acintya bhedabheda

[HerServant]

 

Have you considered that the compilers of the various dictionaries to which you are referring may themselves be contaminated by Mayavadi philosophy? Perhaps the dictionary definitions are not wholly accurate?

 

If you look at BG and SB for example, many times, Srila Prabhupada decides to use Krsna in place of a less personal term for God that is present in the actual sanskrit.

 

This is a choice by Srila Prabhupada in any case. He chooses to direct the reader to the Person of Krsna rather than the nama rupa revealed in the name present in the scripture.

 

tat param--Krsna consciousness

mat-asrayah--in consciousness of Me (Krsna consciousness)

yunjita--must concentrate in Krsna consciousness

samadhau--in transcendental consciousness, or Krsna consciousness;

 

SB 1:1

 

om namo bhagavate vāsudevāya

janmādy asya yato 'nvayād itarataś cārtheṣv abhijñaḥ svarāṭ

tene brahma hṛdā ya ādi-kavaye muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ

tejo-vāri-mṛdāḿ yathā vinimayo yatra tri-sargo 'mṛṣā

dhāmnā svena sadā nirasta-kuhakaḿ satyaḿ paraḿ dhīmahi

 

The holy name Krsna does not appear above.

 

Srila Prabhupada's translation --

 

om — O my Lord; namaḥ — offering my obeisances; bhagavate — unto the Personality of Godhead; vāsudevāya — unto Vāsudeva (the son of Vasudeva), or Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the primeval Lord; janma-ādi — creation, sustenance and destruction; asya — of the manifested universes; yataḥ — from whom; anvayāt — directly; itarataḥ — indirectly; ca — and; artheṣu — purposes; abhijñaḥ — fully cognizant; sva-rāṭ — fully independent; tene — imparted; brahma — the Vedic knowledge; hṛdā — consciousness of the heart; yaḥ — one who; ādi-kavaye — unto the original created being; muhyanti — are illusioned; yat — about whom; sūrayaḥ — great sages and demigods; tejaḥ — fire; vāri — water; mṛdām — earth; yathā — as much as; vinimayaḥ — action and reaction; yatra — whereupon; tri-sargaḥ — three modes of creation, creative faculties; amṛṣā — almost factual; dhāmnā — along with all transcendental paraphernalia; svena — self-sufficiently; sadā — always; nirasta — negation by absence; kuhakam — illusion; satyam — truth; param — absolute; dhīmahi — I do meditate upon.

TRANSLATION

 

O my Lord, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva, O all-pervading Personality of Godhead, I offer my respectful obeisances unto You. I meditate upon Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa because He is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the manifested universes. He is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations, and He is independent because there is no other cause beyond Him. It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmājī, the original living being. By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water. Only because of Him do the material universes, temporarily manifested by the reactions of the three modes of nature, appear factual, although they are unreal. I therefore meditate upon Him, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is eternally existent in the transcendental abode, which is forever free from the illusory representations of the material world. I meditate upon Him, for He is the Absolute Truth.

 

In the above, Srila Prabhupada calls Bhagavan, "Krsna". In this case, his choice is to shift the devotees attention from the Nama Rupa of Bhagavan to the Nama Rupa of Krsna

 

 

Bhaga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sanskrit bhaga is a term for "lord, patron", but also for "wealth, prosperity". The cognate term in Old Persian, baga, means "god", also cognate is Slavic bog "god". The semantics is similar to English lord (from hlaford "bread warden"), the idea being that it is part of the function of a chieftain or leader to distribute riches or spoils among his followers.

Personified, Bhaga is one of the Adityas, a god of wealth and marriage in Hinduism. Virabhadra, a great powerful hero created by Shiva, once blinded him. In the Rigveda Bhaga is the god who supervises the distribution of goods and destiny to each man corresponding to his merits.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada makes it a point to direct one's meditation the name and form of Krsna (nama rupa) as he says

 

 

I meditate upon Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa because He is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation

then again he translates

 

satyam — truth; param — absolute; dhīmahi — I do meditate upon.

 

as

 

 

I meditate upon Him, for He is the Absolute Truth.

 

 

This is perfect for a devotee of Krsna who sees no distinction between the terms used in SB and Krsna Himself.

 

This is a very mild example of how Srila Prabhupada interchanges the name Krsna with technical terms in the SB. There are many many more examples.

 

This is not a criticism. I think his translation is great. However, at the same time, I believe this approach compromises Vyasadeva's intentions.

 

Specifically, that the other names for God are in and of themselves, revelatory!

 

All of the names of the Lord are perfect, and HE reveals Himself in these names as Nama Rupa !

 

Being a devotee to the Personal Lord, meditation on Him is greater than the Brahmavadi realization of satyam — truth; param — absolute, ... His absolute Truth essence.

 

I agree with theist in that the technical terms are perfect AS THEY ARE for a devotee who has a relationship with the Personal God. There is no conflict.

 

However, there IS difference and oneness.

 

I can say for certain that Faith and Love are One! This is a jnana. But as a devotee, I then seach Faith in Whom and Love for Whom and bhakti is manifest .. person to person.

 

HS and yours.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Well said! Thanks for so patiently illustrating your points.

 

Yes, it seems obvious that, for whatever reason (and a number of good ones come to mind), Srila Prabhupada has placed the emphasis on the name of Sri Krishna.

 

Certainly, as you say, it is a conscious choice on the part of the acharya, and a manifestation of his mercy.

 

 

If you look at BG and SB for example, many times, Srila Prabhupada decides to use Krsna in place of a less personal term for God that is present in the actual sanskrit.

 

This is a choice by Srila Prabhupada in any case. He chooses to direct the reader to the Person of Krsna rather than the nama rupa revealed in the name present in the scripture.

 

tat param--Krsna consciousness

mat-asrayah--in consciousness of Me (Krsna consciousness)

yunjita--must concentrate in Krsna consciousness

samadhau--in transcendental consciousness, or Krsna consciousness;

 

SB 1:1

 

om namo bhagavate vāsudevāya

janmādy asya yato 'nvayād itarataś cārtheṣv abhijñaḥ svarāṭ

tene brahma hṛdā ya ādi-kavaye muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ

tejo-vāri-mṛdāḿ yathā vinimayo yatra tri-sargo 'mṛṣā

dhāmnā svena sadā nirasta-kuhakaḿ satyaḿ paraḿ dhīmahi

 

The holy name Krsna does not appear above.

