

"Simply by understanding Her one immediately attains the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is not otherwise.

Krishna is Durga. Durga is Krishna. One who sees that they are different will not become liberated from the cycle of repeated birth and death."

sumedh · December 12, 2004

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

How can such an insignificant being ever imagine that Srila Jiva Goswami is wrong, only that your interpretation of it is wrong. I will end up saying the same things again, so i just say that these statements are expositions of the abheda aspect and the bheda aspects have been dealt in great details elsewhere. Since you explicitly said that she is vishnu tattva, i can only point you out to the great details in which the differences between energy and energetic have been given everywhere and only the latter is vishnu tattva. There is another instance where Srila Prabhupada explicitly said that Tulasidevi is not offered to even Sri Radha and only to Vishnu tattva Deities (implying that Sri Radha is not vishnu).

In addition, you can find explicit statements of Srila Prabhupada that when we say Krishna then it includes all His energies and not the other way round.

Of course, the explicit statement of Srila BhaktiSiddhanta that those who do not understand other dieties (including Radha/Durga) as His servitors will never get liberation (as given in previous post).

The statements of the material energy being just an aspect of the original spiritual energy is understood perfectly well but the prominent thing that is being missed is the distinction with the energetic. Jiva is never called the personal energy, no doubt, but by your logic if the energy is the same as energetic then we can as well worship the energy in the form of matter as being the Supreme Lord. This is explicitly condemned many-a-times by all acharyas. This implies that your statement that there can *only* be two kinds of entities vishnu tattva and jiva tattva is incorrect. The broad categories are -- God, spiritual energy, tatastha/jiva energy, material energy (which is an aspect of the spiritual energy as said). In addition Lord Shiva is not considered jiva tattva but between jiva and vishnu tattva (there is an explicit statement of Srila Prabhupada which i can search and present if you want).

The pre-eminence of the vaishnava philosophy is that only the Supreme Lord is worshipped (and Sri Radha, Gurudeva to be admitted as a servitor) -- we worship the Nama prabhu and the Archadeva. It is based on the philosophy of avataaravada; we do not worship/(meditate on) an imagination (e.g. imagining light etc. as some current yogic methods do), or a feeling/thought (as many others contend as being the best), or matter (as in Arya samaj, or meditating on breath), or jiva. Of course, we should be worshipping only the energy alongwith Krishna only as the Spiritual energy to become a servitor, and not mahamaya aspect of it which would lead us away from Krishna (as in the statement of Srila Prabhupada in previous post).

December 12, 2004

Sumedh you said :

The broad categories are -- God, spiritual energy, tatastha/jiva energy, material energy (which is an aspect of the spiritual energy as said).

That statement needs to be clarified. God and his internal energy are identical.

From Jaiva Dharma

Srila Jiva Gosvami describes the Supreme Person in these words:

"The Absolute Truth is one. Still, by His inconceivable potency He is manifested in four ways: 1. svarupa (His original form), 2. tad-rupa-vaibhava (His incarnations), 3. jiva (the individual spirit souls), and 4. pradhana (the material energy). These four features are like: 1. the interior of the sun planet, 2. the sun's surface, 3. the sunlight, and 4. the reflection of the sun."

This example of course, explains only a small part of the Lord's nature. His svarupa (original form) is His form of eternity, knowledge and bliss. His svarupa-vaibhava (manifestations of His form) are His spiritual abode, name, associates and paraphernalia. The jiva-sakti is the abode of the numberless eternally liberated and conditioned individual souls, who are tiny particles of spirit.

In Krsna Sandarbha Jiva Goswami says there are two types of expansions of Visnu.

This is confirmed in the Varaha Purana:

The two kinds of expansions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead are : 1. svamsa (personal expansions) and 2. vibhinnamsa (separate persons). The svamsa expansions are unlimitedly powerful. Their form and personality are the same as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself.

There is not the slightest difference between the svamsa expansions and the Original Personality of Godhead. The vibhinnamsa expansions are very weak in comparison to Them.

So here we see Jiva Goswami does not mention a third category of living entity. There is only Svamsa and Vibhinnamsa, God and Jivas. Krishna and his incarnations, expansions etc, and the Jiva.

What is Svamsa ? Jiva Goswami says there is no difference between Svamsa and Krishna, they are plenary or identical to Krishna.

svamsa-vibhinnamsa-rupe haina vistara

ananta vaikuntha-brahmande karena vihara

svamsa-vistara - caturvyuha, avataragana

vibhinnamsa jiva - ta-ra saktite ganana

Krsna expands Himself in many forms. Some of them are personal expansions, and some are separate expansions. Thus he performs pastimes in both the spiritual and material worlds. The spiritual worlds are the Vaikuntha planets, and the material universes are brahmandas, gigantic globes governed by Lord Brahma. Expansions of His personal self - like the quadruple manifestations of Sankarsana, Pradyumna, Aniruddha and Vasudeva - descend as incarnations from Vaikuntha to this material world. The separated expansions (vibhinnams) are living entities. Although they are expansions of Krsna they are counted among His different potencies. (Caitanya-Caritamrta Madhya 22.8-9)

From A purport in Prabhupada's Bhagavatam quoting Baladeva Vidhyabhusana's Prameya Ratnavali:

visnoh syuh saktayas tisras

tasu ya kirtita para

saiva sris tad-abhinneti

praha sisyan prabhur mahan

Lord Visnu has three principal potencies--internal, external and marginal. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has accepted para-sakti, the spiritual energy of the Lord, as being identical with the Lord. Thus she is also included in the independent visnu-tattva.

From Jiva Goswami :

"The Supreme Truth has innumerable inconceivable potencies, which may be grouped into four broad categories: 1. His internal potency, 2. The secondary potencies manifest from His internal potency, 3. The individual living entities (jivas), and 4. The unmanifest state of the modes of material nature (pradhana)."

He breaks down the Cit Sakti [internal potency] into sub categories. Of course the sub categories are sandhini, samvit, and hladini.

Caitanya-Caritamrta Madhya lila 8.154-155

sac-citanandamaya krsnera svarupa

ata eva svarupa-sakti haya tina-rupa

anandamse hladini sadamse sandhini

cid-amse samvit ya're jnana kari' mani

Lord Krsna is sac-cidnananda-vigraha the transcendental form of eternity, knowledge, and bliss. Therefore His personal energy (svarupa-sakti, the internal energy of the Lord) has three different forms. Hladini is His energy of ecstasy, beauty, sweetness, charm, harmony; sandhini, His energy of eternal existence, or reality; and samvit, of cognizance, knowledge, awareness.

Here Srila Prabhupada gives some detail in a Cc purport.

The sandhini portion of Sri Krsna's internal potency has manifested the all-attractive form of Sri Krsna, and the same internal potency, in the hladini feature, has presented Srimati Radharani.

Baladeva Visdybhusana also says:

The Sruti-sästras and other scriptures explain that through the svarüpa-sakti [internal energy] the Supreme Lord manifests as the best of males, and through the parä sakti [internal energy] the Lord manifests His various transcendental qualities.

Manifesting as the Lord's pleasure potency (hladini sakti), the parä Sakti appears as Sri Rädhä, the jewel of teenage girls

Radha and Krishna are both manifest from the Cit Sakti, which is identical to them.

From Srila Prabhupada's purport in Cc

The Lord has many potencies, and He is nondifferent from all these potencies. Because the potencies and the potent cannot be separated, they are identical. Krsna is described as the source of all potencies, and He is also identified with the external potency, the material energy. Krsna also has internal potencies, or spiritual potencies, which are always engaged in His personal service. His internal potency is different from His external potency. Krsna's internal potency and Krsna Himself, who is the potent, are always identical.

Also from a purport in the Cc

In fact, Radharani is the internal potency of Sri Krishna, and She eternally intensifies the pleasure of Sri Krishna. Impersonalists cannot understand this without the help of a maha-bhagavata devotee.

So what is the Internal Potency or Cit Sakti [swarupa sakti, para sakti, antaranga sakti] ?

Bhaktivinoda explains Antaranga or Cit Sakti in Jaiva Dharma:

Krsna is self-effulgent, like a blazing fire or the sun. Krsna is like a blazing fire. In the centre of the fire is the cit-sakti (svarupa sakti), it is present in fullness. In addition to the centre there is also a great expanse illuminated by the fire. The same way the Krsna-sun illumines a great area with sunlight. The rays of sunlight are particles of His internal potency (svarupa sakti). Those atomic particles that constitute those rays of sunlight are the individual spirit souls. The internal potency (svarupa sakti) manifests the Krsna-sun planet itself. The sunlight emanating from that planet is manifested by the cit-sakti (svarupa sakti) and the individual particles of light are manifested by the jiva-sakti. Therefore the individual spirit souls are manifested by the jiva-sakti.

"The Internal potency manifests the Krsna sun planet itself".

"The sandhini portion of Sri Krsna's internal potency has manifested the all-attractive form of Sri Krsna"

"The hladini aspect has manifested the form of Sri Radha"

"Krishna is always identical to His internal energy"

"In fact, Radharani is the internal potency of Sri Krishna"

"Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has accepted para-sakti, the spiritual energy of the Lord, as being identical with the Lord. Thus she is also included in the independent visnu-tattva"

From Baladeva Vidyabhusana's Govinda Bhasya.

"Because she is not different from the Supreme Lord, Goddess Laksmi is also all pervading. In the Smriti-sastra it is said:

Goddess Laksmi is the mother of the worlds. She is the constant companion of Lord Visnu. As Lord Visnu is all pervading, so is she.

To think that Goddess Laksmi is different from Lord Visnu, but still all-pervading, is a false, a heretical idea...Sri Radha is the origin of all the forms of Goddess Laksmi."

What does this all mean ?

From Jaiva Dharma

The chit-potency is Krishna's plenary potency; Whatever she produces is eternally accomplished; the jiva is not so eternally accomplished; when he becomes accomplished by practices (sadhana-siddha), he enjoys bliss like those eternally accomplished entities. The four kinds of confidantes of Sri Radha (to be described hereafter) are eternally accomplished; their bodies are about the same, with slight variations, with that of Sri Radhika who is essentially the chit-shakti. The jivas have grown out of the jiva-shakti of Sri Krishna. Chit-shakti is Sri Krishna's full (plenary) shakti, whereas the jiva-shakti is the incomplete shakti. From the plenary potency are produced complete entities, but from the incomplete potency have grown the jivas as atomic chit. Krishna manifests entities of different types in accordance with the kind of the shakti He applies.

Plenary means:

1.Complete in all respects; unlimited or full:

So "From the plenary potency are produced complete entities".

This is why Radha and Krishna are described as manifest from the Cit Sakti. The Cit Sakti is like the Krsna sun planet. The incarnations from the Cit Sakti are compared to the surface of that Sun. In other words the Cit Sakti is Krishna's Personal Potency. Whatever entities are manifest from the Cit Sakti are complete or identical to the Cit Sakti. They possess the plenary or full representation of Krishna. They are all Krishna in various forms.

tara madhye vraie nana bhava-rasa-bhede

krsnake karaya rasadika-lilasvade

TRANSLATION

Among them are various groups of consorts in Vraja who have varieties of sentiments and mellows. They help Lord Krsna taste all the sweetness of the rasa dance and other pastimes.

PURPORT

As already explained, Krsna and Radha are one in two. They are identical. Krsna expands Himself in multi-incarnations and plenary portions like the purusas. Similarly, Srimati Radharani expands Herself in multi-forms as the goddesses of fortune, the queens and the damsels of Vraja. Such expansions from Srimati Radharani are all Her plenary (completely identical) portions. All these womanly forms of Krsna are expansions corresponding to His plenary expansions of Visnu forms. These expansions have been compared to reflected forms of the original form. There is no difference between the original and reflected forms. The female reflections of Krsna's pleasure potency are as good as Krsna Himself.

The plenary expansions of Krsna's personality are called vaibhava-vilasa and vaibhava-prakasa, and Radha's expansions are similarly described. The goddesses of fortune are vaibhava-vilasa, and the queens are vaibhava-prakasa of Radharani. The personal associates of Radharani, the damsels of Vraja, are direct expansions of Her body. As expansions of Her personai form and transcendental disposition, they are agents of different reciprocations of love in the pastimes of Lord Krsna, under the supreme direction of Srimati Radharani.

In Krsna Sandarbha Jiva Goswami says:

"This is confirmed in the Varaha Purana:

The two kinds of expansions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead are : 1. svamsa (personal expansions) and 2. vibhinnamsa (separate persons). The svamsa expansions are unlimitedly powerful. Their form and personality are the same as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself.

There is not the slightest difference between the svamsa expansions and the Original Personality of Godhead. The vibhinnamsa expansions are very weak in comparison to Them."

