Fwd: [vivekamrta] Baladeva

[Guest guest]

Haribol

 

I brought up this extrinsic vs intrinsic issue on Kundali's list and this is

the one semi-intelligent reply he gave. I have the book he mentions, but i

am having trouble finding it. Any comments?

 

Gerald

Sender: Hard Headed Realist CLSJ

"INTERNET:vivekamrta " vivekamrta

Hard Headed Realist clsj

Mailing-List: list vivekamrta ; contact vivekamrta-owner

Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:13:30 -0400

[vivekamrta] Baladeva

Yoohoo, Gerald, we gots more for you. Come out, come out wherever you are.

 

I mentioned earlier that Baladeva accepted the concept of visesa wholesale

as presented by Maadhva, as opposed the the Vaisesika version of visesa,

and so it may seem that even if Bhaktivinoda Thakura considers bhakti to be

part of cit-sakti, perhaps Baladeva does not agree. Perhaps Baladeva

considers bhakti to be inherent in the svarupa (essence or nature) of the

jiva. But then again, perhaps not. . .

 

So, I looked into the matter, and here is the skinny, alla way down to da

bone.

 

I quote from "The Vaisnava Philosophy: According to Baladeva" by Sudesh

Narang. Chapter Five, Section One, subheading, "Concept of Devotion": (Oh,

I forgot to say kindly fasten your seatbelts and observe the no smouldering

sign):

 

The Bengal School accepts the authenticity of the Bhagavata Purana. It

teaches that devotion is in a way service to Krishna and service simply for

the sake of service. In this servitude, the supreme pleasure whould come as

a matter of fact. And that pleasure culminates in the attainment of Lord

Krishna, who is won over by an insatiable hankering alone.

"With this very significant feature in mind, Baladeva offera a nice

exposition of the concept of bhakti in his Siddhantaratna which is based on

the Visnu Purana text. He first questions if bhakti is an instrument of

subjugating the Lord, and what can be its definite character? In reply to

it he gives four possible definitions of bhakti:

(a) It consists of knowledge and pleasure derived from the development of

the leement called sattva in the primordial matter (prakriti).

(b) it is made up of knowledge and pleasure that exists in the Lord.

© it consitutes of knowledge and pleasure that resides in the individual

soul. (Gerald's hypothesis).

(d) it contains the esssence of Hladini (pleasure) potency combined with

the knowledge (samvit).

Baladeva refutes (please note the word) the first three (please

note the number), because the Lord's infinite and perfect pleasure and

knowledge cannot be conquered either by matter (maya-sakti,) or by His own

products (such as bliss and knowledge), or by the finite pleasure and

knowledge of an individual soul (i.e.jiva). He accepts the fourth

alternative, the concept of bhakti would imply that it is the essence of

the bliss potency of the Lord combined with his knowledge potency. . .

What Baladeva means to say is that devotion to the Lord is but the

essence of bliss and knowledge combined. It is identical to the Lord as

odour is to a flower.

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

And there you have it folks. Crystal clear. The way philosophy ought to be.

Here we see that the self-same Baladeva who accepts the principle of

visesa, which Gerald assumed necessitates that bhakti must inhere in the

jiva, that same Baladeva now says that it can't be, because bhakti is

identical with bhagavan. Indicating that the visesa principle is being used

by Geraldji in the wrong context

 

Or another possibility is that Baladeva here contradicts himself and is in

fact incoherent. But if we buy this point, then there is no value in citing

his Govindhabhasya to settle or to dispute philosophical queries. We should

just rule out Baladeva as a reliable source. But that would be hard since

he does try to give Maadhva a fair shake.

 

I should also mention that after the last sentence in the quote of Dr.

Narang above, there is a footnote saying that this point is found in the

Bhakti Sandarbha of Srila Jiva Gosvami, which is a point yours truly has

been making since the topic opened up. Thank yew varry much.

 

So, there is agreement between the two principle philosophical voices for

Bengal Vaisnavism--Baladeva and Jiva Gosvami. Thank you very much for your

time.

