PPV/jivas

[Guest guest]

Mrgerald

Full-name: Mrgerald

Thu, 17 May 2001 09:33:22 EDT

Re: PPV/jivas

vidvan

> The Gau.diiya Vai.sh.nava concept of jaiva-taaratamya is very different

> and incompatible with the "tattvavaadi" concept of jaiva-taaratamya. We

> say that jiivas are graded acc. to their spiritual rasa with the Lord

> (rasas being graded, the jiivas would also be graded).

 

There are several features of their gradation:

 

1. In both schools the jivas are eternally intrinsically graded according to

their level of devotion--a gradation which is beginninglessly and endlessly

true. Even within the rasas, there are levels of intensity. The Maadhva view

can be seen as a limited and cruder version of ours.

 

2. Then there is the implicit idea that the "higher grade" souls tend to move

up the ladder in the material world quicker. Hence, Lord Brahma and Madhva

have svarupa's that are higher than all others in the universe. I don't see

any reason for that to be the case. Of course they are intrinsically gopis

(according to Mahanidhi Swami's Samadhi book), so they are relatively high

grade but that is more circumstantial rather than the reason for their

holding their posts. But it doesn't obviously and directly contradict any

specific idea of ours. Does it? (The only way to avoid any contradition is if

there were two levels of svarupa which have been confused with each other,

one being one's spiritual body, and the other being some secondary external

yet deep one in the material world)

 

3.The third idea is that some souls do not even have intrinsic devotion. That

is weird. Lord Caitanya says that everyone is intrinsically a servant.

(Alternatively, can LC's statement be seen to appear in the context of a

discussion of only those souls getting liberated, rather than all souls per

se?) Those lower souls are either nitya-samsaris or nitya-narakis. Now I have

no problem with the latter point as Baladeva does quote the Mahabharata

following Madhva on VS 3.1.16 on the distinction between temporary hells and

eternal hells. Ramanuja does mention the term nitya-samsaris a couple of

times in his Gita commentary. So I don't think the concept of eternal bondage

is that far-fetched. But the idea of no devotion in the heart is a bizarre

idea. (Is there a way to preserve the idea of intrinsic devotion that is

somehow never experienced within the lower orders of the dvaitin's jaiva

taratamya?)

 

Apparently Madhva reads the three classes of souls right into Bhagavadgita

chp 14 and chp 17. A double usage of sattva rajas tamas concepts is explained

at http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/prameya.html under prameya #5.

nIchochcha bhAvaN^gatAH (The jîva-s are) headed for higher and lower states.

 

>they forget that Shrii

Madhva (and Shrii Vyaasatiirtha) also gave the same explanation, among

others, to explain samaanaadhikara.na of jiiva and Bhagavaan.

 

Madhva describes the soul as being the body of God? Where?

 

>At least that is what I have concluded after studying

the acharya's comment on "Krishnas tu bhagavan svayam" verse.

 

Can you comment on Madhva and Jayatirtha's comments of Gita 10.41?

http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/bg1041.html

 

GS

 

 

 

>

In a message dated 5/16/01 11:31:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

vidvan writes:

 

>

> I haven't seen a clear non-ambiguous statement of Sri Madhva where the

> learned Acharya has himself stated that the jivas are constitutionally

> (svaruupata.h) divided into saattvika, raajasika and taamasika. I

> looked for such a statement in BNK Sharma's books, but in vain. I could

> only get a statement of Sri Jayatirtha to that effect, but not one of

> Sri Madhva's.

>

> Therefore, tentatively, I personally believe that Sri Madhva didn't

> hold the view that jiivas are svaruupata.h saattvika, raajasika, or

> taamasika, and that this concept of svaruupa-gata-traigu.nya-jaiva-

> taaratamya was imposed on Sri Madhva by others.

>