Then you said:

...but by your logic if the energy is the same as energetic then we can as well worship the energy in the form of matter as being the Supreme

From Srila Prabhupada

radha-purna-sakti, krsna-purna-saktiman

dui vastu bheda nai, sastra-paramana

radha-krsna aiche sadaeka-i svarupa

lila-rasa asvadite dhare dui-rupa

(Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 4.96,98)

There is no difference between the energy and the energetic, sakti-saktiman abhina. Therefore there is no difference between Radha and Krsna. Radha is purna-sakti and Krsna is purna-saktiman, so there is no difference, but, lila-rasa asvadite dhare dui-rupa, to relish the mellow of pastimes two bodies are there, Radha and Krsna, otherwise they are one. So in Vraja-lila there are two bodies, Radha and Krsna, visaya and asraya. But in the form of Gauranga They are one. Radha and Krsna combined together. Krsna assuming the mood and complexion of Radharani appears and that is Gauranga. This is the tattva, and that is a very deep and confidential tattva."

From Bhaktivinoda's Sri Tattva Sutra:

Sutra 7. tacchaktitastatvadhikyamiticcenna tadabhedat

If someone claims, "The Lord is different from His potency", then I reply, "No. It is not so, for they are not different."

If someone claims that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the creator of the worlds, is different from His potency, then this sutra is spoken to refute him. Because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not different from His many potencies, the potencies are not different from Him. This is described in the following words of the Nyaya-sastra:

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of all potencies, is not different from His potencies."

In the Svetasvatara Upanisad (6.8.) it is said:

"The Lord's potencies of knowledge, power and action share His own nature. They are not different from Him."

In Visnu Purana (1.22.53) it is said:

"Just as the illumination of a fire, which is situated in one place, is spread over, the energies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Parabrahman, are spread all over the universe."*

In the Markandeya Purana, Devi-mahatmya, the sage explains:

"O king, now I will describe to you the glories of the goddess. By her power she sustains the entire world.

"She is the potency of Lord Visnu. From her comes transcendental knowledge. You and many others have attained transcendental knowledge by her grace."

In the Narada-pancaratra, Second Night, Third Chapter, Lord Siva explains:

"The Supreme Lord is one. Still, He is manifested in two forms. One form is female: the potency of Lord Visnu. The other form is male: Lord Visnu.

From Srila Prabhupada's purport in Cc

The Lord has many potencies, and He is nondifferent from all these potencies. Because the potencies and the potent cannot be separated, they are identical. Krsna is described as the source of all potencies, and He is also identified with the external potency, the material energy. Krsna also has internal potencies, or spiritual potencies, which are always engaged in His personal service. His internal potency is different from His external potency. Krsna's internal potency and Krsna Himself, who is the potent, are always identical.

So the idea is that Krishna is identical to His energy. But His Internal energy is always completely identical to Him. The Jiva Sakti is Identical and Different at the same time, and Jada Sakti or the Material energy is the representation of or shadow of the Internal energy, they are the same thing but given different designations depending on the activity.

Here in Jaiva Dharma Bhaktivinoda is explaining the difference between the Internal and External energies:

In truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead has only one potency. When she performs spiritual actions, she is called Radhika or the spiritual potency, and when she performs material actions, she is called Durga or the material potency, or maya.

As far as your assertion the Shiva is a third category of living entity, that is not correct. As Jiva Goswami points out there are only two types of expansions of Krishna. Svamsa and vibbhinamsa. Svamsa are unlimited plenary expansions or Visnu tattva, all identical to Krishna, God in various forms. Vibbhinamsa are the jivas.

There is no other type of expansion mentioned.

Shiva is given his own category, but he is not a different type of living entity then the above two. Shiva is a position, like Brahma. Sometimes Shiva is a jiva who has been elevated and has a few more qualities then a jiva, and is then considered to be the lord of the jivas. Because he is elevated he is considered to be somewhat different then a jiva, like a king is different from an ordinary person, but it is just a temporary position that a jiva attains. At other times the Lord Himself fills the position of Shiva if there is no qualified jiva to fill the role.

From Bhaktisiddhanta's purport on Brahma Samhita:

The fifty attributes of individual souls are manifest in a far vaster measure in Sambhu [shiva] and five additional attributes not attainable by jivas are also partly found in him. So Sambhu cannot be called a jiva. He is the lord of jiva but yet partakes of the nature of a separate portion of Govinda.

Jiva's are separate portions of Govinda, whereas Visnu tattva are plenary portions of Govinda.

From the same purport:

The supremacy of Sambhu is subservient to that of Govinda; hence they are not really different from each other. The nondistinction is established by the fact that just as milk treated with acid turns into curd so Godhead becomes a subservient when He Himself attains a distinct personality by the addition of a particular element of adulteration. This personality has no independent initiative. The sail adulterating principle is constituted of a combination of the stu pefying quality of the deluding energy, the quality of nonplenitude of the marginal potency and a slight degree of the ecstatic-cum-cognitive principle of the plenary spiritual potency.

This is the same as the jiva who is fully self realized. We become a subservient when Krishna Himself attains a distinct personality by the addition of a particular element of adulteration. We have no independent initiative.[we are controlled, not the controller] Our sail adulterating principle is constituted of a combination of the stupefying quality of the deluding energy [we are subject to maya], the quality of nonplenitude of the marginal potency [we are not all pervading] and a slight degree of the ecstatic-cum-cognitive principle of the plenary spiritual potency.[whereas Krishna is the source of sat cit ananda, we only partake of a slight degree of the plenary or total spiritual energy]

So Shiva is a position a jiva can attain, it is temporary. Shiva is considered to be like yoghurt and Krishna milk. This is like the self realized spiritual master. He is considered to be the representative of Krishna. The Guru and Krishna have the same relation as Shiva and Krishna, like Milk and Yoghurt. So Shiva is "Vaisnavanam yatha Sambhu", the topmost Vaisnava, a spiritual master of the highest level. He is not a third category of living entity. It is a temporary role a jiva can attain.

December 13, 2004

Sumedh you said:

There is another instance where Srila Prabhupada explicitly said that Tulasidevi is not offered to even Sri Radha and only to Vishnu tattva Deities (implying that Sri Radha is not vishnu).

No, it does not imply that. As already shown according to Gaudiya Tattva there are only Visnu tattva and Jiva Tattva entities. Radha is identical to Krishna. The reason Tulasi is not offered to Radha is because Tulasi is a plenary expansion of Radha, she is Radha.

From a Srila Prabhupada Bhagavatam purport, a translation of the Kanti Mala commentary on Prameya Ratnavali:

nanu kvacit nitya-mukta jivatvam laksmyah svikrtam, tatraha--praheti. nityaiveti padye sarva-vyapti-kathanena kalakasthety adi-padya-dvaye, suddho 'pity ukta ca mahaprabhuna svasisyan prati laksmya bhagavad-advaitam upadistam. kvacid yat tasyas tu dvaitam uktam, tat tu tad-avista-nitya-mukta jivam adaya sangatamas tu.

Although some authoritative Vaisnava disciplic successions count the goddess of fortune among the ever-liberated living entities (jivas) in Vaikuntha, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in accordance with the statement in the Visnu Purana, has described Laksmi as being identical with the visnu-tattva. The correct conclusion is that the descriptions of Laksmi as being different from Visnu are stated when an eternally liberated living entity is imbued with the quality of Laksmi; they do not pertain to mother Laksmi, the eternal consort of Lord Visnu.

From Jiva Goswami's Krishna Sandarbha 155.6

Lord Krsna’s ability to be manifested in many places simultaneously and perform many different activities at the same time by His mystic potency is not shared by any one else.

From Jiva Goswami's Krishna Sandarbha 188.1

In this verse the word ‘ananda-cin-maya-rasa-pratibhavitabhih’ means ‘full of the mellows of pure love. She expands into many forms (Radha), and the blissful Supreme Personality of Godhead, who desires to enjoy Her as a lover, also expands into many forms.

This is from Raghava Goswami's Sri Krsna-bhakti-ratna-prakasa:

Sri Radha is manifested from half of Lord Krsna’s body. This is described in the following verse of Padma Purana:

"Sri Radha is the original potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. She is beautiful, graceful, saintly and full of all transcendental qualities. She enjoys pastimes in the forest of Vrndavana. She is manifested from half of Lord Mukunda’s transcendental body."

This is also confirmed in the Sammohana-tantra, Patala 1:

"His form is eternally full of bliss. It is never any other way. Radha is full of bliss. Lord Hari is full of bliss."

Their forms are not composed of material elements. Their forms are full of bliss. They are the single Supreme Spirit, manifested as two for the knowledge of the devotees.

Also from the Sri Krishna-bhakti-ratna-prakasa:

That Sri Radha is manifested from half of Lord Krsna’s body is also described in the Govinda-Vrndavana-sastra, where Sri Krsna says to Balarama:

"O Balarama, please listen and I will tell You something. One day, taking My flute, My heart full of bliss and My form bending in three places, I went under a kadamba tree and, seeing My own form reflected in a splendid golden platform studded with jewels, I became enchanted. At that moment My heart became filled with the sweet happiness known as conjugal love, which charms the entire world. My heart now desires to become a woman. I yearn to enjoy Myself as a woman.

As the Lord thought in this way, His heart approached itself. From the sweetness of His heart came bliss and from the bliss came Himself, manifested in a second form, a female form of transcendental bliss that could experience the direct perception of Himself.

At that time a goddess, whose form was nectar, whose fair complexion was like a host of lightning flashes, and who was decorated with glittering ornaments, appeared from the Lord’s left side. She is known as Radha, who is half of Krsna’s body, and who is the mistress of all potencies."

Also from the Sri Krsna-bhakti-ratna-prakasa of Srila Raghava Goswami

Because Sri Sri Radha Krsna are not different and because Sri Krsna is the master of all potencies, therefore Sri Radha is also the master and source of all potencies. He is by nature full of sweetness and bliss, free from the three modes, and eternally manifest beyond the material nature. Because Radha is not different from Him, so is She also. It is said that within the Lord are all potencies, the modes and the material nature.

Then you said:

The pre-eminence of the vaishnava philosophy is that only the Supreme Lord is worshipped (and Sri Radha, Gurudeva to be admitted as a servitor)

This is incorrect as well. One's worship goes to vaisnava's, Guru, and any form of Visnu tattva desired, all are considered worshipable. In the Adi Purana Krishna says to Arjuna: "My dear Partha, one who claims to be My devotee is not so. Only a person who claims to be the devotee of My devotee is actually My devotee."

From the intro to Srila Prabhupada's Caitanya Caritamrta.

It is not that Radharani is separate from Krsna. Radharani is also Krsna, for there is no difference between the energy and the energetic. Without energy, there is no meaning to the energetic, and without the energetic, there is no energy. Similarly, without Radha there is no meaning to Krsna, and without Krsna, there is no meaning to Radha. Because of this, the Vaisnava philosophy first of all pays obeisances to and worships the internal pleasure potency of the Supreme Lord. Thus the Lord and His potency are always referred to as Radha Krsna. Similarly, those who worship the name of Narayana first of all utter the name of Laksmi, as Laksmi Narayana. Similarly, those who worship Lord Rama first of all utter the name of Sita. In any case -- Sita-Rama, Radha-Krsna, Laksmi-Narayana -- the potency always comes first.

sumedh · December 13, 2004

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

There can be no disagreement with the statements of the One Identity of Sri Radha-Krishna, as She is the svarup shakti. Sri Radha and Krishna are identical but She is not considered Vishnu-tattva. The Supreme Lord as the enjoyer is thus depicted as Purusha (Lord Balarama, Maha-Vishnu) as opposed to the enjoyed as Shakti as female (Sri Radha, Lakshmi). The God for the material world are the three Purusha avataars, and the energy is Durga.

As already shown according to Gaudiya Tattva there are only Visnu tattva and Jiva Tattva entities.

This is the point of contention. It is known in the nyaya logic (or any other systems) that when a specific principle seems contradictory to a general principle then the conclusions of the specific principle are applicable as extensions to the general principle. So when Srila Jiva Goswami gives the broad categorization of Lord's expansions as svamsa and vibhinnamsa then it does not necessarily mean that all entities only belong to one of the two categories; this statement is to contrast the difference between jiva and the Supreme Lord.

This principle has been used by our acharyas to explain many apparent contradictions in the scriptures numerous times.

If you can give a direct statement that Lord Shiva is jiva-tattva, then your conclusions can be accepted. On the other hand there are numerous statements stating otherwise; so when we have direct statements that he is not jiva-tattva and he is also not vishnu-tattva the only conclusion can be what is presented by Srila Prabhupada.

