Is Kali Ma Krishna's energy?

sumedh · January 16, 2005

Hare Krishna

One important point which was probably lost in this discussion is regards the nature of acintya-bheda-abheda in the Absolute realm.

When i gave quotes (and statements) like cit-sakti is an attribute of para-tattva, shiva prabhuji concluded that the meaning is that para-tattva=cit-sakti+something i.e. cit-sakti is in someway lesser, which is wrong. Such material calculations do not apply in the spiritual realm where everything is Absolute. In fact, the normal example of fire-sparks for explaining Krishna-Jiva relationship is also only a material approximation. The latter is a better approximation because bheda aspect is stronger in jivas.

The only calculation that applies in the spiritual realm is acintya-bheda-abheda.

sumedh · January 16, 2005

Hare Krishna

It is important to clarify this. You said:

So saying that Krishna has desires that are different then His Sakti is an untrue statement unless put into the proper context.

No different desires from cit-sakti, rather Sri Radha has no independent desires rather serves Krishna in accordance to His desires. Srila Bhaktivinoda says in Jaiva-Dharma:

Desire cannot exist in sakti; rather, sakti acts in accordance with the desire of the Supreme Being. You have the power to move, and when you desire to move, that power will act. To say the power is moving is merely a figure of speech; it actually means that the person who possesses that power is moving. Bhagavan has only one sakti, which is manifest in different forms. When it functions in a spiritual capacity, it is known as cit-sakti, and when it operates in a material capacity, it is known as maya, or jada-sakti.

So this quote is regarding the one sakti -- cit-sakti and maya-sakti, of Krishna.

sumedh · January 21, 2005

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

Shiva prabhu, before anything i beg forgiveness for any inappropriate words and comments from my side. I hope that you excuse me, understand the spirit of this and that i am just learning how to conduct a discussion with the vaishnava etiquette.

It came to me that in such discussions, especially tattva discussions, we can provide a summary of the discussion providing different points of view so that any disagreement should not be thought of as a conflict. This will be useful for other devotees or those going through it. This particular discussion was long enough that others may not be interested to go through all of it and this will remedy to some extent the confusion such a discussion may represent.

I would request other devotees to offer suggestions and additions to this or if there are any other points of view as regards gaudiya tattva, especially from the senior devotees.

Personally for me this discussion was a good one and i tried to understand shiva prabhu's point of view to the best of my ability. A number of new things came up and many aspects of gaudiya siddhanta were discussed; there was consensus on some points and disagreement on others. I will try to summarize them below.

1) Krishna and His expansions starting from Baladeva prabhu, catur-vyuha expansion, purusha avataars, lila avataars etc.: They are all vishnu-tattva/para-tattva and are the same Supreme Personality of Godhead in different features; there was complete agreement on this.

My opinion was that there is a bheda aspect in the different expansions as regards what features are exhibited in different forms (but not from tattva point of view) i.e. from rasa point of view, and so is also a manifestation of acintya-bheda-abheda principle. Shiva prabhu did not give any explicit statement in this regard but to my understanding more or less agrees with it, but probably not as acintya-bheda-abheda.

2) Jivas emanating from jiva-sakti or tatastha-sakti: They are infinitesimal expansions (anu-cit) from Lord Mahavishnu and are simultaneously one and different from the Lord (acintya-bheda-abheda). Due to the atomic nature, the bheda aspect is more prominent and hence are called vibbhinnamsa (separated parts) -- there was consensus on this.

3) Lord Shiva: Shiva prabhu's opinion was that since Jiva Goswami (quoting from Varaha Puraana) mentions only two kinds of expansions of Lord i.e. svamsa and vibbhinnamsa, and Lord Shiva is not svamsa he must be vibbhinnamsa. My opinion was that Srila Prabhupada explicitly mentions Lord Shiva as neither svamsa nor vibbhinnamsa but as simultaneously one and different (acintya-bheda-abheda) from vishnu-tattva (similiar thing is implied by the statement from Brahma-Samhita where Lord Shiva is mentioned as a transformation of Lord Krishna just as milk is transformed into curd); so he is neither vishnu-tattva nor jiva-tattva rather should be qualified separately. My opinion is that to reconcile these two the only way is to consider that when a specific principle seems to contradict a general principle then it should be understood as an extension of the general principle. Shiva prabhu gave evidence that in rare cases jiva can occupy the position of Lord Shiva and i accepted it.

Conclusion: In very rare cases jiva can occupy the position of Lord Shiva, but otherwise Lord Shiva is a personal expansion of Lord Mahavishnu/Sadashiva but neither vishnu-tattva nor jiva-tattva rather simultaneously one and different from vishnu-tattva. As far as i understand, shiva prabhu agrees with this conclusion.

4) Goddess Durga: This was the initial point of disagreement and no consensus seemed to emerge. One point that was agreed to, was that Durga as maya-sakti is just an aspect of cit-sakti and in truth these two are non-different.

Shiva prabhu's position is:

a) Jiva Goswami says "Krishna is Durga. Durga is Krishna. One who sees that they are different will not become liberated from the cycle of repeated birth and death."

b) There are only two kinds of expansions from Lord viz. svamsa and vibbhinnamsa, and since Goddess Durga is not vibbhinnamsa she must be svamsa and thus vishnu-tattva

c) It has been given in many places that from cit-sakti are produced complete entities i.e. vishnu-tattva, so Durga is vishnu-tattva being the personal potency of Lord.

My position is:

As regards point a) above, the meaning of this should be understood in the context of the abheda of sakti and saktimaan.

As regards point b) above, properly speaking sakti is not an expansion of the Lord rather potency of Lord; so maya-sakti is the potency of svamsas as Krishna. Similiarly, for point c) Goddess Durga as the maya-sakti is an inherant function of vishnu-tattva and from tattva point of view cannot be considered a separate entity. This also explains the meaning of the statements that Durga is identical to vishnu-tattva.

I provided some quotes that express this position:

a) Srila BhaktiSiddhanta says that those who consider Durga/Shiva/Surya/Ganesh as different bodies of Lord Vishnu, they will never attain liberation.

b) There are many quotes which say that sakti is dependent while Krishna is independent, that Krishna is the enjoyer while sakti is enjoyed, that purusha is the master of sakti etc. -- shiva prabhu's opinion is that these quotes do not apply to personal potency.

c) That free-will and freedom are not the work of sakti, i.e. desire is not from sakti rather are the intrinsic attributes of Krishna. This has been given in many places including for cit-sakti.

d) Srila Bhaktivinoda says explicitly that to consider sakti (potency) as the root of everything is opposed to metaphysical truth. Sakti (as in both maya-sakti and cit-sakti) operates fully under the support of a pure conscious entity (vishnu-tattva), and is thus considered identical with that powerful entity; and that desire cannot exist in sakti rather acts in accordance with the desire of the Supreme Being.

Conclusion: Siva prabhu's position is that Goddess Durga is vishnu-tattva as she has been told to be identical to vishnu-tattva and is manifested from cit-sakti. My position is that this directly contradicts many statements and that Goddess Durga as a potency of Vishnu is His inherant quality who is the master of the potency. In one aspect they are one and the same (sakti-saktimator abhedah) and in other aspect there is a difference that freedom/free-will does not exist in sakti.

5) Sri Radharani: This is more or less same as that for Durga since the two are non-different.

