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

[Guest guest]

achintya, Mrgerald wrote:

>

> >Hare Krishna. I came across the following commentary by Sri

Madhvacharya to SB 11.7.51. Is he talking about ABA?

>

> It would be great to have a translation of this passage.

 

Surya ji, I am posting (below) the translation and comments of a

Maadhva acquaintance on this passage.

 

Would be nice if you could comment on how Madhva's doctrine is

a "building block" of acintya-bhedAbheda-tattva, and what, if

anything, does GauDiya siddhanta ADD to Madhva siddhanta.

 

Yours,

Carl

 

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

Thanks for reproducing bhAshya on bhAgavata The 11.7.51 bhAgavata

shlOka goes like this :

 

buddhi samsthEna bhEdEna vyaktastha iva tadgataha | lakshyatE

sthoolamatibhirAtmA cAmbusthitArkavat || 51 ||

 

Here is an attempt at translating the bhAshya on it and I am always

open for corrections by the knowledgeable.

 

avayavi avayavänäm ca guNänäm guNinas tathä |

sakti-saktimatos caiva kriyäyäs tadvatas tathä ||

svarüpämscämsinos caiva nitya abhedo janärdane

 

With in Parabrahman VishNu there is no avayava-avayavi bhEda, there

is no guNa-guNi bhEda, there is no shakti - one-who-has-shakti bhEda,

there no bhEda svaroopAmsha - svaroopAmshi. This is the "Ekatva" of

Parabrahman in "EkamEvAdviteeyam brahma" of the chAndOgya.

 

jIva-svarüpesu tathä tathaiva prakrtäv api |

cid-rüpäyäm ato'namsä aguNä akriyä iti |

hInä avayavais ceti kathyante te ati-abhedatah |

prthag-guNädy-abhäväc ca nityatväd ubhayor api |

visnor acintya-saktes ca sarvam sambhavati dhruvam |

 

There is no bhEda within that Parabrahman who is in jIva-svaroopas

which have bhEda, and in the same way, there is no bhEda between this

form of Parabrahman that is in jeevas, and the Parabrahman that is

also in jaDa prakriti and in chit-prakriti. For this reason, Agama

also describes Parabrahman as aguNA ( without guNA), akriyA (without

kriyA) anamshA (without amshA ) without avayava, and so on. It is

described so, because of the absolute abhEda within Brahman and His

guNas, His icchA, His jnyAna, His avayavas, His kriyA and so on.

 

guNas of Parabrahman are not seperate from Him, and Parabrahman and

every guNa of His, both are nitya. All this is possible because of

Parabrahman VishNu's acintya-abdhuta-shakti.

 

kriyäder api nityatvam vyakty-avyakti-viseshaNam |

bhäväbhäva-visesheNa vyavahäras ca tädrsah |

viseshasya visishtasyäpy abhedas tadvad eva tu |

sarvam cäcintya-saktitväd yujyate paramesvare |

tac-chaktyaiva tu jIveshu cid-rüpa-prakrtäv api |

 

All kriyAs of Parabrahman are nitya, which are qualified as vyakta -

avyakta, conversed in Agama as presence - absence, all because of

vishEsha. Similar is the abhEda between vishEshya and vishishTa . In

Parabrahman, because of His achintya-abhuta-shakti all this is

possible, His being in jIvAtmans and also His being in jaDa and in

chit prakriti

 

bhedäbhedau tad anyatra hy ubhayor api darsanät |

kärya-käraNayos cäpi nimittam käraNam vinä || iti brahma-tarke ||

 

Apart from Parabrahman, i.e, in jeeva and in prakriti, both 'bhEda'

and 'abhEda' is seen. When a certain attribute is there, it is non-

different from them. But not all attributes will always be there in

jeeva and prakriti. When an attribute is not there, it is different

from them. This is how there is both bhEda and abhEda.

 

Apart from nimitta kAraNa, i.e, between kArya ( effect) and

upAdAna-kAraNa ( material cause ) there is both bhEda and abhEda

that is seen. THe pot ( kArya or effect ) is nothing but mud,

therefore there is abhEda between the two. Heap of mud itself is not

pot, therefore, there is bhEda between the two.

 

So is stated in a work called Brahma-tarka by Sri VedavyAsa.