So what do you make of this:

SB 4.1.15

Anasuya, the wife of Atri Muni, gave birth to three very famous sons--Soma, Dattatreya and Durvasa--who were partial representations of Lord Visnu, Lord Siva and Lord Brahma. Soma was a partial representation of Lord Brahma, Dattatreya was a partial representation of Lord Visnu, and Durvasa was a partial representation of Lord Siva.

PURPORT

In this verse we find the words atma-isa-brahma-sambhavan. Atma means the Supersoul, or Visnu, isa means Lord Siva, and brahma means the four-headed Lord Brahma. The three sons born of Anasuya--Dattatreya, Durvasa and Soma--were born as partial representations of these three demigods. Atma is not in the category of the demigods or living entities because He is Visnu; therefore He is described as vibhinnamsa-bhutanam. The Supersoul, Visnu, is the seed-giving father of all living entities, including Brahma and Lord Siva. Another meaning of the word atma may be accepted in this way: the principle who is the Supersoul in every atma, or, one may say, the soul of everyone, became manifested as Dattatreya, because the word amsa, part and parcel, is used here.

In Bhagavad-gita the individual souls are also described as parts of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, or Supersoul, so why not accept that Dattatreya was one of those parts? Lord Siva and Lord Brahma are also described here as parts, so why not accept all of them as ordinary individual souls? The answer is that the manifestations of Visnu and those of the ordinary living entities are certainly all parts and parcels of the Supreme Lord, and no one is equal to Him, but among the parts and parcels there are different categories. In the Varaha purana it is nicely explained that some of the parts are svamsa and some are vibhinnamsa. Vibhinnamsa parts are called jivas, and svamsa parts are in the Visnu category. In the jiva category, the vibhinnamsa parts and parcels, there are also gradations. That is explained in the Visnu purana, where it is clearly stated that the individual parts and parcels of the Supreme Lord are subject to being covered by the external energy, called illusion, or maya. Such individual parts and parcels, who can travel to any part of the Lord's creation, are called sarva-gata and are suffering the pangs of material existence. They are proportionately freed from the coverings of ignorance under material existence according to different levels of work and under different influences of the modes of material nature. For example, the sufferings of jivas situated in the mode of goodness are less than those of jivas situated in the mode of ignorance. Pure Krsna consciousness, however, is the birthright of all living entities because every living entity is part and parcel of the Supreme Lord. The consciousness of the Lord is also in the part and parcel, and according to the proportion to which that consciousness is cleared of material dirt, the living entities are differently situated. ln the Vedanta-sutra, the living entities of different gradations are compared to candles or lamps with different candle power. For example, some electric bulbs have the power of one thousand candles, some have the power of five hundred candles, some the power of one hundred candles, some fifty candles, etc., but all electric bulbs have light. Light is present in every bulb, but the gradations of light are different. Similarly, there are gradations of Brahman. The Visnu svamsa expansions of the Supreme Lord in different Visnu forms are like lamps, Lord Siva is also like a lamp, and the supreme candle power, or the one-hundred-percent light, is Krsna. The visnu-tattva has ninety-four percent, the siva-tattva has eighty-four percent, Lord Brahma has seventy-eight percent, and the living entities are also like Brahma, but in the conditioned state their power is still more dim. There are gradations of Brahman, and no one can deny this fact. Therefore the words atmesa-brahma-sambhavan indicate that Dattatreya was directly part and parcel of Visnu, whereas Durvasa and Soma were parts and parcels of Lord Siva and Lord Brahma.

or Brahad-bhagavatamrta 1.2.97

In that place, even though the two of them are not different, Siva worships the supremely powerful and opulent Lord Sankarsana as his chosen Deity. Is this not very wonderful?

or CC Madhya 20.308

Rudra, Lord Siva, has various forms, which are transformations brought about by association with maya. Although Rudra is not on a level with the jiva-tattvas, he still cannot be considered a personal expansion of Lord Krsna.

PURPORT

Rudra is simultaneously one with and different from the visnu-tattva. Due to his association with maya, he is different from the visnu-tattva, but at the same time he is an expansion of Krsna's personal form. This situation is called bhedabheda-tattva or acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, simultaneously one and different.

If your argument were to be accepted, don't you find it strange that when in all the expansions of the Lord are described in such great detail by Lord Chaitanya to Srila Sanatana Goswami from Caitanya-Caritamrta Madhya 20.165 onwards, there is no mention of His svarupa shakti and expansions which are given elsewhere. The only conclusion is that svarupa shakti (and expansions) are categorized separately. There is no meaning to the svarup shakti without Krishna, and vice-versa as stated many times, but the distinction is still maintained for the exchange of rasa.

This is illustrated further by Lord Chaitanya's pastimes, where He appears in the pancha-tattva feature. Only Lord Chaitanya, Nityananda and Advaita Acharya are considered Godhead; while Gadadhara (who is identical with Sri Radha) and Srivasa thakura are considered their servitors.

If Durga is vishnu-tattva then what objection could be there to the worship as in shakta-sampradayas which has been condemned as incorrect by vaishnavas; in effect what you are saying is that shakta-sampradaya is vaishnava!! It is because Durga is not an independent Godhead but energy of Krishna who is the only independent Godhead, and so saying Durga as vishnu-tattva would be incorrect. Also, worshipping Durga with Vishnu is not proper, only the spiritual aspect of the energy with the Supreme Spirit should be worshipped. In particular the mantras of Durga are *not considered* to be the chanting of the Holy Name, and don't have the potency of the Holy Names.

This is incorrect as well. One's worship goes to vaisnava's, Guru, and any form of Visnu tattva desired, all are considered worshipable.

This is what i also said in the parentheses that we worship Sri Radha, Guru to become their servitors -- the ultimate object being to serve Krishna through their medium; what is the incorrect part in this?? The main point here was that there is no provision for worshipping or considering the material energy as the Supreme Lord in the vaishnava philosophy.

As our acharyas have said that these topics of nature of Lord Shiva, Sri Radha and Guru are very difficult to understand and such discussion is very nice to clear up a lot of things and in my opinion the answers are not as simple as "Lord Shiva is empowered jiva" or "Durga is vishnu tattva".

December 13, 2004

Well you and many others speculate endlessly, I have no objection. Mahaprabhu and Srila Prabhupada and Baladeva Vidhyabhusana [i presented direct quotes] have sid explicitly that Lakshmi is Visnu tattva, and that She and Durga are expansions of Radha. Accept or reject, I really don't care.

As for your quoting Srila Prabhupada about Shiva tattva, again he also confirms that there is only Svamsa and vibhinnamsa, but that there are gradations among vibhinnamsa, Shiva is such a gradation. Since Svamsa is described as totally identical to Krishna, we know there are no gradations of Svamsa, they are all Krishna.

You reject the conclucsions of the Gaudiya Acaryas, so there is really nothing I can do to make my case based on their teachings. You seem to think that when they make unequivocal statements [Like Jiva Goswami writing about Durga] that those statements mean the opposite of what they say.

I can't continue debating you on these topics. In order for a debate to be usefull on the tattva within a certin sampradaya, it is impossible if one of the debaters claims adherence to the sampradaya yet rejects the conclusions of the founders [Mahaprabhu, Jiva Goswami etc].

When you say Radha is not Visnu tattva, this directly contradicts Mahaprabhu etc.

This is Gaudiya tattva on the topic, there is no other.

From Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavatam:

nanu kvacit nitya-mukta jivatvam laksmyah svikrtam, tatraha--praheti. nityaiveti padye sarva-vyapti-kathanena kalakasthety adi-padya-dvaye, suddho 'pity ukta ca mahaprabhuna svasisyan prati laksmya bhagavad-advaitam upadistam. kvacid yat tasyas tu dvaitam uktam, tat tu tad-avista-nitya-mukta jivam adaya sangatamas tu.

Although some authoritative Vaisnava disciplic successions count the goddess of fortune among the ever-liberated living entities (jivas) in Vaikuntha, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in accordance with the statement in the Visnu Purana, has described Laksmi as being identical with the visnu-tattva. The correct conclusion is that the descriptions of Laksmi as being different from Visnu are stated when an eternally liberated living entity is imbued with the quality of Laksmi; they do not pertain to mother Laksmi, the eternal consort of Lord Visnu.

Anyone who rejects this conclusion rejects Mahaprabhu's conclusion. You can argue all you want about the rest of the topics, but I am through, accept or reject, there is nothing more that I can say to you.

December 14, 2004

Durga=Radha it is uttama conception. In hige uttama see this, then has liberation.

Then person first needs understand Durga = Durga, and as finis Durga = Radha.

sumedh · December 14, 2004

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

Shiva prabhuji, due to your grace i ended up reading Jaiva-Dharma (sambandha and abhideya) where these points are nicely explained.

Well you and many others speculate endlessly, I have no objection. Mahaprabhu and Srila Prabhupada and Baladeva Vidhyabhusana [i presented direct quotes] have sid explicitly that Lakshmi is Visnu tattva, and that She and Durga are expansions of Radha. Accept or reject, I really don't care.

Why do you talk like this?? and what are you angry about. Earlier also you dismissed a statement of worship as incorrect without trying to understand what i was trying to imply. We are just discussing, and tattva discussion is most beneficial; winning arguments is not our aim -- is it?

I specifically posted the statement about shiva-tattva in which there are *apparent* mutually contradictory statements in the translation and the purport, but probably you did not notice.

Rudra, Lord Siva, has various forms, which are transformations brought about by association with maya. Although Rudra is not on a level with the jiva-tattvas, he still cannot be considered a personal expansion of Lord Krsna.

PURPORT

Rudra is simultaneously one with and different from the visnu-tattva. Due to his association with maya, he is different from the visnu-tattva, but at the same time he is an expansion of Krsna's personal form. This situation is called bhedabheda-tattva or acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, simultaneously one and different.

One may dismiss the purport as an unintentional mistake on Srila Prabhupada's part, but that is unimaginable. The purport would indicate that Lord Shiva is svamsa, but the verse/translation would imply that Lord Shiva is vibhinnamsa. The correct conclusion is the one as presented in the purport itself, as neither of the two in the strict sense of the word and so is qualified as a separate tattva. Similiar thing is implied by the milk-yogurt statement of Brahma-Samhita. I remember an explicit statement of Srila Prabhupada saying that conditioned jiva souls cannot become Shiva though they can become Brahma (will try to find it ...)

Since you have categorized all as either vishnu-tattva or jiva-tattva i have the following questions. Please consider carefully (there is no quarrel going on here):

1) Does it mean that all nitya-paarshada expansions (which have been described as atomic expansions) of the cit-shakti including expansions of Sri Radharani/Baladeva/Sankarsana are vishnu.

2) Does it mean that a piece of matter, which is expansion of Durga, is vishnu-tattva; if not then is it jiva-tattva; if neither then what?

3) The Lord has been described as having three shaktis -- antaranga-shakti, bahiranga-shakti (which is identical to antaranga-shakti as per you said) and tatastha-shakti. Does it mean that Lord Shiva is coming from tatastha-shakti? If that is the case then it clearly given in Jaiva-Dharma tatastha means from the boundary of material and spiritual; but the origin of Lord Shiva is given to be different (as a transformation of Lord Krishna for dealing with maya-shakti)

The main objection was the establishment of Durga as God, which is same as the theory of Shaktas, who is never independent. The important point is the Shaktimaan, who though identical to His shakti, has some characteristics *not* found in shakti which have been given in Jaiva Dharma Chapter 14

Vrajanatha: Prabhuji, I will soon learn to worship Sri Gaura. I have just remembered something else that I would like you to please explain to me clearly. You have explained that cit-sakti, jiva-sakti, and maya-sakti are three manifestations of svarupa-sakti; that hladini, samvit, and sandhini are three functions (vrttis) of svarupasakti; and that these three functions namely, hladini, samvit, and sandhini act on the three manifestations, cit-sakti, jiva-sakti, and maya-sakti. All of this is simply the work of sakti. Apart from this, the spiritual world, the spiritual body, and the spiritual pastimes are also indications of sakti alone. Then what is the indication of saktiman Krsna?

Babaji: This is a very difficult problem. Do you want to kill this old man with the sharp arrows of your arguments? My dear son, the answer is as simple as the question, but it is difficult to find a person who is qualified to understand it. Anyway, I shall explain it, so please try to understand.

