[Surya ji & others] Sri Madhva's commentary to SB 11.7.51

[Guest guest]

[Moderator, pls ignore my previous submission under this heading and

substitute this one for it.]

 

Surya ji,

Hare Krsna.

 

> Hare Krishna, this commentary quotes the Brahma-tarka on the concept

of visesa which describes an entity in relation to its own aspects

declaring them to be identical. Matter has an additional relationship

to itself called bheda-abheda, since it undergoes transformation. This

is not true of the Lord and the souls. This concept is a very

important building block of achintya-bheda-abheda which describes the

relationship of the distinct entities: matter, the souls, and the

Lord. However, as far as I know there is no specific indication of

achintya-bheda-abheda in it. It would be great to have a translation

of this passage.

 

Could you pls explain how Madhvacarya's concepts of acintya-sakti,

bheda and bheda-abheda based on the concept of vishesha are building

blocks for the Gaudiya acintya-bheda-abheda explanation of the

relations between Matter, Souls and God?

 

Also, is it true that Madhvacarya made any explicit warnings against

such an extension? BNK Sharma ji seems to think so. Could you pls

comment? Here is my understanding:

 

* The jivas and matter, etc are inferior, dependent emanations from

the Independent Brahman. By emanations I mean that, as a dependent

hypostasis, they reflect certain focalized attributes of Brahman -

without possessing Brahman fully within themselves. E.g., my

reflection in the mirror reflects some of my attributes (laterally

inverted physical appearance), but no more. I think Madhvacarya has

this idea of emanationism in mind when he uses the bimba-pratibimba

metaphor.

 

* The relationship of a particular *dependent* hypostasis with its own

particularized forms is BHEDA-ABHEDA. For example, the relationship

between the individual mind possessed by the individual living entity

and the universal mind-tattva itself. Or the relationship of material

forms to matter-tattva itself.

 

* The relationship of the Independent Brahman with its own forms is

ACINTYA-SHAKTI. This covers the relationship b/w the ddifferent forms

of KRSNa.

 

* The relation between the Independent Brahman and its dependent

emanations is purely BHEDA. This covers the relation between the

Complete Brahman and the jiva-tattva, jaDa, etc.

 

Is this understanding of Madhvacarya right? If so, what does

achintya-bheda-abheda add to this? Is the Gaudiya conception basically

saying that the first reflection between the Brahman and the first

dependent hypostasis is a "self-contemplation" (vimarSa)?, i.e., the

relation between Brahman and the reflecting mirror itself is

"bheda-abheda", and since it is at the level of Brahman, it is

"acintya" bheda-abheda?

 

Madhvacarya seems to suggest that Brahman is only nimitta-karaNa, and

not upAdAna or sahakAri. Yet, if we accept the idea that the root of

emanation is *of *the *nature *of *vimarSa (i.e., the Universe is

mental), then it is enough to say that Brahman is nimitta-kAraNa,

since there is no question of upAdAna or sahakArI.

 

Yours gratefully,

Carl