Re:[2] PPV/jivas

[Guest guest]

Mrgerald wrote on 17-May-01 15:03:22:

>

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

>> different=20 and incompatible with the "tattvavaadi" concept of

>> jaiva-taaratamya. We=20 say that jiivas are graded acc. to their

>> spiritual rasa with the Lord=20 (rasas being graded, the jiivas

>> would also be graded).=20

>

>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.

 

I agree to this. I believe this is our view.

 

> The Maadhva view can be seen as a limited and cruder version of ours.

 

The "Tattvavaadi" view, which they appear to have superimposed on Shrii

Madhva, may be a crude 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.

 

I would dispute this idea. That so-called svaruupa you are referring

to, I would say, is aupaadhika, not jaiva! This is obviously a

gradation of advanced or neophyte svani.sh.tha-s (who render ni.shkaama-

gau.naa bhakti). Among the svani.sh.tha-s, yes, Brahma is the highest;

Vaayu is next. But a parini.sh.tha (who renders, practically speaking,

ni.shkaama-mukhyaa bhakti) goes BTG in one very life time in the

archir-aadi path, whereas a nirapek.sha (who renders kevalaa bhakti) is

even faster, being taken by the Lord Himself. So a parini.sh.tha is

obviously faster in liberation and is, yes, "higher" than the

svani.sh.tha-s.

 

> 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.

 

With due respect to HH Mahanidhi Maharaja, unless I see a clear

evidence from the actual words of the previous acharyas, I will not

accept that "they are intrinsically gopis". Even Shriila Baladeva

Vidyaabhuu.sha.na Prabhu, who is incomparable in following Shrii Madhva

according to Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii .Thaakura [1], never

says that these demigods are gopii-s. So I have good reason to doubt

this assertion.

 

> 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=20 yet deep one in the material world)

 

But jiiva-s have only one type of svaruupa which is intrinsic to them,

which is the spiritual one according to their rasa. At least, I haven't

seen any evidence contrary to the this, which is our Gau.diiya view.

The external "svaruupa" is due to being deeply enmeshed in the material

world. It is certainly aupaadhika.

 

>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?)

 

No, since there is no indication in any of our previous acharyas'

teachings that only some souls can ever get liberated.

 

> 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.

 

However, if I remember correctly, in the same adhikara.na, *prior* to

bringing up this quote from the Mahaabhaarata, Shrii Baladeva clearly

talks of the paapii-jiivas going to Yamaraaja's city AND RETURNING. I

remember being surprised on reading this, since I had noted in a BNK

Sharma book that Shrii Baladeva agrees to the "Tattvavaada" concept of

nitya-naraka, and here was a clear, non-metaphorical statement by

Shriila Baladeva to the contrary. As I am in Calcutta now, I don't have

Govinda-bhaashya with me here. However, here is a translation of the

relevant suutra, apparently by Kushakratha Prabhu, from an English

translation posted on the Internet (emphasis mine):

 

--quote--

 

Sutra 3.1.14

 

samyamane tv anubhuuyetare.shaam *aarohaavarohau* tad-gati-darshanaat

 

samyamane - in Samyamani Puri; tu - but;

anubhuuya - experiencing; itareshaam - of others; *aaroha - ascent*;

*avarohau - descent*; tat - of them; gati - travel; darshanaat - by the

Shruti.

 

[Translation: But the others go to and *return from Samyamana-pura*.

The Shruti- shaastra describes this as their travels.]

 

Comment by Shriila Baladeva Vidyaabhuu.sha.na

 

The word "tu" (but) is used here to begin the refutation of the

Puurvapak.sha. The word "itare.shaam" (of the others) here means "of

they who did not perform i.sh.ta and other pious deeds". The word

"samyamane" means in the city of Yamaraaja". That is where they go.

There they are punished by Yamaraaja and *then sent back to the earth*.

Their departure *and return* is like that.

 

--unquote--

 

Logically, there are two mutually exclusive possibilities:

 

(1) Shriila Baladeva's talk of "return from Samyamana-pura" here is

selectively applicable to some paapi-jiivas, and is therefore partially

applicable to the paapi-jiivas, in which case the "return from

Samyamana-pura" has to be understood metaphorically in relation to

those who are eternally condemned.

 

(2) The talk of "nitya-naraka" in the Mahaabhaarata is metaphorical.

 

To help us decide on which is factual, I will bring up these two

considerations:

 

a. The expression "nitya" in the Mahaabhaarata and/or other shaastras

are used in relation to svarga, in the sense of enjoying "eternally" in

svarga. But we know very well that such "eternal" enjoyment is for a

long period of time, and hence not really eternal. Similarly, if

"nitya" enjoyment in the heavens isn't literally nitya, the "nitya"

suffering in some of the hells wouldn't be literally nitya too.

 

b. Shriimad Bhaagavatam determines the purport of the Mahaabhaarata

(bhaarataartha-vinir.nayam -- Garu.da Puraa.na quote). Govinda-

bhaa.shya is also a Bhaagavata-anuga Bhaa.shya of the suutras. The

topic of sinners suffering in hell comes up in the Fifth Canto, and

Shriila Shukadeva Gosvaamii Prabhu concludes thus (emphasis mine):

 

--quote--

 

SB 5.26.37

 

evam-vidhaa narakaa yamaalaye santi shatasha.h sahasrashas te.shu

sarve.shu cha sarva evaadharma-vartino ye kechid ihoditaa anuditaash

chavani- pate paryaayena vishanti tathaiva dharmaanuvartina itaratra

iha tu PUNARBHAVE TE UBHAYA-SHE.SHAABHYAAM nivishanti.