I agree that Krsna's name, form, qualities, and pastimes all indicate the function of sakti. However, freedom (sva-tantrata) and free will (sva-icchamayata) are not the work of sakti; they are both intrinsic activities of the Supreme Person, and Krsna is that Supreme Person who has free will and is the abode of sakti. Sakti is the enjoyed and Krsna is the enjoyer; sakti is dependent but Krsna is independent; sakti surrounds that independent Supreme Person on all sides, but He is always conscious of sakti. The independent purusa is the master of sakti, even though He is covered by sakti. Human beings can only realize that Supreme Person (parama-purusa) by taking shelter of that sakti. That is why the conditioned jiva cannot realize the identity of saktiman independently from realizing the identity of sakti. However, when the bhaktas develop love for saktiman, they are able to perceive Him, who is beyond sakti. Bhakti is a form of sakti, and that is why she has a female form. Being under the guidance of Krsna's internal potency (svarupa-sakti), she experiences the pastimes of the purusa. Those pastimes indicate that Krsna is possessed of both free will and the intrinsic quality of being the predominating enjoyer.

...

Vrajanatha: If Krsna's desire and capacity to enjoy indicate the form of purusa, what is Srimati Radhika's desire?

Babaji: Srimati Radhika's desire is subordinate to Krsna's; none of Her desires or efforts are independent of His desire. Krsna has desires, and Srimati Radhika's desire is to serve Krsna according to His desires. Srimati Radhika is the complete and original sakti, and Krsna is purusa; that is, He controls and inspires sakti.

and also here

Vrajanatha: If He is fully associated with sakti, He only works with the assistance of sakti. Then where is His independent nature and desire?

Babaji: "Sakti-saktimator abhedah" according to this statement in Vedanta, sakti (potency) and the saktiman puruna (the Supreme Person who possesses all sakti) are non-different. Work shows the influence of sakti; that is, all work is accomplished only by the means of sakti. However, the desire to do work is an indication of saktiman. The mundane material world is the work of maya-sakti, all the jivas are the work of jiva-sakti, and the cid-jagat (spiritual world) is the work of cit-sakti. Bhagavan inspires the cit-sakti, jivasakti and maya-sakti to be engaged in their respective activities, but He Himself is still nirvikara (unattached and unaffected).

If you read the whole chapter of Jaiva Dharma then it will be clear that the Shaktimaan (who is always alongwith Shakti) is designated Godhead and depicted in Male forms. This is the main difference between His expansions as Sri Baladeva Prabhu/other Vishnu expansions, and Sri Radharani; the former are the same as Krishna (apart from the differentiation from the rasa point of view -- bheda-abheda again) while the latter is Shakti. As you quoted, svarupa-shakti is vishnu-tattva but there is still a difference (which cannot compare to that of Lord Shiva) as given above. Thus achintya-bheda-abheda is also evident here.

So Shakti is not the sole principle as was being implied by your posts and that was my main point.

My request is to see this whole thing in this light: sometimes jiva-tattva is used to mean those from the tatastha energy; at other times it is used to mean all atomic particles of conciousness including the nitya-paarshada (which are from cit-sakti).

I also agree that in places the acharyas may have used vishnu-tattva to denote all svamsha expansions; but that cannot mean Godhead in all cases. Actually, we have very little difference in all this -- but due to bheda-abheda our opinions appear different /images/graemlins/smile.gif

It was definitely my mistake not to have elaborated on my understanding of cit-sakti vis-a-vis vishnu-tattva before, instead of just saying they are not the same. But what is the need of sounding like that of some kind of a fight; besides devotees are not supposed to fight among themselves? I am just placing my understanding, and placing them again using more elaborations because i believe you have not understood my viewpoint. If you consider carefully there is no dispute with the quotes of the acharyas as you presented and so please do not draw Mahaprabhu, Prabhupada as if on your side against my arguments.

sumedh · December 15, 2004

Hare Krishna and dandavats

May i add one thing; of the six opulences of God as mentioned by Parasara Muni the opulence of full renunciation cannot be claimed to exist in Sri Radha since she has no independent desire.

prabhuji take it easy.

December 15, 2004

Siva is God but not work as God, because connect with maya. This Siva tattva.

sumedh · December 15, 2004

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

Just one more thing, if you can listen patiently without being angry /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I did not pay great attention to the quotes, and there is a very basic point i missed. Actually we have quite a situation here.

You quoted:

"Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has accepted para-sakti, the spiritual energy of the Lord, as being identical with the Lord. Thus she is also included in the independent visnu-tattva"

Can you give the exact quote. Because if we take the direct meaning then it makes no sense. Para-sakti means the whole spiritual energy including cit-sakti, jiva-sakti, maya-sakti and then it will mean that jiva-sakti is also visnu-tattva!! You have interpreted it to mean cit-sakti/svarup-sakti but that will be just be an interpretation and not the direct meaning since the jiva-sakti is also always included in the para-sakti (apara-sakti only refers to maya-sakti which is also part of para-sakti in reality).

I am not even remotely saying this is wrong, but will provide my understanding of this quote in a later post when i have discussed my position thoroughly.

My request is to please try to understand the whole situation harmoniously and try and understand my viewpoint. So i will start by discussing the tattva as given in Dasa-mula of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

The second of the Dasa-mula gives the definition of param-tattva as Sri Bhagavan Krishna. I think this point is of no confusion and i am not quoting it in full or else this post will becomes boringly too long.

The third of the Dasa-mula gives the position of para-sakti (from Jaiva-Dharma 14).

parakhyayah sakter aprthag api sa sve mahimani sthito jivakhyam svam acid-abhihitam tam tri-padikam sva-tantrecchah saktim sakala-visaye prerana-paro vikaradyaih synyah parama-puruso yam vijayate

Athough Sri Bhagavan is non-different from His inconceivable transcendental potency (para-sakti), He has His own independent nature and desires. His para-sakti consists of three aspects: cit-sakti (spiritual potency), jiva-sakti (marginal potency), and maya-sakti (external potency) and He always inspires them to engage in their respective functions. That para-tattva (Supreme Absolute Truth), even while performing all these activities, still remains immutable and is eternally situated in the fully transcendental svarupa of His own glory.

Please read chapter 14 of Jaiva-Dharma completely for further details.

As you can see the distinction between para-tattva (Supreme Absolute Truth or vishnu-tattva) and para-sakti is clearly made, and the whole chapter is labelled as sakti-tattva for this reason.

Please see my next post where i try to put my position in brief and also discuss the apparent contradiction in the quote you gave above.

sumedh · December 15, 2004

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

Continuing from previous post, i will try to give my understanding now, which in my opinion is the same as given by Srila Prabhupada and Dasa-mula as explained in Jaiva-Dharma.

I was reluctant to put my understanding completely fearing that you would find unlimited faults in it using different quotations. But i will proceed anyway, since i feel that the discussion has reached the point where you would probably think it worthy of consideration. This was my understanding before and reading Jaiva-Dharma (by your grace) really enhanced and cleared up the whole thing. Please consider it carefully. You said that achintya-bheda-abheda is only applicable for jivas and God; i beg to differ -- it applies in all realms of the Absolute Truth. It is the basic nature of Absolute realm, just like bheda seems to be the basic principle in material realm (but in reality it is also acintya-bheda-abheda).

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

First, what means by tattva. It is the aspect of philosophical Truth, as opposed to sakti which is the aspect of the active element. In the material world when we say "I and my energy" or "Sun and its energy", then the energy is just an attribute of the possesor of energy -- it is not a separate thing and so it is not meaningful to even talk of tattva of energy (as the two refer to separate principles with latter being an attribute of former). But in the spiritual realm, due to the inconceivable potency of the Supreme Lord the Truth and energy *appear* in separate identities. In reality they are one and the same, and so talking of sakti without saktimaan makes no sense.

So what is the answer of the tattva of para-sakti? The answer would be to first consider the svamsa and vibhinnamsa distinction i.e. the vibhinnamsa are separated parts which possess the quality of para-tattva to only a minute degree (compared to rays of sun); so in addition to the sakti aspect of the para-tattva, they also have the freedom/free will aspects of para-tattva to minute degree.

What is the tattva of the vibhinnamsa parts? Broadly speaking it is jiva-tattva.

What is the tattva of cit-sakti? The answer would be that the question is not meaningful in the true sense of the word for sakti is an attribute of tattva aspect; but since they *appear* to be separate the answer would be to just say that it is identical to para-tattva.

If the question is: is cit-sakti para-tattva? Then the answer would be: no, they are separate philosophical principles and cit-sakti is an attribute of the para-tattva.

Only para-tattva is designated as Godhead since the sakti is included in the concept of possessor of energy, but not the other way round. Properly speaking though, we worship both of them together with the understanding that Krishna is the possessor of cit-sakti as Radha; but the separate worship also has a special significance of rasa which you know.

Does svamsa mean cit-sakti? Not really, cit-sakti is the energy aspect of svamsas.

This is the distinction between the expansions of Krishna, as opposed to expansions of Radharani.

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

So when sometimes cit-sakti is categorized as a separate tattva (sakti-tattva) it is also not wrong, but with the understanding of its identity with vishnu-tattva.

Thus my objection to the statement that Durga is God. No, Durga is identical to God, being a transformation of cit-sakti, but God refers to para-tattva or vishnu-tattva which is a separate principle (though inseparable with its internal energy in identity).

sumedh · December 15, 2004

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

The quote:

"Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has accepted para-sakti, the spiritual energy of the Lord, as being identical with the Lord. Thus she is also included in the independent visnu-tattva"

This statement seems irreconcilable. But its actual meaning is as given before in the 3rd of Dasa-mula as given by Sri Chaitanyadeva. The import is that "when we say vishnu-tattva then the spiritual energy (including jiva-sakti) is included alongwith it". I think in this light the quote is very clear, otherwise we will always be confused and provide different interpretations of it.

This point is very important as it distinguishes our principle from the advaita siddhanta. They talk of brahman as a separate entity from maya-sakti, which is not correct as brahman is never separate from sakti; but they are separate principles no doubt (please consider the difference between entity and principle). This is explained very nicely in Jaiva-Dharma Chapter 14.

December 15, 2004

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

Shiva prabhuji, i would like to say one last thing (if you are listening)

The principle of acintya-bheda-abheda is applicable to the relation of para-tattva and para-shakti; that means it applies to para-tattva/cit-sakti, para-tattva/jiva-sakti, para-tattva/maya-sakti. In addition it applies to non-atomic expansions of Krishna, to cit-sakti/maya-sakti and also to Krishna/Shiva. However, in each of them the nature of bheda-abheda is different.

This is how our principle is different from both advaita siddhanta (as i said), and from the principle of sakta-sampradayas where sakti is considered the only principle.

sumedh · December 15, 2004

Hare Krishna

That previous post was mine.

and from the principle of sakta-sampradayas where sakti is considered the only principle.

This should have read -- sakti is the main principle.

December 16, 2004

You are confused over the use of the word para sakti in it's use as being visnu tattva. Even though the context it is used in makes it clear that it refers to Radha and her expansions.

visnoh syuh saktayas tisras

tasu ya kirtita para

saiva sris tad-abhinneti

praha sisyan prabhur mahan

Lord Visnu has three principal potencies--internal, external and marginal. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has accepted para-sakti, the spiritual energy of the Lord, as being identical with the Lord. Thus she is also included in the independent visnu-tattva.

Why are you confused ?

Because you don't know that Para Sakti has different meanings depending on the context.

Sometimes it is used to mean the Spiritual energy i.e Krishna and all other living beings. And the material energy is designated in that context as apara sakti.

Other times it means all of Krishna's energies combined:

DaSa-mUla (3)

Athough Sri BhagavAn is non-different from His inconceivable transcendental potency (parA-Sakti), He has His own

independent nature and desires . His parA-Sakti consists of

three aspects – cit-Sakti (spiritual potency), jiva-Sakti

(marginal potency) , and mAyA-Sakti (external potency)

And then other times it means the Internal or Cit Sakti:

visnu-saktim para prokta kstretrajnakhya tatha-para

avidya karma-samjnanya trtiya saktir-isyate

Visnu-sakti, the energy of Krsna is threefold: para-sakti, or the Lord's superior, spiritual energy; ksetrajna-sakti, or the marginal living beings; and avidya-sakti, or the illusory energy, which is characterized by karma, the world of action and reaction.(Visnu Purana 6.7.61)

So depending on the context Para Sakti means different things. So this quote means Radha and her expansions are Visnu tattva:

visnoh syuh saktayas tisras

tasu ya kirtita para

saiva sris tad-abhinneti

praha sisyan prabhur mahan

Lord Visnu has three principal potencies--internal, external and marginal. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has accepted para-sakti, the spiritual energy of the Lord, as being identical with the Lord. Thus she is also included in the independent visnu-tattva.

The para sakti is identified in this verse with Sri, Laksmi. She is Visnu tattva, and para sakti in this context means the spiritual energy of the Lord or the Internal Personal energy of the Lord. Umkay ?

And then you ignore the quote from Prabhupada's purport where he says that:

nanu kvacit nitya-mukta jivatvam laksmyah svikrtam, tatraha--praheti. nityaiveti padye sarva-vyapti-kathanena kalakasthety adi-padya-dvaye, suddho 'pity ukta ca mahaprabhuna svasisyan prati laksmya bhagavad-advaitam upadistam. kvacid yat tasyas tu dvaitam uktam, tat tu tad-avista-nitya-mukta jivam adaya sangatamas tu.