 

Srila Prabhupada's translation --

 

om — O my Lord; namaḥ — offering my obeisances; bhagavate — unto the Personality of Godhead; vāsudevāya — unto Vāsudeva (the son of Vasudeva), or Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the primeval Lord; janma-ādi — creation, sustenance and destruction; asya — of the manifested universes; yataḥ — from whom; anvayāt — directly; itarataḥ — indirectly; ca — and; artheṣu — purposes; abhijñaḥ — fully cognizant; sva-rāṭ — fully independent; tene — imparted; brahma — the Vedic knowledge; hṛdā — consciousness of the heart; yaḥ — one who; ādi-kavaye — unto the original created being; muhyanti — are illusioned; yat — about whom; sūrayaḥ — great sages and demigods; tejaḥ — fire; vāri — water; mṛdām — earth; yathā — as much as; vinimayaḥ — action and reaction; yatra — whereupon; tri-sargaḥ — three modes of creation, creative faculties; amṛṣā — almost factual; dhāmnā — along with all transcendental paraphernalia; svena — self-sufficiently; sadā — always; nirasta — negation by absence; kuhakam — illusion; satyam — truth; param — absolute; dhīmahi — I do meditate upon.

TRANSLATION

 

O my Lord, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva, O all-pervading Personality of Godhead, I offer my respectful obeisances unto You. I meditate upon Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa because He is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the manifested universes. He is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations, and He is independent because there is no other cause beyond Him. It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmājī, the original living being. By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water. Only because of Him do the material universes, temporarily manifested by the reactions of the three modes of nature, appear factual, although they are unreal. I therefore meditate upon Him, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is eternally existent in the transcendental abode, which is forever free from the illusory representations of the material world. I meditate upon Him, for He is the Absolute Truth.

 

In the above, Srila Prabhupada calls Bhagavan, "Krsna". In this case, his choice is to shift the devotees attention from the Nama Rupa of Bhagavan to the Nama Rupa of Krsna

 

 

 

 

Srila Prabhupada makes it a point to direct one's meditation the name and form of Krsna (nama rupa) as he says

 

then again he translates

 

satyam — truth; param — absolute; dhīmahi — I do meditate upon.

 

as

 

 

 

This is perfect for a devotee of Krsna who sees no distinction between the terms used in SB and Krsna Himself.

 

This is a very mild example of how Srila Prabhupada interchanges the name Krsna with technical terms in the SB. There are many many more examples.

 

This is not a criticism. I think his translation is great. However, at the same time, I believe this approach compromises Vyasadeva's intentions.

 

Specifically, that the other names for God are in and of themselves, revelatory!

 

All of the names of the Lord are perfect, and HE reveals Himself in these names as Nama Rupa !

 

Being a devotee to the Personal Lord, meditation on Him is greater than the Brahmavadi realization of satyam — truth; param — absolute, ... His absolute Truth essence.

 

I agree with theist in that the technical terms are perfect AS THEY ARE for a devotee who has a relationship with the Personal God. There is no conflict.

 

However, there IS difference and oneness.

 

I can say for certain that Faith and Love are One! This is a jnana. But as a devotee, I then seach Faith in Whom and Love for Whom and bhakti is manifest .. person to person.

 

HS and yours.

[HerServant]

 

God is simultaneously personal and impersonal. It is only natural that both aspects will be described in the scriptures. It isn't infiltration, but the reality of the Lord's three features.

 

I agree with this of course. jnana and bhakti ... different and still one.

 

But Srila Prabhupada translates in such a way to Personalize technical terms which could otherwise be interpreted impersonally by Mayavadis

 

We should be reminded that there is also Brahmavadi

 

If a spiritual seeker is seeking God even in the advaita line, Krsna may fully bless their endeavor. As such, they will not say "I am god". They will say something more like "I am the droplet, God is the ocean" .. we are one. These authors will experience God as universal love, and this too is sattvic.

 

But if you examine a saying like

 

satyam — truth; param — absolute; dhīmahi — I do meditate upon.

 

You will not find a single historical, literary, linguistic reference to make the above say Krsna has the same meaning as satyam — truth; param — absolute;

 

The devotee knows Krsna is the absolute truth, but the name Krsna does not mean absolute truth .. it means "all attractive" .

 

Sat and tat and param satya have different meanings.

 

These are impersonal, jnana terms.

 

Your quote above says "no infiltration" .. but I disagree.

 

If we look at translations of Gita, SB etc. and how definitions of Sankrit words vary by translators, I think it is safe to say many translations and scriptures have been polluted.

 

Hence Srila Prabhupada entitles his BG "AS IT IS" !

[HerServant]

 

Yes, it seems obvious that, for whatever reason (and a number of good ones come to mind), Srila Prabhupada has placed the emphasis on the name of Sri Krishna.

 

Certainly, as you say, it is a conscious choice on the part of the acharya, and a manifestation of his mercy.

 

Yes. I would agree .. I think Srila Prabhupada saw Mayavadi philosophy as such a threat to the salvation of the living entity, that he saw no choice but direct all of the readers attention to Krsna.

 

In this way, for sure, the reader would have "no danger" of stumbling into darkness of impersonalism.

 

For devotees with firm faith in the personal God, Srila Prabhupada retains original sanskrit including transliterations. We can then go back and read meditate on God's many names revealed in SB

 

Hence for us devotees, satya param jnana realization is inseparable from the Person of God. The jnana realization is more like hearing the speaker in the next room. The words we hear are complete and convey the entire meaning, though the speaker is not directly visible. Yet, we KNOW also the person (the speaker) is the source of the Word!

 

Om Amen

 

HS and yours.

[gHari]

Since the beginning, for me it has always been the two:

 

1. The Cause of All Causes, and

 

2. All That Is.

Simultaneously, the Cause of all Causes and All that is - different yet non-different, inconceivably.

[HerServant]

 

Since the beginning, for me it has always been the two:

 

1. The Cause of All Causes, and

 

2. All That Is.

Simultaneously, the Cause of all Causes and All that is - different yet non-different, inconceivably.

 

This is very interesting, also beautiful, and at the same time a jnana (then to bhakti) meditation

 

Jnana because "All that is" is "impersonal" . That is, if we meditate on His as the Cause and the Cause of Causes, and All that Is, we naturally enter an introspective state

 

This introspection ultimately leads us to the Heart where we experience Love.

 

If we use the sanskrit terms for Cause of all causes and All that is, we can "loosely" say these terms are impersonal.

 

The experience of God's love, without the revelation of His Divine Person or Personal Form is NOT mayavadi, hence the expression of this experience in technical terms cannot be mayavadi.

 

This is brahmavadi. The devotees however experience God in His Person and the brahmavadi experience is simultaneously present within an experience of Personal relationship.

 

It occurs to me as we collaborate on this thread, that we may never be able to exhaust the meaning of bhedabheda

 

I guess I should have realized that because of the "inconceivable" part

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

It occurs to me as we collaborate on this thread, that we may never be able to exhaust the meaning of bhedabheda

 

I guess I should have realized that because of the "inconceivable" part

 

Perhaps it is inconceivable, but I bet the essense of the tattva could be expressed in an interpretive dance

[gHari]

CAUSE OF ALL CAUSES (bheda - difference)

Lord Brahma explains in Sri Brahma-samhita 5.1:

 

<center>

IzvaraH paramaH kRSNaH

sac-cid-Ananda-vigrahaH

anAdir Adir govindaH

sarva-kAraNa-kAraNam

</center>

IzvaraH--the controller; paramaH--supreme; kRSNaH--Lord KRSNa; sat--comprising eternal existence; cit--absolute knowledge; Ananda--and absolute bliss; vigrahaH--whose form; anAdiH--without beginning; AdiH--the origin; govindaH--Lord Govinda;

sarva-kAraNa-kAraNam--the cause of all causes

.

KRSNa who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.

ALL THAT IS (abheda - non-difference)

Lord Krishna explains in Bhagavad-gita 7.19:

 

<center>

bahUnAM janmanAm ante

jJAnavAn mAM prapadyate

vAsudevaH

sarvam

iti

sa mahAtmA su-durlabhaH

</center>

bahUnAm--many; janmanAm--repeated births and deaths; ante--after; jJAna-vAn--one who is in full knowledge; mAm--unto Me; prapadyate--surrenders; vAsudevaH--the Personality of Godhead, KRSNa;

sarvam--everything

; iti--thus; saH--that; mahA-AtmA--great soul; su-durlabhaH--very rare to see.

After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare.

 

[fish]

 

Inconceivable simulataneous oneness and difference.

 

The unity means that quality equally and distinction means that the Lord surpasses by quantity. The Lord is great indefinitely, Hi is all, and His particle is small indefinitely, it is similar to ocean and a drop of ocean.

[gHari]

Acintya-bhedAbheda skit:

 

God: "I AM".

 

gHari: "Am I"?

[gHari]

Bheda (difference) and abheda (non-difference): Sri Krsna is both - the thread (bheda) and the necklace (abheda), simultaneously.

 

Bhagavad-gita 7.7:

 

<center>

mattaH parataraM nAnyat

kiJcid asti dhanaJjaya

mayi

sarvam

idaM protaM

sUtre maNi-gaNA iva

</center>

mattaH--beyond Me; para-taram--superior; na--not; anyat kiJcit--anything else; asti--there is; dhanaJjaya--O conqueror of wealth; mayi--in Me;

sarvam--all that b

e; idam--which we see; protam--is strung; sUtre--on a thread; maNi-gaNAH--pearls; iva--like.

O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

 

[kiranasa]

 

So let me ask the followers of Mahaprabhu to please explain acintya bhedabheda and specifically how it relates to the jiva and his relation to the Supreme Lord

 

 

You will understand when you are READY!!!

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

So let me ask the followers of Mahaprabhu to please explain acintya bhedabheda and specifically how it relates to the jiva and his relation to the Supreme Lord

This is an interesting point, because the general answer given by devotees is in regards to quantity and quality. But, as is evident to anyone, that is in no way inconceivable (acintya). The real oneness is something which can't be conceived, and so is much beyond the simple analogy of quantity an quality (ocean and drop of ocean water, etc.)

[Guruvani]

 

This is an interesting point, because the general answer given by devotees is in regards to quantity and quality. But, as is evident to anyone, that is in no way inconceivable (acintya). The real oneness is something which can't be conceived, and so is much beyond the simple analogy of quantity an quality (ocean and drop of ocean water, etc.)

 

good point.

The acintya part is what tells us that we can never fully get a handle on how we can be a seperated part and parcel yet still be one with Krishna.

[mahak]

Haribol. When I speak about the Father of Lord Jesus Christ, I dont have in mind the depictions of the renaissance painters depicting an old white dude with wrinkles and whiskers. I think of His youthful parents, not unlike Srila Prabhupadas depictions of Sri Sri Rukmini Dwarkadhisa.

 

Yet I have had not much trouble in amiable discussions with disciples of Lord Jesus Christ over the years. Of course, I dont tell them the Form (my deities) of the Father I worship in my meditations and prayers. No sense in pushing the tendencies for unreasonable arguement in this age.

 

When Srila Prabhupada speaks of Bhagavan, this is the science of transcendence that deals with the Form of the Supreme Lord. The Form that Srila Prabhupada personally, intimately, and internally relates to is that of Lord Sri Krsna. He does not have to hide this Form to teach Bhagavan realization like I do in my limited method of preaching. Therefore, he unflinchingly says Krsna whenever the word bhagavan occurs, because Krsna is the fountainhead of all the forms of god (including the old white dude painted on the walls of the great cathedrals). This is confirmed by the founder of schools teaching the truth of Brahman realization, Sriman Shankaracarya. After all his descriptions of the energies of the Supreme Lord, he calls upon the Name of Sri Govinda, the supremely energetic, as the ultimate Truth.

 

The science of Godhead deals with both the energy of the Lord and He who generates the energy. Vedic Knowledge is insufficient to explain the acintya bheda bheda tattwa fgact of Bhagavan realization. This insufficiency is not my claim, it is the admission of the author, Srila Vyasadeva, to his guru maharaja, Srila Narada muni. The correction of this insufficiency was made by Narada Muni, and fully supported by Vyasadeva, who then wrote the natural commentary of the veda, Srimad Bhagavatam. Bhagavan realization is the whole message of this commentary, personalism is gleaned from the Veda and presented for the consideration among the sane human beings. Because Srila Prabhupada is the faithful disciple of Srila Vyasadeva, and promises to never deviate one iota from that which is the teachings of Srila Vyasadeva, his commentary is full truth. One may try to say such a translation is incorrect, where he throws the name Krsna on everything to do with god, but Narada, in his order to vyasadeva, says such apparent miscalculation is never even considered by the thoroughly honest, who simply accept.

 

So when a devotee sees a magnificent Kona sunset or a sunrise behind the volcanoes or even the explosion of Mt Popocatepetyl, and says "Ahhhhh, Krsna", this is not a prayer of impersonalism. This is bhagavan realization of the personal energetic source of the energy we are witnessing. Only the insane would want to merge with the sunrise or throw himself into the cauldera.

 

Or, gHari has the show of Shoiws.

 

Sri Bhagavan Uvaca: I Am.

 

Sri Bhagavan dasa: But what am I?

 

haqre Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Svarupa]

 

I don't know sanskrit but even the english translations have many verses that could be taken as indicating mayavada philosophy if one was inclined to hear in that way.

 

But Bhaktivedanta means from everywhere in vedanta he extracts only bhakti. Even in the Brahman effulgence filled with slumbering living beings we can sense bhakti lying dormant in the hearts of all the individuals there.

 

So we have become very fortunate indeed to be attracted to hearing from such a Bhaktivedanta. His vision pierces the ever present Brahmajyoti which is blinding to the majority, and his focus is stayed on Radha Krsna.

 

Very poetically written, very inspiring

[Guruvani]

ki-jaya

[Avinash]

This is how I understand it:-

Suppose I go to another country where I see an animal, which is completely different from the animals found in India. When I come back to India, then I try to explain that animal to my friend. I do not have any photograph or any video recording of that animal. My friend never saw any animal of that kind. So, how do I explain? I will explain using analogies. For example I can say that it has marks on its skin as in a Leopard. It does not mean that the marks are exactly like a leopard's. It is just that out of all the animals, which both my friend and I have seen, leopard's marks come closest to the marks on the animal I wish to describe. I can give various analogies to explain the animal to my friend. The picture that he will get based on my analogies will not be how the animal exactly is. But I cannot give any closer description, which my friend will understand. He will know how exactly the animal looks only if he looks at it with his own eyes.

 

Likewise, various analogies to describe achintya bhedabheda("ocean drop and ocean" analogy and other analogies) are just that - i.e. analogies. These analogies give very approximate meaning of bhedabheda. Actual meaning will be known to a person only when he realises it.

[HerServant]

Among atheists I AM Prahlada.

 

He is simultaneously Prahlada and Narasimha

 

Quote:

prahladah--Prahlada; ca--also; asmi--I am; daityanam--of the demons; kalah--time; kalayatam--of subduers; aham--I am; mrganam--of animals; ca--and; mrga-indrah--the lion; aham--I am; vainateyah--Garuda; ca--also; paksinam--of birds.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Among the Daitya demons I am the devoted Prahlada; among subduers I am time; among the beasts I am the lion, and among birds I am Garuda, the feathered carrier of Visnu.

- BG 10:30

 

So Krsna didn't really mean exactly what He said?

 

I take Krsna as the highest authority.

 

He is Prahlada!

 

HS and yours

[Guruvani]

 

 

So Krsna didn't really mean exactly what He said?

 

I take Krsna as the highest authority.

 

He is Prahlada!

 

HS and yours

 

Obviously, you are not alligned with the Gaudiya sampradaya.

Your conception is not siddhanta in the Gaudiya school.

 

Prahlada represents Krishna by possessing a particular Godly quality.

 

In the Gaudiya tradition it is said that Prahlada incarnated in Gaura-lila as Vasudeva Datta - not an incarnation of Krishna.

 

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 15.165

 

"tomāra vicitra nahe, tumi — sākṣāt prahlāda

tomāra upare kṛṣṇera sampūrṇa prasāda

 

SYNONYMS

tomāra — in you; vicitra nahe — this is not extraordinary; tumi — you; sākṣāt prahlāda — incarnation of Prahlāda Mahārāja; tomāra upare — upon you; kṛṣṇera — of Lord Kṛṣṇa; sampūrṇa — complete; prasāda — mercy.

 

 

TRANSLATION

Accepting Vāsudeva Datta as a great devotee, the Lord said, "Such a statement is not at all astonishing because you are the incarnation of Prahlāda Mahārāja. It appears that Lord Kṛṣṇa has bestowed complete mercy upon you. There is no doubt about it.

[HerServant]

 

>>> The theology of Sri Baladeva, the Second Person of the Godhead, and how both Jesus and Sri Nityananda Rama are considered in the Catholic and Vaishnava Traditions to be Incarnations of Sri Baladeva.

by HH Bhaktananda gosvami

 

First let us clarify the Vaishnava doctrine of simultaneous oneness-and-difference in the Godhead. Both the Catholic teaching of the Trinity and the teachings of Gaudiya Vaishnavism affirm that there are real differences between the Persons of the Godhead. Still, “God is One”. In fact the Hebrew word for this mysterious Oneness of God is ECHAD and the Sanskrit Name of Sri Krishna-Baladeva-Vishnu-Paramatma is EKA. Hebrew ECHAD and Sanskrit EKA both mean ONE and are both Names of God. In fact, in ancient times the Vaishnavas were called EKANTINS because they worshiped the ONE GOD (were MONOTHEISTS). Their ONE GOD was called EKA-NATHA, EKA-DEVA and similar names. So despite the fact that this ONE / EKA God was worshiped with countless Names and in countless Forms (NAMA-RUPA) according to His countless loving relations with His devotees, the Supreme Mystery of His Oneness was well-grasped by His devotees. Thus His Monotheism was the supreme model of religious unity-in-diversity, and it promoted harmonious, sattvic mutual appreciation, cooperation and peaceful religious social order among His devotees.

 

The question is, If God is One, Why is He manifest so differently to His different devotees? This goes to the HEART of the divine revelation of the TRIUNE PERSONAL-GOD-WHO-IS-LOVE.

 

We are persons, but as persons we are limited. Although GODHEAD IS UNLIMITED, within the mystery of the Godhead there is also a limit of PERSONHOOD, because the PERSONS / PURUSHAS ARE UNLIMITED EXCEPT BY EACH OTHER’S CO-ETERNAL EXISTENCE! Thus there is REAL, ETERNAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SRI KRISHNA, SRI BALADEVA, AND THEIR EXPANSION OF PARAMATMA IN THE MATERIAL UNIVERSES. THEN OF COURSE THERE IS REAL ETERNAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM AND THEIR SHAKTIS! In fact, this realness of difference within the Unity of the GODHEAD and in the unity of Godhead with Shakti / Shekinah is the ultimate cause of LOVE. BECAUSE THERE IS AN ETERNAL PLURALITY OF PERSONS WITHIN THE GODHEAD, IT CAN BE SAID THAT GOD IS LOVE.

 

This ‘Fountain Fullness’ PLENUM (Latin) PURNAM (Sanskrit) of Godhead’s Divine Love creatively over-flows (as Saint Bonaventure said) from the Godhead as the source of all God’s Self-giving creative generosity. Because this Eternal and Unlimited Fountain Plenum / Purnam of Divine Love Originates in the PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD and flows forth from Them in unity with Their Shakti, Who is also PERSONAL, we as beings are also persons who exist to love and be loved! We are eternal personal beings, because the Persons of the Godhead have shared Their being-ness with us! However, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is unlimited, and we are limited.

 

In our eternal limitedness, we are not able to experience the Plenitude of the Godhead. The Plenum / Purnam of Godhead cannot be known fully to any finite being. Thus it has been revealed that even in the Highest PARADISE (Hebrew PARDES, Sanskrit PARA-DESHA, the ‘desha’ of PARA KRISHNA), the devotees of God have very specific (limited) RASA RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE LORD.

 

Now, if this specificity is there in the ULTIMATE PERSONAL REALITY, why should it not also be there in every other personal reality? Love comes from persons and is directed to persons. According to Vedic Divine Revelation even the Medium of exchange of this Divine Love is A PERSON. Sometimes Catholic theologians will say that the Holy Spirit is the Mediator of the Love between the Father and the Son. Jesus also said “Where two or more are gathered in MY NAME, there I AM in the midst of them”. God is the Giver and Receiver of Love and also the Gift Itself...the Mediator of Divine Love. He is the very GIVING-UP or sacrifice of Love. Thus as Mediator of all Divine Love, Baladeva-Vishnu is called YAGNA, ‘Sacrifice’. As Yupa Dhvaja or “Sacrifice Personified” He IS the Supreme Love Offering. The Heliopolitan Greek Monotheists like Socrates and Plato spoke of God as both the OBJECT OF ALL LOVE, as All-Truth-Beauty-and-Goodness, and of Him as the forsaken and despised LOVE WHO IS SELF-SACRIFICED FOR THE SAKE OF THE BELOVED.

 

The First Person is GOD-WHO-IS-WORSHIPED and the Second Person is THE SERVITOR LORD, or GOD-WHO-WORSHIPS, or GOD-WHO-IS-WORSHIP. In Vaishnava theology, it is Sri Baladeva, the Second Person of the Godhead, Who is the Servitor Lord (CC Adi Lila, Ch. 5, Txt. 10 Purport). In Catholic theology, the Second Person of the Godhead and Servitor Lord steps into time and reveals His Cosmic Sacrifice as JESUS CHRIST. In Vaishnavism it is Sri Baladeva / The Second Person (The Servitor Lord), Who as YAGNA PERSONIFIED Purusha Yupa Dhvaja, on the cosmic Yupa Cross, “takes away the sins of the world”. As Jesus Christ, in His “once and all-sufficient” cosmic sacrifice, He ‘karmically’ (Biblical Greek KRIMA / KRINO) reconciled all ‘fallen’ beings to Godhead, becoming the UNCONDITIONAL SELF-SACRIFICE OF REDEEMING LOVE AND FORGIVENESS BETWEEN THEM AND GOD. “When He appears for the protection of His devotees, He naturally accepts trials and tribulations on their behalf.” (CC Adi Lila, Ch. 5, Txt. 41 Purport.) Such CHIVALROUS (root VAL= BALA) Self-sacrifice for the sake of the Salvific Love of all beings is the essential Nature of the Second Person of the Godhead, SRI BALA-DEVA.

 

Srila Prabhupada even emphasized that BALARAMA is the CHIVALROUS Protector and Savior of all devotees of the Lord. So according to both Vaishnava and Catholic Trinitarian Revelation, it is the Second Person of the Godhead, the Servitor Lord, Who as the once-and-all-sufficient cosmic Self-Sacrifice “takes away the sins of the world” as the Original Spiritual Master and Intercessor-Redeemer of all devotees. As the Bible says “None come to the Father but by Him”. This Same Savior Lord has appeared in countless universes and in countless Theophanies and Incarnations, Each as a ‘general’ or ‘private’ revelation to His devotees. So while He is One in His GODHOOD, He is also really Different in His devotees’ collective and individual experience of Him.

 

Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita, Adi Lila, Ch. 5, Text 41 Purport: “Each Incarnation is distinct from all the others. This is possible by the Lord’s inconceivable potency, by which He can simultaneously represent Himself as one, as various partial forms, and as the origin of these partial forms. Nothing is impossible for His inconceivable potencies.” These variegated (Vilasa) Forms / Rupas of the Second Person of the Godhead may be considered ‘partial’ because there is something (for the sake of Lila) that is not revealed in Them. God is actually always fully GOD, but He may express Himself partially according to any love relationship He chooses. Such partiality does not limit His Divinity, even though He can choose to manifest in different or Vilasa Forms and even “accept trials and tribulations” on His loved-ones’ behalf.

 

CC Adi Lila: “Baladeva acts as the spiritual master of all devotees, and by His causeless mercy the fallen souls are delivered.” “...Balarama is the protector of the devotees of the Lord. By His divine grace only one can approach the Supreme Lord Sri Krishna, and thus Sri Balarama is the mercy incarnation of the Lord, manifested in the spiritual master, the savior of the pure devotees.”

 

He alone descends as the Cosmic Purusha Who “takes away the sins of the world” from every material cosmic manifestation! As the Original Spiritual Master, in every finite universe HE manifests Himself and SACRIFICES HIMSELF FOR THE CREATION, MAINTENANCE AND ULTIMATE REDEMPTION OF ALL BEINGS IN THAT UNIVERSE. THIS REVELATION IS THE CENTRAL FOCUS OF THE VEDIC HYMNS, WHICH REVEAL THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE IN THE SELF-SACRIFICE OF LORD BALADEVA-VISHNU AS PURUSHA YUPA DHVAJA IN THE PURUSHA SUKTA HYMN. HE IS YAGNA PURUSHA.

 

Now if we understand that there is ONE GOD ETERNALLY MANIFEST IN THREE IRREDUCIBLE PERSONS, AND THAT THE SECOND PERSON OF THIS GODHEAD IS THE VILASA SOURCE OF ALL VARIEGATEDNESS IN DIVINE MANIFESTATION, INCARNATION AND REVELATION, then we should be able to begin to grasp the importance of Sri Krishna Chaitanya’s simultaneously-one-and-different doctrine of Godhead. This is the doctrine that we must keep in mind and heart as we contemplate the inconceivable simultaneous THEOLOGICAL ONENESS and LILA DIFFERENCE of Sri Baladeva, Sri Nityananda Prabhu and The Second Person of the Godhead as Jesus Christ.

 

So let us reconsider the way that you have posed your question, using some examples. The Lila Avatara Forms of Vishnu are all different or VILASA forms of the same GOD. They are not DIFFERENT GODS. YET for the sake of LILA THEY ARE DIFFERENT. Thus it is not usual to find Radha and Krishna worshiped on the same altar or in the same mood as Lakshmi Narasimha, because the RASA OF THE REVELATION IS DIFFERENT. For this reason it is said that Sri Sri Radha-Krishna should not even be worshiped in the same temple as the ferocious Lion-Headed Form of Lord Nara Hari. Now, in contrast, in the case of worshiping Sri Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Gauranga, such worship being in the same sweet flavor (rasa or ‘mellow’ of Parakiya or conjugal love), the RASA IS SIMULTANEOUSLY ONE AND DIFFERENT. Thus the worship of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Gauranga is compatible, and the SAME but DIFFERENT at the same time. While Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is considered the combined Forms of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna, for the purpose of a specific divine Lila, there is still a distinction between Radha-Krishna worship and the worship of Sri Gauranga. Srila Prabhupada in fact condemns those as Sahajiyas, who think that they can worship Sri Gauranga INSTEAD of worshiping Sri Sri Radha-Krishna. Thus there is a DISTINCTION between Sri Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Gauranga worship. There is a simultaneous oneness and a difference THAT SHOULD NOT BE OBLITERATED.

 

In the same way, one should not think that they can worship Sri Nityananda INSTEAD of worshiping Sri Baladeva. Many problems in world religious history have resulted from persons trying to worship a Form of the Second Person of the Godhead INSTEAD of the Second Person of the Godhead. Sri Nityananda and Sri Balarama are simultaneously One and Different, and a devotee should be mindful of Lord Baladeva ALWAYS when worshiping Sri Nityananda Rama. In fact, as there is no separate existence of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu from Sri Sri Radha-Krishna, there is also no separate existence of Sri Nityananda Rama from Lord Balarama. Therefore bona fide Gaudiya Vaishnava theology constantly stresses this teaching, so that the devotees will avoid the forms of heretical Sahajiyaism in which Sri Chaitanya or Sri Nityananda might be worshiped separately or instead of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Balarama. Besides Sahajiyaism, sectarian fanaticism arises in Vaishnavism and other related Bhakti Traditions when devotees worship their beloved Form of the Savior Lord SEPARATELY or INSTEAD of His Revelation as the Second Person of the Godhead. Thus for example the fanatical exclusivism of some Protestant Fundamentalists because they have no realization of Jesus Christ as an Incarnation of the Second Person of the Godhead. It is their own limitation of understanding of Jesus as the Second Person of the Godhead that is alienating them from the rest of His devotees in the world.

 

As in authentic Vaishnavism, in Catholicism as well the theology of the Second Person of the Godhead is always stressed. In Catholic Theology Jesus Christ can only save souls because He is the Second Person Incarnate. In Vaishnavism, the theology of Sri Baladeva as the Saving Second Person of the Godhead is always stressed. Properly then, in terms of interfaith understanding, devotees should always stress the highest unity IN THEIR ORIGIN of the variegated VILASA FORMS OF THE SECOND PERSON OF THE GODHEAD. Thus theologically one can speak of the revelations of Lord Baladeva, the Second Person of the Godhead, as Jesus Christ or as Sri Nityananda. Historically speaking one can also describe both Jesus Christ and Sri Nityananda Prabhu as revelations of Sri Baladeva or the Second Person of the same historically revealed Godhead. Sometimes while mindful of this unity of Vilasa (Different, Variegated) manifestations within the Second Person of the Godhead, I may glorify Sri Nityananda Balarama, or Nitai-Balarama, and again sometimes I may glorify the Lord as Bala-Yesu or Bala-Yashas / Yashua. Sometimes while contemplating the Savior Lord’s inconceivable potency of oneness and difference, I may glorify Him as Bala-Jesu-Nityananda-Rama, or Bala-Jesu-Amitayus, or Bala-Sankarshan-Shambhu-Sada-Shivayah. In fact, by His causeless mercy, I know thousands of Names of Lord Baladeva, and in this way I invoke Him, and privately worship my Lord and Savior in the unity of His infinite Nama and Rupa. However, I never merge His Manifestations or forget Their Diversity in His Unity. Thus I am not troubled by any desire to pose questions such as “ If Jesus is Nityananda and if Nityananda descends to promote the sattvic movement of Sri Krishna bhakti, could it be true that Lord Jesus had fish or gave away fish for food?” Knowing that the Lord always acts perfectly according to time and circumstance, Rupa and Lila, Rasa and the capacity for Realization of His devotees, I have complete faith in Him to reveal Himself according to His causeless mercy’s Divine Plan. I am thus not compelled to question Him or fault-find His behavior, or the behavior of His great devotees. Even when there appear to be some differences or contradictions, I am content to let God be God, and not to try to second-guess Him when it comes to His relationships with His devotees.

 

Now, if one is disturbed by such questions as yours about fish, then one should consult the authentic Guru, Shastra and Sadhu of Catholic Apostolic Tradition for explanations of these passages. The early Catholic masters (called the Apostolic Fathers) commented on every verse of the Shastra, and in fact did write theological commentaries on the passages about the miraculous catch of fishes, which some compared to Christ’s words: “Follow me and I will make you fishers of men.” (Mark 1.17); and the distribution and taking up of the miraculous loaves, and finally Christ’s eating of IT (honeycomb) in Luke 24.43. In Catholic Tradition, as in Jewish Tradition before it, there are multiple levels of readings and parallel traditions of scriptural understanding. Because people are unaware of this, especially if they are non-Catholics, and anti-Catholics (including Protestants), they will generally only know of the grossest misunderstandings and corrupted literal readings of the scriptures. This is often the cause itself of many disturbances. In such cases the problem is not in the scripture but in the reader, in the way that they are reading the scriptures. Beyond all such questions however is Srila Prabhupada’s “perfect answer” (see his original Book “Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers”). When someone asked him about Jesus and flesh eating, Srila Prabhupada replied that Jesus could eat the whole world!

[gHari]

 

Bheda (difference) and abheda (non-difference): Sri Krsna is both - the thread (bheda) and the necklace (abheda), simultaneously.

 

Bhagavad-gita 7.7:

 

<center>

mattaH parataraM nAnyat

kiJcid asti dhanaJjaya

mayi

sarvam

idaM protaM

sUtre maNi-gaNA iva

</center>

mattaH--beyond Me; para-taram--superior; na--not; anyat kiJcit--anything else; asti--there is; dhanaJjaya--O conqueror of wealth; mayi--in Me;

sarvam--all that be

; idam--which we see; protam--is strung; sUtre--on a thread; maNi-gaNAH--pearls; iva--like.

O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

 

The purport to this verse may have been missed. It is very important. Lord Krishna, Himself is explaining bhedAbheda when He says "Everything rests upon Me", implying that 'everything' and 'Me' are different. What is the 'Me' if it is not everything? That 'Me' is Syamasundara in Vrindavan, krsnas tu bhagavan svayam. All His energies are separate from Him (like pearls) - yet at the same time He is not only the owner of all the energies, but He is always all that is. Everything is Krsna; He is One beyond a second. Yet in another sense as He speaks here, everything rests upon Him as pearls are strung on a thread - and in the bheda perspective He is the thread, distinct from every pearl.

 

It's worth thinking about this verse some more. But then all His words are. Jaya Sri Krsna!

[Laulyam]

http://bvml.org/SBNM/JaivaDharma/18.html

[Laulyam]

Vrajanatha: What is the name of Sri Gaura Kisora’s pure and invaluable philosophical teachings? The previous acaryas have established the philosophies of advaita-vada (exclusive monism), dvaita-vada (dualism), suddhadvaita-vada (purefied non-dualism), visistadvaita-vada (specialized non-dualism), and dvaitadvaita-vada (dualism-with-monism). Has Sri Gaurangadeva accepted any of these, or has He founded a different philosophical school?

When you were instructing me about the system of sampradaya, you said that Sri Gaurangadeva belongs to the Brahma-sampradaya. In that case, should we consider Him to be an acarya of Madhvacarya’s dvaita-vada?

Babaji: Baba, you should hear the eighth sloka of Dasa-mula:

 

 

 

hareh sakteh sarvam cid-acid akhilam syat parinatih

 

 

 

vivartam no satyam srutim iti viruddham kali-malam

 

 

 

harer bhedabhedau sruti-vihita-tattvam suvimalam

 

 

 

tatah premnah siddhir bhavati nitaram nitya-visaye

 

The entire spiritual and material creation is a transformation of Sri Krsna’s sakti. The impersonal philosophy of illusion (vivarta-vada) is not true. It is an impurity that has been produced by Kali-yuga, and is contrary to the teachings of the Vedas. The Vedas support acintya-bhedabheda-tattva (inconceivable oneness and difference) as the pure and absolute doctrine, and one can attain perfect love for the Eternal Absolute when he accepts this principle.

The conclusive teachings of the Upanisads are known as Vedanta, and in order to bring their precise meaning to light, Vyasadeva compiled a book of four chapters, called Brahma-sutra or Vedanta-sutra. The Vedanta commands great respect amongst the intellectual class. In principle, Vedanta-sutra is widely accepted as the proper exposition of the truths taught in the Vedas. From this Vedanta-sutra, the different acaryas extract different conclusions, which are just suitable to support their own philosophies.

Sri Sankaracarya has used Vedanta-sutra to support his impersonal theory of illusion, which is called vivarta-vada. He said that one compromises the very essence of brahma if one accepts any transformation in brahma, that the doctrine of transformation (parinama-vada) is therefore completely faulty, and that vivartavada is the only reasonable philosophy. According to his own needs, Sri Sankaracarya collected some Vedic mantras to support His vivarta-vada, which is also known as Mayavada. We can understand from this that parinama-vada has been popular from early times, and that Sri Sankara checked its acceptance by establishing vivarta-vada, which is a sectarian doctrine. Sriman Madhvacarya was dissatisfied with vivarta-vada, so he propounded the doctrine of dualism (dvaita-vada), which he also supported with statements from the Vedas to suit his own purpose. Similarly, Ramanujacarya taught specialized non-dualism (visistadvaita-vada), Sri Nimbadityacarya taught dualism-withmonism (dvaitadvaita-vada) and Sri Visnusvami taught purefied non-dualism (suddhadvaita-vada). Sri Sankaracarya’s Mayavada philosophy is opposed to the basic principles of bhakti. Each of the Vaisnava acaryas has claimed that his principles are based on bhakti, although there are differences between the various philosophies that they taught.

Sriman Mahaprabhu accepted all the Vedic conclusions with due respect, and gave their essence in His own instructions. Mahaprabhu taught the doctrine of acintya-bhedaabheda-tattva (inconceivable difference and oneness). He remained within the sampradaya of Sriman Madhvacarya, but still Sriman Mahaprabhu only accepted the essence of Madhvacarya’s doctrine.

Vrajanatha: What is the doctrine of parinama-vada (transformation)?

Babaji: There are two kinds of parinama-vada: brahma-parinamavada (the doctrine of transformation of brahma), and tat-saktiparinama-vada (the teaching of the transformation of energy). Those who believe in brahma-parinama-vada (the transformation of brahma) say that the acintya (inconceivable) and nirvisesa (formless) brahma transforms itself into both living beings and the inert material world. To support this belief, they quote from the Chandogya Upanisad (6.2.1), ekam evadvitiyam, “Before the manifestation of this universe there existed only the Absolute Truth, a non-dual tattva that exists in truth.”

According to this Vedic mantra, brahma is the one and only vastu which we should accept. This theory is also known as non-dualism, or advaita-vada. Look, in this theory, the word parinama (progressive transformation) is used, but the actual process that it describes is in fact vikara (destruction or deformation). Those who teach transformation of energy (sakti-parinamavada) do not accept any sort of transformation in brahma. Rather, they say that the inconceivable sakti, or potency of brahma, is transformed. The jiva-sakti portion of the potency of brahma transforms into the individual spirit jivas, and the maya-sakti portion transforms into the material world. According to this theory, there is parinama (transformation), but not of brahma.

 

 

 

sa-tattvato ‘nyatha-buddhir vikara ity udahrtah

 

 

 

Sadananda’s Vedanta-sara (59)

 

The word vikara (modification) means that something appears to be what it is factually not.

Brahma is accepted as a vastu (basic substance), from which two separate products appear, namely the individual souls and this material world. The appearance of substances that are different in nature from the original substance is known as vikara, (modification).

What is a vikara? It is just something appearing to be what it is actually not. For example, milk is transformed into yogurt. Although yogurt is milk, it is called yogurt, and this yogurt is the vikara or modification of the original substance, in this case, milk.According to brahma parinama-vada, the material world and the jivas are the vikara of brahma. Without any doubt, this idea is absolutely impure for the following reasons: Those who put forward this theory accept the existence of only one substance, namely the nirvisesa-brahma. But how can this brahma be modified into a second substance, if nothing else exists apart from it? The theory itself does not allow for modification of brahma.

Accepting modification of brahma defies logic, which is why brahma-parinama-vada is not reasonable under any circumstances. However, there is no such fault in sakti-parinama-vada, because according to this philosophy, brahma remains unaltered at all times. Bhagavan’s inconceivable sakti that makes the impossible possible (aghatana-ghatana-patiyasi-sakti) has an atomic particle, which is transformed at some places as the individual souls, and it also has a shadow portion, which is transformed in other places into material universes. When brahma desired, “Let there be living entities,” the jiva-sakti part of the superior potency (para-sakti) immediately produced innumerable souls. Similarly, when brahma desired the existence of the material world, the maya potency, the shadow form of para-sakti, at once manifested the unfathomable, inanimate material world. Brahma accepts these changes while remaining free from change itself.

One may argue: “Desiring is itself a transformation, so how can this transformation occur in the desireless brahma?” The answer to this is, “You are comparing the desire of brahma to the desire of the jiva, and calling it a vikara (modification). Now, the jiva is an insignificant sakti, and whenever he desires, that desire comes from contact with another sakti. For this reason, the desire of the jiva is called vikara. However, the desire of brahma is not in this category. The independent desire of brahma is part of its intrinsic nature. It is one with the sakti of brahma, and at the same time different from it. Therefore, the desire of brahma is the svarupa of brahma, and there is no place for vikara. When brahma desires, sakti becomes active, and only sakti is transformed. This subtle point is beyond the discriminating power of the jivas’ minute intelligence, and can only be understood through the testimony of the Vedas.

Now we must consider the parinama (transformation) of sakti. The analogy of milk changing into yogurt may not be the best example to explain sakti-parinama-vada. Material examples do not give a complete understanding of spiritual principles, but they can still enlighten us regarding certain specific aspects. The cintamani gem is a material object that can produce many varieties of jewels, but it is not transformed or deformed itself in any way. Sri Bhagavan’s creation of this material world should be understood as being something similar to this. As soon as Bhagavan desires, His acintya-sakti (inconceivable potency) creates innumerable universes of fourteen planetary systems and worlds where the jivas can live, but He Himself remains absolutely unchanged.

It should not be understood that this “untransformed” Supreme is nirvisesa (formless) and impersonal. On the contrary, this Supreme is the great and all-encompassing substance, brahma (brhad-vastu-brahma). He is eternally Bhagavan, the master of the six opulences. If one accepts Him as merely nirvisesa, one cannot explain His spiritual sakti. By His acintya-sakti, He exists simultaneously in both personal and impersonal forms. To suppose that He is only nirvisesa is to accept only half the truth, without full understanding. His relationship with the material world is described in the Vedas using the instrumental (karana) case to signify ‘by which...’; the ablative (apadana) case to signify ‘from which...’; and the locative (adhikarana) case to signify ‘in which...’. It is stated in the Taittiriya Upanisad (3.1.1):

 

 

 

yato va imani bhutani jayante

 

 

 

yena jatani jivanti

 

 

 

yat prayanty abhisamvisanti

 

 

 

tad vijijnasasva tad brahma

 

One should know that brahma is He from whom all living beings are born, by whose power they remain alive, and into whom they enter at the end. He is the one about whom you should inquire, He is brahma.1

1 “The one about whom you are asking–that is brahma.”

In this sloka, ‘yato va imani’, the ablative (apadana) case for Isvara is used when it is said that the living beings are manifested from Him; ‘yena’, which is the instrumental (karana) case, is used when it is said that all sentient creatures live by His power; and ‘yat’, which indicates the locative (adhikarana) case, is used when it is said that all living beings enter into Him in the end. These three symptoms show that the Absolute Truth is Supreme; this is His unique feature. That is why Bhagavan is always savisesa (possessing form, qualities, and pastimes). Srila Jiva Gosvami describes the Supreme Person in these words:

 

 

 

ekam eva parama-tattvam svabhavikacintya-saktya

 

 

 

sarvadaiva svarupa-tad-rupa-vaibhava-jiva-pradhana-rupena

 

 

 

caturdhavatisthate suryantar-mandala-stha-teja iva

 

 

 

mandala tad-bahirgata-tad-rasmi-tat-praticchavi-rupena

 

 

 

 

The Absolute Truth is one. His unique characteristic is that He is endowed with inconceivable potency, through which He is always manifested in four ways: 1) svarupa (as His original form), 2) tad-rupa-vaibhava (as His personal splendor, including His abode, and His eternal associates, expansions and avataras), 3) jivas (as the individual spirit souls), and 4) pradhana (as the material energy). These four features are likened to the interior of the sun planet, the surface of the sun, the sun-rays emanating from this surface, and a remotely situated reflection, respectively.

These examples only partially explain the Absolute Truth. His original form is sat-cid-ananda (full of eternity, knowledge and bliss) and His spiritual name, abode, associates and the entire paraphernalia in His direct service are opulences that are nondifferent from Himself (svarupa-vaibhava). The countless nityamukta and nitya-baddha jivas are dependent, conscious atoms (anucit). Pradhana includes maya-pradhana, and its products are the entire gross and subtle material worlds. These four features exist eternally, and similarly, the oneness of the Supreme Absolute is also eternal. How can these two eternal contradictions exist together? The answer is that it seems impossible to the limited intelligence of the jiva, and it is only possible through Bhagavan’s inconceivable energy