 

Okay, case closed. Praise de lawd and thank yuuuuuuuuuu Jesus.

 

Like I said, if I want ammo to refute mayavada, then Maadhva is my man. but

if I want to unnerstand rasa and other intricate details re bhakti and the

Lord, well, gimme the Gaudiyas.

 

So, whats the next topic on ye olde tabel? Shall we hash out the question

of bhava appearing before prema, yet being part of prema, and therefore

maybe bhakti is intrinsic after all?

 

ys. kd.

 

 

 

 

 

Post message: vivekamrta

Subscribe: vivekamrta-

Un: vivekamrta-

List owner: vivekamrta-owner

 

Shortcut URL to this page:

/community/vivekamrta

[Guest guest]

Haribol

 

I just found this book and it gives the Sanskrit passage from Siddhanta Ratna

that Kundali is quoting. Does this make sense? Why would Baladeva

differentiate between the Lord's jnana and ananda on the one hand, and the

essence of hladini and samvit on the other? Aren't they all the same thing?

 

Also Baladeva's original question starts like this:

 

bhagavadvashiikArahetubhUta bhaktiH kiM svarUpeti

 

Is this asking, "What is the svarUpa of bhakti?" ?

If so, then could Baladeva's answer be construed as meaning this?

 

The original form of bhakti is the essence of the Lord's Hladini and Samvit

potency. That expands to give the Lord and the jivas pleasure. This answer

does not refute the idea that bhakti is the inherent property of the Lord and

jivas, but it refutes the idea that such is the original form of bhakti. And

Bhakti is not a material element like sattva.

 

 

 

What do you think?

Help!

GS

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 Mrgerald wrote:

> I just found this book and it gives the Sanskrit passage from Siddhanta Ratna

> that Kundali is quoting. Does this make sense? Why would Baladeva

> differentiate between the Lord's jnana and ananda on the one hand, and the

> essence of hladini and samvit on the other? Aren't they all the same thing?

> Also Baladeva's original question starts like this:

> bhagavadvashiikArahetubhUta bhaktiH kiM svarUpeti

Is the first compound above joined to bhakti or not? If not,

we'll never know what he says unless we know what he actually says. The

sentence above contains this improper sandhi, which isn't uncommon in

published editions. What's the rest of the context and do you not have

any translation?

 

 

> Is this asking, "What is the svarUpa of bhakti?" ?

> If so, then could Baladeva's answer be construed as meaning this?

He's asking about the fact that Bhagavan comes under it's

influence.

 

 

> The original form of bhakti is the essence of the Lord's Hladini and Samvit

> potency. That expands to give the Lord and the jivas pleasure. This answer

> does not refute the idea that bhakti is the inherent property of the Lord and

> jivas, but it refutes the idea that such is the original form of bhakti. And

> Bhakti is not a material element like sattva.

I was recently bewildered by a similar statement by Srila Jiva

Gosvami in Tattva-sandarbha (anuccheda 30, on Bhagavata, 2.3.9-10). He

says that prakriti (Mayadevi) is the sole imposed attribute (upadhi) of

Paramatman. Such distinguishes Paramatman from Bhagavan.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/19/00 11:11:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

mpt writes:

 

>

> > bhagavadvashiikArahetubhUta bhaktiH kiM svarUpeti

> Is the first compound above joined to bhakti or not? If not,

> we'll never know what he says unless we know what he actually says. The

> sentence above contains this improper sandhi, which isn't uncommon in

> published editions. What's the rest of the context and do you not have

> any translation?

 

What Kundali quoted is the translation of the passage. I'll scan and email

you the Sanskrit paragraph as it occurs in the footnote today.

 

 

>

>

> > Is this asking, "What is the svarUpa of bhakti?" ?

> > If so, then could Baladeva's answer be construed as meaning this?

> He's asking about the fact that Bhagavan comes under it's

> influence.

 

The translation says something about "defining characteristic". Are you

saying that the whole passage means "What is the defining feature of bhakti

that brings the Lord under control?" Rather than "What is the defining

feature of bhakti?" Kundali is taking the latter sense i think.