Although some authoritative Vaisnava disciplic successions count the goddess of fortune among the ever-liberated living entities (jivas) in Vaikuntha, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in accordance with the statement in the Visnu Purana, has described Laksmi as being identical with the visnu-tattva. The correct conclusion is that the descriptions of Laksmi as being different from Visnu are stated when an eternally liberated living entity is imbued with the quality of Laksmi; they do not pertain to mother Laksmi, the eternal consort of Lord Visnu.

And you ignore Baladeva Vidhyabhusana:

"Because she is not different from the Supreme Lord, Goddess Laksmi is also all pervading. In the Smriti-sastra it is said:

Goddess Laksmi is the mother of the worlds. She is the constant companion of Lord Visnu. As Lord Visnu is all pervading, so is she.

To think that Goddess Laksmi is different from Lord Visnu, but still all-pervading, is a false, a heretical idea...Sri Radha is the origin of all the forms of Goddess Laksmi."

And you ignore Jiva Goswami when he says there are two types of expansions of Krishna; Svamsa, which are totally identical to Krishna, and vibhinnamsa which are separate persons and very weak i.e jivas.

You ignore whatever doesn't fit into your preconceived notions. Or you say that un-equivocal statements mean the opposite of what they say. Like when Jiva Goswami says Durga is Krishna, Krishna is Durga, Durga is Krishna's Personal energy and is therefore Krishna Himself etc.

You have your own version of Vedanta. If someone can show you Gaudiya acaryas who make statements that refute your vision, then those statements must mean something else. Why? Because you are right and therefore any conception that differs from your own must be wrong.

So in this paradigm if an Acarya or sastra refutes your conception, they must mean something different then what they say. Even if it has to mean something 360' degrees the opposite of what it says.

Therefore when we read from Mahaprabhu, or Baladeva Vidhyabhusana, or Srila Prabhupada that Lakshmi is Visnu

Tattva, that She is identical to Krishna, etc. You cannot accept. You must attempt to change these direct statements to mean the opposite of what they say.

This is foolishness. The bonafide disciple in the discplic succession accepts the conclusions of the previous Acaryas. If he changes them to suit his own beliefs, then he is not considered to be a bona fide disciple. He is not considered to be in the disciplic succession.

So, I am not angry with you as you seem to think. I just do not want to debate the meaning of un-equivocal statements with someone who clearly wants to establish his own siddhanta because he thinks the Acaryas cannot possibly disagree with him. And therefore your own siddhanta takes precedence over the Acaryas. Might as well throw out all of their commentaries and replace them with yours. They are clearly in contradiction with your interpretations.

Jiva Goswami says Durga is Krishna Himself.

You say he doesn't really mean that.

Mahaprabhu and all Gaudiya Acaryas say Lakshmi is Visnu Tattva.

You say they don't really mean that.

Jiva Goswami says there are only 2 types of expansions from God.

You say he doesn't really mean that.

So like I said, you can speculate endlessly. I don't care and I am not angry. There are numerous Vedantists who accept no authority over themselves. Why would I get angry ?

From a lecture by Srila Sridhara Maharaja:

Devotee: Does a jiva attain the position of Siva?

Srila Guru Maharaja: Yes, he can be Siva,' when he is out of the clutches of Maya; and the Vaikuntha devotee is more than Siva. When a spiritual molecule is free from the clutches of the exploitation tendency, he is known as Siva.' Pasa-baddho bhavej jivah pasa-muktah sadasivah: When he is entangled, he is jiva,' and when he is free, he is Siva' (Sivo 'ham).

Devotee: Yes. But sometimes it is said that Mahesa Dhama is spiritual; it seems to be more like a marginal plane.

Srila Guru Maharaj: It is spiritual. Mahesa Dhama is of two kinds: first in the relativity of Maya, and secondly, Siva exists as Sadasiva, the devotee Siva. He may be entangled as a grhastha, but he can conceive that he has his superior position in a superior realm, and he holds the lowest position in that sphere. So, as I quoted, one who can successfully discharge his duty in the Varnasrama system for a hundred lifetimes attains to the position of Lord Brahma, who is the leader of the whole Varnasrama system in this world. Then, Mahadeva says tatah param hi mam: "After this, if he can continue in this way, he progresses even further: he comes to my position."

Lecture by Srila Narayana Maharaja on Siva Ratri:

Sankara-tattva is extremely complex. Brahma-tattva is not so complicated; he is always jiva-tattva. And sometimes, when there is no qualified jiva, Lord Visnu himself comes as Brahma. But Sankara is not like this. He is not jiva-tattva. Where does he live? Beyond Brahmaloka. After passing through the eight kinds of material coverings, after crossing the Viraja, Muktidhama, Mahakalapuram, and then Brahmaloka, there is the planet of Sankara. There he is known as Sadasiva, and he is Visnu-tattva.

For any reason, if something sour is put into milk, it becomes yogurt. Yogurt is nothing but milk. It has all the potencies that are in milk, like ghee and so forth, but it is not milk. Milk can become yogurt, but yogurt cannot become milk. Sankara is like that. He is not an ordinary jiva. Sometimes, but very rarely, there may be a reason that Sadasiva cannot come to this world – if he is engaged in his destruction of the universe, or anything like that. In that case a qualified jiva can work as Siva; temporarily, but not permanently. So you should always try to honor Lord Sankara.

From Tripurari Swami:

The word siva does not only refer to Siva himself. It also means auspicious, fortunate, happy, etc. and refers to liberation. Thus Sridhara Maharaja describes Siva here as that condition in which one is free from the clutches of the exploitation that characterizes life under karmic rule. When the jiva is liberated he is in the position known as Siva. However, it is mentioned in Brhat-bhagavatamrta that the jiva can take the "post" of Siva.

sumedh · December 16, 2004

Hare Krishna and dandavats

I am really sorry, but please do not try to project that i am giving my own sidhanta; i have repeatedly said that i am only giving my understanding and if you have a problem with it then please point it out but you have to first get a grasp of what i am trying to say. You do not understand my statements and you give such a conclusion from your side; from my point of view i could say that you are concocting a new siddhanta based on some statements but i did not say such a thing because it is not fair to expect everyone's understanding to be perfect. I made it very clear that there is no question of any dispute with these statements, but you do not care to read/understand. Then you bring in all the nonsense of disciplic succession and all that; what you mean by all this??

All that i had to say, i already put in earlier posts so i will just put in condensed form again.

-- cit-sakti is an attribute of the para-tattva who has additional attributes not found in the *principle* of sakti

Athough Sri Bhagavan is non-different from His inconceivable transcendental potency (para-sakti), He has His own independent nature and desires.

Apart from this, the spiritual world, the spiritual body, and the spiritual pastimes are also indications of sakti alone. Then what is the indication of saktiman Krsna?

Babaji: This is a very difficult problem. Do you want to kill this old man with the sharp arrows of your arguments? My dear son, the answer is as simple as the question, but it is difficult to find a person who is qualified to understand it. Anyway, I shall explain it, so please try to understand.

I agree that Krsna's name, form, qualities, and pastimes all indicate the function of sakti. However, freedom (sva-tantrata) and free will (sva-icchamayata) are not the work of sakti; they are both intrinsic activities of the Supreme Person, and Krsna is that Supreme Person who has free will and is the abode of sakti. Sakti is the enjoyed and Krsna is the enjoyer; sakti is dependent but Krsna is independent; sakti surrounds that independent Supreme Person on all sides, but He is always conscious of sakti. The independent purusa is the master of sakti, even though He is covered by sakti.

You ignore these explicit quotes and then dare to call me giving a new siddhanta. In truth you do not understand the difference between sakti and tattva as separate principles (not entities), that sakti is an attribute of tattva and in reality can never be a separate entity and make all kinds of accusations.

-- Since sakti is an attribute of the para-tattva it is not even meaningful to talk of sakti as having a separate existence; but she *appears* to be a separate entity (as in Sri Radha and expansions) which is reality is an attribute of para-tattva and thus cit-sakti is identical with the para-tattva.

-- if we say cit-sakti is Godhead, it will be an error because it is not meaningful to talk of sakti as a separate entity who is always an attribute of the para-tattva; when we talk of Godhead it can only refer to the Supreme Person and not to only his attribute(s) namely sakti. This is made clear by the previous quotes

-- recognise the difference between "cit-sakti is identical to para-tattva" and "cit-sakti is another name for para-tattva"; the former is correct and the latter is incorrect

Jiva Goswami says Durga is Krishna Himself.

You say he doesn't really mean that.

I never said that, only you interpreted my words to mean that because you neither understand what Jiva Goswami is saying nor what i am saying.

Mahaprabhu and all Gaudiya Acaryas say Lakshmi is Visnu Tattva.

You say they don't really mean that.

They are saying that She is identical to visnu-tattva. Get the understanding clear in the full context (from the previous quotes) that She is an intrinsic attribute of visnu-tattva and so is identical to it; visnu-tattva has additional attributes (sva-tantrata/sva-icchamayata) which are not covered when we refer to just the sakti attribute.

Jiva Goswami says there are only 2 types of expansions from God.

You say he doesn't really mean that.

Sakti is not an expansion; cit-sakti is an attribute of the svamsa expansion(s).

-- You give a new siddhanta and cannot give answer to the question that is a piece of matter vishnu-tattva, because you have lost all differentiation between purusha/tattva and energy. Your absurd theory leads to the conclusion that a piece of dead matter is vishnu and you dare to defend such a theory using some quotes and then claim that i am a fool/crook who is trying to twist the words of our Acharyas to give a new siddhanta.

Regarding Lord Siva you have already provided the quotes of Srila Narayan Maharaja in which it is said that very rarely when Lord Sadasiva does not come as Siva then jiva can take the post of Siva. Thanks for clarifying this. But in that quote itself you can understand that jiva cannot become Sadasiva; so Sadasiva comes as Siva (and then from tattva point of view Siva is same as Sadasiva but also different) then that cannot be compared to jiva occupying the post of Siva. By this quote you contradict yourself when you said that Siva is vibhinnamsa -- only very rarely jiva may occupy the post of Siva. When Siva is as an expansion of Sadasiva he would be considered svamsa. The quotes of Srila Prabhupada regarding Siva-tattva referred to the case of Siva as an expansion of Sadasiva and not when jiva becomes Siva (just like Brahma is normally referred to as jiva-tattva but that does not cover the case when Brahma is an expansion of Visnu when there is no suitable candidate).

I request you to examine your situation carefully and ask to yourself why this conclusion that a piece of matter is visnu arising out of what you are saying. (now please don't say that this is the theory of our acharyas). Please excuse me for some of my harsh words, but which i had to place due to the numerous accusations meant to demean coming from whom i think to be another devotee.

December 16, 2004

You are now just grasping at straws and engaging in double talk.

For instance you said:

cit-sakti is an attribute of the para-tattva who has additional attributes not found in the *principle* of sakti

That is your own tattva. This is Gaudiya tattva from Jaiva Dharma:

"The chit-potency is Krishna's plenary potency; Whatever she produces is eternally accomplished; the jiva is not so eternally accomplished; when he becomes accomplished by practices (sadhana-siddha), he enjoys bliss like those eternally accomplished entities. The four kinds of confidantes of Sri Radha (to be described hereafter) are eternally accomplished; their bodies are about the same, with slight variations, with that of Sri Radhika who is essentially the chit-shakti. The jivas have grown out of the jiva-shakti of Sri Krishna. Chit-shakti is Sri Krishna's full (plenary) shakti, whereas the jiva-shakti is the incomplete shakti. From the plenary potency are produced complete entities, but from the incomplete potency have grown the jivas as atomic chit. Krishna manifests entities of different types in accordance with the kind of the shakti He applies.

When established in His essential chit-shakti He reveals His essential Nature as Sri Krishna Himself

Cit Sakti in Gaudiya tattva is the PLENARY sakti. It produces COMPLETE entities. Plenary means:

1. Complete in all respects; unlimited or full

The Cit Sakti produces entities that are 100% Krishna. They are not simply partly Krishna, they are 100% Krishna.

From Jaiva Dharma:

"Krsna is self-effulgent, like a blazing fire or the sun. Krsna is like a blazing fire. In the centre of the fire is the cit-sakti (svarupa sakti), it is present in fullness. In addition to the centre there is also a great expanse illuminated by the fire. The same way the Krsna-sun illumines a great area with sunlight. The rays of sunlight are particles of His internal potency (svarupa sakti). Those atomic particles that constitute those rays of sunlight are the individual spirit souls. The internal potency (svarupa sakti) manifests the Krsna-sun planet itself. The sunlight emanating from that planet is manifested by the cit-sakti (svarupa sakti) and the individual particles of light are manifested by the jiva-sakti. Therefore the individual spirit souls are manifested by the jiva-sakti."

