Aṣṭottara-Śata Blog: The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 1: The History of the Debate

By Vrindaranya Dasi

Additional articles in this series

Is bhakti bestowed upon a jīva by God or a devotee at some point in material time or is it already part of the jīva’s constitutional nature, albeit covered by māyā? Or can it be both, in which case bhakti is inherent but needs to be bestowed because the jīva is covered by māyā and thus lost to his true nature?1 Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura expressed the third option (that it is both), and following his lead, so have those in his parivāra. During the time of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, the well-known Rādhā Ramana Carana dāsa Bābāji, among others, agreed with Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s interpretation of Jīva Gosvāmī’s Sandarbhas concerning this topic. For example, he wrote, “Similarly, one has only to remove the impurity of the heart by means of sadhana-bhakti to see and feel that prema is already there.”2 That said, not all Gauḍīya parivāras embraced this understanding. Nonetheless, there is no evidence I’m aware of that anyone objected to Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s interpretation during his own time. And as we shall see, the Ṭhākura clearly derives his interpretation of Jīva Gosvāmī from previous ācāryas such as Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa and his Madhva heritage, which the Brahma-Madhva-Gauḍīya lineage is derived from in some respects. Furthermore, as I will show in my fourth article, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s interpretation runs through the other four Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas as well.

Thus, we should be clear that non-inherency versus simultaneous inherency and bestowal is not a debate in which Jīva Gosvāmī and the rest of the Gauḍīya sampradāya are on one side of the divide and Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and his parivāra stand alone on the other side. Although the example that I gave in the previous paragraph refers to the time of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, the same holds true after his disappearance. For example, David L. Haberman states in his groundbreaking work within academia, Acting as a Way of Salvation, that when researching his book in Vraja he came across two distinct perspectives embraced by Gauḍīya sadhus in regard to the siddha-deha: inherent and non-inherent.3 It is notable that he was referring to parivāras other than that of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura.4 Dr. Mahanamabrata Brahmachari, who travelled to the United States from India in 1933, did a PhD thesis called Vaiṣṇava Vedānta: the Philosophy of Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī for the University of Chicago and became a mentor of Thomas Merton. In this deeply philosophical dissertation, the author presents an implicitly inherent and bestowed perspective.5 In a more recent academic publication, Barbara A. Holdrege, in her well-researched and insightful Bhakti and Embodiment, also implicitly takes an inherent and bestowed perspective regarding the meditative siddha-deha of the aspiring devotee.6

However, when Jīva Gosvāmī’s Sandarbhas were first published in English, some devotees in parivāras outside the Bhaktivinoda parivāra questioned, based on the Sandarbhas, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s writings that state that bhakti is the jīva’s svabhāva (natural state or constitution) and particularly that the jīva’s siddha-deha is inherent within a jīva. Those within the Bhaktivinoda parivāra have mostly discounted these questions, but some have argued in support of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s position, and thus a debate has raged on for years, mostly on Internet forums. While most of those in the Bhaktivinoda parivāra have continued to support simultaneous inherency and bestowal, some have modified their positions—particularly those who have closely examined the arguments of the opposing side. For example, some have a qualified understanding of simultaneous inherency and bestowal, some have argued that bhakti is bestowed and not inherent and thus there must be a reason why Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura preached this understanding, and a few have even left his parivāra altogether.

My inspiration for this series of articles was another series of articles by Swāmī Padmanābha published on the Harmonist website as well as several podcasts, in which he expresses an openness to Socratic dialogue on the topic of whether bhakti is “inherent or inherited,” as well as a podcast and in-depth presentation made by Sundara Gopāla dās that answer that call for dialogue. Swāmī Padmanābha’s position was that bhakti is not inherent, and he thus opines that only Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s statements that establish that bhakti is bestowed are in full alignment with Jīva Gosvāmī and those statements that indicate inherency “beg for proper reconciliation.”7 He argues that the primary meaning of such statements is inappropriate because he asserts that Jīva Gosvāmī is unequivocal that bhakti is not inherent.8 As I was writing this series of articles, Swāmī Padmanābha came out with a book, Inherent or Inherited, based on his series of articles from the Harmonist.9

In his presentation based on research for his PhD dissertation at the University of Oxford, Sundara Gopāla dās upheld that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura says that bhakti is both inherent and bestowed.10 Vigorously disagreeing with Swāmī Padmanābha’s contention that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s position was merely a preaching strategy, Sundara Gopāla provided extensive evidence to establish that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s statements that bhakti is the dharma of the soul (jaiva-dharma) was not a provisional concept but rather a foundational aspect of his teachings. He also gave historical evidence that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura had studied Jīva Gosvāmī’s Sandarbhas extensively, thereby dispelling any doubt that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura might not have been aware of Jīva Gosvāmī’s position. Perhaps the most ground-breaking revelation of Sundara Gopāla’s presentation was that Śrī Jāmātṛ Muni, whose verses form the basis of Jīva Gosvāmī’s explanation of the characteristics of the jīva, also maintained that bhakti is inherent as well as bestowed. Furthermore, Sundara Gopāla substantiated that while Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura was in Jagannātha Purī, he studied Jāmātṛ Muni’s books under the guidance of scholars in his line. Sundara Gopāla also discussed the different types of inherency in both the Western and Vedic traditions, and he presented the revolutionary idea that the inherency that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura spoke of is a teleological inherence—the purpose for which something exists.11

On account of a preponderance of evidence, Sundara Gopāla was successful in establishing that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura held a deeply reasoned conviction that bhakti is both inherent and bestowed. Indeed, after this presentation, Swāmī Padmanābha adjusted his stance on whether Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s position was a preaching strategy.12 Nonetheless, although Swāmī Padmanābha came up with a few alternative suggestions as to why Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura would present something that Swāmī Padmanābha felt differed from Jīva Gosvāmī, such reasons fell short in answering why Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura preached both inherency and bestowal.13 About the revelation that Jāmātṛ Muni maintained that bhakti is inherent as well as bestowed, Swāmī Padmanābha argued that Śrī Jāmātṛ Muni’s understanding of his own verses was irrelevant because it is untenable to conclude that Śrī Jīva is in full agreement with the Muni’s opinion even in the specific cases when he quotes him.14

Furthermore, Swāmī Padmanābha held firm in emphatically dismissing the notion that bhakti could be inherent: “What we find here is a totally unclear and convoluted notion—the idea of remembering or regaining one’s svarūpa.”15 He even suggests that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura himself “cancels” such a possibility with his statements that bhakti is bestowed.16 Swāmī concludes by affirming: “But one thing remains beyond question: The undisputed and consensual siddhānta of the Gauḍīya sampradāya is that bhakti is not inherent in the jīva—neither physically, nor etiologically, nor teleologically.”17

Although Swāmī Padmanābha provided impressive support that bhakti is bestowed, the problem with his approach was that the support for the bestowal of bhakti was not under contention—at least not by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura. Comprehensively answering the question of whether bhakti is both bestowed and inherent is not a simple matter of producing quotations that support the point that bhakti is bestowed. There are quotations that support both inherency and bestowal for the simple reason that Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī and, following in his lead, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura establish that bhakti is simultaneously inherent and bestowed. Therefore, producing hundreds of quotations to establish that bhakti is bestowed does not settle the argument because both sides agree on that point.

Furthermore, I was rankled by Swāmī Padmanābha’s contention that he was bringing Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and Jīva Gosvāmī closer together by presenting “different ways of appreciating” Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s understanding that were in line with Jīva Gosvāmī’s ultimate intention.18 As far as I was concerned, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and Jīva Gosvāmī were already in perfect alignment, and it was Swāmī Padmanābha’s understanding that needed adjustment. Moreover, I had always found certain implications of the bestowal-only argument to be distasteful. For example, the bestowal-only argument holds that the soul has no inherent knowledge or ānanda—only consciousness and a lack of material suffering.19 Thus, essentially this understanding posits that the soul is impersonal without the bestowal of bhakti.20 It holds that the soul is simply a quantum of consciousness that powers a material or spiritual body, much like a battery that powers a car. As such, the soul does not constitutionally have any personality at all. Its personhood in the state of perfection, such an interpretation postulates, resides in the siddha-deha and its śaktis, which this theory understands to be constitutionally different than the soul. This argument further holds that the soul never actually contacts the siddha-deha directly because in this understanding such contact would cause the soul to transform. Thus, essentially the theory considers that after an eternity of wandering in the material world, the sojourn of the jīva culminates in merely identifying with something other than what it is.

It was for these reasons that I began considering how I might respond to the contention of Swāmī Padmanābha that “the undisputed and consensual siddhānta of the Gauḍīya sampradāya is that bhakti is not inherent in the jīva.”21 I thought that something that had not been done was to show how Jīva Gosvāmī establishes the inherency of bhakti in the Sandarbhas. As the bestowal of bhakti has already been shown by Swāmī Padmanābha and others, this addition would show that Jīva Gosvāmī established both inherency and bestowal of bhakti in the Sandarbhas. Such an undertaking would thus add considerable weight to the argument that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura was perfectly in line with Jīva Gosvāmī.

In the scriptures, there are many apparently contradictory concepts. For example, that God has form and is formless and that we are one with God as well as different from God. Statements about the inherency and bestowal of bhakti are similar: although the statements seem contradictory, you can find many instances of both. The genius of the ācāryas of Vaiṣṇava Vedānta, as opposed to the understanding of Śaṅkarācārya, is that they embrace scripture in its entirety rather than asserting that some scriptural statements cancel out other statements, as Swāmī Padmanābha did when he suggested that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura cancels the possibility of inherency with his statements that bhakti is bestowed.22

It took me a year to complete my undertaking. I am posting this article on the auspicious appearance day of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, a perfect day to begin my humble attempt to serve the devotees by elucidating his Sandarbhas. Tomorrow is the appearance day of Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, whose profound insight was the inspiration and guiding force of my writing. On this day, I will present a summary of the points I will make in the articles that will follow. I pray that my articles may please these two great Vaiṣṇavas, as well as the devotees who read this series. Please keep in mind that the Sandarbhas can be abstract, terse, and difficult to comprehend. As such, a substantial argument based on the Sandarbhas will also be similarly challenging. In this regard, as well as for any shortcomings in my presentation, I beg the indulgence of my readers.

Additional articles in this series: Part 1: The History of a Debate, Part 2: A Road Map, Part 3: The Swan, Part 4: Vaiṣṇava Vedānta, Part 5: The Twenty-One Intrinsic Characteristics of the Jīva, Part 6: The Search for Bliss, Part 7: The Soul is a Servant of Bhagavān Hari, Part 8: A Servant of God (Śeṣatva), Part 9: Unmanifest Qualities of the Soul, Part 10: Intrinsically of the Nature of Knowledge and Bliss, Part 11: Jīva Gosvāmī on Taṭasthā-Śakti, Part 12: Understanding Śakti, Part 13: The Bliss of the Jīva, Part 14: The Soul Is Not Subject to Transformation, Part 15: Identity/Oneness (Tādātmya), Part 16: The Manifestation of Śakti, Part 17: Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s Govinda-Bhāṣya, Part 18: Concluding Words.

I use the masculine pronoun for the jīva because that is the gender that is used in Sanskrit. If I were to use the female pronoun, for which a strong case can be made, there would be a difference in gender between that of my writing and most of the quotations I present from other authors, and I thought readers would find this difference confusing. [↩]

Kapoor, Dr. O.B.L., The Life of Love: Biography of Sri Srimat Radharamana Charan Das Deva (Caracas: Srila Badrinarayana Bhagavata Bhushana Prabhu, 1993), 203. [↩]

Haberman uses the terms “inherent theory” and “assigned theory.” Haberman, David L., Acting as a Way of Salvation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 119–22. [↩]

Examples of the “inherent theory” are from interactions with Gaurāṇga Dāsa Bābājī and Rāmadāsa Bābājī. [↩]

For example, in contrast to those who say that the soul is merely a quantum of consciousness without personality, Mahanamabrata Brahmacari says that the true self is not impersonal: “The impersonal self forms a ‘halo’ as it were around his true self.” “[The soul] has to reach his true personality which sits high on the throne beyond impersonality.” He also says, “Each monad is a miniature God. But both God and a monad are integral beings. God’s Being is absolute and completely free, that of a monad is derivative and in that sense dependent. But so far as a monad is a unity it is an individual and possesses a striking similarity to the Individuality of the God-head.” Brahmachari, Mahanamabrata, Vaiṣṇava Vedānta (Calcutta: Das Gupta, 1974), 138. Monad is a term that modern philosophers, principally Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, adapted from Greek philosophy. The Pythagoreans believed that the Monad is the Supreme Being, from whom all things come. Leibniz held that monads were “souls or soul-like entities.” (Look, Brandon C., “Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University. [↩]

Holdrege, Barbara A., Bhakti and Embodiment: Fashioning Divine Bodies and Devotional Bodies in Kṛṣṇa Bhakti (New York: Routledge, 2015). [↩]

“It is overtly clear that the Goswāmīs shared a consistent view on bhakti’s noninherence, while the Ṭhākura and other contemporary ācāryas presented a more nuanced narrative which begs for proper reconciliation.” harmonist.us/?p=12671 Note: It seems likely that Mahārāja meant “varied” rather than “nuanced” since he doesn’t give any indication that the statements in question are more nuanced than those of Śrī Jīva. [↩]

ibid. [↩]

Padmanabha, Swami Bhakti Pranaya, Inherent or Inherited? (Gainesville, FL: Inword Publishers, 2022). [↩]

youtube.com/watch?v=E2UQKReAnPM [↩]

Sundara Gopāla dās is thankful to Prema-prayojana Prabhu for this observation. Swāmī Padmanābha argues that Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura does not mention “teleological inherence” anywhere, and that this is something that has been thought up creatively. However, “teleological explanation” is the same thing as a “functional explanation” (see The Oxford Companion to Philosophy [2005], pp. 324 and 911). In Jaiva-dharma, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura clearly articulates the eternal function of the soul. [↩]

“Although I do not personally feel so strongly about some of Bhaktivinoda’s statements regarding inherent bhakti being an outreach technique anymore, there is nonetheless place for such presentations, and we should be willing to resolve those apparent contradictions by allowing ourselves to acknowledge them, instead of forcibly absolutizing anything that our ācāryas have said.” harmonist.us/?p=12672 [↩]

“We will engage in spiritual conjecturing by presenting in this chapter three main hypotheses related to the reasons for the Ṭhākura and his successors having said what they said at times: (1) they presented a circumstantial adjustment due to some very specific situations they were in, (2) their seeming advocacy of inherence was a natural way of expression in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Calcutta, where the language of inherence was ubiquitous, and (3) some of their apparently contradictory statements were part of their own theological evolution.” Padmanabha, Swami Bhakti Pranaya. Inherent or Inherited?: Bhakti in the Jiva According to Gaudiya Vedanta (pp. 229-230). Inword Publishers. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Swāmī Padmanābha: “In other words, the proposal is that while Śrī Jīva may not accept Jāmātṛ Muni in toto, at least in those specific cases when he quotes him, we should conclude that Śrī Jīva is in full agreement with the Muni’s opinion. Next, I will analyze why this logic is remarkably untenable.” harmonist.us/?p=12668 [↩]

harmonist.us/?p=12671 [↩]

harmonist.us/?p=12670 [↩]

harmonist.us/?p=12672 [↩]

“Rather, I try to “bring them [Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Jiva Goswami] closer,” by presenting different ways of appreciating the Ṭhākura’s presentation in alignment with Jīva Goswāmī’s ultimate intention.” harmonist.us/?p=12665 [↩]

Those who advocate bestowal-only interpret a statement of Jīva Gosvāmī to say that the cit of the soul is consciousness and the ānanda is only the lack of material suffering. I will refute this understanding in part 10 of this series. [↩]

Although those who advocate bestowal-only say that the soul has the potential to be a knower, doer, and enjoyer, they say that this potential actually resides in the svarūpa-śakti, not the soul. Therefore, in their understanding, the soul is never directly a doer, only indirectly by identifying with either the māyā- or svarūpa-śakti. These topics are discussed in more detail in parts 12, 14, and 15 of this series. [↩]

harmonist.us/?p=12672 [↩]

harmonist.us/?p=12670 [↩]

Uttamasloka

I look forward to reading the rest of the articles in this series. It’s nice to see deeper discussions about our philosophy. Like some others here, I have done extensive research on this topic and many years ago, after the release of my book about raganuga-bhakti, I had a lengthy discussion with Swami Tripurari about this subject on the forum here.

He broadened my understanding of the subject and now I see he has expanded his understanding to be somewhat closer to my original position. Very interesting indeed. My further research has let me to the following conclusions which I will summarize in short points.

The svarupas of the tatastha-sakti jivas are identical in every respect, with the exception that they are each unique individual persons (unique sense of “I”). They also possess a personal form – a form of tatastha-sakti – not a form of svarupa-sakti suitable for entrance into the lilas of the spiritual world. (Jiva Gosvami, Paramatma-sandarbha)

The svarupa of the tatastha-sakti jivas is pure consciousness and is also comprised of the eight qualities of Brahman, including satya-sankalpa (will to act) and satya-kama (capacity to desire). (Vedanta-sutras)

Liberated jivas (mukta-jivas) can choose to have a material body or not. They can even manifest multiple material bodies. Their satya-sankalpa and satya-kama are fulfilled on demand and they can travel freely anywhere in the universe and do whatever they like. (Vedanta-sutras) We know from Srimad-bhagavatam about the many higher realms populated by mukta-jivas. Liberation has a beginning but no end (SB. 11.11.4).

Mukti can be attained without bhakti, such as the Kumaras, who were liberated first and only afterwards obtained the seed of bhakti. Mukta-jivas can also attain a spiritual body if that was part of their desires during sadhana, and as such they can enter the spiritual world. Entrance into the spiritual world requires some level of bhakti along with mukti. (Vedanta-sutras)

Otherwise, the mukta-jivas without bhakti remain in the material world and enter Maha Visnu after the final pralaya, but they don’t loose their liberated consciousness, and they engage again as mukta-jivas when the next universal manifestation takes place. This is explained by Madhva in his commentary to Brihad-aranyaka Upanisad, 4.3.9

These material universes are an unlimited facility for jivas to fulfill any and all desires (within the constraints of karma), as an expression of their satya-kama and satya-sankalpa – under the spell of avidya. There are no restrictions regarding what can be desired – only restrictions on our capacity to act and the subsequent results, per karma.

The jivas’ unlimited capacity for desire is something they share in common with Krsna. Question: Why would the ultimate desire of having a loving relationship with Krsna be the one and only desire that is pre-programmed or inherent?

It makes no sense that this one most important eternal desire is something the jiva has no say in. The one desire that will be the cause of their liberation from material existence is already pre-established – they just have to figure it out.

The idea that it’s already determined by God, who otherwise lets the jivas run wild and loose in the material worlds desiring anything and everything they can imagine for trillions of births, including the most horrific things – makes no logical sense.

Love is given freely – by choice, based on one’s desires, which are never forced or pre-programmed. Therefore, a relationship, and the subsequent prema associated with it, must absolutely be the sole choice of each individual jiva – but if there is something already there waiting to be awakened, that is not a choice. That is not the basis for prema.

From what I’ve read of his writings, Satyanarayana dasa babaji asserts that the guru ‘gives’ (bestows) your rasa (relationship), and it is the one the guru has or is following, and that’s the only way you can get it. You have to get it from your guru and you have to follow what he is following. I disagree with that idea and it is not supported by the purva acaryas in any way.

As far as bestowal is concerned, this is what my research has shown me. The seed of bhakti (bhakti-lata) is given or bestowed by a Vaisnava who has bhakti. So says Lord Caitanya. That much we all agree upon. That bhakti has to be developed by the individual and sadhu-sanga is essential for that development.

Sadhu-sanga bestows samskaras – impressions. In other words, it’s a primary influence on an individual in various ways, and it takes place over the course of many lifetimes until one becomes focused on one particular relationship (rati) with Krsna (BRS, 2.5.38). It’s not that the sadhus ‘give’ or ‘bestow’ that relationship – they influence and guide one. The final choice is always up to the individual. No one else makes that choice.

The idea of the jiva having a choice and developing those desires during sadhana for a specific connection with Krsna, and Krsna reciprocating accordingly, is ubiquitous in sastra and the writings of the acaryas. I’m sure everyone here has encountered those statements repeatedly. Why would having a choice and developing one’s desires during sadhana be repeatedly emphasized if it’s already determined? That also makes no sense.

And why didn’t Jiva Gosvami in Paramatma-sandarbha and Baladeva Vidyabhusana in Vedanta-sutras state unequivocally that one’s relationship is already in your blueprint, so just uncover it? They never say any such thing. Why are there five types of liberation to ‘choose’ from, if it’s predetermined – blueprinted? Are those also blueprints?

Here is what is ultimately unique in each jiva – how they utilize their satya-sankalpa and satya-kama over the course of their material sojourn, and finally, how they use those faculties in conjunction with their desire to have a relationship with Krsna in Vraja lila – or wherever they choose to do so.

It is our use of satya-sankalpa and satya-kama that distinguishes us, and the ultimate manifestation of our uniqueness is what kind of relationship we ‘choose’ to exchange love (prema) with Krsna eternally. Krsna wants our unique and spontaneous contribution – something truly from the heart based on the multi-lifetime development of our bhakti and desires in search of this ultimate goal. A preprogrammed blueprint is not a basis for true spontaneity.

Krsna alone is the bestower of bhava-bhakti, the seed of prema (BRS, 1.1.35), and that bestowal is accomplished by the agency of His svarupa-sakti (BRS, 1.3.1).

That’s the essential summary of my research regarding inherency and bestowal. I’ll put together a comprehensive treatise after I examine and digest these latest contributions.

====================

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 2: A Road Map

By Vrindaranya dasi

On the holy appearance day of Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, I present the second article in my series—an overview of the topics covered in each article. This is designed to give you a sense of what to look forward to over the coming weeks, as well as a road map of how the presentation will unfold. After this article, I will be publishing one article each week on www.harmonist.us.

Part 1: The History of a Debate. A brief summary of the history of the debate on inherency within the Gauḍīya sampradāya and a general overview of what will be discussed in this series of articles (released already).

Part 2: A Road Map. An overview of the topics covered in each article.

Part 3: The Swan. An explanation of simultaneous inherency and bestowal by way of an analogy, as well as a description of a parable that Caitanya Mahāprabhu related to Sanātana Gosvāmī. To give a foundation to the more technical arguments to come, this article gives a general overview of the concept of simultaneous inherency and bestowal without presenting extensive scriptural quotations.

Part 4: Vaiṣṇava Vedānta. A school of Vedānta is formally established by writing a commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. This chapter shows that all the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas who have done so—including Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa for the Gauḍīya sampradāya—establish both inherency and bestowal. Although a whole book could be dedicated to this topic, this article provides a compelling summary of the evidence. In the subsequent articles of this series, I will show how Jīva Gosvāmī also establishes simultaneous inherency and bestowal.1

Part 5: The Twenty-One Intrinsic Characteristics of the Jīva. The section of the Paramātma Sandarbha that delineates the twenty-one attributes of the jīva is the primary section of the Sandarbhas for establishing whether bhakti is inherent in the jīva. By summarizing these twenty-one attributes, I begin the discussion of how the Sandarbhas establish the inherency of bhakti. I also explain how all these attributes are only fully manifest when the soul is freed from identification with the material body, which is the so-called fourth state of consciousness. The fact that the fourth state of consciousness is a state of God-consciousness is an initial indication that the natural state of the jīva is a state of God-consciousness: bhakti.

Part 6: The Search for Bliss. In this article, I point out a fatal flaw of those who contend that bhakti is not inherent: the idea that the soul searches not for bliss but rather for the absence of suffering. Those who argue that Jīva Gosvāmī establishes that bhakti is not inherent will have to resolve this glaring problem, since such an idea contradicts not only countless scriptural statements but also statements of Śrī Jīva himself.

Part 7: The Soul is a Servant of Bhagavān Hari. The famous statement dāsa-bhūto harer eva (the soul is a servant of Bhagavān Hari only and never of anyone else) is found in the section of the Paramātma Sandarbha that describes the twenty-one attributes of the jīva. Those who say that bhakti is not inherent try to establish that this statement simply means that the soul is dependent on God in a general sense. I show how this understanding is untenable.