 

evam-vidhaa.h--of this sort; narakaa.h--the many hells; yama-aalaye--in

the province of Yamaraaja; santi--are; shatasha.h--hundreds;

sahasrasha.h--thousands; te.shu--in those hellish planets; sarve.shu--

all; cha-- also; sarve--all; eva--indeed; adharma-vartina.h--persons

not following the Vedic principles or regulative principles; ye kechit--

whosoever; iha--here; uditaa.h--mentioned; anuditaa.h--not mentioned;

cha--and; avani-pate--O King; paryaayena--according to the degree of

different kinds of sinful activity; vishanti--they enter; tathaa eva--

similarly; dharma-anuvartina.h--those who are pious and act according

to the regulative principles or Vedic injunctions; itaratra--elsewhere;

iha-- on this planet; tu--but; PUNA.H-BHAVE--INTO ANOTHER BIRTH; ***TE--

ALL OF THEM***; UBHAYA-SHE.SHAABHYAAM--BY THE REMAINDER OF THE RESULTS

OF PIETY OR VICE; nivishanti--they enter.

 

TRANSLATION: My dear King Parik.shit, in the province of Yamaraaja

there are hundreds and thousands of hellish planets. The impious people

I have mentioned--and also those I have not mentioned--must all enter

these various planets according to the degree of their impiety. Those

who are pious, however, enter other planetary systems, namely the

planets of the demigods. NEVERTHELESS, BOTH THE PIOUS AND IMPIOUS ARE

AGAIN BROUGHT TO EARTH AFTER THE RESULTS OF THEIR PIOUS OR IMPIOUS ACTS

ARE EXHAUSTED.

 

--unquote--

 

Please note that Prabhupada translates the word "te" here as "all of

them", meaning all sinners (who suffer in all hells referred to herein)

and all pious people who enjoy in the heavens, all of them enter into

another birth.

 

> Ramanuja does mention the term nitya-samsaris a couple

>of times in his Gita commentary.

 

However, Raamaanuja Acharya does not accept that some jiiva-s aren't

capable of ever being liberated! Right in the beginning of his famous

Vedaartha-sa^ngraha, he states:

 

ASHE.SHA-jagad-dhitaanushaasana-shruti-nikara-shirasi samadhigato 'yam

artha.h.

 

"This is the purport of the crest-jewel of Shruti (which consists of)

instructions for the welfare of ALL of the universe."

 

And Shrii Sudarshana-suurii, the famous commentator of Shrii-Bhaa.shya

(which BTW Shriila Bhaktivinoda and Shriila Prabhupada accept as a bona

fide commentary of the suutras) has commented on this statement to the

effect that this indicates that all living entities are intrinsically

capable of being liberated. Again, unfortunately, Shrii Sudarshana-

suurii's comment (abridged) is in Mayapur in the Gurukula Library, so I

can't unfortunately produce the Sanskrit of his comment here.

 

> 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?)

 

Well, one who takes on demoniac qualities are not fit for the Lord's

mercy. However, by the spontaneous or free mercy (yaad.richchika-k.

ripaa) of exalted Vaishnavas, they may also be delivered.

 

>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 j=EEva-s are) headed for higher and lower

>states.

>

>>they forget that Shrii=20

>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?

 

Look in Stanford Betty's work on Shrii Vaadiraaja's Refutation of Non-

dualism. Somewhere in one of the beginning chapters, Betty quotes

Madhva thus. In any case, the entire Antaryaami-braahma.na speaks of

just everything, including the jiiva, as a body of Lord Naaraaya.na.

Here is that famous statement:

 

Ya aatmani ti.sh.thann, aatmano 'ntaro, yam aatmaa na veda, YASYAATMAA

SHARIIRAM, ya aatmaanam antaro yamayati, sa ta aatmaantaryaamy

am.rita.h. (B.rihad-aara.nyaka 5.7)

 

"He who resides in the aatmaa, who is different from the aatmaa, whom

the aatmaa does not know, whose body the aatma is, who controls the

aatmaa from within, He is your aatmaa, the inner controller, the

am.rita (the 'eternal' or 'the nectar')."

 

We are not shy about accepting this. After all, there is the famous

verse from the SB that Krishna is the aatmaa of all aatmaas, which

implies that the aatmas are the "bodies" of the Lord also.

 

Of course, this does not mean that Bhagavaan does not possess His own

spiritual body.

 

In Siddhaanta-ratna, Shriila Baladeva refers to the Shrii-Vaishnavas

stand that Bhagavaan is eternally qualified with a spiritual body. But

the acharya says, "na chaaru": this [explanation of the Shrii-

Vaishnavas on this point] is not charming. So Shriila Baladeva

formulates the facts differently and more accurately, that the Lord and

His body are non-different, and that there is only an apparent

difference which is due to vishe.shas.

 

Mind you, Shriila Baladeva does not say "na chaaru" ("your explanation

isn't charming") when confronting the Maayaavaadiis. To them he says,

"etad mandam anavadhaanaat" which means "this explanation (of yours) is

stupid, and is due to carelessness (in study of shaastra)", and the

like. He also does NOT say "etat mandam" ("your explanation is stupid")

in relation to the Shrii Vaishnavas, at least to their concept of the

spiritual body of the Lord.

 

This indicates that our differences with the Shrii-Vaishnavas on this

point (and a few other points) is on a different category from our

differences with manda Maayaavaadiis and the like.

 

 

YS

VGdas

 

Endnotes:

[1] "Taanhaara vedaanta-nyaayaanumodita shrii-madhvaanugatya

atulaniiya" (quoted in Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii .Thaakura's

article about Shriila Baladeva in his edition of Shrii Prameya-

ratnaavalii).