From Srila Prabhupada purport in Adi lila Cc

Radha and Sri Krsna are identical. The sandhini portion of Sri Krsna's internal potency has manifested the all-attractive form of Sri Krsna, and the same internal potency, in the hladini feature, has presented Srimati Radharani, who is the attraction for the all-attractive. No one can match Srimati Radharani in the transcendental pastimes of Sri Krsna.

The Cit Sakti manifests both Radha and Krishna. Krishna is not superior to Cit Sakti. Cit Sakti is called Antaranga Sakti. Bhaktivinoda explains:

"Antaranga-shakti

Antaranga is that which pertains to the proper Entity of the Absolute Person. It is also called Swarupa-shakti for this reason. The literal meaning of the word antaranga is "that which belongs to the inner body." Shakti is rendered as "power."

So in your context of using "para tattva" something is lacking in Cit Sakti that is found in "para tattva". But in the above we find that Cit Sakti is Krishna's plenary Sakti, it is 100% Krishna. Therefore your conclusion is wrong.

You said:

if we say cit-sakti is Godhead, it will be an error because it is not meaningful to talk of sakti as a separate entity who is always an attribute of the para-tattva;

But in the above quotes Cit Sakti is described as identical to Krishna. Cit Sakti is "The Krishna sun", "The proper entity of the absolute person".

From Srila Prabhupada:

The Lord has many potencies, and He is nondifferent from all these potencies. Because the potencies and the potent cannot be separated, they are identical. Krsna is described as the source of all potencies, and He is also identified with the external potency, the material energy. Krsna also has internal potencies, or spiritual potencies, which are always engaged in His personal service. His internal potency is different from His external potency. Krsna's internal potency and Krsna Himself, who is the potent, are always identical.

You seem to have problems with the word identical. Just like when Laksmi is called identical to Visnu, when Radha is called identical to Krishna, when Cit Sakti is called always identical to Krishna [as opposed to jiva sakti and maya sakti which are identical and different].

Lets examine the word Identical

i·den·ti·cal

adj.

Being the same

Exactly equal and alike.

exactly alike; incapable of being perceived as different

These are the first three definitions from various dictionaries at Dictionary.com

Yet you seem to think the word means "attribute of"

This is what you said:

They are saying that She is identical to visnu-tattva. Get the understanding clear in the full context (from the previous quotes) that She is an intrinsic attribute of visnu-tattva and so is identical to it; visnu-tattva has additional attributes (sva-tantrata/sva-icchamayata) which are not covered when we refer to just the sakti attribute.

sumedh · December 17, 2004

Hare Krishna and dandavats

Its okay, i may be grasping at straws and i agree. Please consider how to properly conduct a discussion. First you give some quotations to support your conclusions then if someone gives quotations supporting a contrary conclusion then you just ignore those statements. When someone gives an understanding of the quotations you gave, using other quotations, then you call him/her apa-sampradaya and arrogant dull-headed fool who is bent upon changing the acharyas words which in your opinion represent some un-equivocal siddhanta.

Its fine now we have some level of sanity in the discussion and we better not indulge in slander as in your previous posts. Please consider what should be the nature of discussion with others especially other devotees (or trying to be). So kindly keep your words concerning sampradaya or "you think that acharyas must be wrong" etc. away from here.

You say:

That is your own tattva. This is Gaudiya tattva from Jaiva Dharma:

The basis of all Gaudiya tattva in Jaiva-Dharma has been explicitly told to be the Dasa-Mula of Sri Chaitanya. And the relevant portions are expressed in 2nd and 3rd Dasa-Mula and their expositions by Srila Raghunatha babaji as given in Jaiva-Dharma. I have already quoted them but consider (parts of) them again:

Athough Sri Bhagavan is non-different from His inconceivable transcendental potency (para-sakti), He has His own independent nature and desires.

Apart from this, the spiritual world, the spiritual body, and the spiritual pastimes are also indications of sakti alone. Then what is the indication of saktiman Krsna?

Babaji: This is a very difficult problem. Do you want to kill this old man with the sharp arrows of your arguments? My dear son, the answer is as simple as the question, but it is difficult to find a person who is qualified to understand it. Anyway, I shall explain it, so please try to understand.

I agree that Krsna's name, form, qualities, and pastimes all indicate the function of sakti. However, freedom (sva-tantrata) and free will (sva-icchamayata) are not the work of sakti; they are both intrinsic activities of the Supreme Person, and Krsna is that Supreme Person who has free will and is the abode of sakti. Sakti is the enjoyed and Krsna is the enjoyer; sakti is dependent but Krsna is independent; sakti surrounds that independent Supreme Person on all sides, but He is always conscious of sakti. The independent purusa is the master of sakti, even though He is covered by sakti.

(note in the above quote the form of Sri Krisha has also been mentioned as a work of Sakti, just to explain what you quoted about form of Krishna being a work of Cit-Sakti but still Saktimaan has His own independent nature)

So it is not "my" tattva after all. Actually all subsequent statements must be understood in the light of the Dasa-mula which clearly establishes acintya-bheda-abheda of para-tattva and para-shakti.

I was wanting to get to the point somewhat step-by-step so i didn't say the things so explicitly rather tried to show mutual contradictions in your stated position. You give my statements like:

So when Srila Jiva Goswami gives the broad categorization of Lord's expansions as svamsa and vibhinnamsa then it does not necessarily mean that all entities only belong to one of the two categories;

So you simply say that Jiva Goswami didn't really mean what he said because you have a different idea...Whatever.

by which i meant that the cit-sakti is really not a separate *entity* (which i said explicitly many-a-times later) and is not an expansion of Lord (because you still consider sakti or energy to be an entity); and also about the nature of Lord Shiva who has been explicitly told to be neither svamsa nor vibhinnamsa but simultaneously one with both and different. Sakti is energy not an entity (though in spiritual realm it appears so due to the inconceivable nature of Lord).

You again scorn ...

Why would the word identical be used unless that is what is meant ? Maybe you should re-write Gaudiya siddhanta and eliminate the word Identical wherever you find it and substitute "attribute of", since you think that is what it means.

Because in the spiritual realm sakti *appears* as a separate entity (Radharani and Her expansions). Why don't you rewrite gaudiya siddhanta to say that every piece of matter is directly vishnu?

Before proceeding please first provide an explanation (from point of view of your siddhanta) of the statements like:

Sri Bhagavan Himself says in Bhagavad-Gita that He is the Supreme Enjoyer, do you interpret it to mean that He can be the enjoyed as sakti also?

Or when Sri Bhagavan says that material energies are His separated energies why you ignore it.

Or when Srila BhaktiSiddhanta explicitly says that those who think of the other dieties in panchopasana (Durga/Siva/Ganesh/Surya) as bodies of Vishnu will never get liberation (and then quotes explicitly from Brahma-Samhita for each of them).

Or of the above quotes from Jaiva-Dharma Chapter 14 where the Shaktimaan Krishna has been explicitly told to have His own independent nature.

Or in the case of Lord Shiva:

Rudra, Lord Siva, has various forms, which are transformations brought about by association with maya. Although Rudra is not on a level with the jiva-tattvas, he still cannot be considered a personal expansion of Lord Krsna.

PURPORT

Rudra is simultaneously one with and different from the visnu-tattva. Due to his association with maya, he is different from the visnu-tattva, but at the same time he is an expansion of Krsna's personal form. This situation is called bhedabheda-tattva or acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, simultaneously one and different.

And also explicitly answer the question: is a piece of matter vishnu -- not acintya-bheda-abheda but directly 100% vishnu. (i hope you realize i am not talking about the paramatma expansion of the Lord present in very paramanu).

Kindly see all this in the light of the basic principle of all Gaudiya siddhanta viz. acintya-bheda-abheda. Just to reiterate, God always refers to the Supreme Enjoyer and never to His cit-sakti who is always the enjoyed; this is what distinguishes expansions of Krishna (starting from Baladeva prabhu) from expansions of Radharani.

December 17, 2004

Instead of trying to accept direct unequivocal statements by Acaryas, you go off on tangents to try and prove you have some hidden understanding they don't express, so be it.

You seem to think that Krishna and His Sakti in all circumstances are different in some way or another. You like to point out that Krishna is Saktiman and Sakti serves Saktiman, and that Krishna has:

"He has His own independent nature and desires" separate from His Sakti.

That is not Gaudiya siddhanta, it is your own concoction.

Krishna is IDENTICAL with his Cit Sakti, that is why it is called the PERSONAL POTENCY.

Your basic misunderstanding is that you think all Sakti is the same. Jiva Sakti is not identical to Krishna. Maya Sakti is, but it appears like it isn't, so it is not classified as identical to Krishna. But as Srila Praabhupada states:

"Krsna's internal potency and Krsna Himself, who is the potent, are always identical."

Now since you don't know what identical means, I guess I will try and explain this concept in another way.

tara madhye vraie nana bhava-rasa-bhede

krsnake karaya rasadika-lilasvade

TRANSLATION

Among them are various groups of consorts in Vraja who have varieties of sentiments and mellows. They help Lord Krsna taste all the sweetness of the rasa dance and other pastimes.

PURPORT

As already explained, Krsna and Radha are one in two. They are identical. Krsna expands Himself in multi-incarnations and plenary portions like the purusas. Similarly, Srimati Radharani expands Herself in multi-forms as the goddesses of fortune, the queens and the damsels of Vraja. Such expansions from Srimati Radharani are all Her plenary (completely identical) portions. All these womanly forms of Krsna are expansions corresponding to His plenary expansions of Visnu forms. These expansions have been compared to reflected forms of the original form. There is no difference between the original and reflected forms. The female reflections of Krsna's pleasure potency are as good as Krsna Himself.

Here Srila Prabhupada is telling us that Radha and Her expansions are identical to Krishna. They are as good as Krishna, there is no difference between Krishna and them.

This is in direct contradiction to your thesis which states: that Krishna is different then them. They are just Sakti and are less then Krishna, He is the controller, they are the controlled. So in your thesis they are not identical to Krishna, they are not as good as Krishna, and there is difference between them.

So you directly contradict Srila Prabhupada on this account.

Let's see why.

You do not understand Cit Sakti, the Internal Potency. It is not what you think i.e different in some way from Krishna.

Radha and Krishna are identical, they are one and the same. Krishna is called Saktiman, and Radha is called Sakti. Although they are completely identical in every respect.

From a lecture by Srila Prabhupada:

radha-purna-sakti, krsna-purna-saktiman

dui vastu bheda nai, sastra-paramana

radha-krsna aiche sadaeka-i svarupa

lila-rasa asvadite dhare dui-rupa

(Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 4.96,98)

There is no difference between the energy and the energetic, sakti-saktiman abhina. Therefore there is no difference between Radha and Krsna. Radha is purna-sakti and Krsna is purna-saktiman, so there is no difference, but, lila-rasa asvadite dhare dui-rupa, to relish the mellow of pastimes two bodies are there, Radha and Krsna, otherwise they are one. So in Vraja-lila there are two bodies, Radha and Krsna, visaya and asraya. But in the form of Gauranga They are one. Radha and Krsna combined together. Krsna assuming the mood and complexion of Radharani appears and that is Gauranga. This is the tattva, and that is a very deep and confidential tattva."

Also from the Sri Krsna-bhakti-ratna-prakasa of Srila Raghava Goswami

Because Sri Sri Radha Krsna are not different and because Sri Krsna is the master of all potencies, therefore Sri Radha is also the master and source of all potencies. He is by nature full of sweetness and bliss, free from the three modes, and eternally manifest beyond the material nature. Because Radha is not different from Him, so is She also. It is said that within the Lord are all potencies, the modes and the material nature.

Saktiman means the master of potencies. Here we see Srila Raghava Goswami saying Radha is the master of all potencies. She is Saktiman also. Why ? Because Radha and Krishna are identical, they are one and the same.

The Female incarnations of Krishna are called Sakti's, because that has to with the male female dynamic. The male is considered active and the female is considered passive, these are esoteric concepts. But when we speak about the ontological difference between Krishna and his Hladini Sakti's, then those concepts are not of significance. This is why Radha and Her expansions are called Identical to Krishna. This is why Radha is called the master of potencies. This is why Laskmi is called identical to Visnu. This is why "Krishna's womanly forms are as good as Krishna Himself". THEY ARE KRISHNA'S WOMANLY FORMS...PERIOD.

You need to understand what the Internal Potency is.