 

In the former sense, the passage is saying that bhakti brings the Lord under

control because it is (metaphysically speaking) originally the essence of

Hladini (Radharani?) and samvit, and not neccessarily because the jiva (or

even the Lord Himself) has the particular properties of ananda and jnana.

 

>

>

> > The original form of bhakti is the essence of the Lord's Hladini and

> Samvit

> > potency. That expands to give the Lord and the jivas pleasure. This

> answer

> > does not refute the idea that bhakti is the inherent property of the

Lord

> and

> > jivas, but it refutes the idea that such is the original form of bhakti.

> And

> > Bhakti is not a material element like sattva.

> I was recently bewildered by a similar statement by Srila Jiva

> Gosvami in Tattva-sandarbha (anuccheda 30, on Bhagavata, 2.3.9-10). He

> says that prakriti (Mayadevi) is the sole imposed attribute (upadhi) of

> Paramatman. Such distinguishes Paramatman from Bhagavan.

>

 

Satyanarayan does say that upadhi here means involvement rather than real

limitation. That is an unusual use of the word upadhi though.

 

 

GS

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 Mrgerald wrote:

> In a message dated 10/19/00 11:11:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> mpt writes:

> > > bhagavadvashiikArahetubhUta bhaktiH kiM svarUpeti

> > He's asking about the fact that Bhagavan comes under it's

> > influence.

> The translation says something about "defining characteristic". Are you

> saying that the whole passage means "What is the defining feature of bhakti

> that brings the Lord under control?"

No, but that could possibly be construed, depending on the actual

reading and its context.

 

 

Rather than "What is the defining

> feature of bhakti?" Kundali is taking the latter sense i think.

OK, but how does "vazI-kAra-hetu-bhUta" come in to that

interpretation?

 

 

> > I was recently bewildered by a similar statement by Srila Jiva

> > Gosvami in Tattva-sandarbha (anuccheda 30, on Bhagavata, 2.3.9-10). He

> > says that prakriti (Mayadevi) is the sole imposed attribute (upadhi) of

> > Paramatman. Such distinguishes Paramatman from Bhagavan.

> Satyanarayan does say that upadhi here means involvement rather than real

> limitation. That is an unusual use of the word upadhi though.

Right. The problem is that it isn't unusual for particular

acaryas to use standard terminology in nonstandard ways. Compare Vallabha's

definition of "nirodha" to ours, as in Bhagavata, 2.10. I checked

Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana's commentary on the above TS passage, but he

didn't say anything about it. So we're left to try to figure out what

sense he's using it in. For naiyayikas, it definitely has the meaning of

an artificial designation, something like Shankara's "adhyAsa." But I

haven't looked into the usage of other Vedantists so maybe I shouldn't

pull any fire alarms about it. John Grimes' Dictionary of Indian

Philosophy gives the general definitions: "adventitious condition,

association, vehicle, attribute, support, limiting adjunct, title,

deceit." By the previous context in the TS, I would like to go with

"support," but no one else translates it that way. The commentator

Radhamohana also doesn't specifically address this usage. Meanwhile and

not surprisingly, Mark Elkman, a votary of Ramakrishna, takes upadhi as

"limiting adjunct." Tripurari Swami copies him. Kusakratha Prabhu

somehow comes up with "above the material energy" and fudges with it in

his translation. Satyanaryana tries to find a happy compromise in

"apparently limiting qualification," while his guru Haridasa Shastri takes

it as does Shridharasvamin, that Paramatma has prakriti as His only upadhi

(prakRtityupAdhika paramAtmA) whereas Bhagavan is "nirupadhika;" the

whole point is meant to distinguish Paramatman from Bhagavan. And so the

problem remains, at least in my mind.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

First of all, Kundali is not even quoting from Baladeva directly. He is

quoting from a book which may or may not be respresenting Baladeva

correctly. I fail to see how he thinks that his proves his point so well.

 

- K