Siva prabhu gave many more quotes which said Radharani and Her expansions as womanly forms of Krishna, or as reflected forms who are non-different from the original forms or that both Radha and Krishna are manifested from cit-sakti.

My opinion is that this is to be understood as the non-difference of potency and possessor of potency. There is also a quote in which the forms of Krishna and Radha are said to be the work of cit-sakti but still Krishna has the attributes of freedom/free-will which are not the work of sakti. Furthermore, such an argument would imply that sakti is the root of Krishna which Srila Bhaktivinoda says "is thoroughly opposed to metaphysical Truth (tattva)".

Conclusion: Same as for Goddess Durga in 4)

6) Material/spiritual creation: Shiva prabhu did not explicitly give any opinion of this, but his other opinions would imply that creation is also Krishna Himself i.e. vishnu-tattva. My opinion is that creation is not an expansion of para-tattva rather a manifestation of the energy of Krishna; so it cannot be considered vishnu-tattva in any situation since it is not (or various parts of creation) an entity at all in any aspect rather only energy (which has an acintya-bheda-abheda relation with Krishna).

7) Nitya paarshada expansions: Shiva prabhu's position is that they are all vishnu-tattva since they are manifest from cit-sakti. My position is that they have been explicitly told to be jivas or anu-cit expansions from Baladeva prabhu and mula-sankarsana, so cannot be vishnu-tattva rather are jiva-tattva (although not from tatastha-sakti).

-----------

Shiva prabhu, please go through this and let me know if you would like to provide any corrections or extend it in any way. Again, i would also request other devotees to give their opinion of this (if there are any alternative points of view) as regards gaudiya siddhanta.

Thanks

January 21, 2005

You made a few mistakes in relating my positions.

3. Conclusion: In very rare cases jiva can occupy the position of Lord Shiva, but otherwise Lord Shiva is a personal expansion of Lord Mahavishnu/Sadashiva but neither vishnu-tattva nor jiva-tattva rather simultaneously one and different from vishnu-tattva. As far as i understand, shiva prabhu agrees with this conclusion.

No that is not my understanding. Jivas regularly occupy the position of Shiva. Shiva is specifically said to not be Vishnu tattva. His "unique tattva" is not like Jiva or Vishnu tattva, it is like saying Guru tattva, or some other kind of tattva. Shiva tattva does not imply a different kind of entity, it implies a jiva who is elevted beyond ordinary jivas, like the Guru.

Narayana Maharaja said that when Vishnu cannot fulfill the role of Shiva then a Jiva is elevated to that position. This is inconsistent with the true nature of Vishnu. Vishnu is never too busy or "cannot" do anything. Vishnu can always expand Himself in an unlimited amount of forms and do an unlimited amount of activities. So Vishnu is never too busy nor is Visnu ever unable to play the role of Shiva. Jivas play the role of Shiva. That is why Shiva is not given equality with Vishnu tattva. The milk and curd example is given to illustrate the difference between Shiva and Vishnu in the same way that there is difference between Vishnu and Guru. Guru and Krishna are one, but they are not identical, the same with Shiva who is considered to be the topmost Guru.

When a Jiva is unable to fulfill the role of Shiva, then Vishnu takes that role. either way Vishnu empowers Shiva and therefore Shiva is considered to be Shiva tattva, just like Guru tattva, not like Jiva Tattva nor Vishnu tattva.

There is no other category of living enitity other then Jiva and Vishnu.

From Bhaktisiddhanta's commentary on Brahma Samhita

Hence Vishnu is the full subjective portion and belongs to the category of the superior isvaras. He is the Lord of the deluding potency and not alloyed with her. Vishnu is the agent of Govinda's own subjective nature in the form of the prime cause. All the majestic attributes of Govinda, aggregating sixty in number, are fully present in His majestic manifestation Narayana. Brahma and Shiva are entities adulterated with mundane qualities .. Though Vishnu is also divine appearance in mundane quality (guna-avatara), still He is not adulterated. The appearance of Narayana in the form of Maha-Visnu, the appearance of Maha-Visnu in the form of Garbhodakasayi and the appearance of Vishnu in the form of Ksirodakasayi, are examples of the ubiquitous function of the Divinity. Vishnu is Godhead Himself, and the two other guna-avataras and all the other gods are entities possessing authority in subordination to Him.

(The real nature of Sambhu, the presiding deity of Mahesa-dhama, is described.) Sambhu is not a second Godhead other than Krishna. Those, who entertain such discriminating sentiment, commit a great offense against the Supreme Lord. The supremacy of Sambhu is subservient to that of Govinda; hence they are not really different from each other. (just like the Guru represents God and is the subservient potency of God and therefore non different then God) The nondistinction is established by the fact that just as milk treated with acid turns into curd so Godhead becomes a subservient when He Himself attains a distinct personality by the addition of a particular element of adulteration. This personality has no independent initiative. The sail adulterating principle is constituted of a combination of the stupefying quality of the deluding energy, the quality of nonplenitude of the marginal potency and a slight degree of the ecstatic-cum-cognitive principle of the plenary spiritual potency. ( exactly the same as a jiva, the jiva is an subservient distinct personality created by Godhead when He Himself adulters a bit of His own consciousness. The Jiva has the same exact limitations described above for Shiva)

6. Shiva prabhu did not explicitly give any opinion of this, but his other opinions would imply that creation is also Krishna Himself i.e. vishnu-tattva. My opinion is that creation is not an expansion of para-tattva rather a manifestation of the energy of Krishna; so it cannot be considered vishnu-tattva in any situation since it is not (or various parts of creation) an entity at all in any aspect rather only energy (which has an acintya-bheda-abheda relation with Krishna).

Sri Krishna speaking to His friend Uddhava:

yatha hiranyam sv-akritam purastat

pascac ca sarvasya hiran-mayasya

tad eva madhye vyavaharyamanam

nanapadesair aham asya tadvat

na yat purastad uta yan na pascan

madhye ca tan na vyapadesa-matram

bhutam prasiddham ca parena yad yat

tad eva tat syad iti me manisha

avidyamano 'py avabhasate yo

vaikariko rajasa-sarga esah

brahma svayam jyotir ato vibhati

brahmendriyarthatma-vikara-citram

Gold alone is present before its manufacture into gold products, the gold alone remains after the products' destruction, and the gold alone is the essential reality while it is being utilized under various designations. Similarly, I alone exist before the creation of this universe, after its destruction and during its maintenance.

That which did not exist in the past and will not exist in the future also has no existence of its own for the period of its duration, but is only a superficial designation. In My opinion, whatever is created and revealed by something else is ultimately only that other thing.

Although thus not existing in reality, this manifestation of transformations created from the mode of passion appears real because the self-manifested, self-luminous Absolute Truth exhibits Himself in the form of the material variety of the senses, the sense objects, the mind and the elements of physical nature.

manasa vacasa drstya

grhyate 'nyair apindriyaih

aham eva na matto 'nyad

iti budhyadhvam anjasa

Within this world, whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is Me alone and nothing besides Me. All of you please understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts.

7 Nitya paarshada expansions: Shiva prabhu's position is that they are all vishnu-tattva since they are manifest from cit-sakti. My position is that they have been explicitly told to be jivas or anu-cit expansions from Baladeva prabhu and mula-sankarsana, so cannot be vishnu-tattva rather are jiva-tattva (although not from tatastha-sakti).

I never said the above.

The residents of the spiritual world are of different types. The nitya mukta jivas are born from Baladeva.

From Jaiva Dharma

When established in His essential chit-shakti He reveals His essential Nature as Sri Krishna Himself on the one hand and on the other as Sri Narayana, the Lord of Vaikuntha. When he desired to have His adherent attendance ' nitya parshada' servitors in His Transcendental plane Goloka- Vrindavana Vaikuntha, etc. He through Baladeva created those Eternal Parshada as nitya-mukta jivas at those divine worlds. He reveals the three Forms of Vishnu, viz., Karanodakasayi, Kshirodakasayi and Garbhodakasayi. At Vraja He reveals His own Nature as Krishna with chit in fullness; as Baladeva, He reveals the eternally free associate jivas for the performance of the eight kinds of service of Himself as Sri Krishna.

They are not the same as personal expansions of Radha and Krishna.

From Srila Prabhupadas Caitanya Caritamrta Adi Lila

TEXT 72

ananda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhavitabhis

tabhir ya eva njja-rupataya

kalabhih goloka eva nivasaty

akhilatma-bhuto

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

TRANSLATION

"I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who resides in His own realm, Goloka, with Radha, who resembles His own spiritual figure and who embodies the ecstatic potency [hladini]. Their companions are Her confidantes, who embody extensions of Her bodily form and who are imbued and permeated with ever-blissful spiritual rasa."

PURPORT

This text is from the Brahma-samhita (5.37).

TEXT 73

krsnere karaya yaiche rasa asvadana

kridara sahaya yaiche, suna vivarana

TRANSLATION

Now please listen to how Lord Krsna's consorts help Him taste rasa and how they help in His pastimes.

TEXT 74-75

krsna-kanta-gana dekhi tri-vidha prakara

eka laksmi-gana, pure mahisi-gana ara

vrajangana-rupa, ara kanta-gana-sara

sri-radhika haite kanta-ganera vistara

TRANSLATION

The beloved consorts of Lord Krsna are of three kinds: the goddesses of fortune, the queens, and the milkmaids of Vraja, who are the foremost of all. These consorts all proceed from Radhika.

TEXT 76

avatari krsna yaiche kare a vatara

amsini radha haite tina ganera vistara

TRANSLATION

Just as the fountainhead, Lord Krsna, is the cause of all incarnations, so Sri Radha is the cause of all these consorts.

TEXT 77

vaibhava-gana yena tanra anga-vibhti

bimba-pratibimba-rupa mahisira tati

TRANSLATION

The goddesses of fortune are partial manifestations of Srimati Radhika, and the queens are reflections of Her image.

TEXT 78

laksmi-gana tanra vaibhava-vilasamsa-rupa

mahisi-gana vaibhava-prakasa-svarupa

TRANSLATION

The goddesses of fortune are Her plenary portions, and they display the forms of vaibhava-vilasa. The queens are of the nature of Her vaibhava-prakasa.

TEXT 79

akara svabhava-bh ede vraia-devi-gana

kaya-vyuha-rupa tanra rasera karana

TRANSLATION

The Vraja-devis have diverse bodily features. They are Her expansions and are the instruments for expanding rasa.

TEXT 80

bahu kanta vina nahe rasera ullasa

Iilara sahaya lagi' bahuta prakasa

TRANSLATION

Without many consorts, there is not such exultation in rasa. Therefore there are many manifestations of Srimati Radharani to assist in the Lord's pastimes.

TEXT 81

tara madhye vraie nana bhava-rasa-bhede

krsnake karaya rasadika-lilasvade

TRANSLATION

Among them are various groups of consorts in Vraja who have varieties of sentiments and mellows. They help Lord Krsna taste all the sweetness of the rasa dance and other pastimes.

PURPORT

As already explained, Krsna and Radha are one in two. They are identical. Krsna expands Himself in multi-incarnations and plenary portions like the purusas. Similarly, Srimati Radharani expands Herself in multi-forms as the goddesses of fortune, the queens and the damsels of Vraja. Such expansions from Srimati Radharani are all Her plenary portions. All these womanly forms of Krsna are expansions corresponding to His plenary expansions of Visnu forms. These expansions have been compared to reflected forms of the original form. There is no difference between the original and reflected forms. The female reflections of Krsna's pleasure potency are as good as Krsna Himself.

The plenary expansions of Krsna's personality are called vaibhava-vilasa and vaibhava-prakasa, and Radha's expansions are similarly described. The goddesses of fortune are vaibhava-vilasa, and the queens are vaibhava-prakasa of Radharani. The personal associates of Radharani, the damsels of Vraja, are direct expansions of Her body. As expansions of Her personai form and transcendental disposition, they are agents of different reciprocations of love in the pastimes of Lord Krsna, under the supreme direction of Srimati Radharani. In the transcendental realm, enjoyment is fully relished in variety. The exuberance of transcendental mellow is increased by the association of a large number of personalities similar to Radharani, who are also known asgopis or sakhis. The variety of innumerable mistresses is a source of relish for Sri Krsna, and therefore these expansions from Srimati Radharani are necessary for enhancing the pleasure potency of Sri Krsna. Their transcendental exchanges of love are the superexcellent affairs of the pastimes in Vrndavana. By these expansions of Srimati Radharani s personal body, She helps Lord Krsna taste the rasa dance and similar other activities. Srimati Radharani, being the central petal of the rasa- lila flower, is also known by the names found in the following verses.

January 21, 2005

I forgot a verse in the material energy section.

Srimad Bhagavatam 11.28.6-7

The Supersoul alone is the ultimate controller and creator of this world, and thus He alone is also the created. Similarly, the Soul of all existence Himself both maintains and is maintained, withdraws and is withdrawn. No other entity can be properly ascertained as separate from Him, the Supreme Soul, who nonetheless is distinct from everything and everyone else. The appearance of the threefold material nature, which is perceived within Him, has no actual basis. Rather, you should understand that this material nature, composed of the three modes, is simply the product of His illusory potency.

Point is, the material energy is God. Vishnu tattva refers to individual persons, not to broad categories. Krishna is Vishnu tattva, Durga is Vishnu tattva, meaning the all pervading Lord. The material world is God, but it is not refered to as Vishnu tattva.

sumedh · January 22, 2005

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

You said:

No that is not my understanding. Jivas regularly occupy the position of Shiva. Shiva is specifically said to not be Vishnu tattva. His "unique tattva" is not like Jiva or Vishnu tattva, it is like saying Guru tattva, or some other kind of tattva. Shiva tattva does not imply a different kind of entity, it implies a jiva who is elevted beyond ordinary jivas, like the Guru.

You really stumped me, literally! I mean you presented a quote with which you yourself do not agree? Anyway, i will make the change. It will be helpful if you could provide any direct quote which says that Lord shiva is jiva-tattva i.e. atomic-cit (not from Srila Narayana Maharaj/Sridhar Maharaj who you consider to be mistaken) because right now all we have to support it is an indirect inference while all the direct statements state a contrary position.

You said:

Point is, the material energy is God. Vishnu tattva refers to individual persons, not to broad categories. ... The material world is God, but it is not refered to as Vishnu tattva.

Let me get this clear. Could you specify what is the difference between God and vishnu-tattva? What do you mean by "broad categories" in the above; your position has been that there is only God and jivas, so what is this new thing? You agree that matter is not person, then how can it be God? Or you say that God is not necessarily a person. Or you mean to say that in Truth material world is God Himself, but only appears to be so and so to us. Do you mean to say that the acintya-bheda-abheda of material world and Vishnu as given here (Jaiva-Dharma Chapter 18):

If one singles out a particular sentence, he may always be diverted by some misinterpretation. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu therefore investigated all the Vedas thoroughly, and then preached that the individual spirit souls and the material world are simultaneously and inconceivably one with Sri Hari and different from Him.

or numerous other places is not correct and in Truth material world is God (as non-person). You also gave the quote:

The Supersoul alone is the ultimate controller and creator of this world, and thus He alone is also the created. Similarly, the Soul of all existence Himself both maintains and is maintained, withdraws and is withdrawn. No other entity can be properly ascertained as separate from Him, the Supreme Soul, who nonetheless is distinct from everything and everyone else. The appearance of the threefold material nature, which is perceived within Him, has no actual basis. Rather, you should understand that this material nature, composed of the three modes, is simply the product of His illusory potency.

Are you using this as supportive evidence for your conception or not, because this quote supports the acintya-bheda-abheda as given by Mahaprabhu. Or do you mean to say that illusion is the bheda aspect and when one is free from illusion only abheda is there?

What about spiritual creation? Dasa-mula 8 of Mahaprabhu establishes acintya-bheda-abheda between Sri Hari and material, spiritual creation. There is no illusion in spiritual world, so that factor cannot be taken into account. What is your understanding of Dasa-mula 8:

hareh sakteh sarvam cid-acid akhilah syat parinatih

vivartam no satyam srutim iti viruddham kali-malam

harer bhedabhedau sruti-vihita-tattvam suvimalam

tatah premnah siddhir bhavati nitaram nitya-visaye

Dasa-Mula(8)

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.

This statement is not about jivas at all, as you can see. Basically what i want to understand is that since you have erased any distinction between tattva and energy, so how you distinguish between entities (as individuals) and creation which is not individual(s) but expansion of energy. What is the distinguishing factor between the two -- i mean how is creation not person(s) when you consider it an expansion of Krishna just like individuals are?

I request you not to give any quotes or references to them, (i can find quotes to support your position) since i cannot be sure of the correlation between the quote and your understanding, only your understanding of this and answers to the questions i have raised so that i may understand your position.

As regards nitya-paarshada jivas i think there is agreement.

Please clarify:

My opinion was that there is a bheda aspect in the different expansions as regards what features are exhibited in different forms (but not from tattva point of view) i.e. from rasa point of view, and so is also a manifestation of acintya-bheda-abheda principle. Shiva prabhu did not give any explicit statement in this regard but to my understanding more or less agrees with it, but probably not as acintya-bheda-abheda.

i.e. do you take it as acintya-bheda-abheda or not.

One last point. I would like to know as to what is your understanding of Srila Bhaktivinode's explicit answer to the question of "Who is Mother Durga?"

Digambara: Then who is the goddess I know as Mother Nistarini?

Advaita: She is Sri Hari's external potency known as visnu-maya.

Digambara opened his book on tantra and said,"Look, it states in tantra-sastra that my divine mother is consciousness personified. She possesses full will and she is beyond the three qualities of material nature, yet she is the support of those three qualities. Your visnu-maya is not free from the influence of the modes of nature, so how can you equate your visnu-maya with my mother? This type of fanaticism on the part of the Vaisnavas really irritates me. You Vaisnavas have blind faith."

Advaita: My brother, Digambara, please don't be angry. You have come to see me after such a long time, and I want to satisfy you. Is it a slight to speak of visnu-maya? Bhagavan Visnu is the embodiment of supreme consciousness, and He is the one supreme controller of all. Everything that exists is His potency. Potency is not an independent object (vastu), but rather the functional power inherent within an object (vastu-dharma). To say that sakti (potency) is the root of everything is thoroughly opposed to tattva, metaphysical truth. Sakti cannot exist independent of the object from which it originates. We must first accept the existence of an object that possesses full spiritual consciousness, otherwise accepting sakti by itself is like dreaming of a flower in the sky. The commentary on Vedanta states, sakti-saktimator abhedah: There is no difference between the potency and the possessor of potency. This means that sakti is not a separate object. The Supreme Person who is the master of all potencies is the one truly abiding substance. Sakti is the quality, or inherent function, that is subordinate to His will. You have said that sakti is the embodiment of consciousness, that it possesses will, and that it is beyond the influence of the three qualities of material nature. This is correct, but only insofar as sakti operates fully under the support of a pure conscious entity, and is thus considered identical with that powerful entity. Desire and consciousness depend on the Supreme Being. Desire cannot exist in sakti; rather, sakti acts in accordance with the desire of the Supreme Being. You have the power to move, and when you desire to move, that power will act. To say the power is moving is merely a figure of speech; it actually means that the person who possesses that power is moving. Bhagavan has only one sakti, which is manifest in different forms. When it functions in a spiritual capacity, it is known as cit-sakti, and when it operates in a material capacity, it is known as maya, or jada-sakti.

Do you mean to say that this is not the correct answer? In this all the things are explained clearly, those which i have been trying to put across i.e. from tattva point of view sakti cannot be considered a "separate object" (and so doesn't make sense to qualify it as svamsa which means plenary portion), that it is the "quality or inherent function" of vishnu and therefore is "considered identical with that powerful entity", that "desire cannot exist in sakti". Also it is made clear that this quote is referring to sakti as in cit-sakti and maya-sakti, while jiva-sakti is nowhere in picture. It is also clear that this quote is specifically about Goddess Durga (and not qualities of material nature).

Again i am not asking for any more quotes, just your understanding of this statement.

January 23, 2005

I only posted to fix your mistakes on my opinions. Everything else you request from me we have gone over in detail already. There is no reason to rehash and say the same things in different ways.

sumedh · January 23, 2005

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

There was never a discussion regarding material/spiritual creation. Anyway, since you do not want to discuss it, i will only ask for clarifications since frankly speaking your statements are self-contradictory and make no sense to me; so either it should be some deficiency in my understanding or you are not sure yourself.

You said:

Point is, the material energy is God. Vishnu tattva refers to individual persons, not to broad categories. ... The material world is God, but it is not refered to as Vishnu tattva.

Could you specify what is the difference between God and vishnu-tattva? What do you mean by "broad categories" in the above; your position has been that there is only God and jivas, so what is this new thing? You agree that matter is not person, then how can it be God? Or you say that God is not necessarily a person. Or you mean to say that in Truth material world is God Himself, but only appears to be so and so to us. Or do you mean to say that illusion is the bheda aspect and when one is free from illusion only abheda is there?

What about spiritual creation, where there is no factor of illusion?

Please clarify:

My opinion was that there is a bheda aspect in the different expansions as regards what features are exhibited in different forms (but not from tattva point of view) i.e. from rasa point of view, and so is also a manifestation of acintya-bheda-abheda principle. Shiva prabhu did not give any explicit statement in this regard but to my understanding more or less agrees with it, but probably not as acintya-bheda-abheda.

i.e. do you take it as acintya-bheda-abheda or not so that i can put it one way or the other (instead of probably)

Also you never gave any understanding for quotes in Jaiva-Dharma which state bheda-abheda of Krishna and cit-sakti; the only thing i could gather was that you ignored them. (you explained only one quote which you interpreted to mean sakti as in all the saktis and not applicable to cit-sakti)

sumedh · January 24, 2005

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

I am not sure why you are not willing to give any clarifications. But still i will ask for one more and post the final summary in a couple of days.

It is regarding Sadasiva, since you did not give your opinion on this and said that you do not agree with Srila Narayana Maharaj's quote which you presented. Srila Prabhupada's Caitanya-Charitamrta Adi Lila 6.79:

Rudra, who is an expansion of Sadasiva and who appears in unlimited universes, is also a gunavatara [qualitative incarnation] and is the ornament of all the demigods in the endless universes.

PURPORT

There are eleven expansions of Rudra, or Lord Siva. They are as follows: Ajaikapat, Ahibradhna, Virupaksa, Raivata, Hara, Bahurupa, Devasrestha Tryambaka, Savitra, Jayanta, Pinaki and Aparajita. Besides these expansions there are eight forms of Rudra called earth, water, fire, air, sky, the sun, the moon and soma-yaji. Generally all these Rudras have five faces, three eyes and ten arms. Sometimes it is found that Rudra is compared to Brahma and considered a living entity. But when Rudra is explained to be a partial expansion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he is compared to Sesa. Lord Siva is therefore simultaneously an expansion of Lord Visnu and, in his capacity for annihilating the creation, one of the living entities. As an expansion of Lord Visnu he is called Hara, and he is transcendental to the material qualities, but when he is in touch with tamo-guna he appears contaminated by the material modes of nature. This is explained in Srimad-Bhagavatam and the Brahma-samhita. In Srimad-Bhagavatam, Tenth Canto, it is stated that Lord Rudra is always associated with the material nature when she is in the neutral, unmanifested stage, but when the modes of material nature are agitated he associates with material nature from a distance. In the Brahma-samhita the relationship between Visnu and Lord Siva is compared to that between milk and yogurt. Milk is converted into yogurt by certain additives, but although milk and yogurt have the same ingredients, they have different functions. Similarly, Lord Siva is an expansion of Lord Visnu, yet because of his taking part in the annihilation of the cosmic manifestation, he is considered to be changed, like milk converted into yogurt. In the Puranas it is found that Siva appears sometimes from the heads of Brahma and sometimes from the head of Visnu. The annihilator, Rudra, is born from Sankarsana and the ultimate fire to burn the whole creation. In the Vayu Purana there is a description of Sadasiva in one of the Vaikuntha planets. That Sadasiva is a direct expansion of Lord Krsna's form for pastimes. It is said that Sadasiva (Lord Sambhu) is an expansion from the Sadasiva in the Vaikuntha planets (Lord Visnu) and that his consort, Mahamaya, is an expansion of Rama-devi, or Laksmi. Mahamaya is the origin or birthplace of material nature.

I understand that you take Lord Sadasiva/Shambhu in Mahesh-Dhama to be jiva tattva. Please clarify your position regarding Lord Sadasiva in Vaikuntha.

Seriously, shivaji i have no idea as to how you came to the conclusion that Lord Siva is jiva-tattva, when Srila Prabhupada has explained all the things very clearly in this. Anyway, please give your position as regards Lord Sadasiva in vaikuntha and then i will post the final summary. Thanks.

January 24, 2005

As already explained by Jiva Goswami, Vishnu has two types of expansions. Vibhinnamsa or Jivas are expansions of Vishnu and are living entities. Svamsa are expansions of Vishnu but are all identical to Vishnu.

Shiva in the material world is not Vishnu as has been stated already by Bhaktisiddhanta:

"Vishnu is Godhead Himself, and the two other guna-avataras [shiva, Brahma] and all the other gods are entities possessing authority in subordination to Him."

So Shiva is not Vishnu tattva according to Bhaktisiddhanta.

Which leaves only Vibhinnamsa or Jiva tattva. There is nowhere in any Gaudiya sastra a description of any type of entity other then Svamsa or Vibhinnamsa. There is only the all pervading Vishnu tattva entities who are all one and the same Supreme Lord, and then there are the innumerable living entities who are dependent on Vishnu for their existence.

as you quoted

"Lord Siva is therefore simultaneously an expansion of Lord Visnu and, in his capacity for annihilating the creation, one of the living entities."

Jivas are also simultaneously expansions of Vishnu and living entities.

From a lecture by Srila Sridhara Maharaja:

Devotee: Does a jiva attain the position of Siva?

Srila Guru Maharaja: Yes, he can be Siva,' when he is out of the clutches of Maya; and the Vaikuntha devotee is more than Siva. When a spiritual molecule is free from the clutches of the exploitation tendency, he is known as Siva.' Pasa-baddho bhavej jivah pasa-muktah sadasivah: When he is entangled, he is jiva,' and when he is free, he is Siva' (Sivo 'ham).

Devotee: Yes. But sometimes it is said that Mahesa Dhama is spiritual; it seems to be more like a marginal plane.

Srila Guru Maharaj: It is spiritual. Mahesa Dhama is of two kinds: first in the relativity of Maya, and secondly, Siva exists as Sadasiva, the devotee Siva. He may be entangled as a grhastha, but he can conceive that he has his superior position in a superior realm, and he holds the lowest position in that sphere. So, as I quoted, one who can successfully discharge his duty in the Varnasrama system for a hundred lifetimes attains to the position of Lord Brahma, who is the leader of the whole Varnasrama system in this world. Then, Mahadeva says tatah param hi mam: "After this, if he can continue in this way, he progresses even further: he comes to my position."

So the Shiva in the material world is a Jiva who has been elevated above an ordinary Jiva. But as Bhaktisiddhanta points out:

"This personality has no independent initiative. The sail adulterating principle is constituted of a combination of the stupefying quality of the deluding energy (he is subject to Maya), the quality of nonplenitude of the marginal potency (he is not all pervading) and a slight degree of the ecstatic-cum-cognitive principle of the plenary spiritual potency. (while Vishnu is the source and resorvoir of sat-cit-ananda) "

sumedh · January 24, 2005

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

Actually my question was regarding Lord Sadasiva in vaikuntha so could you please clarify your position regarding that. Also, please clarify your understanding of material/spiritual creation in context of the questions i posted before and also do you consider different svamsa expansions as acintya-bheda-abheda tattva, thanks.

I will just discuss siva-tattva below, but kindly provide the clarifications also.

Since you have already singled out a statement and understood all the gaudiya sastras on the basis of that, thus your conclusions. Please remember a quote from Jaiva-Dharma: "If one singles out a particular sentence, he may always be diverted by some misinterpretation", which is also applicable to gaudiya sastras and so it will be better to at least have the scope. Simply speaking your interpretation of this statement invalidates many statements of gaudiya sastra such as acintya-bheda-abheda of material,spiritual creation with Sri Bhagavan in Dasa-Mula 8.

You said:

as you quoted

"Lord Siva is therefore simultaneously an expansion of Lord Visnu and, in his capacity for annihilating the creation, one of the living entities."

Jivas are also simultaneously expansions of Vishnu and living entities.

In my humble opinion this is a gross misrepresentation, because living entities itself means "atomic expansions" so there would make no sense to say "simultaneously" unless expansion means as in svamsa. Even svamsa are living entities, so one can even provide such an interpretation while from the context it is clear Srila Prabhupada means expansion as in svamsa and living entities as in vibbhinnamsa. In more places than one Srila Prabhupada explicitly says "expansion of Vishnu" or "expansion of Sadasiva (Lord Vishnu)" which means vishnu-tattva and not jivas as you want to interpret.

Srila Prabhupada's purports are gaudiya sastra and so is Brahma Samhita. You also ignored the explicit quote:

Rudra, Lord Siva, has various forms, which are transformations brought about by association with maya. Although Rudra is not on a level with the jiva-tattvas, he still cannot be considered a personal expansion of Lord Krsna.

PURPORT

Rudra is simultaneously one with and different from the visnu-tattva. Due to his association with maya, he is different from the visnu-tattva, but at the same time he is an expansion of Krsna's personal form. This situation is called bhedabheda-tattva or acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, simultaneously one and different.

This is gaudiya sastra and it is says explicitly that Lord siva is simultaneously both svamsa and vibbhinnamsa, the same as in the purport of Adi-lila 6.79. And the reason for being different from visnu-tattva is "association with maya" (and non-plenitude plus ecstatic-cum-cognitive principle of the plenary spiritual potency as you quoted) and not infinitesimal nature. Also, let me point out that jivas never "adulterated by maya", though deluded by it due to their infintesimal nature. Nowhere has Lord Siva been described as having infinitesimal nature (non-plenitude is different) like jivas while Srila Prabhupada says in purport of SB 4.1.15 "The Visnu svamsa expansions of the Supreme Lord in different Visnu forms are like lamps, Lord Siva is also like a lamp, and the supreme candle power, or the one-hundred-percent light, is Krsna" i.e. Lord Siva is like a lamp not at all like jivas. If Srila Prabhupada would have meant what you imply, he would have said Lord Siva is an empowered Jiva like he (and other acharyas) has said many-a-times for the case of Lord Brahma. Just like Lord Siva, Lord Brahma is also guna-avataar and guru-tattva, but he is always described as jiva-tattva. Of course, you interpret all these along the lines of guru-tattva while the context makes it clear that the quotes are talking about the ontological nature where Srila Prabhupada could have simply said "empowered jiva" which he never ever uses for Lord Siva.

As regards Srila Sridhara Maharaja's quote it can be understood in context of the quote by Srila Narayana Maharaja which you gave before. But since you yourself believe that Srila Narayana Maharaja is mistaken (and still use part of his quote as supportive evidence), it would not make sense to discuss either Srila Sridhara Maharaja's quote or Srila Narayana Maharaja's.

January 25, 2005

I am through. Don't waste your time asking me any more "clarifications".

you said

This is gaudiya sastra and it is says explicitly that Lord siva is simultaneously both svamsa and vibbhinnamsa,

That is absurd. You cannot be Vishnu and not Vishnu at the same time. Svamsa means identical to Vishnu, Vishnu is all pervading. You cannot be all pervading and at the same time not all pervading. You cannot be Vishnu tattva and also not Vishnu tattva.

You seem more intent on looking for ways to prove your points, whatever they are, then you are in looking for the truth.

I am really through this time. Take it or leave it.

sumedh · January 25, 2005

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

Okay, so you do not want to clarify your position. But i would just like to point out that instead of trying to understand others' viewpoint you are more interested in showing them down. I have no intention to ask for any more clarifications since it is clear you don't have any.

You said:

That is absurd. You cannot be Vishnu and not Vishnu at the same time. Svamsa means identical to Vishnu, Vishnu is all pervading. You cannot be all pervading and at the same time not all pervading. You cannot be Vishnu tattva and also not Vishnu tattva.

I used the terms svamsa and vibbinnamsa in the true sense of the words which is svamsa = personal expansion, and vibbhinnamsa = separated person (please look up any hindi/sanskrit dictionary for confirmation); this definition has got to do nothing with the nature of svamsas (who are Vishnu) and vibbhinnamsas (who are jivas). And of course you claim that what Srila Prabhupada is saying is absurd, as suits you. Shiva prabhuji, with utmost respect i must say that it is good that you are really through instead of calling any more of the acharyas' statements as absurd.

Since it is clear that you are not able to understand my viewpoint, i will just give one example as regards cit-sakti and vishnu-tattva. Imagine a machine which is a reservoir of say heat and electrical energies which can produce an exact replica of itself using these energies. This very grossly resembles the relation of cit-sakti and para-tattva, and so as you quoted "When established in His essential chit-shakti He reveals His essential Nature as Sri Krishna Himself". Similiarly when Lord Mahavishnu/Baladeva/Sankarsana establish themselves in jiva-sakti the atomic expansions as jivas are created. Otherwise you have concluded that cit-sakti is the root of Krishna, then that will be "thoroughly opposed to metaphysical Truth (tattva)" in the words of Srila Bhaktivinoda, and gaudiya tattva will become brahm-parinamavada as regards material/spiritual creation.

The summary follows:

1) Krishna and His expansions starting from Baladeva prabhu, catur-vyuha expansion, purusha avataars, lila avataars etc.: They are all vishnu-tattva/para-tattva and are the same Supreme Personality of Godhead in different features; there was complete agreement on this.

My opinion was that there is a bheda aspect in the different expansions as regards what features are exhibited in different forms (but not from tattva point of view) i.e. from rasa point of view, and so is also a manifestation of acintya-bheda-abheda principle. Shiva prabhu did not give any explicit statement in this regard but to my understanding more or less agrees with it, but probably not as acintya-bheda-abheda.

2) Jivas: They are infinitesimal expansions (anu-cit) from Lord Mahavishnu or Lord Baladeva/Sankarsana and are simultaneously one and different from the Lord (acintya-bheda-abheda). Due to the atomic nature, the bheda aspect is more prominent and hence are called vibbhinnamsa (separated parts) -- there was consensus on this.

3) Lord Shiva: Shiva prabhu's opinion was that since Jiva Goswami (quoting from Varaha Puraana) mentions only two kinds of expansions of Lord i.e. svamsa and vibbhinnamsa, and Lord Shiva is not svamsa he must be vibbhinnamsa. My opinion was that Srila Prabhupada explicitly mentions Lord Shiva as neither svamsa nor vibbhinnamsa but as simultaneously one and different (acintya-bheda-abheda) from vishnu-tattva and similiar thing is implied by the statement from Brahma-Samhita where Lord Shiva is mentioned as a transformation of Lord Krishna just as milk is transformed into curd; so he is neither vishnu-tattva nor jiva-tattva rather should be qualified separately. My opinion is that to reconcile these two the only way is to consider that when a specific principle seems to contradict a general principle then it should be understood as an extension of the general principle.

Conclusion: Shiva prabhu's position is that Lord Shiva is an elevated jiva, while my position is that Lord Shiva is a personal expansion of Lord Mahavishnu/Sadashiva but neither vishnu-tattva nor jiva-tattva because his nature is not infinitesimal rather simultaneously one and different from vishnu-tattva.

4) Goddess Durga: This was the initial point of disagreement and no consensus seemed to emerge. One point that was agreed to, was that Durga as maya-sakti is just an aspect of cit-sakti and in truth these two are non-different.

Shiva prabhu's position is:

a) Jiva Goswami says "Krishna is Durga. Durga is Krishna. One who sees that they are different will not become liberated from the cycle of repeated birth and death."

b) There are only two kinds of expansions from Lord viz. svamsa and vibbhinnamsa, and since Goddess Durga is not vibbhinnamsa she must be svamsa and thus vishnu-tattva

c) It has been given in many places that from cit-sakti are produced complete entities i.e. vishnu-tattva, so Durga is vishnu-tattva being the personal potency of Lord.

My position is:

As regards point a) above, the meaning of this should be understood in the context of the abheda of sakti and saktimaan.

As regards point b) above, properly speaking sakti is not an expansion of the Lord rather potency of Lord; so maya-sakti is the potency of svamsas as Krishna. Similiarly, for point c) Goddess Durga as the maya-sakti is an inherant function of vishnu-tattva and from tattva point of view cannot be considered a separate entity. This also explains the meaning of the statements that Durga is identical to vishnu-tattva.

I provided some quotes that express this position:

a) Srila BhaktiSiddhanta says that those who consider Durga/Shiva/Surya/Ganesh as different bodies of Lord Vishnu, they will never attain liberation.

b) There are many quotes which say that sakti is dependent while Krishna is independent, that Krishna is the enjoyer while sakti is enjoyed, that purusha is the master of sakti etc. -- shiva prabhu's opinion is that these quotes do not apply to personal potency.

c) That free-will and freedom are not the work of sakti, i.e. desire is not from sakti rather are the intrinsic attributes of Krishna. This has been given in many places including for cit-sakti.

d) Srila Bhaktivinoda says explicitly that to consider sakti (potency) as the root of everything is opposed to metaphysical truth. Sakti (as in both maya-sakti and cit-sakti) operates fully under the support of a pure conscious entity (vishnu-tattva), and is thus considered identical with that powerful entity; and that desire cannot exist in sakti rather acts in accordance with the desire of the Supreme Being.

Conclusion: Shiva prabhu's position is that Goddess Durga is vishnu-tattva as she has been told to be identical to vishnu-tattva and is manifested from cit-sakti. My position is that this directly contradicts many statements and that Goddess Durga as a potency of Vishnu is His inherant quality who is the master of the potency. In one aspect they are one and the same (sakti-saktimator abhedah) and in other aspect there is a difference that freedom/free-will does not exist in sakti.

5) Sri Radharani: This is more or less same as that for Durga since the two are non-different.

Shiva prabhu gave many more quotes which said Radharani and Her expansions as womanly forms of Krishna, or as reflected forms who are non-different from the original forms or that both Radha and Krishna are manifested from cit-sakti.

My opinion is that this is to be understood as the non-difference of potency and possessor of potency. There is also a quote in which the forms of Krishna and Radha are said to be the work of cit-sakti but still Krishna has the attributes of freedom/free-will which are not the work of sakti. Furthermore, such an argument would imply that sakti is the root of Krishna which Srila Bhaktivinoda says "is thoroughly opposed to metaphysical Truth (tattva)".

Conclusion: Same as for Goddess Durga in 4)

6) Material/spiritual creation: Shiva prabhu's opinion is that creation is God but not referred to as vishnu-tattva, whatever that means. For want of any clarification, i have left it at that much. My opinion is that creation is not an expansion of para-tattva rather a manifestation of the energy of Krishna; so it cannot be considered God/vishnu-tattva in any situation since it is not (or various parts of creation) an entity at all in any aspect rather only energy (which has an acintya-bheda-abheda relation with Krishna). Further as given in Jaiva-Dharma Dasa-mula 8 establishes acintya-bheda-abheda of God and material/spiritual creation which are a transformation of the sakti of Krishna and not of Krishna.

January 25, 2005

d) Srila Bhaktivinoda says explicitly that to consider sakti (potency) as the root of everything is opposed to metaphysical truth. Sakti (as in both maya-sakti and cit-sakti) operates fully under the support of a pure conscious entity (vishnu-tattva), and is thus considered identical with that powerful entity; and that desire cannot exist in sakti rather acts in accordance with the desire of the Supreme Being.

Conclusion: Shiva prabhu's position is that Goddess Durga is vishnu-tattva as she has been told to be identical to vishnu-tattva and is manifested from cit-sakti. My position is that this directly contradicts many statements and that Goddess Durga as a potency of Vishnu is His inherant quality who is the master of the potency. In one aspect they are one and the same (sakti-saktimator abhedah) and in other aspect there is a difference that freedom/free-will does not exist in sakti.

As you seem to be unable to comprehend simple things, this will probably go over your head. As Bhaktivinoda points out Cit Sakti and Maya Sakti are identical to Krishna, this is why they have no independent desire or initiative. There is only ONE conscious entity there. Radha, Krishna, Durga, are all ONE person. So of course Radha and Durga have no independent desire from Krishna, they ARE Krishna.

Bhaktivinoda also said in that same part of Jaiva Dharma that Sakti is the power inherent within an object, so it is considered identical with that object. He gives the example of your power to move or speak, if you move or speak that is your Shakti that is moving or speaking your body, but you are actually behind the power, the power is not a seperate entity, it is an inherent power of an entity.

So Radha and Durga are Krishna, they are female forms of Krishna. One is engaged in the spiritual pastimes, the other is engaged in the material world. They are not separate conscious beings from Krishna, they are not anything other then Krishna so they cannot have desires that are different then Krishna. This is why we are always told Radha and Krishna, Sakti and Saktiman, are one and the same. That is what it means, there is only ONEperson there in two forms.

Jiva's are different, we can have desires that are different from Krishna because we are distinct conscious entities from Krishna even though we are also Saktis. Radha and Durga et al are not distinct conscious entities from Krishna they are Krishna.

Conclusion: Shiva prabhu's position is that Goddess Durga is vishnu-tattva as she has been told to be identical to vishnu-tattva and is manifested from cit-sakti. My position is that this directly contradicts many statements and that Goddess Durga as a potency of Vishnu is His inherant quality who is the master of the potency. In one aspect they are one and the same (sakti-saktimator abhedah) and in other aspect there is a difference that freedom/free-will does not exist in sakti.

5) Sri Radharani: This is more or less same as that for Durga since the two are non-different.

Shiva prabhu gave many more quotes which said Radharani and Her expansions as womanly forms of Krishna, or as reflected forms who are non-different from the original forms or that both Radha and Krishna are manifested from cit-sakti.

My opinion is that this is to be understood as the non-difference of potency and possessor of potency. There is also a quote in which the forms of Krishna and Radha are said to be the work of cit-sakti but still Krishna has the attributes of freedom/free-will which are not the work of sakti. Furthermore, such an argument would imply that sakti is the root of Krishna which Srila Bhaktivinoda says "is thoroughly opposed to metaphysical Truth (tattva)".

Conclusion: Same as for Goddess Durga in 4)

From Srila Prabhupada

nanu kvacit nitya-mukta jivatvam laksmyah svikrtam, tatraha--praheti. nityaiveti padye sarva-vyapti-kathanena kalakasthety adi-padya-dvaye, suddho 'pity ukta ca mahaprabhuna svasisyan prati laksmya bhagavad-advaitam upadistam. kvacid yat tasyas tu dvaitam uktam, tat tu tad-avista-nitya-mukta jivam adaya sangatamas tu.