You said:

by which i meant that the cit-sakti is really not a separate *entity* (which i said explicitly many-a-times later) and [is not an expansion of Lord (because you still consider sakti or energy to be an entity);

By this confusing statement you would have us believe that Jiva's are not entities, and that Radha and Her expansions are not entities. Jiva's are Jiva Sakti and Radha and Her expansions are Cit Sakti and Hladini Sakti. In your philosophy we and they are not entities. This is utter foolishness. We are Sakti and we are entities. Radha and Her expanisions are Sakti and they are entities.

Your problem is the word Sakti and it's various uses. You use it the same in every context, when in fact it has different meanings dependent on the context.

Radha and Her expansions are in fact entities. They are all Krishna's womanly forms. They are all identical to Krishna. They are manifested from and identical to the Cit Sakti. Cit Sakti is Krishna's PLENARY Sakti. It is complete in all respescts, it is identical to Krishna.

From Jaiva Dharma:

Babaji:

No, the chit-potency is Krishna's plenary potency...Chit-shakti is Sri Krishna's full (plenary) shakti, whereas the jiva-shakti is the incomplete shakti. From the plenary potency are produced complete entities, but from the incomplete potency have grown the jivas as atomic chit. Krishna manifests entities of different types in accordance with the kind of the shakti He applies.

When established in His essential chit-shakti He reveals His essential Nature as Sri Krishna Himself

The Cit Sakti manifests COMPLETE...ENTITIES. In other words Cit Sakti manifests entities that are fully God.

From Srila Prabhupada:

The sandhini portion of Sri Krsna's internal potency [Cit Sakti] has manifested the all-attractive form of Sri Krsna, and the same internal potency, in the hladini feature, has presented Srimati Radharani.

Cit Sakti manifests Complete entities...i.e Svamsa.

What does complete mean in this context ? It means that the complete entity is God. God is the only complete entity. Jiva's are incomplete entities. Why ? We partake of a small fraction of the nature of the complete whole. We are minute conscious entities. God is the complete whole conscious entity. We are dependent on the complete whole.

Cit Sakti manifests complete entities. Svamsa entities. They are all the complete whole. Female manifestations of Cit Sakti may be called Sakti's of Krishna, but that is a figure of speech. They are all complete entities...IDENTICAL TO EACH OTHER AND TO KRISHNA, ONE PERSON, MANY FORMS.

Jiva Goswami describes thusly:

The Absolute Truth is one. Still, by His inconceivable potency He is manifested in four ways: 1. svarupa (His original form), 2. tad-rupa-vaibhava (His incarnations), 3. jiva (the individual spirit souls), and 4. pradhana (the material energy). These four features are like: 1. the interior of the sun planet, 2. the sun's surface, 3. the sunlight, and 4. the reflection of the sun.

Krishna's incarnations are compared to the surface of the sun. Krishna is the sun. When you look at the sun what do you see ? You see the surface. But under the surface is the sun. So when you look at Balarama, Ramachandra, Narasingha, Radha, Laksmi etc...You are looking at the surface of the sun. But underneath that surface is Krishna. They are all Krishna displaying various surfaces, various forms and personas and pastimes. They are all COMPLETE ENTITIES because they are all THE SAME ALL PERVADING BEING.

From Baladeva Vidhyabhusana's Govinda Bhasya:

Because she is not different from the Supreme Lord, Goddess Laksmi is also all pervading. In the Smriti-sastra it is said:

Goddess Laksmi is the mother of the worlds. She is the constant companion of Lord Visnu. As Lord Visnu is all pervading, so is she.

To think that Goddess Laksmi is different from Lord Visnu, but still all-pervading, is a false, a heretical idea...Sri Radha is the origin of all the forms of Goddess Laksmi."

Cit Sakti is Krishna's PERSONAL POTENCY. This means Cit Sakti manifests Krishna's PERSONAL EXPANSIONS. Jiva Sakti manifests separate persons. And Maya Sakti manifests the illusory potency.

svamsa-vibhinnamsa-rupe haina vistara

ananta vaikuntha-brahmande karena vihara

svamsa-vistara - caturvyuha, avataragana

vibhinnamsa jiva - ta-ra saktite ganana

Krsna expands Himself in many forms. Some of them are personal expansions, and some are separate expansions. Thus he performs pastimes in both the spiritual and material worlds. The spiritual worlds are the Vaikuntha planets, and the material universes are brahmandas, gigantic globes governed by Lord Brahma. Expansions of His personal self - like the quadruple manifestations of Sankarsana, Pradyumna, Aniruddha and Vasudeva - descend as incarnations from Vaikuntha to this material world. The separated expansions (vibhinnams) are living entities. Although they are expansions of Krsna they are counted among His different potencies.

(Caitanya-Caritamrta Madhya 22.8-9)

From Jiva Goswami:

The two kinds of expansions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead are : 1. svamsa (personal expansions) and 2. vibhinnamsa (separate persons). The svamsa expansions are unlimitedly powerful. Their form and personality are the same as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself.

There is not the slightest difference between the svamsa expansions and the Original Personality of Godhead. The vibhinnamsa expansions are very weak in comparison to Them.

Of course you say Sakti is not an expansion of Krishna. Which is incorrect. Jiva's are Sakti. And Hladini Sakti are expansions of Krishna. Jiva's are vibhinnamsa, Hladini are Svamsa. Radha and Her expansions are entities, while you may disagree, Radha is in fact a real entity. Although She is just Krishna in a female form, that doesn't make her a non entity. Baladeva is also Krishna in another form. All Cit entities are Krishna in different forms. They are all one and the same, IDENTICAL TO KRISHNA. They are all the same ALL PERVADING SUPREME LORD.

From Jaiva Dharma:

Krsna is self-effulgent, like a blazing fire or the sun. Krsna is like a blazing fire. In the centre of the fire is the cit-sakti, it is present in fullness.

In addition to the centre there is also a great expanse illuminated by the fire. The same way the Krsna-sun illumines a great area with sunlight.

The rays of sunlight are particles of His internal potency. Those atomic particles that constitute those rays of sunlight are the individual spirit souls.

The internal potency manifests the Krsna-sun planet itself.

The sunlight emanating from that planet is manifested by the cit-sakti and the individual particles of light are manifested by the jiva-sakti. Therefore the individual spirit souls are manifested by the jiva-sakti.

So try and understand Cit Sakti, the Internal Potency, Antaranga Sakti, Swarupa Sakti. They are all the same thing. Krishna is the Cit Sakti. Whatever entities are manifest from Cit Sakti are Krishna, like the surface of the Krishna sun they display the sun itself in various ways.

The Jiva Sakti is called atomic cit. It is manifest from the Jiva Sakti which is a separate part of the Cit Sakti. Therefore it is given it's own category one and different from Cit Sakti.

The entities that are categorized as coming from Cit Sakti i.e Krishna, Radha etc, they are all the Krishna sun itself. They are all manifestation of the complete whole. They are all the same all pervading Lord.

Until you understand these things, all your other ideas are miscalculations.

sumedh · January 13, 2005

Hare Krishna and dandavats

sorry i was away for a few weeks.

Instead of trying to accept direct unequivocal statements by Acaryas, you go off on tangents to try and prove you have some hidden understanding they don't express, so be it.

And you think that other unequivocal statements should be rubbished in favour of an understanding that you have gained of the other statements that support your position.

You seem to think that Krishna and His Sakti in all circumstances are different in some way or another.

This is completely untrue and shows a lack of understanding of the acintya-bheda-abheda. I clearly said that in one aspect they are one and the same and in the other aspect there is a difference; and both these aspects exist simultaneously and eternally which is inconceivable in this material understanding. The bheda aspect is that Sri Radha does not have any independent desires. This is quoted in many places including here in Jaiva Dharma:

Vrajanatha: If Krsna's desire and capacity to enjoy indicate the form of purusa, what is Srimati Radhika's desire?

Babaji: Srimati Radhika's desire is subordinate to Krsna's; none of Her desires or efforts are independent of His desire. Krsna has desires, and Srimati Radhika's desire is to serve Krsna according to His desires. Srimati Radhika is the complete and original sakti, and Krsna is purusa; that is, He controls and inspires sakti.

You said:

"He has His own independent nature and desires" separate from His Sakti.

That is not Gaudiya siddhanta, it is your own concoction.

unfortunately you cannot seem to get past your fondness for labelling others as speculators etc. I can go on giving the quotes endlessly and you will still place these adjectives; seems like this gives you some satisfaction.

The above statement is a quote from Jaiva Dharma Chapter 14, and the full quotation was given before which you care not to read

Babaji became very happy to hear this, and with his hairs standing on end in rapture, began to speak:

parakhyayah sakter aprthag api sa sve mahimani sthito jivakhyam svam acid-abhihitam tam tri-padikam sva-tantrecchah saktim sakala-visaye prerana-paro vikaradyaih synyah parama-puruso yam vijayate

Dasa-Mula (3)

Athough Sri Bhagavan is non-different from His inconceivable transcendental potency (para-sakti), He has His own independent nature and desires. His para-sakti consists of three aspects: cit-sakti (spiritual potency), jiva-sakti (marginal potency), and maya-sakti (external potency) and He always inspires them to engage in their respective functions. That para-tattva (Supreme Absolute Truth), even while performing all these activities, still remains immutable and is eternally situated in the fully transcendental svarupa of His own glory.

Hope you spot it this time.

You said:

Saktiman means the master of potencies. Here we see Srila Raghava Goswami saying Radha is the master of all potencies. She is Saktiman also. Why ? Because Radha and Krishna are identical, they are one and the same.

In the context of what i was saying, saktimaan refers to the possesor of potencies as Sri Krishna who is completely independent. Sri Radha is the embodiment of the svarup sakti and so without doubt has all the potencies, which are employed in accordance with Krishna's desires as quoted before.

In the material world when we think of energy and energetic then it is inconceivable that there is any difference in them, or that the energy be separate from the energetic. So i had used the term that they only appear to be different from this point of view and they are one and the same; here the term appear is not remotely in the sense of illusion rather emphasis of the abheda to exaggerate it. But from another point of view the energy is different from the energetic. Because both these aspects exist simultaneously and eternally, it is inconceivable and thus the acintya-bheda-abheda. Many quotes were given before that express this. Also consider this from Jaiva-Dharma Chapter 18, which expresses this clearly.

Brahma and His sakti are accepted as non-different from each other. In fact, this sakti is said to be an inherent part of brahma, which is manifested in different ways. From one point of view, it may be said that nothing is different from brahma, for the potency and the possessor of potency are non-different. However, when we look at the material world, we can see that in another sense brahma and His sakti are certainly different.

nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam

eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman

Katha Upanisad (2.13) and Svetasvatara Upanisad (6.10)

He is the one supreme eternal being among all eternal beings, and the one supreme conscious being among all conscious beings. He alone is fulfilling the desires of everyone. This statement from the Vedas accepts variegatedness within the eternally existing substance (vastu), brahma. It separates the sakti (potency) from saktiman (the possessor of the potency), and then it considers His jnana (knowledge), bala (power) and kriya (activities).

But the bheda aspect of sakti and saktimaan is very important, because otherwise the gaudiya siddhanta will turn into brahman-parinama-vada (i.e. all the creation is a transformation of Brahman) with respect to creation (jivas are not being considered in any case) -- since you say that there is only abheda in Brahman and Sakti, so any transformation of sakti will mean transformation of Brahman. This is explicitly refuted in gaudiya siddhanta such as here (Jaiva-Dharma Chapter 18):

Those who teach transformation of energy (sakti-parinamavada) do not accept any sort of transformation in brahma. Rather, they say that the inconceivable sakti, or potency of brahma, is transformed. The jiva-sakti portion of the potency of brahma transforms into the individual spirit jivas, and the maya-sakti portion transforms into the material world. According to this theory, there is parinama (transformation), but not of brahma.

...

According to brahma-parinama-vada, the material world and the jivas are the vikara of brahma. Without any doubt, this idea is absolutely impure for the following reasons: Those who put forward this theory accept the existence of only one substance, namely the nirvisesa-brahma. But how can this brahma be modified into a second substance, if nothing else exists apart from it? The theory itself does not allow for modification of brahma.

Accepting modification of brahma defies logic, which is why brahma-parinama-vada is not reasonable under any circumstances. However, there is no such fault in sakti-parinama-vada, because according to this philosophy, brahma remains unaltered at all times.

The gaudiya siddhanta is sakti-parinama-vada, which means that it draws a distinction between para-tattva and sakti and as quoted above there is a transformation of sakti but not of Brahman (in the above Brahman is used in the sense of para-tattva).