 

ätmani caivam viciträs ca hi | sarvopetä ca tad-darsanät |

sarva-dharmopapattes ca |

 

The same truth is taught by Sri VedavyAsa in the brahma-sootras "Om

Atmani caivam vicitrAs ca hi Om" and "Om sarvOpEtA ca tad darshanAt

Om " and "Om sarva dharmOpapattEsca Om"

 

sväbhävikI jnäna-bala-kriyä ca |

yatra sapta rishIn para ekam ähur ity ädes ca | naiväsatyam kvacid

asmin parese sarvam yuktam pürNa-sakteh sadaiva iti ca visvambhara-

srutih |

 

This is establsihed in Shruti, ShwEtAshwara upanishat states "parAsya

shaktihi vividhaiva shrooyatE | svAbhAvikI jnyAna-bala-kriyA ca"

Parabrahman and His shakti are not different. They are only heard in

Agama so. Brahman is constituted by His jnyAna, power, kriyA etc

guNas.

 

and the shruti, "yatrAsapta risheen para Ekam Ahuhu" - There is no

svagata-bhEda in Parabrahman who is Supreme to all including all the

sapta-rishIs, and hence jnyAnIs say He is Eka.

 

and also the vishwambhara-shruti "vinA dOshAn shrutamaddhAvagamyam

tathA smritam paramE satyaroopam | naiva asatyam kvacit asmin

parEshE sarvam yuktam poorNa shaktEhE sadaiva"

 

Parabrahman, the SupremeMost VishNu is guNa-poorNa and nirdOsha. He

is known and attained through brahma-jignyAsA. Because He is

established as satya-roopa, all His attributes are always Real, none

of it is ever unreal in Brahman. All of them hold always at all

times, because of His Shakti which is poorNa.

 

sväbhävikI jnäna-bala-kriyä ca | yatra sapta rishIn para ekam ähur

ity ädes ca | naiväsatyam kvacid asmin parese sarvam yuktam

pürNa-sakteh sadaiva iti ca visvambhara-srutih |

 

Shrutis establish that Parabrahman's form is constituted by His

guNas - jnyAna, kriyA, bala etc. Parabrahman and His guNas are

not different. They are only described with different names in

Agama. Every attribute of Brahman was always with Him, there is

nothing new that gets added. He is poorNa. Every attribute of His

is poorNa. This idea of the upanishats is what gets presented in

madhva siddhAnta as guNa-poorNatva and nirdOshatva of Parabrahman.

 

shwEtAshwatara expresses this idea as "parAsya shaktihi vividhaiva

shrooyatE | svAbhAvikI jnyAna-bala-kriyA ca"

 

THus, every attribute of Parabrahman - His jnyAna, His kriyA,

His bala etc are always Real. Because of His Completeness,

there is no such thing as unreal, neither real-nor-unreal,

superimposed, etc when it comes to His jnyAna, His kriyA, His

Bala etc. Because this jagat is His work, jagat is not unreal,

jagat is not mithyA, jagat is not real-nor-unreal, jagat is

not super-imposed on anything.

 

Advaita vedAnta got it all wrong - in every advaita representation

and also in the so called every mis-representation, advaita

vedAnta is equally wrong in all cases.

 

vishwambhara shruti presents the idea of Brahman as "naiva asatyam

kvacid asmin parEshE" - All His attributes are indeed Real.

 

With this background we will continue bhAgavata 11.7.51.

 

kAlanadyOghavEgEna bhootAnAm prabhabApyayou | nityAvapi na

drishyEtE AtmanO agnEryathArcishAm |

buddhi samsthEna bhEdEna vyaktastha iva tadgataha | lakshyatE

sthoolamatibhirAtmA cAmbusthitArkavat || 51 ||

 

The creation-destruction in a body constantly happens to living

beings, like flow of time and flow of river. Even though these

two are happening eternally they are not observed. just as flame

creation-destruction that constantly happens in fire is not observed.

 

Parabrahman and His guNas, His avayavas etc are not different from

Him. They are only taked about as though they are different,

because of vishEsha.

 

For the dull-witted, who does not have the sookshma-buddhi,

Parabrahman and His avayavas, His guNas etc appear to be different

from one another. It is only such people's knowledge that grasps

Parabrahman with bhEda from His attributes, His avayavas, etc just

as multiple suns are grasped in a water pond.

 

bhAshya :

 

tasmäd ekasminn api sarIre bhedäbhedät prabhaväpyayau yujyate, na

ca virodhah | sthüla-sükshmavat |

äpekshikam aträpi yujyate |

 

For the reason that, there is both bhEda and abhEda in prakriti

and also in embodied jIvAtmans, for such jIvAtmans, it is true

that certain things are created and certain other things are

destroyed, there is no contradiction there. It is like gross-

subtle. Gross river as a flow is a constant. Subtle water

constantly gets replaced. So, bhEAbhEda is only relatively

speaking. It holds well in these cases also.

 

 

Next AcArya Madhva quotes a work called prabhAsaka, which states

how the dull witted understand Parabrahman, JanArdhana, and

disproves such theories by using example of the sun, and sun's disc.

 

"buddhi-samsthas tv ätma-bhedo vyaktastho jIva ucyate | tenaiva

saha samsthänät parätmä sthüla-buddhibhih |

jIvaval lakshyate vishNur yathaivämbusthitärkavat | paramärkah

pärimäNyädd vartulatvädinä tathä ||

arka-svaroopa rüpänabhijnaih sirah pädädi-varjitah || acetanas

ca kalpeta tat-tejo-mätra-darsibhih ||

sürya-dehädi-bhinnam hi tejo-maNdalam eva tu | drishyate sthüla-

matibhir evam eva janärdana || iti prabhäsake ||51||

 

Those who are dull witted ( sthoola buddhibhihi ), in their

thinking they think that there is bhEda in Parabrahman.

ParamAtman and jIvAtman are together, and Parabrahman Himself

when He becomes vyakta gets to be called jIvAtman. It is

Parabrahman, that appears to be like many jIvAtmans, just as,

the same Sun appears to be many suns in water, sun that has

the limited form of a circular disc with no head or legs, sun is

merely a ball of fire, so they imagine that sun is acEtana. Sun's

body with heads and legs is different from sun's disc which is a

circular ball of fire.

 

This is how the dull witted think of bhEda also in Parabrahman,

janArdhana. So is stated in prabhAsaka.

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

[Guest guest]

> >Hare Krishna. I came across the following commentary by Sri

Madhvacharya to SB 11.7.51. Is he talking about ABA?

...

>Would be nice if you could comment on how Madhva's doctrine is

>a "building block" of acintya-bhedAbheda-tattva, and what, if

>anything, does GauDiya siddhanta ADD to Madhva siddhanta.

 

Dear Carl Prabhu,

 

Srila Madhvacharya's citations and commentary are establishing the following:

 

1) The absolute oneness of the Lord encompassing His various intrinsic aspects

2) The absolute oneness of the soul and his intrinsic aspects

3) The difference between the soul and the mutable external properties (i.e. the body)

4) The bheda-abheda or mutable property of matter, and

5) The incorrectness of bheda-abheda in regards to the relationship of the Lord to the soul.

 

All these conclusions (specifically the first two regarding visesa) are only found clearly in the Madhva and generally speaking the Gaudiya sampradayas. The Ramanuja and Nimbarka groups do not have a clear conception of the first two. Some Gaudiyas outside of the Bhaktisiddhanta line do not have a clear conception of 2) and 3).

 

So on this basis of these five building blocks from Brahma-tarka including visesa, the Madhva position is that the Lord and the jivas are bheda. On this same basis, the Gaudiya position is achintya-bheda-abheda.

 

In regards to the last part of your question, the excellence of the Gaudiya position is not really in regards to ontology, since both uniquely contain the same building blocks mentioned above. Even Gaudiyas can concede that the Lord does not exactly create matter. However, I would say that the Gaudiya position more elegantly and transparently reflects Srila Vyasadeva's position. The Vedic literature has both identity and difference statements, the former of which we understand as similarity. Although the Madhvas also understand the concept of similarity of the the Lord and the jivas, this point is not explicit in the name of their doctrine. In contrast, this concept is very clearly present in the name achintya-bheda-abheda-tattva.

 

The Srimad Bhagavatam and its essential core the rasa-lila freely describe both the Lord as being one and different from His devotees. There are no allergic reactions or seizures or convoluted explanations that occur when either side is presented. Therefore, the best Vaishnava doctrine is the one which most accurately reflects both aspects of the teaching of Srimad Bhagavatam. Although Gaudiyas humbly honor Srila Madhvacharya's presentation, only achintya-bheda-abheda-tattva elegantly resonates the spirit of Srila Vyasadeva and his Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

Both (1) a concise Gaudiya explanation of the "mahavakyas" of the srutis and (2) a relative comparison of bheda and abheda statements/passages in the Srimad Bhagavatam would be valuable to firmly appreciate ABBT.

 

ys

Gerald Surya

 

 

______________________

Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.