Part 8: A Servant of God (Śeṣatva). A parallel statement to dāsa-bhūto harer eva (the soul is a servant of Bhagavān Hari only and never of anyone else) is śeṣatva. Jamatṛ Muni considers śeṣatva to be the primary quality of the soul. But what exactly does śeṣatva mean? We will explore the term in context and see that it means a servant of God.

Part 9: Unmanifest Qualities of the Soul. In this article, I will explore in more detail how some of the qualities of the soul are unmanifest. When one properly understands this point, it is obvious that bhakti is inherent.

Part 10: Intrinsically of the Nature of Knowledge and Bliss. One of the qualities of the soul is cid-ānandātmakaḥ. Those who say that bhakti is not inherent translate this quality as conscious and free of material suffering. I will show how a more accurate translation is intrinsically of the nature of knowledge and bliss, as well as why this knowledge and bliss are synonymous with bhakti.

Part 11: Jīva Gosvāmī on Taṭasthā-Śakti. This article and the following one give an in-depth look at how Jīva Gosvāmī explains śakti. As we will see, Jīva Gosvāmī presents a more nuanced understanding of taṭasthā-śakti than most devotees realize. Without a proper understanding of śakti, one is bound to misunderstand the soul’s relationship with svarūpa-śakti. The first step in understanding taṭasthā-śakti is to understand that it is not the energy by which a soul acts but rather an energy of the Paramātmā by which he manifests the world.

Part 12: Understanding Śakti. Continuing an in-depth exploration of śakti, this article explains how Jīva Gosvāmī establishes that the soul uses either māyā-śakti or svarūpa-śakti to act, depending on whether the action is turned away from God (material action) or toward him (spiritual action). However, he clarifies that the soul is only directly a doer, knower, and feeler when it acts, knows, and feels with svarūpa-śakti.

Part 13: The Bliss of the Jīva. This article picks up on the topic presented in article 10—the proper translation of cid-ānandātmakaḥ (intrinsically of the nature of knowledge and bliss). Some devotees try to establish that the ānanda of the jīva is merely the lack of suffering (not bliss) based on Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta. I show why their understanding is incomplete.

Part 14: The Soul Is Not Subject to Transformation. This article refutes another objection of those who say that bhakti is not inherent—that the manifestation of the soul’s qualities (jñāna-śakti in particular) would violate the principle that the soul is not subject to vikāra (transformation or change).

Part 15: Identity/Oneness (Tādātmya). The soul’s relationship with the śaktis by which it acts, knows, and feels is tādātmya (identity/oneness); however, many devotees misunderstand this term. As such, they misunderstand the soul’s relationship with the siddha-deha. This article establishes the proper understanding.

Part 16: The Manifestation of Śakti. This article, an excerpt from the upcoming book of Swāmī B. V. Tripurāri, Circle of Friends, illustrates practically the theoretical points that have been discussed in this series of articles. It shows the interaction of the three śaktis in the life of a sādhaka and illustrates how his or her svarūpa—with all its twenty-one qualities—slowly starts to manifest as the jīva makes progress on the devotional path by the mercy of a devotee.

Part 17: Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s Govinda-Bhāṣya. Because Jīva Gosvāmī’s Sandarbhas can be difficult to understand, it is immensely helpful to see how other ācāryas in our line understand the siddhānta that Śrī Jīva establishes. Who better to look to than Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, who has been called a second Jīva.2 I do so by examining his commentary on the final ādyāya of the Vedānta-sūtra, where he establishes that the spiritual body (svena rūpeṇa) that the soul attains upon entering the spiritual world is not a result of sādhana but rather a manifestation of the soul’s svarūpa.

Part 18: Concluding Words. Bowing at the feet of Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and praying to serve his vision on this 184th year after his appearance, I humbly present my series of articles that aim to establish that Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura was perfectly in line with the teachings of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī.

Since it is obvious that Jīva Gosvāmī establishes that bhakti is bestowed, my main effort has been to show how the Sandarbhas and other core Gauḍīya literature establish that bhakti is also inherent. By so doing, I establish that bhakti is simultaneously bestowed and inherent. [↩]

“Just as Rūpa and Sanātana taught Jīva, so Viśvanātha and others trained Baladeva. He strikingly resembles Jīva in the range of his interests and knowledge. In the Gaudīya sect, he is known as Jīva II. As Jīva was pre-eminently a philosopher and grammarian, so also was Baladeva.” Narang, Dr. Sudesh, The Vaisnava Philosophy According to Baladeva Vidyabhusana (Delhi: Nag Publishers, 1984), 4.

====================

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 3: The Swan

By Vrindaranya dasi

Additional articles in this series

Before I establish simultaneous inherency and bestowal based on the Sandarbhas and other foundational Gauḍīya literature, which will quickly become philosophically terse, I want to do a couple of things that will be useful in understanding the articles that follow: (1) Illustrate simultaneous inherency and bestowal in an accessible way by providing an analogy. Although this analogy won’t satisfy those who want all points to be established with scriptural references, it gives a framework that will hopefully make the later arguments somewhat easier to follow. (2) Explain some topics related to simultaneous inherency and bestowal. (3) Explain the difference between the ātmā and the jīva.

Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal

To illustrate simultaneous inherency and bestowal, I would like to relate an analogy that Sundara Gopāla gave in his presentation mentioned in my first article. This analogy makes clear what might otherwise seem like an opaque concept.

A swan in its natural state swims happily in a lake. Its nature (dharma) of being a swimmer is inherent. However, when a swan is kept in a cage and not allowed to fulfill its nature, it becomes unhappy and exhibits the perverted nature of plucking its own feathers. Despite experiencing such suffering, a swan that has been held captive for a long time will not walk out of a cage even if you open it. Being conditioned by its long imprisonment, the swan needs help to get out (bestowal of mercy). When the swan is lifted out and put on a lake, only then will it exhibit its true nature and thereby experience happiness. So a swan—even if it never has been in the water because of being caged—is meant to swim. One could say that God created the swan with swimming in mind. Nonetheless, because it is caged, its nature does not manifest. So we can ask, “Is it the swan’s nature to swim, even though it is caged, plucking its own feathers, and not touching water?” Yes, that is so even though the swan won’t swim unless someone lifts it out of the cage and places it in the water.

This analogy shows both inherent nature (swimming) and bestowal of mercy (lifting the swan onto a lake). Both are necessary for the caged swan. But we may ask further, “Which is more real—the inherent nature or the bestowal of grace?” They are both real. Can we say that the swan is a swimmer if it doesn’t exhibit that nature without grace? Of course, we can.

For a characteristic to be inherent, it must be an intrinsic part of something’s very nature. The thing or person is incomplete and fails to manifest its nature if the characteristic doesn’t manifest. For example, a person has the potential to be a millionaire; however, being a millionaire is not an intrinsic part of being a person. Since being a millionaire is not an intrinsic aspect of what it means to be a person, a person does not fulfill its nature by being a millionaire, and a poor person can be fulfilled. A person who is poor is no less a person than someone who is rich. In the case of a mango tree, can we say that its nature of producing mangos is solely due to the person who watered it? Or are the mangoes due to something inherent in the seed? Or are both things necessary? Both are necessary, thus showing simultaneous inherency and bestowal.

A soul with any of the five relationships with God is manifesting its nature. For example, one who is in vātsalya-bhāva feels completely fulfilled in the relationship; he or she does not feel less fulfilled than someone in mādhurya-bhāva. In contrast, the jīva takes on a false nature when covered by māyā, and thereby fails to manifest its true nature. An individual soul only displays all aspects of his true nature when he is established as a servant of God.1 Herein we see one shortcoming of saying that bhakti is not inherent but is merely a potential. While being a millionaire is not an intrinsic part of being a person, being a servant of God is an intrinsic part of being an ātmā. Thus, to say that being a servant is merely a potential of the ātmā is to ignore the fact that without being a servant of God, the ātmā displays a false nature. Therefore, we need to acknowledge both inherency and bestowal to capture the true nature of the soul’s relationship with bhakti. The inherency part of the equation underscores the fact that the purpose of our existence is to serve God. Without this, we are incomplete and unfulfilled.

Our Inheritance

Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī recounts an excellent parable that Caitanya Mahāprabhu told Sanātana Gosvāmī that explains simultaneous inherency and bestowal. Before telling the parable, Mahāprabhu speaks several verses, including this one:

kṛṣṇa bhuli’ sei jīva anādi-bahirmukha

ataeva māyā tāre deya saṁsāra-duḥkha

Having forgotten Kṛṣṇa, the living entity has been attracted by the external feature from time immemorial. Therefore, the illusory energy [māyā] gives him all kinds of misery in his material existence.2

Although the verse says that the jīva has been attracted to the external energy from time without beginning (anādi), it is significant that Mahāprabhu uses the word bhuli’ (having forgotten), which effectively conveys the idea that the relationship already exists. The parable goes as follows: a learned astrologer goes to the house of a poor and distressed man and tells him that the man’s father, who was very wealthy, died elsewhere and was not able to reveal that he had left a great treasure as an inheritance. Similarly, the Vedic literature tells us that we have a great treasure in the form of a relationship with Kṛṣṇa, which is our inheritance. The astrologer advised the man exactly how to remove the dirt to reveal the inheritance. There is likewise a proper way to excavate our treasure: we should give up karma, jñāna, and yoga, and instead take to bhakti, by which Kṛṣṇa can be fully satisfied.3

As the similarity of terms suggests, inherited implies a dimension of inherence. If I am searching for my inheritance, it is because I own it inherently (by virtue of my relational identity as an inheritor). By the grace of a sadhu (or the astrologer in the parable), I can locate that inheritance and manifest my inherent identity as an inheritor. Thus, the story clearly shows both bestowal (since the man would not have known about the inheritance without the mercy of the astrologer) and inherency (since the man already possessed a treasure that he didn’t know about). After the parable, Mahāprabhu says, “In all revealed scriptures, beginning with the Vedas, the central point of attraction is Kṛṣṇa. When complete knowledge of him is realized, the bondage of māyā, the illusory energy, is automatically broken.”4 By knowing Kṛṣṇa, one knows oneself.

See also Prameya-ratnāvalī 6. [↩]

Based on the translation of Vasu, Rai Bahadur Srisa Chandra, The Vedānta-Sūtras of Bādarāyaṇa with the Commentary of Baladeva, 745 [↩]

Bose, Roma, Vedanta-Parijata-Saurabha of Nimbarka and Vedanta-Kaustubha of Srinivasa Vol.3, 250, 252, 255. See Bose’s “Points of Similarity” between the various Vaiṣṇava ācāryas. [↩]

For simplicity, I am grouping all those who oppose inherency into one group. In actuality, there is difference of opinion within the group. For example, some would argue that bhakti is not inherent still accept teleological inherence. [↩]

See part 10 for a discussion about the correct meaning of cid-ānandātmakaḥ. [↩]

In this understanding, the soul’s material sojourn is purposeless because what is the meaning of car driving around with no person driving the car? A mere battery does not drive. As B. K. N. Sharma noted earlier in this article, “identity of consciousness would render the present multiplicity of personalities purposeless.” Sharma, B. K. N., The Philosophy of Madhvacarya, 283–86.

====================

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 5: The Twenty-One Intrinsic Characteristics of the Soul

By Vrindaranya dasi

Additional articles in this series

Let us examine the soul’s intrinsic characteristics (svarūpa-lakṣaṇa), which Śrī Jīva says were enumerated by Śrī Jāmātṛ Muni, who is a very senior teacher of the Śrī Vaiṣṇava sampradāya. He mentions that Jāmātṛ Muni bases his list of intrinsic characteristics on the Padma Purāṇa. The Padma Purāṇa lists eighteen characteristics, and Jāmātṛ Muni adds three additional characteristics (being a knower, doer, and enjoyer).1 Here are the twenty-one characteristics:

[1] The ātmā is not a demigod, human, animal, or immovable being [such as a plant]. [2] He is not the body, senses, mind, vital force, or intellect. [3] The soul is not inert; [4] not subject to change; [5] and not just knowledge alone. [6] The soul manifests himself to himself [he is self-luminous] and [7] he reveals himself to others and reveals others to himself [like the rays of a lamp]; [8] the soul is of one form and [9] is situated in his own essential nature. [10] The soul is conscious, [11] pervades the body, [12] and is intrinsically of the nature of consciousness and bliss. [13] The soul has its own identity, [14] is distinct from other individual selves, [15] is atomic, [16] eternal, [17] and pure. [18] The soul is a knower, [19] doer, [20] and enjoyer. [21] By nature, he is a servant of Paramātmā at all times.2

These are eternal, inherent characteristics of the soul. When devotees argue whether bhakti is inherent or not, they will point to these characteristics. It seems, therefore, that it should be easy to determine whether bhakti is inherent or not. I will now explain why what seems like an obvious answer has become a controversy.

How Some Svarūpa Characteristics Can Be Unmanifest

Importantly, although these characteristics are eternal, they are not all fully manifest when the jīva is conditioned by material nature. Thus, Jīva Gosvāmī devotes four anucchedas (Paramātma Sandarbha 23–26) to explaining that when the jīva is materially conditioned, some of his svarūpa qualities are hidden. For example, Jīva Gosvāmī quotes Śrīdhara Svāmī in anuccheda 23 as saying that the jīva’s bliss is hidden (apeta-bhāgaḥ) when he is conditioned by material nature. But what is the significance of this point in regard to whether bhakti is inherent?

All the Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas, Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism included, say that one cannot be liberated without bhakti. Think about the relevance of this point in terms of the soul’s characteristic of ānanda (cid-ānandātmika). If the soul’s bliss is not fully manifest without liberation, then it means that the soul’s ānanda is either the bliss of Brahman or the bliss of bhakti. Why? Because a liberated soul is either identified with Brahman or enjoying the bliss of a relationship with Bhagavān.

But one may ask, why couldn’t cid-ānandātmika refer to the bliss of the jīvan-mukta? In other words, why couldn’t it refer to the bliss of the ātmā who is not identified with material nature but not identified with Brahman or Bhagavān? Jīvan-mukta is a term used by Śaṅkarācārya to refer to someone who is liberated while still in the material body, waiting for his prārabdha-karma to expire. The problem with this idea is that the Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas do not accept Śaṅkarācārya’s definition of jīvan-mukta. For example, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī says that only the Vaiṣṇava conception of jīvan-mukta is eternal:

There are two types of jīvan-mukta, one who is liberated in this life by bhakti and one who is liberated by jñāna. One who is liberated by bhakti is attracted by the qualities of Kṛṣṇa and worships him. One who is liberated by knowledge that has no fruit (śuṣka-jñāna) fall down due to offenses.3

For Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, the only way to be liberated while still apparently in a material body is to be a devotee with a perfected sādhaka-deha. I say “apparently in a material body” because the perfected sādhaka-deha is not considered material.4 According to Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, a jīvan-mukta is a devotee with a relationship with Bhagavān. Therefore, the most that someone without bhakti can realize is that they are not the material body. However, such realization is a product of sattva-guṇa, so someone with such realization is still conditioned by material nature.5 Accordingly, it is not transcendental bliss, and it is not possible that one of the eternal characteristics of the soul is material. Therefore, we come back to the conclusion I stated earlier, that the bliss of a liberated soul is due to either identification with Brahman or a relationship with Bhagavān.

Furthermore, many of the twenty-one characteristics of the soul require śakti, and śakti is unmanifest when the jīva is identified with Brahman. Therefore, the full manifestation of the twenty-one qualities of the jīva occurs only when the soul has a relationship with Bhagavān. What is the relevance of all this? It means that when Jīva Gosvāmī states that an intrinsic characteristic of the soul is that he has ānanda, he is referring to the bliss of a relationship with Bhagavān. In other words, the ānanda of the ātmā is bhakti.

Those who argue that bhakti is not inherent try to get around this problem by saying that Jīva Gosvāmī defined the bliss of the ātmā as the mere absence of suffering. I will refute this misreading of Jīva Gosvāmī in part 10 of this series.

Is it possible that the jīva’s natural state is not liberated? No, because Jīva Gosvāmī says:

…the jīva is liberated by its very own inherent nature, and it is due to ignorance alone that there is but an appearance of bondage. When knowledge arises, the liberated state is simply brought to light. So, the intended sense is that liberation is the jīva’s permanent state.6

Thus, we can see the problem with the idea of those who advocate bestowal-only. They say that the jīva’s intrinsic characteristics can be fully manifest without bhakti. But without bhakti one can’t be liberated.7 However, because Jīva Gosvāmī says that “the jīva is liberated by its very own inherent nature,” this position is illogical: how can you fully experience your inherent nature, which is a liberated state, and not be liberated? And yet, this is exactly the awkward position that those who say bhakti is not inherent are forced into. In the opening anuccheda of Prīti Sandarbha, Jīva Gosvāmī confirms: “As long as the jīva does not have devotion (prīti) for me, Vāsudeva, he will not be liberated from the body (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 5.5.6).”8 As such, those who reject inherency are backed into this troublesome corner. This fatal flaw of their understanding proves to be a checkmate.

The Four States of Consciousness

To further establish this important point that the jīva can only realize the full manifestation of his intrinsic qualities in liberation, let us consider the same point from another angle of vision—the four states of consciousness described in Paramātma Sandarbha 20. The three states of the jīva—waking, sleeping, and deep sleep—are material. God is famous as the fourth state (turīya). When the jīva (the ātmā covered by avidyā, or ignorance) realizes his true nature, he will experience the fourth state of consciousness.9 Tattva Sandarbha 63.4 clarifies this point: “When the mind, giving up the three states of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep by bhakti-yoga, spontaneously enjoys the lotus feet of the Lord, at that time the conditioned soul realizes the Lord and gives up all material desires (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.7.20–21).”10 Bhagavat Sandarbha 105 confirms, “One cannot realize the real svarūpa described in scripture by being absorbed in the effects of māyā. Thus, for realization you must reject māyā. In the absence of māyā you realize prema.”11

As these quotations establish, bhakti is integral to experiencing the fourth state of consciousness, God-realization, which is beyond the three material states of consciousness. Since three of the states of consciousness are material and the other is God-consciousness, the jīva must either be in material consciousness or God-consciousness. There is no state of consciousness in which the jīva experiences himself separate from material or spiritual consciousness.12 Since the scripture establishes that the jīva is not material, it naturally follows that God-realization is our natural state. Obviously, the soul cannot be God conscious without bhakti. Therefore, having bhakti is the natural state of the soul. Indeed, this is precisely what Jīva Gosvāmī affirms in Bhakti Sandarbha 178 when he states that selfless bhakti “is natural for the jīvas” (iyam akiñcanākhyā bhaktir eva jīvānāṁ svabhāvata ucitā).

This conclusion is also indirectly confirmed in Paramātma Sandarbha, quoting Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: “Self-realization for the jīva, who is saddled with beginningless ignorance, is not possible by his own efforts. It is possible only if knowledge is imparted to him by another who knows the reality (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.22.10).”13 Why can’t the jīva realize himself by his own effort? It is because of the inconceivable power of māyā:

The extrinsic potency of Bhagavān acts contrary to logic [i.e., her behavior cannot be understood simply through logic]; otherwise, how is it possible that the living entity, who is the ruler of [i.e., superior to] prakṛti, being conscious and liberated, becomes bound and miserable? (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.7.9, quoted in Tattva-sandarbha)14

If self-realization were only the realization that one is separate from the material body, then it would be possible for the jīva to realize such even while conditioned by material nature, because such realization can be achieved with sattva-guṇa.15 Therefore, the reason why the bound jīva needs someone to impart this knowledge to him is because the knowledge is transcendental to the material world. Since the state of consciousness that is transcendental to the material world is God-consciousness—the fourth state of consciousness—self-realization means to realize of our true nature in relation to God.16

As we have seen in this article, to be fully situated in one’s intrinsic nature is to realize our relationship with God by bhakti. This intrinsic nature is eternal, but it is unmanifest and requires grace to realize. Thus, the situation is like the treasure described in part 3 of this series: although the man was wealthy (inherence), he needed the astrologer (bestowal/grace) to tell him where to find his wealth. Similarly, our natural state is to be established in God consciousness, but we need help to turn to God because we are covered by the inconceivable potency of māyā. In this way, we have seen powerful evidence that bhakti is both inherent and bestowed. In the next article, we will consider the matter from another angle of vision: whether the soul searches for bliss or merely for the absence of suffering.

“Why does Śrī Jīva prefer Jāmātṛ Muni over Padma Purāṇa when Jāmātṛ virtually repeats the words of the Purāṇa? Our guess is that Jāmātṛ adds three characteristics that are not stated there explicitly, namely, knowership (cognitive awareness), doership (conation), and experiential capacity (affectivity).” Dasa, Satyanarayana. Śrī Paramātma Sandarbha: The Living Being, Its Bondage, and the Immanent Absolute (p. 204). Jiva Institute of Vaishnava Studies. Kindle Edition. [↩]

The Sanskrit for this characteristic is paramātmaika-śeṣatva-svabhāvaḥ sarvadā. Śeṣatva is a specialized and highly important term in Visiśtādvaita thought and is regarded as synonymous with dāsatva [the quality of being a servant]. I will discuss śeṣatva in part 8 of this series. The Paramātmā is the form of the Absolute who presides over the souls who are conditioned by material nature. When the soul is free from material nature, the soul’s worship of Paramātmā becomes identification with Brahman or worship of Bhagavān in one of his forms in the spiritual world. [↩]

Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.24.129–30. Translation mine. See also Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.2.32. [↩]

“The body of a devotee is never material. It is considered to be transcendental, full of spiritual bliss.” (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.4.191) vedabase.io/en/library/cc/antya/4/191/?query=deha#bb1115564 [↩]

“Knowledge concerning the jīva apart from the body is in sattva. Knowledge with various options of doubt is in rajas. Knowledge of material life is in tamas. Knowledge concerning me, however, is understood to be beyond the guṇas.” (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.25.24 quoted in Bhakti Sandarbha 134–35) Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhakti Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 5). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Dasa, Satyanarayana. Śrī Paramātma Sandarbha: The Living Being, Its Bondage, and the Immanent Absolute (p. 406). Jiva Institute of Vaishnava Studies. Kindle Edition. [↩]

See Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.2.32 and Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.24.129–30. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Prīti Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 6). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Or the fifth state: turiyātīto gopālaḥ (Gopāla, who is beyond the fourth dimension, Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad 2.95). [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Ṭhākura, Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, Twelfth Canto: with Sārārtha-darśinī commentary. Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha. [↩]

As Brahman is an aspect of the Absolute (see Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.2.11), Brahman realization is considered a form of God-realization. One cannot realize impersonal liberation without some bhakti. “Jñāna which destroys upādhis and is none other than Brahman, if devoid of bhakti (bhāva) to Acyuta, is not glorious (śobhate) at all (alam). It is not suitable as a complete realization.” Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 2) (p. 181). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Dasa, Satyanarayana. Śrī Paramātma Sandarbha: The Living Being, Its Bondage, and the Immanent Absolute (p. 354). Jiva Institute of Vaishnava Studies. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Dasa, Satyanarayana. Śrī Tattva Sandarbha: Vaiṣṇava Epistemology and Ontology (Ṣaṭ Sandarbha Book 1) (p. 285). Jiva Institute of Vaishnava Studies. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Even impersonal liberation cannot be realized without bhakti. Because Brahman is a form of the Absolute, the path of jñāna is a form of tat-sāmmukhyam (turning to the Absolute). See Bhakti Sandarbha 3.

====================

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 6: The Search for Bliss

By Vrindaranya dasi

Additional articles in this series

In the last article, I discussed how all of one’s inherent characteristics are only fully manifest in liberation and gave further support for this point by discussing the four states of consciousness that the soul can experience. In this article, I will discuss another major philosophical problem with the idea that bhakti is not simultaneously inherent and bestowed: a logical consequence is that spiritual ānanda is not the nature of the soul and that the soul searches not for bliss but rather for the absence of suffering. The reason for this is that there is no way to have spiritual ānanda without bhakti. This irrefutable fact is an inconvenient truth for those who maintain that spiritual ānanda is not the nature of the soul. This outlier position is hard to defend, and this is particularly so in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism due to copious statements to the contrary.

Take, for example, what Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa says in this regard in his Govinda-bhāṣya commentary to 4.4.1, which is an explanation of what the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3 is talking about when it says that the mukta “attains its own form” (svena rūpeṇābhiniṣpadyate) and in doing so “moves about laughing and playing (krīdaṇ).” Baladeva comments, “Some say that the jīva, being self-illuminating consciousness alone, on attaining the supreme light, manifests merely a state of destruction of all suffering caused by the superimposition of prakṛti. But that is not so, because śruti states that one attains intense bliss. Rasaṁ hy evāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati: the jīva, attaining the Lord who is rasa, becomes blissful (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7).”1

Those who say that bhakti is only bestowed and not simultaneously an eternal part of the jīva’s nature will protest that this comment says just the opposite of the jīva being bliss. “It clearly says that the bliss was attained and that due to receiving bhakti!” they will exclaim. But Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa already answered this doubt. He summarized the pūrvapakṣa position thus:

(Pūrvapakṣa) It [the jīva’s svarūpa as characterized by having a form of bliss] arises as a result of sādhana since the word used is abhiniṣpatti: to attain. Otherwise, this word would be meaningless and the scriptures dealing with liberation would not be teaching a goal, for if this form [rūpeṇa] were naturally related to the ātmā, being a manifestation only, there would be no attainment, since the natural svarūpa would have been previously present. Thus the form must be achieved by practice.2

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa answers this doubt: “The jīva manifests his svarūpa on attaining the Lord since the word ‘his own’ is used. Why is this the meaning?” To which he answers, “Because of the word svena, which modifies rūpeṇa. This indicates his natural, inherent form/nature. If he were to receive a new form, the word would have no meaning, since having his own form can only be accomplished by not obtaining a new form.”3 Thus, although it seems like that which is “attained” is a new acquisition, it is actually inherent: simultaneous inherency and bestowal. The jīva, upon attaining liberation by way of the bhakti bestowed upon him, realizes its own nature, laughing and playing in rasānanda with he who is himself rasa.4

The above understanding is straightforward, yet some devotees ignore it or try to interpret it differently and force it to fit with what they consider overwhelming evidence for non-inherency. But, fortunately, the straightforward reading of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s commentary saves us from the awkward conclusion of such a position: that the spiritual body is merely superimposed on the ātmā.

As we will see in a subsequent article, the inelegant solution of the bestowed-only side is that the relationship between the ātmā and the siddha-deha is similar to that of the ātmā and the material body: the souls drags the siddha-deha like a magnet drags iron filings, never actually making direct contact.5 The numerous problems with this conception will be addressed in two articles: part 13, which discusses vikāra in the ātmā, and part 14, which discusses the proper understanding of tadātmya.

In the first verse of Prīti Sandarbha, Jīva Gosvāmī himself refutes the idea that the soul searches not for bliss but rather for the absence of suffering:

All beings ultimately aim for prīti since one sees that a person exerts himself for that purpose. But not finding a suitable object for his prīti, a person avoids directing prīti to the Lord. Since everyone desires to find the ideal object for his prīti, it should result finally in prīti for the Lord. Since it has been properly concluded that prīti for the Lord is the highest human goal, it is correct to say that Prīti Sandarbha should be written. This Sandarbha has been compiled in sequence to show that prīti is the highest goal.6

Why would the soul search for prīti if our actual spiritual nature is only to be conscious and free from suffering? But the opposing side will argue, “Just see. This quotation says that prīti is the goal; therefore, it is not inherent.” This is not a well-thought-out position. Why is prīti the goal? Why do we strive for it? Because it is in our nature to experience it. Being in the unnatural position of being covered by māyā, we search for our dharma: our nature is to serve Bhagavān, dāsa-bhūto harer eva (the soul is a servant of Bhagavān Hari only and never of anyone else).

The Soul’s Svarūpa and Dharma

In the coming articles, we will explore the concepts of svarūpa and dharma, as they are essential for the discussion. But in relation to this quotation of Jīva Gosvāmī, let me note that the twenty-one characteristics of the jīva include both svarūpa and dharma. Some important points in regard to svarūpa and dharma are essential for proper understanding of the nature of the soul:

The essential dharma or svabhāva is that characteristic which is unique to the object and which determines the nature of that object. According to the Viśiṣṭādvaitin, every entity in the universe, both physical as well as ontological, consists of two aspects; substantive aspect which is dharmī and attributive aspect which is dharma. The latter cannot exist by itself and it necessarily inheres in the former which is the basis or āśraya for the dharma. The two by virtue of their intrinsic character are distinct but are inseparable. When an object is cognized, it is comprehended along with its essential attributes….The implication of this is that the svarūpa of an entity cannot be known or described except in terms of its essential attributes. In the opinion of Vedānta Deśika, a mere svarūpa devoid of essential characteristics is a non-entity like the horns of the hare.7

Thus, both the jīva’s svarūpa and dharma are intrinsic, inseparable aspects of his being. The bestowed-only adherents try to separate these two aspects of the jīva, saying that the jīva is merely conscious but has the potential to act, know, and feel. For example, they say that the jñāna of the jīva only amounts to consciousness and the jñāna-śakti is a “quality potential.” By this they do not mean that jñāna-śakti is unmanifest in the jīva—in other words, that the potential is within the jīva. Rather, what they mean is that the jīva, being conscious, has the potential to identify with the svarūpa-śakti, which actually has the potential (jñāna-śakti). They say that by identifying with the svarūpa-śakti, the jīva can become one with the svarūpa-śakti like an iron rod can become like fire. Although such an iron rod essentially acts as fire, it still remains constitutionally different from fire. Hence their need for the term “quality potential.” It is only a potential because one is forced to admit that—according to their understanding—the śakti is actually in the fire, not the iron rod. But in Paramātma Sandarbha 22, Jīva Gosvāmī says that the jīva has jñāna and jñāna-śakti, not that the jīva only has the potential to identify with the śakti.8 Thus, contrary to the opinion that the jīva only has the potential to be a doer, Jīva Gosvāmī establishes that the jīva is an actual doer. In part 9 of this series, I will show how he establishes this point. In other words, those who advocate bestowal-only misunderstand the analogy of the iron rod and fire. How the Gauḍīya commentators use the analogy is to explain the relationship between the material body and the svarūpa-śakti, not the relationship between the jīva and the svarūpa-śakti.

In summary, I have shown the major philosophical problems that the proponents of non-inherency have to deal with. Keep these problems in mind when considering the relative importance of different arguments. Although neither position in this debate is without some weaknesses, even if only apparent, not every philosophical problem is on the same level of severity. Each side will have some strong points, so we cannot be paralyzed when we see that the debate is not entirely black and white. Black and white understandings are mere simplifications for the less intelligent. Therefore, we need to be able to keep the big picture in mind while assessing the relative importance of different arguments. And have no doubt about it—the problems that I have pointed out with the bestowed-only position are not mere flesh wounds; they are fatal.

Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Śrīla Baladeva; Swami, HH Bhanu. Brahma Sūtras. [↩]

Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Śrīla Baladeva; Swami, HH Bhanu. Brahma Sūtras: With Govinda-bhāṣya commentary of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (p. 511). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Śrīla Baladeva; Swami, HH Bhanu. Brahma Sūtras, 511–12. [↩]

Śrī Baladeva also leaves room for attaining mukti without a body, should one’s bhakti be predominated by jñāna and a desire for bodiless mukti. Explanations of subsequent verses of Śrī Baladeva’s commentary are often misunderstood to support a non-inherent interpretation of 4.4.1. However, I address this misunderstanding in part 13 of this series. [↩]

In article 8 of this series, I will show how Jīva Gosvāmī uses the example of iron to refer to material nature, which is inert, and not to the soul, which is conscious. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Prīti Sandarbha [↩]

Chari, S. M. Srinivasa, Fundamentals of Viśiṣṭādvaita (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2010), 234. [↩]

jñāna-mātrātmako na ca iti kiṁ tarhi? jñāna-mātratve’pi jñāna-śaktitvaṁ prakāśasya prakāśana-śaktitvavat, tādṛśatvam api

===================

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 7: The Soul is a Servant of Bhagavān Hari

By Vrindaranya Dasi

Additional articles in this series

As I mentioned in part 5 of this series, Jāmātṛ Muni bases eighteen of the jīva’s twenty-one qualities on the Padma Purāṇa, Uttara-khaṇḍa 226.34–37. The statement dāsa-bhūto harer eva of Padma Purāṇa 6.226.37 means that the soul is a servant of Bhagavān Hari only and never of anyone else. Jāmātṛ Muni’s parallel term is śeṣatva. The proper understanding of dāsa-bhūto harer eva and śeṣatva are essential to grasping the true nature of the jīva because Jāmātṛ Muni, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa all emphasize that service to Bhagavān is the jīva’s central attribute. As we saw in part 4 of this series, other Vaiṣṇava ācāryas hold service to the Lord to be central as well.

Nevertheless, some argue that they simply mean that the soul is not independent and, like everything, including matter, ultimately conforms to the will of the Lord. Such devotees argue that the word dāsa merely means subordinate or dependent; it does not literally mean a devotee. This reading of Padma Purāṇa 6.226.37 is problematic on many levels. First, the passage has already just stated that the jīva is “always dependent upon” (paravān sadā) the Lord. Thus, if dāsa-bhūto harer eva means exactly the same thing as the attribute previously mentioned, it introduces the fault of redundancy. Clearly, it must mean something other or more than simple dependence upon the Lord.

We must remember that dāsa-bhūto harer eva is one of the soul’s intrinsic characteristics, which are not all fully manifest when the jīva is covered by māyā.1 The attribute of dāsa-bhūtaḥ only fully manifests when one has realized one’s svarūpa fully, that is, when one has completely manifested the twenty-one essential attributes of the soul in full. Thus, although the attribute of dāsa-bhūtaḥ may be unmanifest, it is still an essential defining attribute of the jīva. That is to say that the jīva is a devotee constitutionally. That is why when the jīva realizes his essential nature, he experiences complete fulfillment (kṛtārtha), meaning there is nothing further for him to wish for or to attain.

That the state of perfection is the full manifestation of dāsa-bhūtaḥ is clear from Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.1, sampadyāvirbhāvaḥ svena-śabdāt, which affirms that the soul’s state of perfection is the manifesting of his own true nature. This reading is accepted by all Vedāntins, including Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, and Baladeva Vidyabhūṣana Prabhu. Otherwise, it would imply that being a bhakta is extrinsic or superimposed on the jīva in the state of perfection. If Jīva Gosvāmī had intended to overturn this central paradigm of Vedānta, he would surely have made it very clear. Rather, he states in Bhakti Sandarbha 178 that bhakti is natural for the jīva (svabhāvata, the innate disposition or own true nature).

Padma Purāṇa 6.226.37 begins as follows: ma-kāreṇocyate jīvaḥ, “The letter m [in aum] signifies the jīva.” In other words, these attributes of the jīva are being explained in the context of an explanation of the meaning of Praṇava (aum) within the Tirumantra (aum namo nārāyaṇāya). The Śrī Vaiṣṇavas are the authorities on this subject, as this is after all one of the sacred mantras of their lineage and, as Jīva Gosvāmī says in Bhakti-sandarbha 178, aum is their mahā-vākya. Their ācāryas, including Jāmātṛ Muni, have written extensively on the meaning of the Tirumantra, including aum, in their rahasya-granthas, or “secret texts.” Therein, they clarify that the jīva’s essential nature is to have a mood of loving service towards the Lord, not simply to serve the Lord indirectly without knowing it (in the sense that all things ultimately conform to the will of the Lord).

Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī supports this, explaining that the jīva’s nature (svabhāva) is to possess the conception (abhimāna) of being a servant of the Lord:

jīvera svabhāva—kṛṣṇa-‘dāsa’-abhimāna

dehe ātma-jñāne ācchādita sei ‘jñāna’

The jīva’s intrinsic nature is to have the conception of being a servant of Kṛṣṇa. That knowledge is covered by the misconception of the body being the self.

Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya 24.201

Needless to say, serving Kṛṣṇa indirectly in some ultimate sense, without even knowing it, can hardly be the defining nature (svarūpa or svabhāva) of the jīva, as such a definition could just as easily designate prakṛti, or matter. Rather, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja is saying that the jīva’s true nature is to serve the Lord with intentionality, and this is precisely what Śrī Rāmānuja and Jāmātṛ Muni explain also.

In these essential attributes of the soul from Padma Purāṇa 6.226.34–37, it is worth noting śloka 6.226.33, which states: “Here (i.e., in the mantra) the letter u expresses Śrī, who is the support of the world. The wise say that the letter ma expresses the soul, the servant of the two (i.e., Viṣṇu and Lakṣmī).” Padma Purāṇa 6.226.22–23, which Jīva Gosvāmī quotes in Bhakti-sandarbha 178, states much the same. Thus, we see that here again the soul is described as a servant, not only of the Lord but also of Lakṣmī, his śakti, as the Lord’s mercy is possible only through her. In Bhagavat Sandarbha 99, Jīva Gosvāmī clarifies that the Lord’s śakti refers to the goddess Mahā-lakṣmī, who is nondifferent from him, and that the word śakti denotes “the supreme internal energy of Bhagavān” (bhagavad-antaraṅga-mahā-śaktiḥ). He further states in Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 189 that in Vṛndāvana this internal potency is Śrī Rādhā, who is the original and complete Lakṣmī (svayaṁ-lakṣmī) and the pinnacle of the highest prema (śrī-vṛndāvane śrī-rādhikāyām eva svayaṁ-lakṣmītvam).

From the repeated emphasis in Padma Purāṇa that the jīva is an eternal servant of Hari (and not only Hari, but of the Divine Couple), it is clear that Padma Purāṇa 6.226.37 (and elsewhere) is not simply saying that the jīva, like prakṛti, follows the will of the Lord. To be sure, Padma Purāṇa 6.226.47–48 affirms, “The highest soul, Hari, is the master. I always belong to him. His mind should be employed according to the desire of that Lord only.” This describes the conception of being a servant and articulates the jīva’s essential attribute of dāsa-bhūto harer eva, stated earlier.

Just in case there is still any doubt, let us turn now to the writings of Baladeva Vidyabhūṣana Prabhu specifically on this verse from Padma Purāṇa. In his commentary on the third ray of Vedānta-syamantaka, a work by his guru, Rādhā-Dāmodara Gosvāmī, Baladeva Prabhu writes:

dāsa-bhūto harer eva nānyasyaiva kadācaneti pādmāt । nanu sarveṣāṁ jīvānāṁ tad-dāsatve svarūpa-siddhe nirviśeṣe ca saty upadeśāder vaiyarthyam iti cen na । tad-abhivyañjakatvena tasya sārthakyāt । na hi mathanena vinā dadhni sarpir araṇau ca vahnir āvirbhavet ।

The individual soul must be considered a servant of the Supreme Lord, as stated in the Padma Purāṇa (Uttara-khaṇḍa, 226.37):

dāsa-bhūto harer eva nānyasyaiva kadācana

“The individual soul is a servant of Lord Hari only, and never of anyone else.”

Someone may argue, “If all individual souls’ status as servants of Lord Hari is an accomplished fact by their own nature and is invariable, then the instructions of the scriptures and so on would be useless.” It is not so, for by revealing their status as the Lord’s servants, such instructions and so on are useful. Without churning, butter certainly does not appear from yogurt, nor does fire appear from wood without friction.2

If Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu were interpreting dāsa-bhūtaḥ as merely meaning that the soul in all conditions is dependent upon, and ultimately follows, the will of the Lord, then the hypothetical objection that Baladeva Prabhu raises and goes on to answer would not make any sense. Rather, Baladeva Prabhu’s response to the hypothetical objection makes it clear that the soul is a servant of Hari, but that this nature is concealed or unmanifest, just like butter is inherent in yogurt or fire is inherent in firewood. With the right “churning” or “friction” this unmanifest attribute of the soul becomes manifest or revealed.

Having understood the Padma Purāṇa verse dāsa-bhūtaḥ in context, I will next consider Jāmātṛ Muni’s parallel term, śeṣatva.

See part 9 of this series. [↩]

Gosvami, Radha-Damodara; Vidyabhusana, Baladeva. Vedanta-syamantaka: With the Gloss of Baladeva Vidyabhusana (pp. 76–77). Kindle Edition

======================

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 8: A Servant of God (Śeṣatva)

By Vrindaranya Dasi

Additional articles in this series

As I discussed in the last article, some devotees argue that the soul’s attribute of dāsa-bhūto harer eva (the soul is a servant of Bhagavān Hari only and never of anyone else) in Padma Purāṇa 6.226.37 simply means that the soul is not independent and, like everything including matter, ultimately conforms to the will of the Lord. Such devotees understand Śrī Jāmātṛ Muni’s parallel term, śeṣatva, in a similar light. Examining the origin of the term śeṣatva, however, shows the inadequacy of this interpretation. The śeṣa-śeṣi (servant/master) relationship is a key concept in Śrī Vaiṣṇavism. Since the term is not common in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, it is easy for those unfamiliar with its origin to fail to understand its significance. The concept of śeṣa-śeṣi is explained on the Ramanuja.org website:

The essence of our Śrī Visiśtādvaita Sampradāya lies in its emphasis on the relationship of śeṣa and śeṣi, subsisting between the individual soul and the Paramātmā respectively. Defining śeṣatva, Śrī Bhāṣyakarā [Śrī Rāmānuja] says, paragata atisaya ādhāna icchhayā upāḍeyatvaṁeva yasya svarūpam sa śeṣaḥparaḥśeṣi [A servant is one who always wants to add glory to his master. So let us try to add glory to the Lord.]. Thus, broadly, one who exists solely for the purposes of being of some use to another, is a śeṣa, and the counterpart, for whose sole benefit he exists, is the śeṣi. The very reason for our existence is to be of service or kainkaryā to the Lord and to him only. However, full-blown Bhagavat śeṣatva manifests itself in service not only to the Paramātmā, but also to his devotees who are near and dear to him, viz., Bhāgavatās.1

As we see, śeṣatva does not refer to a general state of being subservient to God in the sense that not even a blade of grass moves without God’s sanction. Such a general truth could hardly be considered the “essence of our Śrī Visiśtādvaita Sampradāya.” Although those of us who have little knowledge of other major Vaiṣṇava traditions might not realize the significance of the term śeṣatva, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī—and the learned contemporaries whom he was writing for—would know exactly what śeṣatva means. Thus, if Jīva Gosvāmī thought that Jāmātṛ Muni’s definition of this attribute of the soul was incorrect, he would have made it clear.

It is true, however, that in Paramātma Sandarbha 37 and his commentary, Jīva Gosvāmī chose to devote most of his discussion of the term śeṣatva to defeat Māyāvāda philosophy by stressing that the soul is eternally subordinate to Bhagavān, a major theme of the Paramātma Sandarbha. This focus on defeating Māyāvāda philosophy in this anuccheda is understandable since it is the attribute of śeṣatva that most lends to highlighting the eternal difference between Bhagavān and the individual soul. In the main text, Jīva Gosvāmī also does not spend much time discussing śeṣatva in the liberated state, at which time śeṣatva is fully manifest. Furthermore, one of the two English translations of Paramātma Sandarbha does not include Jīva Gosvāmī’s auto-commentary, entitled Sarva-saṁvādhinī, which does discuss śeṣatva in the liberated state.2 Therefore, it is understandable that some devotees do not understand the whole import of the soul’s characteristic of śeṣatva.

Here are some of the important scriptural references in the Sarva-saṁvādhinī: raso vai saḥ, rasaṁ hy evāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati, “The Lord is rasa. Attaining this rasa the jīva attains bliss (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.6.2).”3 “The jīva is described in his liberated state in sa tatra paryet jakṣat krīḍan ramamāṇaḥ: the jīva moves about there, eats, plays and enjoys (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3).”4 “The liberated soul rises from the body, reaches the Supreme Lord, and becomes endowed with his own form (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3). Svarūpa āvirbhūta (his svarūpa manifests through sādhana) in the sūtra refers to the jīva.”5 Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa has an extensive commentary on this passage from Chāndogya Upaniṣad in his Govinda-bhāṣya commentary. In part 17 of this series, I will discuss this important section.

Jīva Gosvāmī also quotes Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.7.93: “The jīva attains a state with the nature of Brahman. In that sense, the jīva attains non-difference with Paramātmā by bhakti. Different from the Lord, the jīva is covered by ignorance.”6 What does it mean to attain oneness with Brahman by bhakti? Of course, in the Gauḍīya understanding, there is not absolute oneness with God. Rather, there is simultaneous oneness and difference from God. Thus, oneness here means to realize that we are particles of sac-cid-ānanda with inherent śakti that allows us to serve God. The svarūpa-śakti is the energy that allows simultaneous oneness and difference: although God and his devotees are one, by the svarūpa-śakti this oneness simultaneously expresses itself in difference that facilitates līlā. In contrast, when the jīva identifies with the māyā-śakti, there is false difference based on ignorance.

Jīva Gosvāmī also says in Paramātma Sandarbha 45 that three verses from Śrīmad Bhāgavatam show the quality of śeṣatva as described by Jāmātṛ Muni:

When the mind is free of the contamination of lust and greed arising from the false identity of I and mine, and becomes pure, without [happiness and distress], and peaceful, the jīva sees himself different from ignorance, full of knowledge, devoid of coverings, subtle (small), undivided, and unattached, and as well sees ignorance devoid of power to affect him, by a mind endowed with jñāna and vairāgya, and principally with bhakti.7

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.25.16–18

These verses unequivocally show that śeṣatva includes bhakti.8 Of course, some devotees will insist that bhakti is not part of the svarūpa characteristic itself. They will argue that bhakti is a gift and, as such, it is separate from the svarūpa characteristic. By understanding the meaning of śeṣatva in context, however, the absurdity of this claim is apparent—after all, how can bhakti be separate from being a servant of God?

Having examined the statement dāsa-bhūto harer eva of Padma Purāṇa 6.226.37 (the soul is a servant of Bhagavān Hari only and never of anyone else) and Jāmātṛ Muni’s parallel term śeṣatva, let us return to the subject of how some of the soul’s characteristics are not fully manifest when the soul is covered by māyā. Although I touched on this subject in part 5, I will consider the matter in more depth.

Iyengar, Sadagopan, “Bhagavata Seshatvam and Its Manifestations,” August 21, 2001, Ramanuja, ramanuja.org/sri/BhaktiListArchives/Article?p=aug2001%2F0238.html. [↩]

The Jiva Institute edition includes Satyanarayana Dasa Babaji’s commentary on the Sarva-saṁvādhinī; however, it does not include every point that Jīva Gosvāmī makes. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 3). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 37. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 45. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Bhakti-yuktena cātmanā (ŚB 3.25.15)

======================

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 9: Unmanifest Qualities of the Soul

By Vrindaranya Dasi

Additional articles in this series

A Comparison of the Materially Conditioned Jīva Versus the Liberated Soul

In this article, I will discuss the point that many of the jīva’s qualities are not fully manifest when the jīva is conditioned by material nature and that the qualities become fully manifest only when the soul is situated as a servant of God.1 To understand how it is that some qualities of the soul are unmanifest in the first place, let us consider the predicament of the jīva. We will recall that “the jīva’s intrinsic nature is to have the conception of being a servant of Kṛṣṇa. That knowledge is covered by the misconception of the body being the self.”2 Therefore, the jīva is in a situation that defies logic—although he is conscious and liberated, and thus superior to matter, he becomes bound and miserable.3 In this way, “that entity which is intermediately situated, conscious by nature, whose self-awareness has been lost, and who is tainted by attachment to the material guṇas, is called the jīva (Nārada Pañcarātra).”4

Although the ātmā’s self-awareness has been lost, two of the defining characteristics of the soul are that he is “not just knowledge alone (jñāna-mātrātmako na ca)” and “made of knowledge and bliss (cid-ānandātmakas tathā).”5 Contrast these characteristics with the pitiable state of the jīva described in the Bhagavat Sandarbha: “The jīva, the very form of suffering, is surrounded by his own ignorance.”6 As we can see from the stark difference between these two descriptions, some of the qualities of the jīva are unmanifest when he is identified with the material body and its material śaktis.

Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary to Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.87.38, quoted in Prīti Sandarbha 23 informs us, “Because the jīva embraces ignorance caused by māyā, he serves the body and senses or identifies with them as his self. After that, with its qualities such as bliss (ānanda) hidden (apeta-bhāgaḥ), he adopts similar qualities and attains saṁsāra.”7 When Śrīdhara Svāmī says that the jīva adopts similar qualities, he means that the jīva identifies with the material body and its śaktis, such as material jñāna-śakti. As the jīva is turned away from God, the jīva’s inherent spiritual jñāna-śakti remains unmanifest.8 Paramātma Sandarbha 24 also describes how certain qualities of the jīva are unmanifest: “By association with māyā, represented by a woman, the jīva loses all his powers, his capacity for inherent knowledge etc. and follows her.”9

Many of the Soul’s Qualities Require Śakti to Manifest

Throughout the Paramātma Sandarbha, Jīva Gosvāmī specifies various spiritual śaktis that enable the liberated jīva to be a knower, doer, and enjoyer. For example, he says, “Though it [the ātmā] is knowledge itself, it also possesses the power of knowing (jñāna-śakti), just as light possesses the power of illumination”10 and “In commenting on Brahma-sūtra 3.2.5, Śaṅkara says that ātmā possesses śakti. Later it will be explained that the jīva has qualities similar to the Lord.”11 As Prīti Sandarbha affirms, “By a relationship with the svarūpa-śakti, māyā disappears and the jīva’s saṁsāra is destroyed.”12 What is the relationship of the jīva with the svarūpa-śakti? As I will establish in part 15 of this series, this relationship is tādātmya (identity/oneness).

The Soul’s Qualities/Śakti Manifests in Liberation

Jīva Gosvāmī’s commentary on Paramātma Sandarbha 33 clarifies what is meant by the qualities being “hidden”: “These qualities manifest in the jīva in liberation, just as qualities of males and females manifest in a person as they mature.”13 When Jīva Gosvāmī says that the qualities manifest in liberation, he means that spiritual śaktis manifest. This point is clear from the comment that follows: “The jīva’s qualities which are similar to the Lord’s are hidden. From meditation on the Supreme Lord, a śakti which defies darkness appears by the mercy of the Lord, like the power of a medicine.”14 This comment very clearly shows simultaneous inherence and bestowal because it says that the jīva’s hidden qualities (śakti) manifest by the mercy of the Lord. Jīva Gosvāmī is not referring to impersonal liberation because at that time all śakti is unmanifest. In his commentary to Paramātma Sandarbha 35, he also points out that one would always be able to perceive the qualities of the soul if it were not for the fact that they can manifest or not manifest. Since the qualities of the soul are eternal, they still exist even when they are unmanifest. Consequently, if qualities appear, it means that the qualities must be inherent in the svarūpa of the jīva. Otherwise, the jīva would have no tendency to manifest them.15

The Soul’s Qualities Are Only Fully Manifest in One of the Five Rasas with Bhagavān

To summarize, the qualities manifest in liberation; therefore, they are not material. Furthermore, the qualities do not refer to impersonal liberation because there is no śakti manifest in impersonal liberation—there is no knowing, doing, and feeling when the ātmā identifies with Brahman. Thus, when Jīva Gosvāmī says that the jīvas’ qualities manifest in liberation, he is not referring to the jīva in the material world (since eternal, spiritual qualities cannot be material) or the soul merged in Brahman (since śakti is not manifest in Brahman), but rather the soul who is situated in one of the five relationships with Bhagavān in the spiritual world.

Does the Soul Possess No Knowledge of the Lord?

In Bhakti Sandarbha 1, Jīva Gosvāmī says, “The jīva’s essential knowledge is covered by māyā, by the misfortune of being opposed to the Lord, which means that the jīva has, without beginning, possessed no knowledge (jñāna-saṁsarga-abhāva) of the beginningless supreme entity. The jīva consequently believes he is made of dull matter composed of sattva, rajas, and tamas.”16 Although jñāna often refers to knowledge of Brahman, in this context—knowledge about Bhagavān—it is actually referring to an aspect of the sambandha-jñāna of bhakti. As Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā (18.55), bhaktyā mām abhijānāti, “I can only be known by bhakti.” Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī says, “The essence of the saṁvit potency is knowledge that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is Lord Kṛṣṇa. All other kinds of knowledge, such as the knowledge of Brahman, are its components.”17 Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura writes, “Just as the word sattva indicates vidyā, so knowledge arising from bhakti is often called bhakti. Sometimes it is called bhakti and other times it is called jñāna.18

A superficial reading of Bhakti Sandarbha 1—the very first anuccheda of the book that is specifically speaking about bhakti—seems to be saying that bhakti does not exist in the jīva. So should we hang up our hats and call it a day, the answer to the question of whether bhakti can be both inherent and bestowed conclusively established? Let us slow down and consider the matter more deeply. If the answer were this obvious, the issue would hardly be a controversy. Is this verse really saying that knowledge of God (bhakti) is not inherent in the soul?

On closer inspection, we notice that anuccheda 1 says that the jīva’s essential knowledge (svarūpa-jñāna) is covered by māyā (māyayāvṛta) due to being opposed to the Lord (tad-vaimukhya). Here essential knowledge cannot be referring to mere consciousness, because the jīva doesn’t ever lose this quality. Furthermore, the anuccheda uses the term jñāna-saṁsarga-abhāva. Saṁsarga-abhāva is a term from Vaiśeṣika that refers to a type of nonexistence: the previous non-existence of an effect. A common example given is a pot that comes from a lump of clay: before the clay is made into a pot, the pot does not exist.

Thus, jñāna-saṁsarga-abhāva in this context refers to something that will come into existence in the future. In Vaiśeṣika philosophy, it refers to material effects: things that come into existence as a result of transformation. Since knowledge of Bhagavān—unlike a material lump of clay—is not an effect, but rather awakens in the purified heart,19 we can understand that Jīva Gosvāmī is using the term in a special sense. Because the jñāna is eternal, he doesn’t mean that it will come into existence. After all, he already said that the jñāna is covered, and how can you cover something that doesn’t exist? Rather, the non-existence of knowledge of God means that it is unmanifest. As Satyanarayana Dasa Babaji puts it, “The covering of consciousness means that the awareness (jñāna) of the jīva, though eternal (nitya), becomes unmanifest (anādi-tad-vaimūkhyena ajñānena jīvānāṁ nityam api jñānam āvṛtaṁ tirohitam). In other words, in the conditioned state, the jīva lacks inherent awareness of its own svarūpa, of Bhagavān, and of their relation.”20 Without the covering of māyā, the jñāna would manifest: “In the absense of māyā you realize prema.”21

One might ask, “How can the jñāna be absent in the soul when it has just been said that jīva’s jñāna is eternal? The answer is the inscrutable power of śakti. Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī clarifies in his commentary to anuccheda 33 that if śakti didn’t cause spiritual qualities to be either manifest or unmanifest, they would either always be manifest or always be unmanifest [because the jīva’s spiritual qualities are eternal]. Some devotees claim that the soul’s knowledge is unmanifest not in the soul’s svarūpa, but rather in the Lord. However, Jīva Gosvāmī does not support this interpretation. Rather, he says, “If the jīva did not have these qualities inherent in his svarūpa, there would be no tendency to manifest them.”22 Although the ultimate source of everything is obviously the Lord, Jīva Gosvāmī clearly establishes that the qualities are inherent in the jīva’s svarūpa. In conclusion, although there is apparently an absence of jñāna, it is actually eternally with the soul and only unmanifest—and thus apparently absent—when the soul is covered by māyā.

Having discussed how various characteristics of the jīva are unmanifest before liberation, let us look at one characteristic in particular: cid-ānandātmaka. Does it mean intrinsically of the nature of knowledge and bliss or merely conscious and free from material suffering? We will turn to this question in the next article of this series.

Some devotees argue that if svarūpa-śakti were unmanifest in the soul, then its manifestation would create vikārā (modification) in the soul, thereby making it like matter. I will address this objection in the next article. [↩]

Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.24.201 [↩]

“The extrinsic potency of Bhagavān acts contrary to logic [i.e., her behavior cannot be understood simply through logic]; otherwise, how is it possible that the living entity, who is the ruler of [i.e., superior to] prakṛti, being conscious and liberated, becomes bound and miserable? (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.7.9)” Dasa, Satyanarayana. Śrī Tattva Sandarbha: Vaiṣṇava Epistemology and Ontology (Ṣaṭ Sandarbha Book 1) (p. 285). Jiva Institute of Vaishnava Studies. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Dasa, Satyanarayana. Śrī Paramātma Sandarbha: The Living Being, Its Bondage, and the Immanent Absolute (p. 319). Jiva Institute of Vaishnava Studies. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Translation by Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātma Sandarbha. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 2) (p. 242). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Prīti Sandarbha. [↩]

This point will be established with scriptural references in part 12 of this series. [↩]

Translation by Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātma Sandarbha. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 45. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 19, commentary. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Prīti Sandarbha 5. Swami, HH Bhanu, Prīti Sandarbha. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 33, commentary. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 35, commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhakti Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 5). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.4.67 [↩]

“Just as the word sattva indicates vidyā, so knowledge arising from bhakti is often called bhakti. Sometimes it is called bhakti and other times it is called jñāna.” Cakravarti, Srila Visvanath. Sārārtha-Varṣiṇī-Ṭīkā: Commentary on Srimad Bhagavad Gita. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.22.107 [↩]

Paramātma Sandarbha 22, commentary. Dasa, Satyanarayana. Śrī Paramātma Sandarbha: The Living Being, Its Bondage, and the Immanent Absolute (p. 239). Jiva Institute of Vaishnava Studies. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Bhagavat Sandarbha 105. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 2) (p. 212). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 33, commentary. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 3). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition.

======================

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 10: Intrinsically of the Nature of Knowledge and Bliss

By Vrindaranya Dasi

Additional articles in this series

How the Soul’s Quality of Cid-Ānandātmaka Manifests in Liberation

In his discussion of cid-ānandātmaka (intrinsically of the nature of knowledge and bliss) in Paramātma Sandarbha 28, Jīva Gosvāmī says, “It is knowledge as the opposite of insentience and it is bliss (ānanda) and knowledge (jñāna) as the opposite of suffering.”1 Based on this definition, some argue that cid-ānandātmaka means only conscious and free of material suffering. However, the Sanskrit is jaḍa pratiyogitva (the opposite of inert) and duḥkha pratiyogitva (the opposite of suffering). What exactly does Jīva Gosvāmī mean by pratiyogitva (opposite/counterpart)? Conscious and free of material suffering is the very lowest possible understanding.

We should recall that Paramātma Sandarbha 24 describes how certain qualities of the jīva are unmanifest: “By association with māyā, represented by a woman, the jīva loses all his powers, his capacity for inherent knowledge etc. and follows her.”2 Although the jīva’s knowledge is eternal and fully expanded in liberation, his awareness of that knowledge is contracted by the upādhis (limitations) of different material bodies.3 For example, an ant body contracts awareness more than a human body. When the jīva is liberated from all material bodies, then the upādhis, which constricted his knowledge, are removed.

Furthermore, in Paramātma Sandarbha 28, Jīva Gosvāmī writes, “Jāmātṛ mentions that the jīva is not just knowledge. The reason was given…”4 What is the reason that Jīva Gosvāmī is referring to? It is found in anuccheda 22. There, he says that the jīva is not knowledge alone because he also has jñāna-śakti. As I will discuss in part 12, the jñāna-śākti that is a svarūpa characteristic is composed of svarūpa-śakti. Jīva Gosvāmī confirms this later in the anuccheda: “It should be understood that the intrinsic śakti of the jīva [svarūpa-śakti] will give him knowledge of his real self (pratyak-jñāna) whereas turning outwards (understood through the words vilokya, mumuhe and jñāna-gūhayā), the jīva in ignorance obtains material knowledge.”5

Indeed, Jīva Gosvāmī affirms, “For those who maintain that there is no experience of bliss in liberation (only the absence of suffering), they have not achieved the ultimate goal.”6 What he means is that those who identify with Brahman do not experience bliss because there is no śakti in Brahman.7 Such is not the case for the liberated devotees, who are knowers, doers, and enjoyers in the spiritual world. Just because the knowledge or bliss is not manifest when the soul is conditioned by māyā does not mean that the śakti does not exist: “Thus the śakti of an object exists previous to and after the effect, like a potency of a mantra. At the time of the effect, the śakti manifests. This is so for Brahman’s śakti also.”8

Śārīraka-bhāṣya (2.3.18), quoted in the commentary to Bhagavat Sandarbha 8, points out, “In the absence of an object it does not induce consciousness. This is not because it lacks consciousness.”9 What this means is that in the absence of an object, consciousness remains an unmanifest potential (śakti). When an object appears, one becomes conscious of it, just as light traveling through space becomes visible only when it reflects off an object. Similarly, when we are turned away from God, we do not experience the full manifestation of cid-ānandātmaka. However, when we turn to God by the grace of a devotee, then transcendental śakti begins to manifest. The more that we give up our false identification with māyā and instead serve God, the more our inherent qualities manifest: “The qualities which appear when the inferior qualities are destroyed simply manifest on their own. They are not created. They are eternally with the ātmā…the knowledge, detachment, power and dharma are eternally with the ātmā arising from Brahman.”10

In Jīva Gosvāmī’s discussion of cid-ānandātmaka, he uses the word jñāna (knowledge) for cit.11 Jñāna is generally translated as knowledge; however, it is sometimes translated as consciousness. Whether cit is consciousness or knowledge depends on whether the soul has manifest śakti or not. For example, in nirviśeṣa Brahman, all śakti is unmanifest.12 When śakti is unmanifest, then there is consciousness but no content of consciousness because Brahman is undifferentiated. Thus, for the soul identified with nirviśeṣa Brahman, cit is merely consciousness and not knowledge.

In contrast, when the soul turns to God by the mercy of a devotee, then jñāna-śakti manifests. Because there is no duality between cit and transcendental jñāna-śakti, when jñāna-śakti is fully manifest, then cit is transcendental knowledge. Therefore, when the soul is liberated, cit is transcendental knowledge and not mere consciousness, and his ānanda is bliss, not mere freedom from material suffering: “The jīva as a doer in his spiritual state is discussed. What else can be said? Surpassing the bliss of Brahman, the jīva attains happiness as a doer.”13

When our consciousness is identified with material jñāna, we are aware of material knowledge. Jīva Gosvāmī comments, “Though it is established that the jīva is naturally a knower, his knowing that he is a body by ignorance is also jīva’s knowledge, but because of its relation to ignorance, it is not natural to the jīva. Rather it is a distortion.”14 In other words, material jñāna-śakti gives distorted knowledge; therefore, it is not part of the svarūpa-lakṣaṇa of the jīva. Thus, when Jīva Gosvāmī says that the soul has jñāna-śakti as a svarūpa-lakṣaṇa, he is not referring to material jnāna-śakti.

Another reason why cit refers to knowledge and not mere consciousness is that being conscious of itself (sva-dṛk) is the sixth characteristic of the soul and being conscious (cetana) is the tenth characteristic of the soul. Cit must have some difference in meaning from these two characteristics or else the list of the soul’s characteristics would suffer from the fault of redundancy.

The Dharma of the Jīva

In Prīti Sandarbha 1, Jīva Gosvāmī quotes the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 5.5.6, “As long as the jīva does not have devotion (prīti) for me, Vāsudeva, he will not be liberated from the body.”15 In other words, without bhakti one cannot experience one’s true nature (since material identification is not one’s true nature). He also discusses how bhakti manifests: “Since it is a special function of the svarūpa-śakti, bhakti arises by the mercy of the Lord. It manifests and is not produced.”16 Here again, we see how bhakti is both inherent and bestowed: it manifests in the jīva’s heart by the mercy of the Lord. We will recall from earlier in the article that Jīva Gosvāmī pointed out, “The qualities which appear when the inferior qualities are destroyed simply manifest on their own. They are not created. They are eternally with the ātmā…the knowledge, detachment, power and dharma are eternally with the ātmā arising from Brahman.”17 The four śaktis mentioned in this verse are not material śaktis. They are the four śaktis that surround the Lord (Bhagavat Sandarbha 8). Therefore, they are svarūpa-śakti. As I mentioned previously in this article, śakti does not manifest in Brahman; therefore, this quotation is referring to qualities of a devotee who is situated in a relationship with Bhagavān. And what is spiritual dharma, the dharma of the soul? It is paro-dharma—bhakti (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.2.6).18

Why are the qualities only fully manifest in a relationship with Bhagavān and not Paramātmā? Since the three forms of Paramātmā—Kāraṇodakaśāyī, Kṣīrodakaśāyī, and Garbhodakaśāyī—relate to the material world, once the jīva is liberated from the material world, worship of Paramātmā leads either to identification with Brahman or serving Bhagavān. Of course, identification with Brahman is not the full manifestation of the jīva’s potential because all śakti is unmanifest in Brahman. Therefore, as we have seen throughout this article, the full manifestation of the jīva’s twenty-one qualities occurs only when the jīva is liberated from māyā and is established in love of God. When the jīva is situated in his svabhāva, he is no longer influenced by the māyā-śakti, no longer acts as a medium of the Lord for producing the material world (taṭastha-śakti), and instead has all his qualities fully manifest, which means that he wills, knows, and acts with inherent svarūpa-śakti.19

We will explore this topic in more detail in part 13 of this series, in which I discuss Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta (2.2.175-196), which some devotees point to in their attempt to establish that bhakti is not inherent. First, however, I would like to turn to the topic of taṭastha-śakti. A clear picture of taṭastha-śakti is essential for understanding the soul’s characteristics. As we will see, Jīva Gosvāmī uses the term in two distinct ways. If one fails to recognize this distinction, it can throw off one’s understanding of the jīva’s relationship with the svarūpa-śakti.

Paramātmā Sandarbha 28. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Translation by Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātma Sandarbha. [↩]

“According to the condition of the upādhis of the body, the jīva as a knower reveals itself to various degrees.” Paramātmā Sandarbha 33, commentary. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 28. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 22. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Prīti Sandarbha 5. Swami, HH Bhanu, Prīti Sandarbha. [↩]

In part 13 of this series, I will discuss in more detail why impersonal liberation affords no experience of bliss. [↩]

Bhagavat Sandarbha 8, commentary. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha. [↩]

Prīti Sandarbha 5. Swami, HH Bhanu, Prīti Sandarbha. [↩]

ity atra cid-ānandātmaka ity api hetv-antaram |tatra tasya jaḍapratiyogitvena jñānatvaṁ, duḥkha-pratiyogitvena tu jñānatvam ānandatvaṁ ca| [↩]

Bhagavat Sandarbha 1: “The one continuous entity whose very nature is bliss (advaya-jñānam) is called Brahman when there is a sense of oneness (rather than variety) caused by the possessor of the śakti without distinguishable śaktis…” Also: “The verse shows that Bhagavān is bliss itself (ānanda-mātre), endowed with all śaktis (upapanna-samasta-śaktau). It is clear from this that Bhagavān is an indivisible entity appearing with full manifestation including these śaktis, whereas Brahman is an incomplete manifestation, without appearance of those śaktis.” Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 36, commentary. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 33, commentary. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Prīti Sandarbha 1. Swami, HH Bhanu, Prīti Sandarbha. [↩]

Prīti Sandarbha 5. Swami, HH Bhanu, Prīti Sandarbha. [↩]

jñānaṁ vairāgyam aiśvaryaṁ dharmaś ca manujeśvara ātmano brahma-bhūtasya nityam eva catuṣṭayam, Prīti Sandarbha 5. Swami, HH Bhanu, Prīti Sandarbha. [↩]

Bhagavat Sandarbha 8: “The four śaktis [that surround the Lord] are dharma, jñāna, aiśvarya and vairāgya.” Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 2) (p. 37). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

How the jīva acts as a śakti in relation to God was discussed in part 11 of this series.

====================

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 11: Jīva Gosvāmī on Taṭasthā-Śakti

By Vrindaranya Dasi

Additional articles in this series

In Bhakti Sandarbha 178, Jīva Gosvāmī writes, “the jīva is an aṁśa of the taṭastha-śakti and is not the Lord’s svarūpa-śakti.” This verse identifies the jīva with the taṭastha-śakti and not the svarūpa-śakti; however, as we saw in my last article, Jīva Gosvāmī establishes that the jīva is only directly a doer when he performs action with the svarūpa-śakti. And what about this statement from the Paramātma Sandarbha which says that the jīva acts with cit-śakti (svarūpa-śakti), not taṭastha-śakti: “Thus instigation to act from the pure Lord and being a doer related to the pure Lord does not contaminate the pure jīva, since that action is predominated by the cit-śakti.”1 Furthermore, he says, “Antaraṅga-śakti (internal śakti) is also called the cit-śakti and is used in relation to the pure jīva and the Lord’s knowledge and power.”2 “Because of the non-difference of cause and effect, the jīva is the manifested cit consciousness of the Lord (ātmā).”3 So what exactly is the relationship of the jīva with the svarūpa-śakti?

The Difference between the Jīva and the Ātmā

To begin with, we must understand that the state of being a jīva is not the natural condition of the ātmā. As Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja puts it, “The original nature of every living entity is to consider himself the eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. But under the influence of māyā he thinks himself to be the body, and thus his original consciousness (ātmā-jñāna) is covered.”4 Therefore, when we hear a statement about the jīva, we have to remember that the jīva is the ātmā who is misidentified with the material energy. Because the ātmā is spiritual and eternal, it is not created at any time. However, the jīvas are manifested from Mahā Viṣṇu at the beginning of each kalpa. Maha Viṣṇu, who is lying in the Kāraṇa Ocean between the spiritual and material worlds,5 awakens the material world by glancing at it and impregnating it with the jīvas.6 The cit-śakti is unmanifest in the jīvas at that time because they are in suṣupti. When the jīvas are awakened, the cit-śakti is unmanifest to the degree that each jīva is turned away from the Lord. Thus, we have to understand the context of the verse cited at the beginning of this article: to describe those jīvas who are turned away from the Lord because their knowledge of God is unmanifest.

The Different Forms of the Lord

Although there is a complex array of expansions, incarnations, and energies, there is still only one nondual, absolute truth (advaya-jñāna-tattva). Bhagavān has one supreme potency but that one potency manifests diversely, parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.8).7 The reason why the advaya-jñāna-tattva manifests in different forms and with various śaktis is explained in Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.22.7-8:

Kṛṣṇa is the nondual Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although He is one, He maintains different personal expansions and energies for His pastimes. Kṛṣṇa 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 the material worlds.8

Therefore, the underlying purpose of both the spiritual and material worlds is to facilitate God’s pastimes. As Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.33 affirms, lokavat tu līlā-kaivalyam: “The Lord’s creation of the world is an act without motive, just a pastime.”9 Furthermore, the taṭastha-śakti is not an energy of the jīva, but rather an energy of the Paramātmā.10 As we saw in my previous article, the jīva uses either the māyā-śakti or the svarūpa-śakti to act (depending on whether the jīva is turned away from or toward the Lord). Nārada-pañcarātra says, “The jīva is called taṭastha because it is a conscious form which, leaving its knowledge of itself, becomes tinged by the attraction to the material guṇas.” The world is manifest by the combination of the māyā-śakti and the conscious souls, who animate the unconscious material nature. Jīva Gosvāmī writes that the jīva is “part of the taṭastha-śakti…because he is a medium of the Lord in the production of the material world.”11 He also says, “The jīva is considered a śakti because in that form he assists the Lord’s pastimes.”12

The Śakti that the Soul Uses to Act

One might ask why the taṭastha-śakti has to use another śakti to act. Since the jīva is said to be composed of taṭastha-śakti, it seems as though the jīva should be able to use that śakti to act. The reason is that the taṭastha-śakti—which means marginal—stands between the two other śaktis (māyā and svarūpa) and can use one or the other śakti (directly in the case of the svarūpa-śakti or indirectly in the case of the māyā-śakti).13 The jīva is compared to a ray of sunlight (kiraṇa).14 As the jīvas’ taṭastha nature is paradoxical, so too is material light: quantum physics tells us that light can function in two ways—either as a particle or as a wave. Similarly, the jīva functions either materially or spiritually, depending on whether it is turned away from or toward the Lord.

Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.22.9 says that although the jīvas are separated aṁśas of the Lord, they are counted among his different śaktis. This means that although a jīva is a separated expansion of God, he acts as a śakti in relation to God. A śakti is a capability for performing a function. In the case of the taṭastha-śakti, the function that the jīvas perform is manifesting the material world.15 Sanātana Gosvāmī clarifies the difference between an aṁśa, which is made of sac-cid-ānanda and a śakti: “The universe is called śakti, since it is devoid of sac-cid-ānanda. It cannot be called an aṁśa.”16 Thus, although jīvas are aṁśas, they act as śakti in relation to Bhagavān.

The Personified Śrutis Discuss Śakti

When the soul no longer identifies with māyā, then he ceases to function as the energy to manifest the material world and instead acts as the energy for God’s pleasure (svarūpa-śakti). This point is revealed in the Bhagavat Sandarbha 113: the Śrutis ask the Lord to uproot māyā and bestow devotion on the jīvas. The Lord raises an objection that by destroying māyā, the jīva will have no śakti. But the Śrutis reply that this is not the case because the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam says that the Lord awakens not only the māyā-śakti in the jīvas, but also the svarūpa-śakti: “O you who awaken all the material and spiritual energies of the jīvas.”17 The Śrutis go on to say:

“By destroying māyā, the śakti of the jīva, an upādhi of māyā, will also be destroyed.”18 But Jīva Gosvāmī comments that the Lord says, “The answer is the same. By the svarūpa-śakti, the complete śakti which gives happiness to the jīvas will appear” and concludes, “In this way the śrutis indicate the taṭastha nature of the jīva.”19

In this important section, the Śrutis are saying that the taṭastha nature of the jīva is that it knows, acts, and wills with either the māyā-śakti or the svarūpa-śakti—not that the jīva knows, acts, and wills with the taṭastha-śakti. As we saw in the previous article, when the jīva knows, acts, and wills with the māyā-śakti, it is indirectly a doer. When the jīva does so with the svarūpa-śakti, it is directly a doer. In other words, when the Paramātmā manifests the material world, the jīvas are covered by māyā, but they always have the possibility of turning away from māyā and towards the Lord by the mercy of a devotee. When they turn toward the Lord, then the svarūpa-śakti manifests in the jīva. Notice that the Śrutis did not say, “Don’t worry that when māyā is uprooted the jīvas will not have śakti because they will have taṭastha-śakti.” Instead, they declare that the svarūpa-śakti will be awakened. The taṭastha nature of the jīva is that it knows, acts, and wills with either the māyā-śakti or the svarūpa-śakti. However, as we will explore next, whether jīvas are considered eternally taṭastha-śakti depends on how taṭastha-śakti is defined. In the broadest definition of taṭastha-śakti, even eternal associates like Garuḍa are considered taṭastha-śakti.

The Meaning of Taṭastha

Taṭastha means situated on a bank between land and water, indicating the jīvas’ ability to turn to either the spiritual or material world. Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.7.62-63, quoted in Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.20.114 says, “O King, the kṣetra-jña-śakti is the living entity. Although he has the facility to live in either the material or the spiritual world, he suffers the threefold miseries of material existence because he is influenced by the avidyā [nescience] potency.”20 Although taṭastha-śakti indicates the facility to “live” in either the material or spiritual world, we see in Paramātma Sandarbha 47 that some taṭastha-jīvas are eternally liberated and never come to the material world. Jīva Gosvāmī describes that there are two classes of taṭastha-jīvas: the eternally liberated, who have always had knowledge of the Lord, and those who lack such knowledge and are thus averse to the Lord.21 He mentions that the eternally liberated devotees are endowed with the antaraṅga-śakti and are eternal associates like Garuḍa. In the Bhagavat Sandarbha, we find that Garuḍa is mentioned several times in the context of pointing out that Vaikuṇṭha and the associates therein are all svarūpa-śakti.

A widely quoted definition of the jīva in Nārada-pañcarātra is as follows: “The jīva is called taṭastha because it is a conscious form which, leaving its knowledge of itself, becomes tinged by the attraction to material guṇas.”22 According to this definition, it seems inaccurate to call an eternal associate like Garuḍa a taṭastha-jīva. After all, Garuḍa is special even among eternal associates. In his commentary to Bhagavat Sandarbha 8, Jīva Gosvāmī says that Garuḍa is the Lord of the Vedas. Even a flag marked with Garuḍa’s picture is mentioned to be nondifferent from the Lord.23 Nonetheless, Jīva Gosvāmī explains that “the jīvas of the first category [those eternally devoted to Bhagavān] are also classified as part of the intermediary potency (taṭastha), because the widely acknowledged condition that ‘jīva-hood’ (jīvatva) necessarily excludes them from being included in the same category as Īśvara Himself.”24 That said, such devotees are more commonly referred to as svarūpa-śakti, as Jīva Gosvāmī himself does in the Bhagavat Sandarbha.

In relation to sādhana-siddha devotees, Jīva Gosvāmī clarifies that although they are still taṭastha-jīvas, they can no longer become bewildered by māyā: “When the jīva is absorbed in bhakti, the cit-śakti overpowers prakṛti by its strength. In the case of attaining a spiritual body, the bliss protects the jīva.”25 Since sādhana-siddhas, like the nitya-siddhas, are endowed with the svarūpa-śakti and thus act solely for the pleasure of the Lord, they no longer fit the Nārada-pañcarātra description of taṭastha-jīvas, although according to Jīva Gosvāmī’s broader definition—not in the category of Īśvara Himself—they can still be considered taṭastha-jīvas.

This concept is explained further in Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.22. While saying virtually the same thing as Jīva Gosvāmī in Paramātma Sandarbha 47, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī uses the term vibhinnāṁśa (separated expansions) instead of taṭastha-jīva. He contrasts the vibhinnāṁśa with expansions of Kṛṣṇa’s own form (svāṁśa), which are forms that are nondifferent from him. In other words, the vibhinnāṁśas or taṭastha-jīvas are not Viṣṇu tattva. In summary, the difference between the eternally liberated jīvas and the conditioned jīvas is that one has eternal knowledge of God that is manifest and the other does not. When the knowledge of God manifests, then there is no essential difference between the nitya-siddhas and the sādhana-siddhas.

Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura also discusses this topic in his commentary to Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 6.16.56–57. Therein, he puts the sādhana-siddha devotees within the same category as the nitya-siddhas:

Because the forms of the associates of Bhagavān arise from the actions of the cit-śakti (the Lord’s svarūpa), those associates who are nitya-siddha are also permanent objects which are the Lord’s svarūpa. And some jīvas with desires for dāsya and other relationships, who have perfected themselves by pure bhakti or by mercy of nitya-mukta bhaktas, are included among the eternal associates as dāsas. They are also considered to be non-different from the svarūpa of the Lord, since they are empowered by the svarūpa-śakti.”26

In a similar vein, Jīva Gosvāmī mentions in Bhakti Sandarbha 310 that rāgātmikā-bhakti (the bhakti of the eternal associates) is the goal (sādhya) of rāgānugā-bhakti (bhakti that follows in the footsteps of the eternal associates), thereby implying that a rāgānugā-bhakta becomes a rāgātmikā.

The Relationship between the Svarūpa-Śakti and the Ātmā27

Someone might make the argument that although the ātmā requires svarūpa-śakti to perform spiritual action, that śakti is not part of the ātmā, just as the māyā-śakti is not part of the jīva. As I discussed in my previous article, Jīva Gosvāmī clearly states that the jīva is only directly a doer when he performs action with the svarūpa-śakti.28 In the case of the māyā-śakti, the jīva acts in the same way that a magnet drags iron filings, always at a distance from material nature. Why the difference? It is because material nature is inert, whereas the soul is spiritual. Since the svarūpa-śakti is also spiritual, the individual soul and the svarūpa-śakti are compatible. Bhagavat Sandarbha 15 says, “In order to describe the antaraṅga-śakti, the bahiraṅga-śakti is described. The two are called parā and aparā.”29 Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.8.153, quoting Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.7.61, says that the jīva-śakti is also parā. Bhagavad-gīta 7.5 also confirms that the jīva is the superior energy (parām). Śrī Brahma Saṁhitā also says that the nature of the jīva is the superior energy (prakṛtiś ca paraiva sā).

Bṛhad Bhagavatāmṛta 2.2.195 asserts, “The jīvas always have their own identities, different from that of the Supreme. But they are aṁśas of the Supreme and cannot exist separate from him, and this eliminates vijātīya difference.”30 Jīva Gosvāmī makes the same point in his commentary to Bhagavat Sandarbha 8: “Since ‘other things’ in the Lord are his śaktis they are not different entities, having a nature similar in status to his (sajātīya) and since the Lord, though he is avyakta, has śaktis, they are not completely different entities (vijātīya) which produce insentience and suffering within the Lord.”31 This means that the individual soul and the supreme soul are not in different categories. Sanātana Gosvāmī’s commentary clarifies: “Oneness or advayam is here proven. Though there is difference of the jīvas from the Lord since the jīvas are small and limited (vaijātyam), but in the highest sense (tattvataḥ) because of lack of difference from the Lord due to being similar by the cit-vilāsa-śakti, vijātīya difference (between the Lord and jīvas) is destroyed. This is because the aṁśa and aṁśī are considered nondifferent, since the qualities of the aṁśī appear in the aṁśas.”32

In conclusion, the term taṭastha-jīva usually refers to the ātmā when it is turned away from God and is manifesting the material world by identifying with the māyā-śakti. However, a broader definition of taṭastha-jīva is vibhinnāṁśa (separated expansion) which is contrasted with expansions of Kṛṣṇa’s own form (svāṁśa). In such a definition, the nitya-baddha, sādhana-siddha, and nitya-siddhas like Garuḍa are all taṭastha-jīvas.33 By the narrower definition of taṭastha-jīva (one turned away from God), both the sādhana-siddhas and nitya-siddhas, being turned toward God rather than away from him, are in a different category: that of the svarūpa-śakti. In the next article, I will discuss how some of the qualities of the soul are unmanifest and how a jīva must be situated as a devotee for all of his twenty-one intrinsic qualities to be fully manifest.

Paramātma Sandarbha 35. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 3). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Paramātma Sandarbha 56. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

amātma Sandarbha 37. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.24.201 [↩]

Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.20.269 [↩]

“The Lord (adhokṣajaḥ) through his portion who glances at prakṛti (puruṣeṇa ātmā-bhūtena) places the jīva (vīryam) in prakṛti (māyām) made of the guṇas by māyā which has the function of time (kāla-vṛttyā).” Paramātma Sandarbha 59. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Quoted in Bhagavat Sandarbha 98.5. Translation mine. [↩]

Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.22 [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Prīti Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 6). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

“Paramātmā’s śakti called taṭastha has been described.” Paramātmā Sandarbha 48. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 37, commentary. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Prīti Sandarbha 5. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Prīti Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 6). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

“The living entities constitute the marginal potency, and they are situated between the internal and external potencies. Being subordinate as eternal servants of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the jīvātmās, or atomic living entities, must remain under the control of either the internal or external potency. When they are under the control of the internal potency, they display their natural, constitutional activity—namely, constant engagement in the devotional service of the Lord.” Nectar of Instruction 2, purport. [↩]

Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.20.109 [↩]

“The jīva… is a medium of the Lord in the production of the material world (Paramātmā Sandarbha 37, commentary). Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Śrīla Sanātana. Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta, Canto 2, Part 1: The Search of Gopakumāra (p. 212). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 2) (p. 226). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha. [↩]

Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.20.114 [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Quoted in Paramātmā Sandarbha 37. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Bhagavat Sandarbha 62. [↩]

Paramātma Sandarbha 47. Dasa, Satyanarayana. Śrī Paramātma Sandarbha: The Living Being, Its Bondage, and the Immanent Absolute (p. 372). Jiva Institute of Vaishnava Studies. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 35, commentary. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Ṭhākura, Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, Sixth Canto: with Sārārtha-darśinī commentary. Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

The relationship between the svarūpa-śakti and the ātmā is discussed in more detail in part 15 of this series. [↩]

See part 12 of this series. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Śrīla Sanātana. Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta, Canto 2, Part 1: The Search of Gopakumāra (p. 221). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 2) (pp. 279–280). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Śrīla Sanātana. Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta, 221. [↩]

Some nitya-siddhas are in a special category called kaya-vyūha (expansions of the personal form). Although some devotees in the category of kaya-vyūha—such as the expansions of Rādhārāṇī—are not svāṁśa, it seems unlikely that Jīva Gosvāmī would include them in the category of taṭastha-jīva.

====================

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 12: Understanding Śakti

By Vrindaranya Dasi

Additional articles in this series

Overview

This article may be a little more difficult to follow than some of the others, so I will begin with an overview of the points I will cover. When the jīva acts in the material world, this action is not part of the jīva’s intrinsic characteristics. Such action is performed by material nature, and although material nature is animated by the soul, the soul does not directly perform the action. When Jīva Gosvāmī says that one of the jīva’s intrinsic characteristics is to be a doer, he is referring to action that is undertaken with the svarūpa-śakti. Since action performed with the svarūpa-śakti is bhakti and because all of the characteristics of the jīva are eternal, bhakti is inherent but unmanifest in the jīva. Since one who is covered by māyā cannot manifest the bhakti that is inherent without the bestowal of grace, bhakti is both inherent and bestowed.

The Śakti the Jīva Uses for Action

As I discussed in the previous article, there are three main śaktis: the svarūpa-śakti, the taṭastha-śakti, and the māyā-śakti. It intuitively seems that the jīva would use taṭastha-śakti to carry out three of its characteristics of knowing, doing, and enjoying (jñātṛtva, karṭrtva, and bhoktṛtva). However, Bhagavat Sandarbha 117 establishes something else. There, Jīva Gosvāmī says that there are higher (spiritual) and lower (material) forms of all the śaktis. The jīva uses different śaktis to do anything, such as knowing, doing, or enjoying. For each of these śaktis that the jīva uses, there is a higher (svarūpa-śakti) or lower (māyā-śakti) form. In other words, the jīva uses the svarūpa-śakti or māyā-śakti to perform action, not the taṭastha-śakti.

It may be surprising that the jīva does not use the taṭastha-śakti to act, but it actually makes sense. Because the soul is taṭastha (“on the border”), it can use either the material or spiritual energy. When the soul acts with the māyā-śakti, he is acting as Paramātma’s taṭastha-śakti to manifest the world (the potency by which the world is animated). When the soul acts with the svarūpa-śakti, he is acting for the pleasure of the Lord. Once a soul is fully situated in his inherent nature, then he can no longer be covered by māyā. Since such a soul is no longer situated between the svarūpa-śakti and māyā-śakti, he is only taṭastha in the sense that he is not in the category of the Lord (svāṁśa). Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, there is no difference between the sādhana-siddha and nitya-siddha devotees.

To understand the higher and lower śaktis, take the example of the vidyā-śakti. The internal vidyā-śakti causes realization of the Lord, being a special function of the saṁvit-śakti. The material version of the vidyā-śakti is “the door to revelation of the first type of vidyā.”1 Thus, material vidyā gives knowledge that the jīva is not the material body. This knowledge is of the nature of sattva-guṇa. The higher vidyā (svarūpa-śakti) causes realization of the Lord.

Thus, it is from these two śaktis that the jīva gets material and spiritual knowledge. When the jīva performs spiritual action, he does so with the svarūpa-śakti; when the jīva performs material action, he does so with the māyā-śakti. The same dynamic holds true for all the myriad śaktis that enable anything to happen.

But what exactly is the relevance of this information? Is both the māyā-śakti and the svarūpa-śakti part of the jīva? For example, Jīva Gosvāmī says that the soul has jñāna-śakti. Is the material jñāna-śakti part of the soul? Jīva Gosvāmī answers this doubt: “Though it is established that the jīva is naturally a knower, his knowing that he is a body by ignorance is also the jīva’s knowledge, but because of its relation to ignorance, it is not natural to the jīva. Rather it is a distortion.”2 In other words, the answer is no. Material jñāna is not natural to the jīva. Thus, when Jīva Gosvāmī says that one of intrinsic characteristics of the soul is to have jñāna-śakti, this jñāna-śakti does not refer to material jñāna-śakti.3 Rather, it refers to spiritual jñāna-śakti, which is a form of svarūpa-śakti.

This point is further established by understanding the jīva’s svarūpa and taṭastha characteristics. The taṭastha characteristics are incidental and extrinsic to the jīva and, as such, do not belong to the jīva’s essential or intrinsic nature (svarūpa-lakṣaṇa). In Paramātma Sandarbha 19, where Jīva Gosvāmī explains the svarūpa characteristics of the jīva, he mentions that in anuccheda 1 he already gave the taṭastha characteristics of the jīva when he explained the verse beginning with kṣetra-jñā etāḥ (ŚB 5.11.12). Śrīmad Bhagavatam 5.11.12, spoken by Jaḍa Bharata to King Rahūgaṇa, relates to the jīva as kṣetrajña, knower of the field of perception in this world. Hence, the jīva’s qualities of being a knower, a doer, and enjoyer in relation to this world all fall under the category of his extrinsic or accidental attributes (taṭastha-lakṣaṇa), not his intrinsic attributes (svarūpa-lakṣaṇa) arising from his svarūpa.

But what about when the soul acts with svarūpa-śakti? Is the svarūpa-śakti part of the soul’s intrinsic characteristics? Jīva Gosvāmī answers this question in his commentary to Paramātma Sandarbha 34, where he discusses the soul’s characteristic of being a doer (karṭrtva). As we will see, he says that when the jīva is identified with the material body, māyā-śakti is the doer. This indicates that the māyā-śakti is extrinsic to the jīva. However, when the jīva does spiritual action—action that is predominated by cit-śakti (another name for svarūpa-śakti)—the jīva himself is the doer, indicating that svarūpa-śakti is intrinsic to the soul:

The jīva who is absorbed in the material body is a doer through the body’s senses. The pure jīva is inspired to act by Paramātmā. However, when prakṛti predominates, matter or upādhis are said to be the doer. But since it was already explained that the jīva outside the body is without [material] senses, ultimately it is the jīva himself who is the doer… the śruti describes that in the liberated state the jīva is a doer, playing in the spiritual world… In the spiritual world the jīva moves, laughs, plays, and enjoys (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3). Being a doer does not in itself mean suffering. Action related to prakṛti brings suffering. Agency in relation to that which is pure does not contaminate the pure self due to the supremacy of cit-śakti.4

Again, Jīva Gosvāmī is saying that when action is performed using the māyā-śakti, the māyā-śakti—and not the jīva—is directly the doer because the māyā-śakti is extrinsic to the jīva. Although the action is performed by the māyā-śakti, it is considered to be caused by the jīva in the same way that a magnet causes iron filings to move.5

The Svarūpa-Śakti and the Jīva

In contrast, Jīva Gosvāmī clarifies that when the jīva performs action with the svarūpa-śakti, the jīva itself is the doer, even though such action is “inspired by the Paramātmā” and carried out with the svarūpa-śakti. The reason why the jīva is considered the doer is that when the jīva acts in relation to the Lord, he is one with the svarūpa-śakti. In other words, the natural state of the jīva is to have a relationship with Bhagavān and act with intrinsic svarūpa-śakti. Although the svarūpa-śakti is Bhagavān’s own energy, for the sake of the difference that facilitates līlā, it manifests the bodies, qualities, śakti, and so on, of his devotees. Because Kṛṣṇa’s devotees are one with him, it is not that their bodies and so forth are not their own (even though these bodies are made of Kṛṣṇa’s own śakti).

This truth is shown in the brahma-vimohana-līlā, where Kṛṣṇa expanded his own form (svāṁśa) to replace the stolen cowherd boys (vibinnāṁśa). Although the cowherd boys’ bodies are svarūpa-śakti, as is Kṛṣṇa’s body, he experiences more bliss in relation to them (in their original forms). In contrast, Kṛṣṇa’s devotees experience more bliss in relation to him directly: the mothers felt more bliss when their sons had forms that were Kṛṣṇa himself (svāṁśa). In other words, just because Kṛṣṇa’s body and the devotees’ bodies are both svarūpa-śakti, they are not identical from the angle of rasa. If they were, then there would be no difference in regard to how much bliss was experienced, but such was not the case. These are the subtle workings of simultaneous oneness and difference.

As Kṛṣṇa’s body is nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa, the devotee’s body is similarly nondifferent from the devotee. In his commentary to Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.112–114, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī confirms:

Paramānanda here refers to the hlādinī-śakti. Rati is nondifferent (tādātmya) from it because its root is hlādinī-śakti. The form of Kṛṣṇa is the vibhāva. This form is nondifferent (tādātmya) from the hlādinī-śakti because the Lord, origin of the śakti, and His śakti are considered one. The form of the devotee (the āśraya element of vibhāva) is filled with rati (whose root is the hlādinī-śakti) and is therefore nondifferent (tādātmya) from it.6

It is a misunderstanding to say that the jīva (as taṭastha-śakti) is different from his spiritual body (which is svarūpa-śakti). As the quotation establishes, the devotee is the shelter of love and Kṛṣṇa is the object of love. The devotee is filled with rati and is therefore one (tādātmya) with the hlādinī-śakti. Some devotees have misunderstood tādātmya to mean the relationship between two objects (fire and iron). What tādātmya actually means is the relationship of something with itself. I will address this misunderstanding in part 15.

As we saw in the last article, when the jīva is liberated, he can be called svarūpa-śakti in that he is now acting for the pleasure of Bhagavān. It is also correct to say that the jīva is eternally taṭastha-śakti in the sense that he is not Kṛṣṇa’s own form (svāṁśa). However, when Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja presents these concepts of Jīva Gosvāmī, he preferred to use the term vibinnāṁśa instead of taṭastha-śakti.7

More Evidence

In Prīti Sandarbha, Jīva Gosvāmī again explains this dynamic: “The jīva’s ability to act in relation to transformations of prakṛti arises by the mercy of the Lord’s māyā-śakti. Because of a relationship with māyā, the jīvas experience saṁsāra. Action in relation to experiencing the self, Brahman, and Bhagavān takes place by the mercy of the Lord’s svarūpa-śakti.”8 It is notable that Jīva Gosvāmī says that even action in relation to experiencing the self takes place by the mercy of the svarūpa-śakti. The reason is that the self is actually known only in relation to Bhagavān because the self is a devotee of the Supreme Self.

The twenty-one qualities of the jīva are eternal and intrinsic, and they clearly require śakti, as one cannot be a knower (jñātṛtva), doer (karṭrtva), or enjoyer (bhoktṛtva) without śakti. As we have seen in this article, Jīva Gosvāmī clearly specifies that the śakti by which the jīva is actually a knower, doer, and enjoyer is the svarūpa-śakti. The relevance of this fact is that bhakti is inherent in the jīva, even as the jīva needs mercy to realize his inherent nature.

The Relevance of the Jīva’s Being Self-Manifesting

The fact that the svarūpa-śakti is intrinsic to the soul is also apparent from the fact that his quality of svayam-prakāśaḥ (self-manifesting) is also achieved with svarūpa-śakti. As we have established in this article, when the soul is not identified with māyā, all the śaktis of the soul are svarūpa-śakti. One can hardly be self-manifesting with an energy that is extrinsic to the self. In fact, Jīva Gosvāmī makes just this point: “the jīva reveals itself by its own śakti (not depending on another entity).”9 He also says in his commentary to anuccheda 8, “Self-manifestation does not depend on another entity at all. If it depends on something else, it cannot fulfill its definition.”10 Although the individual soul is fully dependent on the Supreme Soul for his śaktis, Jīva Gosvāmī confirms that this does not negate the soul’s self-manifesting nature.11 The reason for this is that the Supreme Soul is not considered “another entity” because of the acintya-bhedābheda relationship between the individual soul and the Supreme Soul.

In conclusion, we have discussed how the svarūpa-śakti is responsible for the soul’s knowing, doing, and enjoying when the sādhaka turns to God by the mercy of God or a devotee. The svarūpa-śakti is unmanifest in the jīva when he is turned away from the Lord and manifests when he is turned to the Lord. Jīva Gosvāmī establishes that the soul himself is the doer when he acts with svarūpa-śakti. Since that action is bhakti, bhakti is simultaneously inherent and bestowed. In the next article, I will return to the topic of the soul’s knowledge and bliss. Some devotees reference Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta (2.2.175–196) to try to establish that cid-ānandātmakas tathā means “conscious and free from material suffering.” I will show the weakness of such an argument.