It is surprising that you ignore these quotes completely in pursuance of only abheda between Krishna and His cit-sakti. In the jivas the bheda aspect is more prominent and the abheda aspect is less prominent because of their infinitesemal nature and so are vibbhinnamsa. On the other hand in the cit-sakti the abheda aspect is very strong and the bheda is not prominent at all. When any description is provided of the situation, it is only possible to discuss one aspect at one time and when the abheda aspect is expressed then para-tattva and cit-sakti are one and the same since it is the personal potency; when the other aspect is considered then they are certainly different since para-tattva has His own independent nature and desires which has been quoted before.

You said:

Radha and Krishna are identical, they are one and the same. Krishna is called Saktiman, and Radha is called Sakti. Although they are completely identical in every respect.

This is completely new thesis you want to present. Everywhere it has been said the Krishna is saktimaan and Radha is sakti and this addition of "called" is your own addition.

You said:

THEY ARE KRISHNA'S WOMANLY FORMS...PERIOD.

who do not have the quality of complete renunciation (as given by Parasara Muni) and are not worshipped as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, rather as His svarupa energy.

Since you explicitly said that acintya-bheda-abheda is only applicable for Lord and jivas, i would only say that it is applicable everywhere: in Krishna/Baladeva and even in Krishna at Vraja and Krishna at Dwarka. Of course, here the bheda aspect is of a different kind. So there are bheda and abheda aspects in Krishna/Baladeva, Krishna/Radharani, Krishna/Durga, Krishna/jivas but they are of different kind in each of them. There is some misunderstanding of this principle, it seems, because the above are only one of the many manifestations of this principle. Actually this principle is manifested as (apparent) simultaneous eternal contradictions in Sri Krishna:

Babaji: These topics can be understood in isolation from each other, but their relationships are inconceivable. In the material world, because opposite qualities have the inherent tendency to annihilate each other, principles that are mutually opposed cannot be present together at the same place. However, Sri Krsna's sakti has such inconceivable power that in the spiritual world it manifests all the mutually opposing qualities together at the same time and in a very wonderful and beautiful manner. Even though Sri Krsna has the most beautiful form (rupa), He is formless (arupa); He has a transcendental murti (form), but He is present everywhere; He is always active, and yet, being unaffected, He performs no karma; He is the son of Nanda Maharaja, although He is unborn; He is simply a cowherd boy, although He is worshiped by all others; and He has a human-like form and bhäva, although He is omniscient. Similarly, at one and the same time, He possesses all qualities (savisesa), and yet He has no qualities (nirvisesa); He is acintya (inconceivable), and full of rasa; He is both limited and limitless; He is very far away, and very close by; He is unaffected (nirvikara), and yet He is afraid of the mana (sulking mood or apparent anger) of the gopis. How far can we enumerate the infinite variety of Sri Krsna's qualities such as these? They contradict each other, and yet they are eternally and beautifully present without opposition or conflict in His svarupa (form), His abode, and in the various paraphernalia related to Him. This is the inconceivable nature of His sakti.

In particular the material energy in the form of gross and subtle matter is not an expansion of para-tattva and constitutes only the separated energies of Krishna; meaning to say different chunks of matter are not entities but only energy. This situation has no comparison with Radharani and Her expansions who are entities of course, but are one with the para-tattva being the personal energy as has been expressed above and in the quotes before.

The baddha-jivas are manifested from the tatastha-sakti i.e. from the boundary of spiritual and material, but are distinguished from material/spiritual creation which are a manifestation of sandhani potency, in that they are separate individuals in the form of atomic expansions of Mahavishnu as has been given in Jaiva-Dharma (Chapter 16):

There are also innumerable, atomic, conscious jivas who emanate as rays in Karanodakasayi Maha-Visnu's glance upon His mayasakti. Since these jivas are situated next to maya, they perceive her wonderful workings. Although they have all the qualities of the jivas that I have already described, because of their minute and marginal nature, they sometimes look to the spiritual world, and sometimes to the material world.

However, other jivas also emanate from Sri Baladeva Prabhu and Sri Sankarsana (and not from tatastha sakti) as given just before

Innumerable jivas appear from Sri Baladeva Prabhu to serve Vrndavana-vihari Sri Krsna as His eternal associates in Goloka Vrndavana, and others appear from Sri Sankarsana to serve the Lord of Vaikuntha, Sri Narayana, in the spiritual sky. Eternally relishing rasa, engaged in the service of their worshipable Lord, they always remain fixed in their constitutional position. They always strive to please Bhagavan, and are always attentive to Him. Having attained the strength of cit-sakti, they are always strong.

By your calculation they are all Krsna Himself, since they are not manifest from jiva sakti and thus must be svamsa ... Anyway, this is not surprising since by your calculation even chunks of matter are also visnu.

You said:

Until you understand these things, all your other ideas are miscalculations.

Why should i calculate? Actually the question of the original poster has been answered completely in Jaiva-Dharma Chapter 9:

Digambara: Then who is the goddess I know as Mother Nistarini?

Advaita: She is Sri Hari's external potency known as visnu-maya.

Digambara opened his book on tantra and said,"Look, it states in tantra-sastra that my divine mother is consciousness personified. She possesses full will and she is beyond the three qualities of material nature, yet she is the support of those three qualities. Your visnu-maya is not free from the influence of the modes of nature, so how can you equate your visnu-maya with my mother? This type of fanaticism on the part of the Vaisnavas really irritates me. You Vaisnavas have blind faith."

Advaita: My brother, Digambara, please don't be angry. You have come to see me after such a long time, and I want to satisfy you. Is it a slight to speak of visnu-maya? Bhagavan Visnu is the embodiment of supreme consciousness, and He is the one supreme controller of all. Everything that exists is His potency. Potency is not an independent object (vastu), but rather the functional power inherent within an object (vastu-dharma). To say that sakti (potency) is the root of everything is thoroughly opposed to tattva, metaphysical truth. Sakti cannot exist independent of the object from which it originates. We must first accept the existence of an object that possesses full spiritual consciousness, otherwise accepting sakti by itself is like dreaming of a flower in the sky. The commentary on Vedanta states, sakti-saktimator abhedah: There is no difference between the potency and the possessor of potency. This means that sakti is not a separate object. The Supreme Person who is the master of all potencies is the one truly abiding substance. Sakti is the quality, or inherent function, that is subordinate to His will. You have said that sakti is the embodiment of consciousness, that it possesses will, and that it is beyond the influence of the three qualities of material nature. This is correct, but only insofar as sakti operates fully under the support of a pure conscious entity, and is thus considered identical with that powerful entity. Desire and consciousness depend on the Supreme Being. Desire cannot exist in sakti; rather, sakti acts in accordance with the desire of the Supreme Being. You have the power to move, and when you desire to move, that power will act. To say the power is moving is merely a figure of speech; it actually means that the person who possesses that power is moving. Bhagavan has only one sakti, which is manifest in different forms. When it functions in a spiritual capacity, it is known as cit-sakti, and when it operates in a material capacity, it is known as maya, or jada-sakti.

Hope you can spot the term "identical" in the above quote to mean something other (quality or inherent function) than you contemplate. (good for me as i need not rewrite gaudiya scriptures as you suggested!!!)

i need not say anything more, as all the aspects are covered in this. You present a siddhanta opposed to Srila BhaktiVinode Thakur (probably in the name of "higher" understanding??), and that can be termed a calculation on your part. You have given quotes from Jaiva-Dharma to present as if it supports your conclusions by giving the abheda aspects only, but both the aspects have been made very clear from the very beginning in Jaiva-Dharma. On the other hand if i have said anything that opposes the above quotes, i will be more than happy to correct it.

may i request you that before giving more quotes could you first care to explain these quotes for the benefit of those like myself who are "grasping at straws", or do you just ignore them as before.

January 13, 2005

This will be my last post on this debate.

First off you misconstrue what I wrote based on your lack of coherency.

You said:

In reply to:

--

"He has His own independent nature and desires" separate from His Sakti.

That is not Gaudiya siddhanta, it is your own concoction.

--

unfortunately you cannot seem to get past your fondness for labelling others as speculators etc. I can go on giving the quotes endlessly and you will still place these adjectives; seems like this gives you some satisfaction.

The above statement is a quote from Jaiva Dharma Chapter 14, and the full quotation was given before which you care not to read

In reply to:

--

Babaji became very happy to hear this, and with his hairs standing on end in rapture, began to speak:

parakhyayah sakter aprthag api sa sve mahimani sthito jivakhyam svam acid-abhihitam tam tri-padikam sva-tantrecchah saktim sakala-visaye prerana-paro vikaradyaih synyah parama-puruso yam vijayate

Dasa-Mula (3)

Athough Sri Bhagavan is non-different from His inconceivable transcendental potency (para-sakti), He has His own independent nature and desires. His para-sakti consists of three aspects: cit-sakti (spiritual potency), jiva-sakti (marginal potency), and maya-sakti (external potency) and He always inspires them to engage in their respective functions. That para-tattva (Supreme Absolute Truth), even while performing all these activities, still remains immutable and is eternally situated in the fully transcendental svarupa of His own glory.

If you go back I was arguing that Krishna is identical to Cit Sakti. So saying that Krishna has desires that are different then His Sakti is an untrue statement unless put into the proper context. When put into the context of Sakti meaning all of His Sakti's, then it is a true statement. Krishna has desires and nature that are His own and are different from Jiva Sakti and Maya Sakti. But You did not use that partial quote in that context. You simply wrote that Krishna:

"He has His own independent nature and desires" separate from His Sakti.

Which is false without the proper context, when Bhaktivinoda made that statement he was was using it in the context of ALL of Krishna's Saktis, which you did not. Bhaktivinoda was using that statement in the context of "Para Sakti", which he was using to mean Cit, Jiva, and Bahiranga Saktis combined.

Which you did not specify when you took that line out of it's context, without that context then saying Krishna: "He has His own independent nature and desires" would be false because all Cit Sakti entities are Plenary expansions of Krishna.

So Cit Sakti entities have the same nature and desires as Krishna, Jiva Sakti does not, and Bahiranga Sakti does not.

So you simply did not use the context Bhaktivinoda used, and therefore you made a false statement.

As for all the rest of your arguments, I have already answered all of your arguments in previous posts, we are just rehashing the same thing, so this ends my participation in this debate.

sumedh · January 14, 2005

Hare Krishna and dandavats

You said:

If you go back I was arguing that Krishna is identical to Cit Sakti. So saying that Krishna has desires that are different then His Sakti is an untrue statement unless put into the proper context. When put into the context of Sakti meaning all of His Sakti's, then it is a true statement. Krishna has desires and nature that are His own and are different from Jiva Sakti and Maya Sakti.

That's your interpretation because in the other quotes the cit-sakti is being specifically referred to, as in here:

Vrajanatha: If Krsna's desire and capacity to enjoy indicate the form of purusa, what is Srimati Radhika's desire?

Babaji: Srimati Radhika's desire is subordinate to Krsna's; none of Her desires or efforts are independent of His desire. Krsna has desires, and Srimati Radhika's desire is to serve Krsna according to His desires. Srimati Radhika is the complete and original sakti, and Krsna is purusa; that is, He controls and inspires sakti.

or,

Apart from this, the spiritual world, the spiritual body, and the spiritual pastimes are also indications of sakti alone. Then what is the indication of saktiman Krsna?

Babaji: This is a very difficult problem. Do you want to kill this old man with the sharp arrows of your arguments? My dear son, the answer is as simple as the question, but it is difficult to find a person who is qualified to understand it. Anyway, I shall explain it, so please try to understand.

I agree that Krsna's name, form, qualities, and pastimes all indicate the function of sakti. However, freedom (sva-tantrata) and free will (sva-icchamayata) are not the work of sakti; they are both intrinsic activities of the Supreme Person, and Krsna is that Supreme Person who has free will and is the abode of sakti. Sakti is the enjoyed and Krsna is the enjoyer; sakti is dependent but Krsna is independent; sakti surrounds that independent Supreme Person on all sides, but He is always conscious of sakti. The independent purusa is the master of sakti, even though He is covered by sakti.

Here it is the cit-sakti which is being referred to. So the quote before can only mean to apply to all the saktis and that is what has been referred to i.e. to para-sakti (as all the saktis). Nowhere have the maya-sakti and jiva-sakti been separated in the description or in any of the explanations after that. The above quotes are from the explanations of the Dasa-mula(3) (in the above you probably meant only jiva-sakti and not maya-sakti else your previous statements for Durga are not correct)

Of course, the last quote in my previous post answers the things completely (including your giving dictionary meanings of "identical" to show my foolishness), thats all.

My only intention to continuing with this discussion was that so that the other devotees (some of whom may be very new to this) may not think that your statements represent unequivocal gaudiya siddhanta. I believe sincere devotees with humility will be guided by caitya-guru (and sad-guru) to the correct siddhanta.

Sign In

Is Kali Ma Krishna's energy?

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites