Dvaita and Gaudiya?

[Guest guest]

Is there any Vedanta school that is dualistic and worships Lord Krishna as supreme? Gaudiya Vaishnavism worships Krishna as supreme and the source of all avatars but Madhva see Vishnu as supreme. Madhvas are dualistic. Gaudiya Vaishnavism is non-dualisc. So I want to know is there any Vendanta school that is dualistic and worships Krishna as supreme?

[Guest guest]

I'm at a loss!

[Guest guest]

In the Srimad Bhagavat Purana (11.28.19) Sri Krishna says:

 

Gold remains gold both before and after ornaments are made of it. It only gets different names such as ring or necklace. Similarly, the Reality, the Cause of creation, is the same both before and after worldly objects receive their various names and forms.

 

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

the Lord Himself has given his view: the One has become the Many: acintya bheda-abheda

 

[Guest guest]

The fact that the many have always been with Krishna the Supreme Source is important to remember.

 

Yes oneness and difference simulataneously, inconceivably.

[Guest guest]

acintya, it is unthinkable and thus unspeakable. so why bother saying bhedabheda? better to stay quiet and be like one of those advaitins - it is all achintya/anirvachaniya.

[Guest guest]

What is achintya? Vishnu is the one who is the source of everything we can see, etc., and the sourceof ourselves. All things exist as his energies, but He is not affected or dependent on them. This is not inconceivable. It is perfectly understandable.

[muralidhar_das 0]

quote<blockquote>

acintya, it is unthinkable and thus unspeakable. so why bother saying bhedabheda? better to stay quiet and be like one of those advaitins - it is all achintya/anirvachaniya.</blockquote>

 

The relationship between God and the individual things in this universe is not inexpressible (anirvacaniya).

 

In his book Brhad Bhagavatamrtam, Sri Sanatana Goswami has quoted Sri Adi Shankaracharya Bhagavatapada who wrote:

 

<blockquote>

saty api bhedapagame natha tavaham na mamakinas tvam

samudro hi tarangah kva ca na samudras tarangah

"My Lord, even when all difference is gone, I am Yours, though You are not mine. A wave belongs to the ocean, but surely the ocean does not belong to the wave" (Prarthana-satpadi 3)

</blockquote>

 

The jiva and Brahman (God) are like a wave and the ocean. This relationship is quite easy to understand.

 

The wave is simultaneously one with the ocean and a distinct individual unit. The relationship is understandable, and it arises because of the achinta-shakti (the inconceivably great power of God). This achintya shakti power is described in the Svetasvartara Upanishad (Svetasvatara Up. I. 2). In his commentary to that verse, Shankara points out that Devatmashakti, the cause of the world, is not separate from the Paramatma, rather it is the inherent power of the all-powerful Lord Paramatma. Because God has unlimited power he can manifest the variegated universe through his inconceivably powerful (achintya) potency.

 

Further to this, Sri Sanatan Goswami writes:

<blockquote>

sada vaijatyam aptanam jivanam api tattvatah

amsatvenapy abhinnatvad vijatiya bhida mrta

 

The jivas always have their own identities, different from that of the Suprema. But they are parts of the Supreme and cannot exist separate from Him, and this rules out the difference called vijatiya (difference between things of the same category)

 

asmin hi bhedabhedakhye siddhante 'smat sammate

yuktyavatarite sarvam niravadham dhruvam bhavet

 

We fully agree with this philosophical doctrine, called bhedabheda. Indeed, when it is presented with logical argument, everything about it is certain and irrefutable.

(Brhadbagavatamrtam 2.2.195-6)

</blockquote>

 

The different incarnations of Vishnu are all in the category of beings who have unlimited greatness. The jivas are in a different category of spritual beings, namely they are members of the category of spiritual beings that have finite size and powers. The Vishnu forms are all "abheda" non-different from each other. The jiva forms are all "bheda" or different from each other (and from God). But at the same time the jivas and God are both within the category of spiritual beings, unlike unconscious physical bodies such as rocks and sand. So when taken from the perspective of spiritual beings, jivas and God are "abheda" or non-different, since they both belong to that category.

 

The final conclusion to all this is what Krishna said in Srimad Bhagavat Purana (11.28.19):

<blockquote>

Gold remains gold both before and after ornaments are made of it. It only gets different names such as ring or necklace. Similarly, the Reality, the Cause of creation, is the same both before and after worldly objects receive their various names and forms.

</blockquote>

 

By the Lord's inconceivable power He, the One, has become many. But even now, when all this variegatedness exists, He is always the supreme totality, the Supreme Whole, the Supreme One.

 

This is not anirvacaniya (inexpressible). It is very understandable and clear (it is clear to me and to anyone else who carefully studies what Srila Sanatan Goswami said in this regard.... Please forgive my inadequacy in expressing this more clearly here! I'm sorry I coudn't do a better job of it)

 

[Guest guest]

Expressible? Yes it makes perfect sense as far as I can follow it. So much so that I cannot understand how one can be a strict dualist or monist. It appears to harmonize those conceptions perfectly.

 

But yet it remains acintya. And will so I suspect until realization. I often get the impression that while GV's speak bhedabheda they are more dualists in their realization and haven't a proper view of how complete that oneness is.

 

This is understandable as protection from being drowned in the Brahman. The duality side is also dominant in terms of percentage. I read that from Bhaktivinode Thakur but can't remember where. Please correct me if my mind is tricking me.

 

I think the problem lies with our conceiving of oneness as referring to internal energy as mere spiritual force apart from spiritual personality. I believe we are also one with Krishna's Personality and yet at the same time different. This to me is indeed acintya.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

I think the problem lies with our conceiving of oneness as referring to internal energy as mere spiritual force apart from spiritual personality. I believe we are also one with Krishna's Personality and yet at the same time different. This to me is indeed acintya.

 

 

There is no personality in impersonal energy. So how do you propose there is Personality in it? Personality can be present in a person. So how do you say we are one with and different from Krishna personality.? I think what you said is absurd.

[Guest guest]

Read it again if you like.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

No I didn't misunderstand. !

 

Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita we are ALL Individuals,

all our Personalities are different. The oneness is spiritual.

 

 

[Guest guest]

You are arguing with your own mind...but don't let me interprupt.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

I believe we are also one with Krishna's Personality and yet at the same time different.

__

 

 

I think you meant we have some qualities which Krishna has. My bad. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Guest guest]

I did say it as I meant it.

[Guest guest]

Haribol.

 

I was wondering when you speak of "oneness", from what angle do you choose to approach this from.

 

Me, I have always thought of the monism facet of our GV philospohy as referring to the Lord's energies. In brief, there are 3 energies of the Lord.

[1] superior, spiritual energy

[2] middle energy found in all living entities

[3] inferior, material energy

 

It is our relation between [1] or [3] that determines our plane of existence, as in this material existence, we are all fall under catergory [2].

 

So therefore, by oneness, I see this as referring to one of the Lord's energies. However, I understand my view is of a mere beginner in terms of vaisnava philosophy.

 

BUT, I must disagree with your statement :

 

= I believe we are also one with Krishna's Personality and yet at the same time different. =

 

I think that you should refer to his energies, as "Personality" seems to warrant a different interpretation from the point which you are trying to establish.

 

 

[muralidhar_das 0]

If you categorize things according to the dichotomy "spiritual and material" then the Jiva and God are the same - they are both spiritual. So the jiva is "one with God" in this sense. If you categorize the jiva according to the dichotomy "Master and servant" then the jiva (the servant) is considered to be different from God (the Lord). So the jiva is "not one with God".

 

Both facts are true, in this way. Oneness and difference are both true, when you look at things from different perspectives.

 

Both the Jiva and God have personality, so they are "one" in the sense that they are beings with personality. But God is an eternally blissful personality and the jiva is suffering in illusion. So they are "different".

 

Achintya bheda abheda.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

BUT, I must disagree with your statement :

 

= I believe we are also one with Krishna's Personality and yet at the same time different. =

 

I think that you should refer to his energies, as "Personality" seems to warrant a different interpretation from the point which you are trying to establish.

 

 

 

First I am not trying to establish anything really, just engaging in some philosophical speculation.

 

One of His energies seems vague to me. More in line with what I picture as straight dualism.

 

I have read that we the jivas are also internal energy. That everything in the spiritual sky is actually personal. It is apparent to me that we must have received our personal natures from Krishna's personality. So it seems we also have a oneness with Krishna's personality. How deep that oneness goes will be known by realization. I think it goes all the way if you get my meaning. Yet at the same time Krishna remains aloof and Supreme and we dependent and minute.

 

This is very subtle subject matter and I could be choosing incorrect words and concepts very easily so I remain open to correction.

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Called Subjective Evolution of Consciousness by Sridhara M, it says that if everything was one what need is their for Vedas to manifest?

 

It's the most profound thing I ever heard.

 

 

Chapter Five

</p>

A Floating World of Experience

</p>

There are many schools of atheist philosophers. The most famous atheist in Indian philosophy

was Carvaka Muni. His philosophy is paralleled by the extreme atheists of Western philosophy.

According to their opinion, consciousness is the by-product of the chemical combinations of

different material substances. With the dissolution of this physical body, neither soul nor consciousness

remains. Only the physical combination of the different elements of the body remain.

Just as the combination of different chemicals produces something more than the individual

chemicals themselves, the physical combination of different material elements produce consciousness.

With the dissolution of this fleshy body, nothing remains. This philosophy was first

propounded in the West by Epicurus.

</p>

Then there is Buddhism. The Buddhists say that when the physical body is dissolved, the subtle

body, the mental system, goes on to take another birth. The Buddhists admit transmigration from

one body to the next, or reincarnation. According to them, although this body may vanish, we

must enter another body according to our karma. If we work in a particular way, then the subtle

body, the mental system, dissolves, and nothing remains. According to the Buddhists, there is no

soul.

</p>

Sankaracarya's philosophy is similar - with a slight difference. The Buddhist school says that the

individual soul does not exist. According to them there is no permanent individual soul. Sankaracarya

has also said that no permanent individual soul exists. But Sankaracarya says that conscious

substance, Brahman, exists as the ultimate reality. This is the difference between Sankaracarya

and the Buddhists. According to Sankara, consciousness itself is true; it is only the consciousness

of separate existence that is false.In his view the individual soul is only a reflection of

the conscious substance which is the ultimate reality. With the dissolution of the mental system,

each soul's consciousness of individuality vanishes; it is nonexistent in that ultimate plane of

reality.

</p>

He gives the example of the moon and its reflection in a mirror. Remove the mirror and there is

no reflection. His view is that all individual souls are reflections from a common source:

Brahman, consciousness. So Sankaracarya says, in reality individual souls are one and the same

with Brahman.

</p>

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's interpretation of Vedanta is different from Sankaracarya's. Sri Caitanya

says that we have to accept the Vedic truth in its entirety, without any modification. Sankaracarya

has accepted only a few Vedic aphorisms which constitute a partial representation of the

truth. His four principle expressions taken from the Vedas are aham brahmasmi: "I am

Brahman;" tat tvam asi: "Thou art that;" so'ham: "I am that;" and sarvam khalv idam brahma:

"Everything is Brahman." Sri Caitanya analyzed the meaning of the aphorism sarvam khalv idam

brahma, as follows: According to Sankaracarya, everything is one. He says brahma satyam jagan

mithya: 'Spirit is true, the world is false.' Sankaracarya says that brahma (spirit) exists, and that

sarva (everything) does not exist. If this is actually true, and everything is one, then why does the

question of existence or nonexistence arise at all?

</p>

In the aphorism sarvam khalv idam brahma, sarva - everything exists, and brahma - spirit - also

exists In this expression, many exists and one also exists. There is many and there is one.

Again, if everything is one, then the question arises, "to whom are we speaking?" For whom

have the Vedas come with this advice? Both the relative and the absolute exist together; they are

coexistent. The absolute and the relative are also represented in the Vedantic aphorism tat tvam

asi: Thou art that. Tat or "that" is there and tvam "you" is also there. Both variety and unity are

found represented in the aphorism tat tvam asi, but Sankaracarya accepts one and rejects the other.

His explanation is therefore a misinterpretation of the original meaning of the Vedanta-sutras.

It is not a proper interpretation of the Vedas, because he has thrust his own idea or conception

forward in the name of the Vedanta. Sankaracarya's interpretation of Vedanta is artificial. It is

selfish and provincial.

</p>

This is the refutation of Sankaracarya given by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and as far as we are

concerned, it cannot be seen otherwise. If we try to follow the interpretation of Sankaracarya,

then what meaning can be found in this statement of the Upanisads: Yato va imani bhutani jayante

yena jatani jivanti? "The Absolute Truth is He from whom everything is coming, who is

maintaining everything, within whom everything exists, and into whom everything enters at the

time of annihilation." What does this mean? Does this statement say that the Absolute Truth is

non-differentiated? It is sufficient for our understanding to accept its direct meaning. The selfexplanatory

meaning of these words is sufficient to understand this simple statement of the Upanisads.

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu defeats Sankaracarya through common sense. This is the unique characteristic

of his argument. He defeats his philosophical opponents not with difficult, abstract,

intellectual arguments, but with common sense.

</p>

When Sri Caitanya wanted to demonstrate the supremacy of Narayana over Siva, he said that

one may just consider the position of the Ganges. The Ganges is the water that washes the feet of

Narayana, and yet she rests on the head of Siva. From this, we can easily use common sense to

see which of the two holds the superior position. When Sri Caitanya wanted to show that Krsna

is greater than Narayana, he pointed to the example of Laksmidevi. She aspires after the association

of Krsna. Although she has everything with Narayana, still she has some aspiration for the

company of Krsna. On the other hand the gopis have no attraction for Narayana. When they meet

Narayana, they pray that by his grace, their devotion to Krsna may be enhanced.

In this way, by applying common sense, intuition, we may judge the nature of reality. Intuition

will be far more helpful than abstruse argument. Vedanta confirms this in the aphorism tarkopratistanat:

"Argument can never help us reach any real conclusion." Rather it is only intuition

and common sense that can really help us. This is the recommendation of Sri Caitanya, and this

is how he refuted many scholars including even the great all-conquering digvijaya pandita of

Kashmir.

[Guest guest]

When defining the relationship between the Lord, the souls and the world, acintya is not relevant. Of course, God has inconceivable powers. But that has nothing to do with the matter.

 

[Guest guest]

everything is krishna's energies but not everything is him personaly. the example is given like milk comes from the cow but milk is not the cow. easy to understand.

[Guest guest]

GV acaryas say acintya. You say easy to understand. I am not sure you are speaking of the same thing.

[Guest guest]

Everyone has come from Krsna. Are the jivas not products of Krsna's personality?

 

In my view everything is a product of Krsna's personality because Krsna is personal, this includes His so-called impersonal effulgence, which is said to be the poace of generating jivas and which I also consider personal.

 

So I am saying that WE ARE KRSNA and yet we are not as He is ever independent.

 

Remember I am not making statements as facts just some philosophical speculation.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

If you categorize things according to the dichotomy "spiritual and material" then the Jiva and God are the same - they are both spiritual. So the jiva is "one with God" in this sense. If you categorize the jiva according to the dichotomy "Master and servant" then the jiva (the servant) is considered to be different from God (the Lord). So the jiva is "not one with God".

 

Both facts are true, in this way. Oneness and difference are both true, when you look at things from different perspectives.

 

Both the Jiva and God have personality, so they are "one" in the sense that they are beings with personality. But God is an eternally blissful personality and the jiva is suffering in illusion. So they are "different".

 

Achintya bheda abheda.

 

 

But why is this "achintya?" To me, this seems like a perfectly conceivable understanding of difference and non-difference. When the shrutis speak of abheda, they do so from the perspective that both are spiritual. When they speak of bheda, they do so from the perspective that one is master and the other is servant. That seems perfectly conceivable to me.

 

I read your earlier posting explaining how the relationship is not anirvachaniya. But I must ask, what is the difference between achintya and anirvachaniya, and why do you say that the bheda and abheda is still achintya, even though explaining it as above?

 

Apologies in advance if my questions seem trite.

 

[muralidhar_das 0]

The demarcation or separation is acintya.

 

For example, if someone is a saktyavesha avatara such as Parasurama then what is there in this person that is "God" and what is there in him that is a "jiva".

 

Is he God or is he a man (Rama defeated Parasurama and in this way Rama established his Supreme position. Rama is Vishnu; Parasurama is saktyavesha).

 

Again, matter is considered to be "inanimate" but the scriptures also say that Vishnu is all pervading and "everything" - so every thing, even such things as clouds and the wind, are "God", when you look at things from a particular perspective. One, and different, at the same time.

[Guest guest]

" everything is krishna's energies but not everything is him personaly. the example is given like milk comes from the cow but milk is not the cow. easy to understand. "

 

the example is easy to understand, the inconcievable aspect is fulling comprehending how it is possible as we are so small compared to the supreme. it is inconcievable to be able to somehow relate to such a thing as we are limited and krishna is not, thus easy examples are given to give an idea of how krishna works and his energies.

 

achintya abheda bheda tattva, inconcievable oneness and difference. krishna is the source of everything but still maintains is seperate personal self. that for us is inconvievable.