Bhagavat Sandarbha 117. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 2) (p. 239). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 33, commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 22. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 34, commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

From Jīva Gosvāmī’s Sarva-saṁvādinī commentary: “Commenting on Brahma-sūtra 2.2.2, Śaṅkara says: One may propose that the ātmā endowed with a body cannot initiate action, since ātmā performs no action, ātmā being knowledge alone. That is not so, since it is suitable for ātmā to cause action even though it is without action itself, as is the case of a magnet which does not move causes movement of iron and or the case of form which provokes movements in the eye.” Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 2) (p. 255). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Śrīla Rūpa. Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu: Volume One. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Please see part 11 of this series for scriptural references for these statements. [↩]

Prīti Sandarbha 5. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Prīti Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 6). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 28. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha. [↩]

“Though jīva depends on Paramātmā for its self-revealing nature, it is not dependent like a pot on another entity’s revelation, since Paramātmā does not depend on another entity for its revelation—because he is the ultimate form.” Paramātmā Sandarbha 27. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha.

=====================

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 13: The Bliss of the Jīva

By Vrindaranya dasi

Additional articles in this series

In part 10 of this series, I explained why cid-ānandātmaka means intrinsically of the nature of knowledge and bliss. Some devotees, however, point to Prīti Sandarbha 63 and Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta (2.2.175–196) to establish that cid-ānandātmaka only means “conscious and free from material suffering.”1 If one wants to establish that bhakti is only bestowed, it is essential to establish that the soul has no inherent bliss because as I showed in part 6 of this series, any eternal bliss in the soul indicates bhakti. A reason why the argument that cid-ānandātmaka only means “conscious and free from material suffering” has gained any traction is that sometimes the ānanda of the jīva is contrasted with the bliss of bhakti to show that the bliss of bhakti is much greater than that which the jīva experiences without bhakti. This argument becomes rather technical, so please bear with me.

The bliss experienced by the Lord is of two types: bliss from his svarūpa (svarūpa-ānanda) and bliss from his svarūpa-śakti (svarūpa–śakty-ānanda). This concept is somewhat difficult to understand because the Lord’s svarūpa and his svarūpa-śakti are at the same time one. The bliss of Bhagavān’s svarūpa arises from the fact that he is sac-cid-ānanda pūrṇa (the complete form of eternity, knowledge, and bliss). The bliss of bhakti comes from his svarūpa–śakty-ānanda.

The liberated soul is a particle of sac-cid-ānanda, and thus his svarūpa-ānanda can similarly be analysed separately from the svarūpa–śakty-ānanda he experiences. In such an analysis, his bliss is minute since the individual soul is only a particle of sac-cid-ānanda, whereas Bhagavān is sac-cid-ānanda pūrṇa. When the soul is analyzed in terms of svarūpa–śakty-ānanda, the amount of the soul’s bliss increases exponentially.

Although the svarūpa-śakti is Bhagavān’s śakti, it is also the śakti that is used by Bhagavān’s devotees, including those who are not nitya-siddhas. As I showed in part 12 of this series, Jīva Gosvāmī says that when the soul acts with svarūpa-śakti, the soul himself is the doer; whereas, when the soul acts with māyā-śakti, prakṛti is directly the doer and the soul is indirectly the doer (because the soul and material nature never directly contact each other). The relationship between the devotee (the āśraya of bhakti) and his body, which is made of svarūpa-śakti, is one (tādātmya).2 These concepts are somewhat terse but are essential to understanding why Jīva Gosvāmī is saying that the bliss of the ātmā is small. The important point to understand is that the soul’s bliss is not small when his svarūpa-lakṣaṇa is fully manifest. As I showed in part 9, this only happens when the soul receives bhakti. Thus, again, we see that bhakti is both inherent and bestowed.

I will now discuss a section of Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta (2.2.175–196) that is sometimes used to try to establish that cid-ānandātmakas tathā only means “conscious and free from material suffering.”

In this section of Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta, the bhakti-śāstras discuss how to be happy and destroy suffering. They present how this question is answered by three groups: the followers of Nyāya, philosophers who accept only one portion of the Vedas, and the followers of Vivarta-vāda (the Māyāvāda theory of the illusion of the Supreme).

Sanātana Gosvāmī accepts the premise that the goal of human life is to be happy and destroy suffering. He then goes on to show how the three types of mokṣa (proposed by the three groups) does not accomplish their desired result. As we know from Prīti Sandarbha 1, “The goal of the human being is to attain happiness and destroy suffering. Complete happiness and destruction of suffering is attained only by prīti for the Lord.”3

Thus, although the bhakti-śāstras accept these three ideas about liberation for the sake of argument, the bhakti-śāstras’ main point, which they assert in the opening verse of this section, is that “there is no happiness in any of these ideas of liberation.”4 The assumption of the third group (Vivarta-vādins) is that “Liberation is realization of Brahman, which is one’s own ātmā, by giving up distinctions in saṁsāra.”5 Verse 2.2.176 addresses realizing one’s self separate from realizing Brahman. As we know from Prīti Sandarbha 60, knowledge of the soul apart from the body is merely in sattva-guṇa. Therefore, it is of no surprise that Sanātana Gosvāmī says that the bliss of realizing one’s svarūpa in this context is alpakam (meager). He says, “Accepting the principle of ‘let the ignorant be satisfied,’ the word happiness is used in relation to liberation. It should be understood as previously discussed that this is done in order to understand the greatness of happiness in bhakti.”6

Verse 2.2.177 describes realizing oneself as a particle of Brahman. One has to keep in mind that the bliss of identifying with Brahman is meager compared to bhakti because śakti is unmanifest in Brahman. Furthermore, identifying with Brahman requires bhakti because the unqualified Absolute is still an aspect of God. As we discussed previously, most of the twenty-one qualities of the soul require śakti, which would naturally be unmanifest for one identified with Brahman.

Jīva Gosvāmī says something in relation to Brahman that is also relevant to the individual soul: “Thus one vision is incomplete, manifesting the object without particulars. That is Brahman. That vision is complete when there is a form with various qualities arising from the svarūpa.”7 Although Brahman is sac-cid-ānanda, compared to the ocean of condensed bliss of Bhagavān with his svarūpa-śakti, the bliss of Brahman is no more than the water contained in a calf’s hoofprint (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.3.197). Therefore, when Sanātana Gosvāmī says, “The happiness that arises from directly perceiving the svarūpa of the jīva—the entity composed of eternity, knowledge, and bliss—is actually meager,”8 we must keep in mind the context. He is addressing those who believe that the individual soul and God are the same. By showing that by perceiving the svarūpa of the individual soul separate from God gives meager happiness, he establishes that the individual soul is not the same as God. Is this the full svarūpa of the jīva? No. How do we know? Because he is describing the realization of sac-cid-ānanda without śakti, and the full manifestation of the twenty-one characteristics of the jīva requires śakti.

Although Brahman and Bhagavān are advaya-tattva (nondual truth), the bliss of Brahman is meager compared to the bliss of Bhagavān. The reason for this is that Bhagavān has condensed sac-cid-ānanda. How does sac-cid-ānanda become condensed? When the śakti that is inherent in it manifests. Śrī Jīva reveals that the individual soul can also have condensed sac-cid-ānanda: “Sannyāsīs attain insignificant happiness on attaining liberation by knowledge of their svarūpa alone, but the devotees do not attain directly such insignificant happiness. The reason for rejection of both is that they have forms or svarūpas of condensed sac-cid-ānanda. Since they have condensed knowledge, they cannot have ignorance by which they would think meager happiness is the greatest. Since they have condensed bliss, none of them attain meager happiness.”9 Therefore, when the jīva realizes his svarūpa in the context of bhakti, then his ānanda is not meager because all of his twenty-one qualities are fully manifest.

This section of Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta says that the soul is composed of a particle of sac-cid-ānanda (2.2.187). As we know from Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.4.61–62, Kṛṣṇa’s svarūpa is sac-cid-ānanda pūrṇa. So obviously an atomic particle of sac-cid-ānanda is not equivalent to sac-cid-ānanda pūrṇa. Even so, Sanātana Gosvāmī establishes those who identify with Brahman do not experience happiness either. Why? Because experiencing happiness implies duality: the experiencer and the experience. Since those with an impersonal conception of liberation reject all duality, they are not able to experience the bliss of Brahman. Therefore, the śakti that would allow them to taste bliss is not manifest. Brahman is sac-cid-ānanda, but its inherent śaktis are unmanifest.10 From sac-cid-ānanda, the cit-śakti manifests as hlādinī-śakti, saṁvit-śakti, and sandhinī-śakti.11 Although ānanda is bliss, hlādinī-śakti is condensed bliss.

The important point to glean out of this is that depending on your angle of vision, one gets a different picture of someone’s svarūpa, even though that svarūpa doesn’t change. For example, the svarūpa of Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān is the same, but still the bliss of Bhagavān is greater than the bliss of Brahman. Brahman is without attributes and Bhagavān has attributes (dharma). To know something, we must consider that thing’s svarūpa and dharma. The two together are inseparable, although as we see in the case of Brahman and Bhagavān, the attributes can be unmanifest. Even though they are unmanifest, they are still an inseparable part of the absolute truth, which is known in three aspects: Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān.

Similarly, if you consider the amount of ānanda in the soul’s svarūpa—as a particle of sac-cid-ānanda—and don’t take into consideration bhakti—which is the soul’s eternal dharma or nature—the bliss is very meager because there is no condensed ānanda. One’s svarūpa doesn’t change if the inherent śakti is unmanifest, but the degree of ānanda that one experiences certainly does. With the mercy of Bhagavān or his devotee, the śakti that is inherent manifests, and the soul is able to taste condensed bliss. Thus, bhakti is both inherent and bestowed.

I have established that the soul’s qualities can be unmanifest or manifest and that cid-ānandātmaka means intrinsically of the nature of knowledge and bliss. However, some devotees argue that because the ātmā is eternal and not subject to modification, the change of qualities from unmanifest to manifest would make the ātmā modifiable (vikārī) like matter. I will address this objection in the next article.

Prīti Sandarbha 63: “What is the occasion which makes the Lord become mad with his bliss?… It is not the bliss of the jīva, since that is very meager.” It is notable that Jīva Gosvāmī—unlike those who advocate bestowal-only—does not say that the jīva has no bliss and only the absence of suffering. Rather he says that the jīva—the ātmā identified with the material world—has meager bliss). Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Prīti Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 6). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

I explain tādātmya in part 15 of this series. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Prīti Sandarbha. [↩]

Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja; Srila Sanatana Gosvami. Sri Brhad-bhagavatamrta: Second Canto Part One. Gaudiya Vedanta Publications. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Śrīla Sanātana. Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta, Canto 2, Part 1: The Search of Gopakumāra (p. 204). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Śrīla Sanātana. Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta, 205. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha, 180. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Śrīla Sanātana. Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta, 204–205. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Śrīla Sanātana. Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta, 441. [↩]

Bhagavat Sandarbha 1 and 16. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha. [↩]

Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.6.158–59

====================

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 14: The Soul Is Not Subject to Transformation

By Vrindaranya dasi

Additional articles in this series

Although Jīva Gosvāmī says that the soul it not just knowledge alone but rather also has jñāna-śakti, some devotees argue that the jñāna of the jīva only amounts to consciousness and the jñāna-śakti is only a “quality potential,” by which they mean that spiritual jñāna-śakti is not actually an inherent attribute of the jīva but one that has the potential to manifest in conjunction with the svarūpa-śakti. In other words, the actual potency (śakti) does not reside in the jīva but in the svarūpa-śakti. Such devotees explain that since the jīva is conscious, he has the ability to identify with either a material or spiritual body. By identifying with the svarūpa-śakti, they say that the jīva can become one with the svarūpa-śakti like an iron rod can become hot like fire. Although such an iron rod essentially acts as fire, it still remains constitutionally different than fire. Thus, they are forced to admit that in their conception, the potential actually resides in the svarūpa-śakti, not the iron rod. Hence the term “quality potential.”

Along the same lines, these devotees argue that the jīva does not have inherent transcendental dharma-bhūta-jñāna [knowledge as an attribute].1 They say that dharma-bhūta-jñāna is received from devotees and that if such knowledge were present in an unmanifest state in the jīva, then its manifestation would create vikāra (transformation) in the jīva. Since one of the characteristics of the jīva is that he is not subject to change (na vikārī), they argue that the manifestation of transcendental knowledge would create an unacceptable transformation in the jīva if such knowledge were inherent. They uphold that the soul only has inherent jñāna-svarūpa, which they define as consciousness. They say that consciousness identifies with transcendental knowledge and becomes one with it in a similar way that an iron rod becomes one with fire.

In his Govinda-bhāṣya commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa discusses these two kinds of transcendental knowledge: jñāna-svarūpa (knowledge itself) and dharma-bhūta-jñāna (knowledge as an attribute). They are explained through the analogy of a lamp: a lamp illuminates itself and other things. The terms jñāna-svarūpa and dharma-bhūta-jñāna are used extensively in Śrī Rāmānujācārya’s Viśiṣṭādvaita system.2 When Jīva Gosvāmī uses the same analogy of a lamp in Paramātma Sandarbha, he uses the term jñāna rather than jñāna-svarūpa and the term jñāna-śakti rather than dharma-bhūta-jñāna.3

Devotees who assert that the manifestation of dharma-bhūta-jñāna would create vikāra in the ātmā also say that the same argument holds true for the spiritual body as for dharma-bhūta-jñāna.4 In other words, they say that if the spiritual body were inherent but unmanifest, its manifestation would create vikāra in the ātmā. Therefore, they opine that the jīva merely identifies with the siddha-deha in a similar way to how the soul identifies with the material body: influencing it like a magnet drags iron filings. They argue that because the soul and the siddha-deha do not contact each other (like a magnet does not contact iron filings to move them), there is no change in the jīva when he identifies with the siddha-deha. In other words, they believe that both eternal knowledge and the siddha-deha are external to the jīva (never directly contacting the soul). In this article, I will discuss the numerous problems with this understanding. I will also show the flaw in the primary assertion—that the manifestation of eternal knowledge would cause unacceptable vikāra in the jīva.

Perhaps the most important point to consider is that although Jīva Gosvāmī often compares the material body to iron filings, he never compares the svarūpa-śakti to iron filings. Indeed, the analogy doesn’t hold because unlike material nature, which is compared to iron because it is unconscious, the svarūpa-śakti is conscious. It would thus be inappropriate to compare the siddha-deha to iron that is dragged by the ātmā (magnet). Notwithstanding, Jīva Gosvāmī does quote a verse from Viṣṇu Purāṇa that some may mistakenly think supports the idea that the relationship between the ātmā and the siddha-deha is like a magnet and iron filings: “O sage! The Lord bestows his qualities on the person who meditates on him by his śakti, just as a magnet produces similar qualities in iron.”5 You will notice that here it is the Lord who is compared to the magnet, not the jīva. The iron filings seem to refer to the jīva; however, reading the verses that come before and after Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.7.30 clarify that it is the practitioner’s material mind that is drawn to the Supreme Lord and thereby becomes spiritualized. Therefore, this verse describes the relationship between consciousness and matter in the same way as the other verses that use the magnet and iron analogy: consciousness/spirit drags matter but never contacts it directly.

Perhaps someone might argue that it is the siddha-deha (magnet) that drags the ātmā (iron filings). However, this suggestion also fails. The reason again is that the ātmā is not inert like iron. Being conscious itself, the ātmā does not need to be animated. Indeed, what would be the purpose of a conscious soul that is merely dragged around as if it were inert? The whole point of the magnet/iron filings analogy is that the real doer is the magnet, not the iron filings. Thus, if the soul is like iron filings, then it is not a real knower, doer, and enjoyer—which, of course, contradicts Paramātma Sandarbha.

But if we reject this understanding, then how do we answer the challenge that eternal knowledge cannot be unmanifest in the soul because its manifestation would transform the soul? Before I answer according to our Gauḍīya ācāryas, let me first point out that in Viśiṣṭādvaita not only the jīvas’ jñāna-svarūpa but also the jīvas’ spiritual dharma-bhūta-jñāna undergoes no change:

The dharma-bhūta-jñāna of Paramātma never undergoes any changes. For Him, an object need not be in contact with senses to receive knowledge of the object. He is fully cognizant of all objects at all times to the fullest extent (yaḥ sarvajñaḥ sarvavit). For mukta-jīvas also, the dharma-bhūta-jñāna is fully expanded, unbounded, and illuminates with a full intensity equal to that of Paramātma. For baddha-jīvas in the saṁsāra, the dharma-bhūta-jñāna becomes covered and the extent to which it gets covered depends on the body they take. The body is made up of senses and it is through the senses that one can perceive things. The body they take depends on their karma.6

One might protest that in Viśiṣṭādvaita dharma-bhūta-jñāna expands and contracts. The change from contracted to expanded is vikāra. The answer is as follows: in Viśiṣṭādvaita, dharma-bhūta-jñāna includes both material and spiritual knowledge. Fully expanded dharma-bhūta-jñāna is eternal spiritual knowledge, and it undergoes no change. It is only the expanding and contracting of dharma-bhūta-jñāna that causes change. In other words, it is only material knowledge that undergoes change.

Unlike Viśiṣṭādvaita’s concept of expanding and contracting dharma-bhūta-jñāna, the Gauḍīya concept of spiritual knowledge manifesting does not result in a change occurring. This is because the Gauḍīyas say that there are two different jñāna-śaktis—material and spiritual—not one śakti that expands and contracts. Thus, when spiritual jñāna-śakti (svarūpa-śakti) manifests, it is not the same as dharma-bhūta-jñāna expanding because spiritual jñāna-śakti does not undergo material transformation.

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa also refutes the idea that the manifestation of dharma-bhūta-jñāna creates vikāra in the jīva by stating that the jīva’s dharma-bhūta-jñāna is eternal [and is therefore not subject to change]. In his Govinda-bhāṣya commentary, he asks, “Is the knowledge which is manifest as a quality (dharma-bhūta-jñāna) of the jīva eternal or temporary?7 He answers in his commentary to sūtra 2.3.26:

Knowledge as a quality of the jīva is eternal. Why? Because other than the statement (pṛthag) that the jīva is the seer, there are teachings of the jīva having eternal knowledge in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5.14, avināśī vā are ‘yam ātmānucchitti-dharmā: the jīva is indestructible and has indestructible qualities.8

Clearly, the jīva’s dharma-bhūta-jñāna, although eternal, is covered when the jīva is conditioned by māyā. Therefore, the jīva’s dharma-bhūta-jñāna is considered intrinsic even though it is unmanifest, and its manifestation is not considered a change.

A careful study of scripture reveals that it is material transformation that is problematic, not spiritual transformation. The Padma Purāṇa informs us that the Lord is not subject to the six transformations of material nature: birth, existence after birth, growth, transformation, decline, and death.9 However, the spiritual world itself abounds with spiritual vikāra (transformation). Indeed, Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī herself is called Kṛṣṇa’s praṇaya-vikāra (transformation of love). The components of rasa are manifestations of spiritual vikāra, such as the aṣṭa-sāttvika-vikāra (the eight kinds of transcendental transformation). Although svarūpa-śakti undergoes spiritual transformation, Jīva Gosvāmī establishes that the svarūpa-śakti is unchanging: “Internal difference does not produce the fault of contradiction to the statement that Brahman is advaya (one entity alone) since internal difference is unavoidable as its very existence, though it is devoid of the six transformations (which are present in material existence).”10 He also says that the cit-śakti is separate from the material śakti and its transformations.11

Finally, in his commentary on Bhagavat Sandarbha 8, Jīva Gosvāmī confirms that spiritual śakti does not change when it goes from unmanifest to manifest. He says that if śakti did not exist when it was unmanifest, that would mean that its very svarūpa would be destroyed. This is impossible because the svarūpa of spiritual things is eternal. Therefore, spiritual śakti still exists even when it is unmanifest. He emphasizes, “One should not worry that there will be contrary action in Brahman (producing change where there should be no change) since the manifested object reveals itself. … The meaning is this. Because he does not have guṇas, he is without change.”12 This truth is beautifully explained in Sanātana Gosvāmī’s Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta, when he describes the inhabitants of Vaikuṇṭha: “Those devotees have attained the absolute limit of changelessness, yet they playfully show all kinds of transformations while taking part in their Lord’s pastimes.”13 Sanātana Gosvāmī comments: “The devotees who take part pretend to undergo transformations just to create the varieties that give the Lord pleasure.”14

As these quotations establish, there is no validity to the assertion that the manifestation of transcendental knowledge would create unacceptable vikāra in the jīva. Thus, unlike a magnet and iron filings, which never make contact, the ātmā and the siddha-deha are nondifferent, having an identity relation (a relation of something with itself, not to be confused with something identifying with something else). How could it be otherwise? If we didn’t have oneness with our own spiritual body and if we never directly contacted it, then we would be different from it. The one who identifies with the spiritual body would be forever distinct from that spiritual body because identification implies duality. Mere identification with the siddha-deha also implies that the identification happened at a point in time, indicating that the relationship isn’t eternal. This understanding also gives rise to the troubling doubt that our spiritual existence is akin to watching a movie that we don’t directly participate in. Therefore, in the next chapter, let us fully dispel these doubts by continuing to examine what the scriptures say about the nature of the relationship between the ātmā and the siddha-deha.

In Viśiṣṭādvaita, dharma-bhūta-jñāna can be both material and transcendental knowledge. [↩]

Jñāna-svarūpa is alternatively called svarūpa-jñāna, svarūpa-bhūta-jñāna, or dharmi-jñāna. [↩]

Each pair of terms is analogous in some ways, but there are distinctions. In Viśiṣṭādvaita, dharma-bhūta-jñāna can be both material and transcendental knowledge. It refers to knowledge of everything other than the self. Jīva Gosvāmī divides the parallel term jnāna-śakti into spiritual and material divisions, with spiritual jñāna-śakti being part of the jīva’s svarūpa-lakṣaṇa and material jñāna-śakti being part of the jīva’s taṭastha-lakṣaṇa. [↩]

It should be noted that the spiritual body is not considered dharma-bhūta-jñāna in the Viśiṣṭādvaita system. Furthermore, svarūpa-jñāna is self-awareness, knowledge of oneself. But as the self in Viśiṣṭādvaita teachings has śeṣatva as one of its essential properties, true knowledge of the self includes knowledge of the Lord, as well as knowledge of one’s relationship as an eternal servant of the Lord. After all, the Lord is the Soul of the soul. Thus, knowledge of the self cannot be isolated from knowledge of the Lord. [↩]

Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.7.30 quoted in Paramātma Sandarbha 37, commentary. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

“Swarupa Jnana vs Dharma Bhuta Jnana,” May 23, 2022, Pravachanam, pravachanam.com/sites/default/files/Book/swarupa_jnana_vs_dharma_bhuta_jnana.pdf. [↩]

Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Śrīla Baladeva; Swami, HH Bhanu. Brahma Sūtras: With Govinda-bhāṣya commentary of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (p. 256). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Śrīla Baladeva; Swami, HH Bhanu. Brahma Sūtras, 256. [↩]

Quoted in Bhagavat Sandarbha 60. [↩]

Bhagavat Sandarbha 8, commentary. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 2) (pp. 261–262). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Bhagavat Sandarbha 8, commentary. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 2) (p. 262). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta 2.4.47. Dasa, Gopiparanadhana. Sri Brhad-bhagavatamrta: Volume Two. The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta 2.4.47, commentary. Dasa, Gopiparanadhana. Sri Brhad-bhagavatamrta.

====================

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 15: Identity/Oneness (Tādātmya)

By Vrindaranya dasi

Additional articles in this series

An aspect of the inherency/bestowal controversy is the nature of the relationship of the ātmā with the siddha-deha. In Nyāya-vaiśeṣika, the relation of the material body with its qualities (guṇa) is one of samavāya (inherency). However, in this system of philosophy, form (rūpa) only inheres in material objects. Thus, Vedāntins reject samavāya as the type of relation between the spiritual form and the ātmā. For example, Śrī Rāmānujācārya’s Viśiṣṭādvaita doctrine uses the term apṛtak-siddhi (the relation of inseparability) for the relation between God and his attributes. Gauḍīyas often denote attributes using the concept of śaktis and employ the term acintya-bhedābheda-tattva (inconceivable oneness and difference) to describe the relation between God and his śaktis. The spiritual body (siddha-deha), emotions, qualities, and so forth are all aspects of svarūpa-śakti.

In the last article, I discussed how the ātmā and the siddha-deha are nondifferent, having an identity relation. The technical term for this in Nyāya-vaiśeṣika is tādātmya. The primary meaning of tādātmya is the relationship of something with itself: “In tādātmya (identity), of course, the relation is non-different from the entity. But in tādātmya the entity relates itself to itself; it is not a relation between two entities.”1

Although tādātmya is a relation of identity, it is not necessarily taken in the sense of absolute oneness, although this is the way that Advaita Vedāntins understand it. Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas understand tādātmya in terms of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. Thus, we should not think that tādātmya means absolute nondifference: “According to common sense, identity means absolute sameness or equality. But when we say that A is identical with B, it does not mean absolute sameness as it conveys the idea that A is, in some respect, having common characteristics with B and yet it possesses a difference because of which it is called B.”2 For example, Rūpa Gosvāmī says that Goloka and Gokula are in a relation of tādātmya.3 Similarly, in Vṛndāvana Mahimāmṛta 2.35, Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī says that Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa are in a relation of tādātmya. In his commentary to Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.112–114, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī says that Kṛṣṇa is tādātmaka (identical) with the hlādinī-śakti because the Lord, the origin of the śakti, and his śakti are considered one. In other words, śakti has a tādātmya relationship with the source of the śakti. The form of the devotee is also tādātmaka with the Lord:

Thus, in the same way that Kṛṣṇa is nondifferent from his body, similarly the liberated jīvātmā is nondifferent from his or her body, which consists of svarūpa-sakti. It is not that Kṛṣṇa has a soul and a body. The two, Kṛṣṇa and his spiritual body, are interpenetrating realities. As the Caitanya-caritāmṛta states, “At no time is there a distinction between the body and the soul of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. His personal identity and His body are made of blissful spiritual energy. There is no distinction between them.”5 The same truth holds true for the devotee and his or her spiritual body.

One might ask why the jīva cannot manifest his inherent śakti himself. In other words, if his śakti is inherent, why does it need to be bestowed? The answer, of course, is because of the inconceivable power of māyā: “The extrinsic potency of Bhagavān acts contrary to logic [i.e., her behavior cannot be understood simply through logic]; otherwise, how is it possible that the living entity, who is the ruler of [i.e., superior to] prakṛti, being conscious and liberated, becomes bound and miserable? (SB 3.7.9)”6 The soul becomes identified with material nature and thereby is unaware of his true nature. Paramātma Sandarbha 24 describes this process: “By association with māyā, represented by a woman, the jīva loses all his powers, his capacity for inherent knowledge etc. and follows her.”7 Of course, the powers are not really lost. As Jīva Gosvāmī explains in Paramātma Sandarbha 33, “If the jīva did not have these qualities inherent in his svarūpa, there would be no tendency to manifest them.”8 Therefore, the śakti that manifests in the liberated jīva has eternally been with the jīva. He also mentions in this anuccheda that by meditation on the Lord, śakti manifests by the mercy of the Lord, like the power of medicine.9 Although jñāna-śakti manifests by the mercy of the Lord, Jīva Gosvāmī, quoting Vedānta-sūtra 2.3.29, insists, “You cannot say that the jīva’s knowledge is not eternal, because it exists during deep sleep and simply manifests on waking. It is like maleness which is unmanifest in a child but appears when he grows up.”10

It is interesting to note that there can apparently be a tādātmya relation between something material (the body, mind, and words) and spiritual (svarūpa-śakti). Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu-bindu states:

But due to the causeless mercy of the ocean of mercy Śrī Kṛṣṇa or the parama-bhagavad-bhaktas, the function of svarūpa-śakti obtains identification with (tādātmya) and manifests in the body, mind, and words (even though they are material) of the devotees who have taken shelter of the lotus feet of śrī gurudeva.… When fire permeates an iron rod it burns other objects. The iron rod does not burn other objects. In this example the fire is said to have obtained oneness with the iron rod (tādātmya). Similarly, by the mercy of the Lord, the bhakti-vṛtti of svarūpa-śakti obtains tādātmya with the body, mind, and words of the devotees and then acts through them.11

As I mentioned in the beginning of this article, tādātmya is a relation of something with itself. Fire and an iron rod are two things, so someone might object to the analogy. However, this analogy is sometimes used by our Gauḍīya ācāryas when the svarūpa-śakti suffuses a devotee’s material body and mind, transforming it into a sādhaka-deha. The sādhaka-deha of a devotee who is not fully pure is partly influenced by the svarūpa-śakti and partly by the māyā-śakti. As I discussed in the tenth article of this series, when the jīva’s action is influenced by the svarūpa-śakti, he is considered a doer himself. When the jīva’s action is influenced by the māyā-śakti, he is only indirectly considered a doer (because the soul is not tādātmaka with the material body). Thus, a careful examination reveals that the tādātmya relation is actually between the svarūpa-śakti and the manifesting spiritual body, not between the svarūpa-śakti and the material body.

To explain the situation of the sādhaka-deha being partly spiritual and partly material, the sādhaka-deha is sometimes compared to a gold-plated box (the gold plating covering the material body). As the devotee turns increasingly toward God, the sādhaka-deha becomes spiritualized. When the devotee is fully pure, the sādhaka-deha is fully spiritual. The sādhaka purifies his or her heart by the process of chanting, and spiritual emotion gradually manifests: nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema ‘sādhya’ kabhu naya, śravaṇādi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya.12 Accordingly, Caitanya-caritāmṛta quotes Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu as saying, “The body of a devotee is never material. It is considered to be transcendental, full of spiritual bliss.”13

The perfected sādhaka-deha is already the vessel of bhāva, and as much as the siddha-deha corresponds with the devotee’s bhāva, it can be said that the siddha-deha is already partially manifest in the sādhaka-deha. Sādhana-bhakti is the means by which bhāva manifests (prākaṭya) in the heart.14 One’s bhāva corresponds with one’s siddha-deha. In fact, the siddha-deha is called a bhāva-deha. It is possible that this bhāva-deha will take more than one form. For example, a devotee might have a form in Kṛṣṇa līlā and another in Gaura līlā.

Nonetheless, a devotee will generally leave the sādhaka-deha behind when he or she enters the spiritual world. However, underscoring the point that the sādhaka-deha can become fully spiritual, sometimes we find examples of a devotee going to the spiritual world in his or her sādhaka-deha. Gopa Kumāra is a case in point:

Gopa-kumāra saw his own body change from a product of the material elements into a transcendental body. To achieve this perfection, he was not forced to die, to give up one body in exchange for another. Rather, his body became refined so that he was able to travel through the coverings of the universe and enter the abode of liberation.15

Dhruva Mahārāja is another example: “Sometimes the material body itself becomes a spiritual body by the inconceivable śakti of the Lord as in the case of Dhruva (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 4.12.29).”16 We also find some examples of svarūpa-śakti apparently taking the form of māyā-śakti; for example, when Sītā was kidnapped by Rāvaṇa, her spiritual form was replaced with a form of māyā. In such instances, however, it is understood that the original form of svarūpa-śakti becomes unmanifest, not that it transmutes into māyā-śakti.

These concepts are somewhat abstract and hard to conceptualize. Therefore, in the next chapter, we will explore in more depth how the sādhaka-deha is gradually fully spiritualized. This process is detailed in a beautiful excerpt from Swāmī B. V. Tripurāri’s upcoming book, Circle of Friends.17

Sarita Gupta, “Svarūpa-Sambandha—A Peculiar Relation of Navya-Nyāya,” Indian Philosophical Quarterly 8, no. 2 (January 1981) 250. [↩]

Dr. Sarita Gupta. Problem of Relations in Indian Philosophy (Delhi, India: Eastern Book Linkers, 1984), 77. [↩]

Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta 5.498. Quoted in Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja. Sri Brahma-samhita: Fifth Chapter. Gaudiya Vedanta Publications. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Śrīla Rūpa. Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu: Volume One. Kindle Edition. [↩]

īśvarera nāhi kabhu deha-dehi-bheda, svarūpa, deha, — cid-ānanda, nāhika vibheda (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.5.122) [↩]

Dasa, Satyanarayana. Śrī Tattva Sandarbha: Vaiṣṇava Epistemology and Ontology (Ṣaṭ Sandarbha Book 1) (p. 285). Jiva Institute of Vaishnava Studies. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Translation by Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātma Sandarbha. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 33, commentary. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja; Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura. Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu-bindu: A Drop of the Nectarean Ocean of Devotional Mellows. Gaudiya Vedanta Publications. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.22.107 [↩]

Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.4.191 [↩]

Bhaktirasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.2 [↩]

See Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta 2.3.9, commentary. Dasa, Gopiparanadhana. Sri Brhad-bhagavatamrta: Volume Two. The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Quoted Prīti Sandarbha 3. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Prīti Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 6). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

The expected release date is late 2022.

====================

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 16: The Manifestation of Śakti

By Vrindaranya dasi

Additional articles in this series

Introduction to Excerpt

The following excerpt from Swāmī B. V. Tripurāri’s upcoming book, Circle of Friends, clearly describes how the sādhaka-deha is partly influenced by the svarūpa-śakti and partly by the māyā-śakti.1 The svarūpa-śakti is inherent but unmanifest in the jīva who is fully covered by māyā, but as the jīva makes progress on the devotional path by the mercy of a devotee, his svarūpa slowly starts to manifest. In contrast, the māyā-śakti is extrinsic to the jīva. As the sādhaka becomes purified while coming more and more under the influence of the svarūpa-śakti, his identification with the māyā-śakti diminishes and gradually his body is completely spiritualized with no mundane portion remaining. Finally, the sādhaka-deha will become one with the siddha-deha. In this way, the jīva gradually manifests all the twenty-one qualities described in Paramātma Sandarbha.

Therefore, this excerpt shows that the ātmā, which is fully spiritual but in which his inherent śaktis are unmanifest, slowly begins to have those śaktis manifest while he is still identified with the material body. What is the unmanifest śakti of the ātmā? It is svarūpa-śakti. The soul is not able to manifest his inherent śaktis on its own due to the acintya-śakti of māyā: “The extrinsic potency of Bhagavān acts contrary to logic [i.e., her behavior cannot be understood simply through logic]; otherwise, how is it possible that the living entity, who is the ruler of [i.e., superior to] prakṛti, being conscious and liberated, becomes bound and miserable? (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.7.9)”2 Therefore, although the twenty-one qualities of the jīva are inherent, they can only fully manifest by the mercy of a devotee: Self-realization for the jīva, who is saddled with beginningless ignorance, is not possible by his own efforts. It is possible only if knowledge is imparted to him by another who knows the reality (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.22.10).3 These points and others will be discussed in the following excerpt.

Excerpt from Circle of Friends

The sādhaka-deha is not a material body, nor is it a siddha-rūpa, at least not immediately. It is a spiritual work in progress. The more the sādhaka’s senses are in touch with sense objects only for the purpose of pleasing the transcendental senses of Kṛṣṇa, the more it is spiritualized. Adorned with tilaka and kaṇṭhī-mālā, in this world but not of it, the sādhaka-deha is no longer moving under the influence of the māyā-śakti, but rather that of the svarūpa-śakti, which bhakti is constituted of. Śrī Kṛṣṇa describes such devotees in his divine song to Pāṇḍava Arjuna:

O cousin brother—son of Pārtha—those who engage in one-minded bhajana to me are mahātmās moving under the influence of my svarūpa-śakti—daivīṁ prakṛtim. . . . They are always engaged in kīrtana of my names, forms, qualities, and līlās—satataṁ kīrtayanto mām.4

The Sārārtha-darśinī comments of Viśvanātha Cakravartī in this regard are insightful:

One’s sādhaka-deha is considered to be nirguṇa because, on the order of one’s spiritual master, all of one’s senses are engaged in the transcendental service of Kṛṣṇa, one’s ears in hearing about Kṛṣṇa, one’s tongue in chanting Kṛṣṇa’s names and glories, one’s mind in remembering Kṛṣṇa, one’s entire body in prostrating oneself in supplication to the deity, and one’s hands in various types of service. Thus, because the objects of the devotee’s senses are Bhagavān’s qualities, the devotee also becomes nirguṇa. However, at the same time, because the sādhaka also makes material things the objects of his or her senses now and again, the sādhaka’s body is also guṇa-maya, or constituted of material qualities. Therefore, the sādhaka-deha is partly nirguṇa and partly guṇa-maya. According to the indications of the Bhāgavata verse (11.2.42) that compares advancement in devotional service to the satisfaction felt by a hungry person while eating, the gaining of strength, and the relief from the discomforts of hunger, one can understand that these three things are attained gradually, for as much as one has eaten, to that extent one will feel these beneficial effects. Similarly, as one progresses spiritually through sādhana, the spiritualized portion of one’s body increases, and the material portion is gradually reduced. When one reaches the stage of prema, one’s body is completely spiritualized, and no mundane portion remains.5

Thus the mature sādhaka-rūpa is a spiritually infused body such that despite the inevitable demise of the sādhu’s sādhaka-deha, his or her form is entombed, venerated, and meditated upon, resulting at times in meditative visitations and dreams wherein mantras and counsel are sometimes imparted.6

As the citta is cleansed of material saṁskāras, the further ingress of svarūpa-śakti affords the advanced sādhaka the opportunity to desire spiritually in greater detail under the influence of that śakti, which exists only to please Kṛṣṇa. With a crystal-like cleansed citta, the sādhaka’s rāga colors his or her citta. And the purified seat of the sādhaka’s desire and emotion—manas—gives rise to the details of one’s siddha-rūpa, which, while one in kind—sakhya or mādhurya, and so forth—is unique in detail from every other mukta’s, even as it follows a particular personified ideal such as that of Subala-sakhā. The sādhaka’s will manifests as spiritualized buddhi, or resolve, and causes that siddha-rūpa to manifest. In other words, as one progresses from the higher stages of sādhana-bhakti—ruci and āsakti—to bhāva-bhakti, the details of one’s siddha-rūpa are determined, and then they sprout. The sādhana stage of ruci is characterized by spiritual longing for bhakti and absence of material desire. This longing is specific, and thus focused on a particular spiritual emotion that corresponds with a specific object of love that the sādhaka develops attachment for in the stage of āsakti. If the longing is for sakhya–rati, the object of that love is Gopāla Kṛṣṇa replete with qualities that are excitants for sakhya-rati. Then, as the sprout of one’s sthāyi-bhāva appears in bhāva-bhakti, it is further cultivated and gradually it flowers and fructifies into prema—the form of the mukta’s love.

It is also important and of great interest to note that the mukta who attains a form for eternal service attains an entire spiritual personality. In other words, the mukta’s form includes both a spiritual body of working and perceiving senses as well as an ego, mind, intelligence, and awareness. Śrī Jīva Goswāmī refers to the spiritual body as “paraphernalia suitable for Kṛṣṇa’s recreational pursuit (krīḍana-deha).”7 The mukta desires and enjoys only in relation to pleasing Kṛṣṇa. And it is for this reason that the Sūtras conclude that mukti with form is more fulfilling than formless mukti—bhāve jāgradvat.8 Notably, the liberated attributes of satya-kāma and satya-saṅkalpa have little meaning for one who attains formless mukti. In formless mukti, one ends the ongoing attempt to become that drives us in material life, allowing the ātmā to be all that it is, which far exceeds any of its efforts in material life to become. However, on the bhakti-mārga, while the attempt to become in a material sense also comes to an end, the siddha-bhakta does not rest with merely being but pursues all that the ātmā can become as a result of the ingress of bhakti—svarūpa-śakti—into one’s life. Such transcendental becoming does not constitute a transformation of the ātmā, but rather a becoming of all that it inherently has the potential to become in connection with Kṛṣṇa’s svarūpa-śakti—bhakti. Simply stated, we are more when we love.

To borrow a term from Charles Hartshorne, Kṛṣṇa is dipolar in nature. He personifies the admirable aspects of both contrasting metaphysical poles. That is, he embodies that which is admirable in immanence as well as that in transcendence—permanence as well as change, and so on. He is full and also ever-increasing.9 This makes for a dynamic Absolute. It is said that at one point Lakṣmī had never experienced Narasiṁha. Yet Narasiṁha is eternal. In the same sense, our siddha-rūpa lies within the depths of God’s being and manifests when corresponding devotion/prema appears. The siddha-svarūpa is an extension of God’s own form, and thus the devotee identified with that siddha-rūpa experiences, through what is really an extension of God’s senses, a dynamic union with God in love. In the siddha-rūpa, the mukta sees, hears, tastes, and so forth only for God’s pleasure, just as God’s senses function for his own pleasure.10

Just as Śrī Rūpa prescribes sevā in one’s sādhaka-rūpa, he also prescribes sevā in one’s siddha–rūpa. As mentioned earlier, this meditative internal sevā replicates the prema-sevā of the rāgātmikā-jana of Kṛṣṇa līlā that one follows. In his Rāga-vartma-candrikā Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura cites two means by which knowledge required for meditative līlā-sevā is acquired. In this regard, he paraphrases Uddhava’s words to Kṛṣṇa:

Śrī Bhagavān inspires the sādhaka by manifesting himself in two ways: Externally he gives instructions in the form of the ācārya. Alternately, he provides this same instruction internally as the caitya-guru—God himself within—inspiring a sādhaka from within the heart concerning the means to achieve the desired goal.11

In his commentary on the above verse, Viśvanātha Cakravartī cites and paraphrases the essence of Bhagavad-gītā 10.10, which further substantiates his latter claim that the caitya-guru in some instances provides all one needs to know through gradual internal realization: “Inspiring them with intelligence to attain you, and making them worship you, you reveal to them the goal of becoming an associate with prema.” In his Rāga-vartma-candrikā, Ṭhākura Viśvanātha also cites Bhāgavatam 11.14.26:

To the degree that the ātmā becomes purified by hearing and chanting my glories, a person is able to perceive my real form and qualities, just as the eye when smeared with special ointment is able to see finer objects.

This verse supports the idea that all that one needs to know—the details of one’s siddha-rūpa and how to engage in meditative līlā-sevā with it—will arise naturally through gradual realization derived from one’s appropriately rāga-mārga-oriented sādhana. Perceiving Kṛṣṇa’s form in meditation on the path of rāga-bhakti also includes perceiving one’s siddha-rūpa because Kṛṣṇa is perceived relative to how he is approached. If we approach him influenced by sakhya-rati, we will experience him as he appears to his cowherd friends of Vraja. In other words, the beauty of Gopāla Kṛṣṇa is not separate from or independent of the eye of its beholder.12 Śrīmad Bhāgavatam explains that Kṛṣṇa enters his devotee’s heart in a particular form and in doing so simultaneously bestows upon his devotee a spiritual form that corresponds with this particular form as well as with the nature of the devotee’s worship—tat-tad-vapuḥ praṇayase sad-anugrahāya.13 The implication of Bhāgavatam 11.14.26 cited by Viśvanātha Cakravartī is that this is a gradual development and one approach to acquiring all that is required for meditative līlā-sevā.

Thus, with spiritual progress and the purification of one’s citta, just how to serve internally in a siddha-rūpa manifests in proportion to the manifestation of the siddha-rūpa itself. Notably, the examples cited from the sacred lore of those who rendered this service and attained their ideal through kāmānuga-sādhana—the sages of Daṇḍakāraṇya and the personified śrutis—learned how to render siddha-rūpa–sevā in this way. The same holds true in the case of Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta’s Gopa-kumāra/Sarūpa in his sambandhānuga-sādhana. None of these devotees received any esoteric instruction on siddha-rūpa-sevā aside from what they received through internal realization. Indeed, Gopa-kumāra’s guru instructed him on how to chant the Kṛṣṇa mantra and then told him that by the power of that mantra alone “all other secrets will be automatically revealed to you.”14 Subsequently, Gopa-kumāra attained a form suitable for liberated life.15

________________

In the next article, we will consider Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s extensive commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 4.4. There, he quotes Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3: “The liberated soul rises from the body, reaches the Supreme Lord, and becomes endowed with his own form.”16 As I mentioned, Jīva Gosvāmī also quotes this verse in his commentary to Paramātma Sandarbha 37, where he discusses śeṣatva.

Tripurāri, Swāmī B. V., Circle of Friends (Philo, CA: Darshan Press, forthcoming), part 1, chapter 3. [↩]

Dasa, Satyanarayana. Śrī Tattva Sandarbha: Vaiṣṇava Epistemology and Ontology (Ṣaṭ Sandarbha Book 1) (p. 285). Jiva Institute of Vaishnava Studies. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Dasa, Satyanarayana, Śrī Paramātma Sandarbha: The Living Being, Its Bondage, and the Immanent Absolute (p. 354). Jiva Institute of Vaishnava Studies. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Bhagavad-gītā 9.13-14 [↩]

Sārārtha-darśinī commentary on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.29.11. [↩]

Regarding the imparting of mantras through dreams, see Govinda-bhāṣya 3.2.4. [↩]

This term is found in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.33.35. Jīva Goswāmī comments further on it in Gopāla-campū 2.15.78. [↩]

Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.14 [↩]

Citing Śrī Rūpa’s Dāna-keli-kaumudī 2, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja also describes the prema of Rādhā as all-pervading and thus leaving no room for expansion and simultaneously constantly expanding or ever-increasing (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.4.127–128). Thus Kṛṣṇa is omnipresent yet moving, driven to dance by his devotees’ love. [↩]

In his Govinda-bhāṣya (4.4.12), Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa cites Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5.15 and an unspecified verse from Bṛhat-tantra. [↩]

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.29.6. See Rāga-vartma-candrikā 1.9. [↩]

See Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.43.17 for an example of how different persons see Kṛṣṇa differently. [↩]

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.9.11. However, this verse does not imply that Bhagavān is bound to appear in whatever concocted form one may imagine. Rather, a sādhaka will meditate on God as he is described in the scriptures. This is the significance of the phrase śrutekṣita-pathaḥ (seen through the ear) in this verse.” See also Vedānta-sūtra 3.3.52, Jayākhya Saṁhitā 12.27, Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.24.31, Bhagavad-gītā 4.11, and Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.4.12. [↩]

Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta 2.3.6 [↩]

Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta 2.3.9. In his commentary on this verse, Sanātana Goswāmī states that Gopa-kumāra experienced the transubstantiation of his material body, which turned into a spiritual body. [↩]

Paramātmā Sandarbha 37. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha.

====================

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 17: Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s Govinda-Bhāṣya

By Vrindaranya dasi

Additional articles in this series

Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.1

The end of the Vedānta-sūtra (adhyāya 4, pāda 4) discusses the manifestation of the jīva’s svarūpa. What makes this section so important to our discussion is that it reconciles receiving grace with realizing one’s own true nature. By directly showing the paradox of needing mercy to realize one’s own inherent nature, it very clearly shows simultaneous inherence and bestowal. If this point weren’t addressed so directly, it would be easy to misconstrue that what one attains is something new—something that is not inherent in the soul.

Sūtra 4.4.1 references a passage from Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3, the same passage that Jīva Gosvāmī quoted in his discussion of śeṣatva:

…in the very same way, this deeply serene one, after he rises up from this body and reaches the highest light, emerges in his own true appearance. He is the highest person. He roams about there, laughing, playing, and enjoying himself… (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3)1

In his commentary, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa asks: Does the liberated soul get a body that is a result of sādhana (sādhyena rūpeṇa sambandhaḥ), like the body of a demigod, or is it a result of his own nature (svarūpābhiniṣpattiḥ)?

The siddhānta is established: “The phrase ‘accomplishing one’s own form’ (svena rūpeṇa-abhiniṣpadyate) means manifesting one’s own form because the word svena (his own) is used.”2 Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa comments:

When the soul approaches the Highest Light, through the force of its devotion, accompanied by knowledge and dispassion, then there is release for it from the chain of karma, and there is manifestation in it of the eight-fold superior qualities, which from latency come into manifestation then. It is then said that there has taken place the manifestation of its natural character. This particular condition, characterized by the rise of one’s natural condition to the surface, is called svarūpa abhiniṣpatti (appearance of one’s nature).3

The paradox of simultaneous inherency and bestowal is on full display in this explanation. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa points out that the soul’s liberation occurs through the force of devotion (having been bestowed by a devotee), and only by this mercy can the soul realize his own nature. Again emphasizing inherency, he notes that the soul’s qualities manifest, rising to the surface. What are these inherent qualities? They include satya-saṅkalpa (one’s will is instantly realized) and satya-kāmaḥ (able to achieve anything desired). In Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.12, Baladeva Prabhu will note that the ātmā’s form comes from the soul’s will, which began to manifest at the beginning of the jīva’s spiritual life. This spiritual will, which gives rise to the spiritual body, is inherent in the jīva and begins to manifest while the jīva is still partially covered by māyā.

The fact that satya-saṅkalpa and satya-kāmaḥ are part of the jīva’s svarūpa—that the jīva has inherent will—is enough to discount the idea that the jīva is merely conscious and free of material suffering, which is the position of those who advocate bestowal-only. A bodiless soul that is merely a unit of contentless consciousness does not have manifest śakti. What we find in the passage under discussion (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3), however, is that the soul’s svarūpa and rūpa manifest simultaneously, as evidenced by the fact that this verse says that the soul laughs, plays, and rejoices. One couldn’t do these activities without a form (rūpa).

In this regard, Rāmānujācārya comments, “The words ‘and the rest’ of the sūtra indicate that the soul not only possesses these eight attributes, but that it acts in the way mentioned in the same Upaniṣad [i.e. the soul laughs, plays, and rejoices].” In other words, it is part of the nature of the soul to be a doer, not merely conscious and free of material suffering. Being a knower, doer, and enjoyer are inherent attributes of the soul, as we saw in the twenty-one characteristics of the soul that Jīva Gosvāmī presented in Paramātma Sandarbha. Rāmānujācārya continues, “Nor can it be said that mere cessation of pain constitutes the well-being of the soul which has approached the highest light, and that in this sense manifestation of its own nature may be called release; for scripture clearly teaches that the released soul enjoys an infinity of positive bliss.”4 Again, liberation for the soul is not the mere absence of suffering: it is “an infinity of positive bliss.”

Several of the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas mention that the form the jīva receives is not “adventitious.” This means that the form does not arise by chance but rather from design or inherent nature. The fact that the jīva can choose whether or not to have a form does not make it adventitious. If the soul chooses to not manifest a spiritual form, that form remains unmanifest. The form arises according to the inherent nature of the jīva: the soul’s quality of satya-saṅkalpa. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa says that it manifests by the soul’s will. However, his prayer at the beginning of this section of Vedānta-sūtra brings us back to simultaneous bestowal: The Lord, “gratified by their devotion, gratifies all their desires.”5 In other words, our will is subject to the approval of the Lord.

Form or Nature?

Some devotees think that Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.1 is not talking about the soul’s form (rūpeṇa) but rather his nature (svarūpa). They insist that it is only the svarūpa (nature) that is inherent and that nature is to be conscious and free of suffering. Everything else that a liberated soul attains, they maintain, is a gift, not an inherent part of the soul’s nature. However, the point turns out to be irrelevant and merely belies a shallow understanding. It is irrelevant because the rūpa is itself a result of the svarūpa. Furthermore, the rūpa is also eternally with the jīva (although it is naturally unmanifest when the jīva is covered by māyā).6 Thus, 4.4.1 is talking about both. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa explains why the proper understanding is that the liberated soul gets a body that is a result of his own nature:

Because the word svena in the above text requires this explanation. This word is an adjective qualifying the word rūpa (form) in the above. If the soul assumed a new body, then this word would have no force. Because, even without that, it would be clear that the new body belonged to the soul. The other meaning of svena would be “belonging to it” and rūpeṇa would mean “in a form belonging to it.” This would be purely a useless expression, for the body, which the soul takes, must ipso facto belong to it. Moreover, the word niṣpatti does not always mean accomplishment, but manifestation also.7

He goes on to say, “Some say that the jīva, being self-illuminating consciousness alone, on attaining the supreme light, manifests merely a state of destruction of all suffering caused by the superimposition of prakṛti. But that is not so, because śruti states that one attains intense bliss. Rasaṁ hy evāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati: the jīva, attaining the Lord who is rasa, becomes blissful (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7).”8 Here Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, quoting the same verse that Śrī Jīva did in his commentary on śeṣatva, adds to his previous point—that the liberated jīva attains his own intrinsic yet previously unmanifest form (svena rūpeṇa) as a servant of Bhagavān—by saying that liberation involves tasting rasa, not merely the destruction of suffering. In other words, he says that upon removing his negative material conditioning, the soul experiences his own positive status in bhakti-rasa.

Does Accomplishment Negate Inherency?

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s point that niṣpatti can mean manifestation rather than accomplishment is worth underscoring because those who advocate bestowal-only often make much of statements that say the spiritual form is attained. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa says that what is accomplished is the realization or uncovering of one’s own svarūpa. By keeping this point in mind, we will have a broader perspective from which to understand when someone says that bhakti or the siddha-deha is obtained, given, or acquired. Such reasoning is very convincing when one is limited by a binary viewpoint, but Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa makes it clear that the paradoxical nature of simultaneous inherency and bestowal is not bound by the logic of binary thinking.

The Qualities of the Liberated Soul

Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.4-7 is also very relevant to our discussion because it considers whether the soul is consciousness alone—the position of those who say that bhakti is not inherent—or if it has qualities as well.9 The conclusion is that the soul is consciousness and has qualities. The eight qualities of the liberated soul are mentioned, as well as the qualities mentioned in Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3 (that the soul laughs, plays, and rejoices). Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa also provides several verses that confirm that the qualities of the soul are eternal but covered when the jīva is influenced by māyā:

Just as by washing away dirt, light is not created in a jewel, so by destroying faults knowledge is not created in the jīva.

Just as water is not created by digging a well, an existing thing becomes manifest. How can something not existing appear?

Similarly, by destruction of bad qualities, the obscured qualities, which are eternal in the ātmā, manifest and are not created. (Viṣṇu-dharma)10

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa thus clearly establishes that the soul’s characteristics—which are eternal but covered when the jīva is conditioned by māyā—are not merely consciousness and freedom from material suffering. The fact that these qualities manifest by bhakti in no way means that they did not exist in an unmanifest form before liberation.

Does the Liberated Soul Have a Body?

Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.9-12 discusses whether the liberated ātmā is controlled by anyone other than the Lord and whether the liberated jīva has a body (vigraha) when he attains the Lord. In this regard, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa confirms simultaneous inherency and bestowal by saying that the soul’s qualities manifest by the mercy of the Lord: “Though the jīva’s nature of satya-saṇkalpa exists within himself (svātma-bhūtam), it manifests because of his worship of the Lord.”11 He also points out: “Since the jīva is an aṁśa of the Lord (dependent on him), his nature of being an agent and enjoyer comes from the Lord alone.”12

In regard to whether the liberated jīva has a body (vigraha) when he attains the Lord, it is established that the liberated jīva can have a body or not, according to his will. As I mentioned previously, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa says that this will began to manifest at the beginning of the jīva’s spiritual life. Some devotees mistakenly think that the fact that Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa says that the soul can either have or not have a spiritual body means that the previous question— does the liberated soul get a body that is a result of sādhana, like the body of a demigod, or is it a result of his own nature—was not referring to body at all, but rather to the soul’s nature. I’ve already pointed out the flaw in this understanding. Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.1 was discussing both the svarūpa (nature) and the rūpa (spiritual body). The Upaniṣadic passage under discussion in sūtra 4.4.1 speaks about the soul “laughing, playing, and rejoicing,” all of which would be impossible without a body or form. The spiritual body was established to have manifested due to the nature of the devotee. The fact that it is possible for a liberated soul to not have a spiritual body in no way negates the fact that 4.4.1 was discussing a situation in which the liberated soul does desire a spiritual body.

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa explains:

The meaning is this. The liberated jīvas, having destroyed all suffering by Brahma-vidyā, manifest their satya-saṅkalpa nature. Those among them who desire a body, by their will, have a body. Thus śruti says sa ekadhā: he manifests one body. (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 7.26.2) Those liberated jīvas who do not want a body do not manifest a body. Thus, śruti says aśarīram vāva: he is without a body. (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.1) For those who desire to serve the Lord eternally with a spiritual body, that body made of the cit-śakti manifests. Eternally possessing that body, they serve the Lord.13

Eka-rūpa

Clearly, if the jīva eternally possesses a spiritual body that manifests according to his desire, he still possesses that body even when it is unmanifest. After all, eternity has no beginning or end. In Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, the soul has a fixed form in Kṛṣṇa līlā and, if he so desires, another in Gaura līlā. In the foundational Gauḍīya literature, there is no mention of having various bodies in Goloka Vṛndāvana with which to serve the Lord. In Vaikuṇṭha, the situation is somewhat different. There, devotees can have various forms according to the necessity of service. However, according to Rāmānujācārya, the consciousness of the ātmā will spread like a lamp to illuminate the different forms, all of which are eternal. Because the jīva is not divisible, even if a jīva occupies several bodies simultaneously, the jīva resides in one of the bodies and simultaneously illuminates the others with consciousness. The jīva does not divide himself into several forms. In this way, Rāmānujācārya still considers that the soul has eka-rūpa (one form). In his commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.15, he says:

Just as a lamp, although abiding in one place only, enters through the light proceeding from it into connection with many places; so the soul also, although limited to one place, may through its light-like consciousness enter into several bodies.…The released soul… is capable of extending as far as it likes, and thus to make many bodies its own.14

The question of one form or multiple forms aside, one might think that the fact that some jīvas don’t desire a body shows that eka-rūpa (one of the twenty-one characteristics of the jīva) does not mean “one form.” Jīva Gosvāmī answers this doubt in his commentary to Paramātma Sandarbha 35: “When the pure jīva merges into Brahman, the jīva, though capable of acting, is covered by the bliss of Brahman and is no longer connected with action. It is understood that at this time his capacity as a doer remains internal.”15 When Jīva Gosvāmī says that his capacity as a doer remains internal, he means that the capacity (śakti) is unmanifest in the jīva, who is a particle of sac-cid-ānanda. Of course, to manifest one’s capacity as a doer, one needs a form. In his Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Bṛhad-Bhāgavatāmṛta, Śrīla Sanātana Goswāmī confirms that souls merged in Brahman have an inherent spiritual form that can manifest by the mercy of the Lord:

Similarly, in the state of liberation, the living beings merge into a distinct part of the effulgent Brahman from which they originated, and therefore it is said that the jīva has become one with Brahman. However, because the living being is limited by his very nature, whereas Brahman is constitutionally unlimited, liberated jīvas cannot obtain the intense, boundless happiness found in the unbounded Brahman. So, the reason the jīvas are nondifferent from Brahman is just that their individuality is not visible in the state of liberation. Because they are finite, they are separate and distinct, even though they are situated as if merged in some portion of Brahman. By the special mercy of Śrī Bhagavān, at a certain point, some liberated living beings, because of their individuality, desire a separate existence to experience the joy of loving devotional service (bhakti-sukha). They are able to attain this in a body that is fit for worshiping the Lord, a sac-cid-ānanda body comprised of eternality, knowledge, and bliss.16

As before, the fact that the soul “attains” the body does not mean that the body is not eternally svena rūpeṇa (his own form). Thus, as we have seen, Vaiṣṇava ācāryas consider that the soul has eka-rūpa (one form) even if the soul is merged in Brahman or if he is one lamp illuminating several forms. Similarly, when a devotee has a form in Gaura līlā and another form in Kṛṣṇa līlā, the two forms are considered nondifferent.

The term eka-rūpa (having one form) is the seventh intrinsic attribute of the soul. Śrī Jīva’s explanation of the term is brief:

Since the jīva reveals itself by its own śakti (not depending on another entity), it has a single form (eka-rūpa-svarūpa-bhāk) as its nature, just as a lamp functions as one unit. In ŚB 11.3.38 already cited, in the phrase upaladbhi-mātram the word mātram indicates that its qualities emanate from its own form only.17

In this description of eka-rūpa (having one form), Jīva Gosvāmī makes the point that by manifesting one’s inherent śakti, one reveals oneself. One’s form is śakti, and one needs śakti to do anything. Here we see that Jīva Gosvāmī says the śakti comes from the jīva, even though this śakti is svarūpa-śakti. He says it is svarūpa-śakti, i.e., the soul’s “own śakti.” As we saw in article 11, the soul’s “own śakti” is indeed Bhagavān’s svarūpa-śakti. Although Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa previously said that the devotee’s spiritual form comes from his nature, we see here that Jīva Gosvāmī comments that the opposite is also true: the soul’s “qualities emanate from its own form only.”

Although the literal translation of eka-rūpa is “one form,” some devotees opine that eka-rūpa here refers to “uniform,” which they then take to mean that there isn’t any difference among jīvas, because the jīva is merely an undifferentiated unit of consciousness. Accordingly, they would disagree with B.K.N Sharma’s explanation of Madhvācārya’s belief that “Sameness or equality of essence does not rule out individual variations…identity [sameness] of consciousness would render the present multiplicity of personalities purposeless.”18 However, the problem with their definition of eka-rūpa is this: if you compare the definition of “uniform” with Śrī Jīva’s description of eka-rūpa, you will see that they do not correlate. A lamp functioning as one unit shows that it has one form, not that it is uniform. The qualities emanate from the form, not from uniformity. As we saw in the last quotation, the soul’s “qualities emanate from its own form only.” Furthermore, “form” is a noun, and “uniform” is an adjective. You can see in Śrī Jīva’s explanation that he is using eka-rūpa as a noun. Thus, their translation of eka-rūpa as “uniform” seems improbable.

In conclusion, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa concurs with the other Vaiṣṇava ācāryas that the svarūpa of the jīva manifests by the mercy of the Lord, and that this svarūpa is not mere consciousness and the absence of suffering. Unlike those who say bhakti is not inherent, the position of Baladeva Prabhu is clearly that of simultaneous inherence and bestowal. Given the fact that Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism became recognized as an independent school of Vaiṣṇava Vedānta through Baladeva Prabhu’s Govinda-bhāṣya commentary,19 it is implausible to think that there would be a difference between Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa and Jīva Gosvāmī on such a fundamental point of siddhānta. Furthermore, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa named his commentary Govinda-bhāṣya because he said that Śrī Govinda himself spoke the commentary to him.

Patrick Olivelle, The Early Upanisads: Annotated Text and Translation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 285. [↩]

Vasu, Rai Bahadur Srisa Chandra, The Vedānta-Sūtras of Bādarāyaṇa with the Commentary of Baladeva, 745. I have done minor editing of this sentence for the sake of a smoother translation. The original reads: “The phrase ‘accomplishing one’s own form’ means manifestation of one’s real form, because the word Svena, ‘in its own,’ indicates that.” [↩]

Vasu, Rai Bahadur Srisa Chandra, The Vedānta-Sūtras of Bādarāyaṇa with the Commentary of Baladeva, 745. [↩]

The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Ramanuja, Sacred Books of the East, Volume 48. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Vasu, Rai Bahadur Srisa Chandra, The Vedānta-Sūtras of Bādarāyaṇa with the Commentary of Baladeva, 744. [↩]

“For those who desire to serve the Lord eternally with a spiritual body, that body made of the cit-śakti manifests. Eternally possessing that body, they serve the Lord.” Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Śrīla Baladeva; Swami, HH Bhanu. Brahma Sūtras, 521. [↩]

Vasu, Rai Bahadur Srisa Chandra, The Vedānta-Sūtras of Bādarāyaṇa with the Commentary of Baladeva, 745. [↩]

Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Śrīla Baladeva; Swami, HH Bhanu. Brahma Sūtras. [↩]

Some might object that those who say that bhakti is not inherent believe that the jīva has many qualities in potential. However, as I showed in a previous article, according to their understanding, the potential does not actually reside in the jīva. [↩]

Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Śrīla Baladeva; Swami, HH Bhanu. Brahma Sūtras: With Govinda-bhāṣya commentary of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (pp. 515–516). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Śrīla Baladeva; Swami, HH Bhanu. Brahma Sūtras: With Govinda-bhāṣya commentary of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, 519. [↩]

Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Śrīla Baladeva; Swami, HH Bhanu. Brahma Sūtras, 521. [↩]

The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Ramanuja Sacred Books of the East, Volume 48. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]

Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja; Srila Sanatana Gosvami. Sri Brhad-bhagavatamrta. [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 3). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

Sharma, B.K.N, The Philosophy of Madhvacarya, 284-86. [↩]

Joshi, Dr. Rasik Vihari, Preface to The Vaisnava Philosophy According to Baladeva Vidyabhusana by Narang, Dr. Sudesh (Delhi: Nag Publishers, 1984), 4.

====================

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 18: Concluding Words

By Vrindaranya dasi

Additional articles in this series

Over the last seventeen articles, I have shown how Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī establishes both the inherency and bestowal of bhakti. This teaching is in line with all the major schools of Vaiṣṇava Vedānta. Each school of Vedānta has to reconcile the apparent difference between the world—with all its variety—and the Vedāntic understanding of advaya-jñāna-tattva (one nondual Absolute Truth). The way that Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism explains this apparent contradiction is through śakti—the Lord is one and different with his śaktis:

advaya-jñāna-tattva kṛṣṇa — svayaṁ bhagavān

‘svarūpa-śakti’ rūpe tāṅra haya avasthāna

Kṛṣṇa is the nondual Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although He is one, He maintains different personal expansions and energies for His pastimes.1

No other school of Vedānta puts as much emphasis on śakti as Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism. It is not surprising, then, that śakti is the key to understanding how bhakti is both inherent and bestowed. The soul is endowed with twenty-one intrinsic attributes, and many of these attributes cannot manifest without śakti. In fact, the covering of the soul by māyā is only possible because the śakti of the soul is not manifest. Because the soul is covered by māyā, the soul requires mercy to realize his true nature—to manifest his inherent śakti.

Based on his extensive study of the Sandarbhas and other core Gauḍīya literature, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura established both inherency and bestowal throughout his books. As I wrote in my opening article, Sundara Gopāla provided extensive evidence to establish that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s statement that bhakti is the dharma of the soul (jaiva-dharma) was not a provisional concept but rather a foundational aspect of his teachings. He also gave historical evidence that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura had studied Jīva Gosvāmī’s Sandarbhas extensively, as well as the writings of Śrī Jāmātṛ Muni, whose verses form the basis of Jīva Gosvāmī’s explanation of the characteristics of the jīva.

Although other parivāras may have other valid interpretations, those of us in the Bhaktivinoda parivāra have good reason to put our faith in Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s understanding of Gauḍīya siddhānta. He edited and published over one hundred books—creating a resurgence of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism—and was appropriately hailed the seventh Gosvāmī. Furthermore, we should not be bewildered by the fact that other parivāras may have different understandings. After all, look how many different interpretations there are of the Vedānta-sūtras.

Moreover, it is not only those in the Bhaktivinoda parivāra who accept the inherence and bestowal of bhakti. As we saw in the last chapter, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa came to the same conclusion. In a similar vein, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kaviraja Gosvāmī writes:

jīvera svabhāva—kṛṣṇa-‘dāsa’-abhimāna

dehe ātma-jñāne ācchādita sei ‘jñāna’

The jīva’s intrinsic nature is to have the conception of being a servant of Kṛṣṇa. That knowledge is covered by the misconception of the body being the self.2

jīvera ‘svarūpa’ haya — kṛṣṇera ‘nitya-dāsa’

It is the living entity’s constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa.”3

I’m sure that some devotees will insist that only their interpretation of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī is correct, quite likely on the basis of my not being a Sanskritist. Moreover, I have no doubt that my arguments can be improved. I see my articles as a first attempt, and I look forward to further discussion and refinement. However, for those of us in the Bhaktivinoda parivāra, I believe that the jury is no longer out on why Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura stressed both inherency and bestowal. As such, any refinements to our understanding should be in keeping with his vision. A prolonged debate with those in other parivāras is unlikely to be particularly fruitful. My own inspiration in writing these articles was not to convince those in other parivāras, but rather to defend the validity of my own parivāra against specific arguments that had not been made in the time of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, or Śrīla A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda and had therefore not been previously addressed.

I would like to draw to a close by saying that if we were merely units of being with only a potential through an outside influence to know and love, we would have no real inherent reason or necessity to be at all. Unless we have an inherent necessity to love, there is no meaning to our existence, and we are purposeless. Sādhu-saṅga does not give us a purpose that we did not already have. It sheds light on our inherent purpose. This is what Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda referred to when coining the phrase jaiva-dharma. May his parivāra continue to bless the world with its insight.

That said, interpretations of core Gauḍīya texts that reach a different conclusion, insisting that bhakti is in no way inherent in the jīvātmā, will no doubt continue to resonate with some practitioners, and we do for that matter find spiritually advanced devotees on either side of the debate. Thus, no one has a monopoly on the siddhānta concerning this topic and hopefully all parties are well served by robust sādhu-saṅga and as such will meet one another on the other side.

Let me conclude with some quotations about the inherency and bestowal of bhakti from our ācāryas in the Bhaktivinoda parivāra.

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura:

“Prema is the jīva’s eternal dharma. The jīva is not dull matter. It is an object beyond matter. Consciousness is its constitution. Prema is its dharma. Being the servant of Kṛṣṇa is pure prema. Thus prema, in the form of being Kṛṣṇa’s servant, is the jīva’s innate dharma.” (Jaiva Dharma, ch. 2)4

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura:

“Bhakti is the natural impulse of the soul.” (The Harmonist, Vol. 28)

“Śrīmad Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has written all the books following the scriptural conclusions of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī. All his books are supplements to Śrīla Jīva and Śrī Baladeva’s books. Our current endeavor is also to follow Śrīla Jīva.” (Prabhupader Samlap)

Śrīla B. R. Śrīdhara Mahārāja:

Sannyasi: How is it that one develops his innate nature? Is it developed?

Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja: It is not developed but discovered. What is already there is only to be discovered, to remove the covering. Sādhana means that. It is there. It is there in a very germinal form. Inactive, covered. Inactive. So, remove the cover, and then it will assert itself.

“Svarūpa-śakti is within. Only that should be discovered. That is within, the inner wealth, and only the outer cover has checked the activities of svarūpa-śakti—that of distributing this divine message to one and all.” (Encounters with Divinity)

“When analyzed, then, it is found that our svarūpa is more suitable for such and such service—in Vaikuṇṭha or Goloka. So, we have our fixed svarūpa, some in Vaikuṇṭha, some in Goloka. In Goloka also, there are different rasas, so it is within.”

Śrīla A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda:

“Krishna consciousness is not an artificial imposition on the mind; this consciousness is the original energy of the living entity. When we hear the transcendental vibration, this consciousness is revived.” [The Science of Self-Realization, Chapter 5]5

“Love of God is dormant in everyone, and if one is given a chance to hear about the Lord, certainly that love develops. Our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement acts on this principle.” [Cc. 1.7.141, Purport]6

Śrīla Prabhupada, emphasizing bestowed and inherence within the same passage, shows clearly that he intends both together:

“The fact is that devotional service is bestowed by the blessings of a pure devotee (sa mahātmā su-durlabhaḥ). A pure devotee is the supreme transcendentalist, and one has to receive his mercy for one’s dormant Kṛṣṇa consciousness to be awakened. One has to associate with pure devotees. If one has firm faith in the words of a great soul, pure devotional service will awaken.” (Cc. 2.22, Introduction)7

Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya 22.7 [↩]

Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya 24.201 [↩]

Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya 20.108 [↩]

Swami, HH Bhanu; Ṭhākura, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda. Jaiva Dharma: Two Tales of Spiritual Seekers (p. 19). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]

vedabase.io/en/library/ssr/5/ [↩]

https://vedabase.io/en/library/cc/adi/7/141/ [↩]

https://vedabase.io/en/library/cc/madhya/22/

Aṣṭottara-Śata Blog

Arquivo

domingo, 5 de maio de 2024

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti

Buscar