Although some authoritative Vaisnava disciplic successions count the goddess of fortune among the ever-liberated living entities (jivas) in Vaikuntha, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in accordance with the statement in the Visnu Purana, has described Laksmi as being identical with the visnu-tattva. The correct conclusion is that the descriptions of Laksmi as being different from Visnu are stated when an eternally liberated living entity is imbued with the quality of Laksmi; they do not pertain to mother Laksmi, the eternal consort of Lord Visnu.

Sumedh, please keep your little final conclusions to your own ideas. Everytime you try and condense what I have said, you make mistakes.

Umkay?

sumedh · January 25, 2005

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

Everytime you try and condense what I have said, you make mistakes.

Please let me know any corrections in your own words, so that you need not make unneccessary comments. Whatever you may think about me actually i understand your current viewpoint quite well, which has changed from before (though you can claim otherwise) and will make the appropriate change to the summary. This is a new correction that you propose, so if there are any more please let me know. In particular, please also let me know if there are any for material/spiritual creation. I will only make one final comment.

You said:

As Bhaktivinoda points out Cit Sakti and Maya Sakti are identical to Krishna, this is why they have no independent desire or initiative. There is only ONE conscious entity there.

Bhaktivinoda also said in that same part of Jaiva Dharma that Sakti is the power inherent within an object, so it is considered identical with that object. He gives the example of your power to move or speak, if you move or speak that is your Shakti that is moving or speaking your body, but you are actually behind the power, the power is not a seperate entity, it is an inherent power of an entity.

Precisely the distinction of tattva and sakti i have been trying to drive; precisely why Sri Radha is not vishnu-tattva rather embodiment of cit-sakti. And this is the meaning of One person in two forms, with one of the forms being vishnu-tattva and other His cit-sakti and precisely why sakti-tattva is differentiated from vishnu-tattva. At least now you are accepting that identical for cit-sakti means "quality or inherant function", or are you? I am not sure if you are sure about this.

So Radha and Durga are Krishna, they are female forms of Krishna. One is engaged in the spiritual pastimes, the other is engaged in the material world. They are not separate conscious beings from Krishna ...

Think about the distinction from Lord's expansions like Baladeva/Mahavishnu. They have desires which are Krishna's (because they are Krishna), but the female forms have no desires rather serve Krishna in accordance with His desires because they are His saktis. As i said, from tattva point of view the female forms are not expansions (as in svamsa) rather inherant quality of svamsa as Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur says. So it boils down to the definition of God/vishnu-tattva, and you can find the definition of that in Dasa-Mula 2 and 3 in Jaiva-Dharma where you will find that vishnu-tattva is possessor of potency who is completely independent and not His cit-sakti who is dependent on Him.

January 25, 2005

From Baladeva Vidhyabhusana's Govinda Bhasya:

Because she is not different from the Supreme Lord, Goddess Laksmi is also all pervading. In the Smriti-sastra it is said:

Goddess Laksmi is the mother of the worlds. She is the constant companion of Lord Visnu. As Lord Visnu is all pervading, so is she.

To think that Goddess Laksmi is different from Lord Visnu, but still all-pervading, is a false, a heretical idea...Sri Radha is the origin of all the forms of Goddess Laksmi."

Also from the Sri Krsna-bhakti-ratna-prakasa of Srila Raghava Goswami

Because Sri Sri Radha Krsna are not different and because Sri Krsna is the master of all potencies, therefore Sri Radha is also the master and source of all potencies. He is by nature full of sweetness and bliss, free from the three modes, and eternally manifest beyond the material nature. Because Radha is not different from Him, so is She also. It is said that within the Lord are all potencies, the modes and the material nature.

From Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavatam

nanu kvacit nitya-mukta jivatvam laksmyah svikrtam, tatraha--praheti. nityaiveti padye sarva-vyapti-kathanena kalakasthety adi-padya-dvaye, suddho 'pity ukta ca mahaprabhuna svasisyan prati laksmya bhagavad-advaitam upadistam. kvacid yat tasyas tu dvaitam uktam, tat tu tad-avista-nitya-mukta jivam adaya sangatamas tu.

Although some authoritative Vaisnava disciplic successions count the goddess of fortune among the ever-liberated living entities (jivas) in Vaikuntha, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in accordance with the statement in the Visnu Purana, has described Laksmi as being identical with the visnu-tattva. The correct conclusion is that the descriptions of Laksmi as being different from Visnu are stated when an eternally liberated living entity is imbued with the quality of Laksmi; they do not pertain to mother Laksmi, the eternal consort of Lord Visnu.

And from Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavatam

visnoh syuh saktayas tisras

tasu ya kirtita para

saiva sris tad-abhinneti

praha sisyan prabhur mahan

Lord Visnu has three principal potencies--internal, external and marginal. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has accepted para-sakti, the spiritual energy of the Lord, as being identical with the Lord. Thus she is also included in the independent visnu-tattva.

Give up?

January 25, 2005

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 17

Out of the five diversities in the Absolute Truth, the form of Lord Caitanya is that of the original Personality of Godhead, Krsna. Lord Nityananda is the manifestation of the first expansion of the Supreme Lord. Similarly, Advaita Prabhu is an incarnation of the Supreme Lord. These three--Caitanya, Nityananda and Advaita--belong to the category of Visnu-tattva, or the Supreme Absolute Truth. Srivasa represents the pure devotee, and Gadadhara represents the internal energy of the Lord for the advancement of pure devotion. Therefore Gadadhara and Srivasa, although included in Visnu-tattva, are dependent, diverse energies of the Supreme Lord. In other words, they are not different from the energetic, but they are manifest diversely for the sake of relishing transcendental relationships. The whole process of devotional service involves a transcendental reciprocation in the relationship between the worshiper and the worshiped. Without such a diverse exchange of transcendental flavors, devotional service has no meaning."

Gadadhara is the incarnation of Srimati Radharani

From Prabhupada's CC. Here KKG is speaking about Gadadhara Das, the disciple of Gadadhara Pandita

"He is stated to be the luster of the body of Srimati Radharani, just as Srila Gadadhara Pandita Gosvami is an incarnation of Srimati Radharani Herself" (Adi 10.53).

Also from the CC Prabhupada writes

In the Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, verses 147 through 153, it is stated: 'The pleasure potency of Sri Krsna, formerly known as Vrndavanesvari, is now personified in the form of Sri Gadadhara Pandita in the pastimes of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu.' Sri Svarupa Damodara Gosvami has pointed out that in the shape of Laksmi, the pleasure potency of Krsna, she was formerly very dear to the Lord as Syamasundara-vallabha (Radharani). The same Syamasundara-vallabha is now present as Gadadhara Pandita.'

More from Harinam Cintamani

The Supreme Lord's separated parts or vibhinnamsa are of two categories.

The ordinary jivas possess only fifty of the Lord's transcendental characteristics, and these in lesser degree.

But in the second category of jivas, including the demigods, the same fifty characteristics are found in full potency. Additionally, five more qualities are partially evident in Siva.

Siva and the other demigods are the Supreme Lord's servitors. Though the demigods are superior jivas, the Supreme Lord Visnu is the master and controller of the jivas and demigods alike.

Out of sheer ignorance, people equate the Supreme Lord with the demigods. People who are ignorant of the Visnutattva principle try to equate the Supreme Lord with the demigods, but Siva and the other demigods are simply the order carriers of the Supreme Lord Visnu.

vijay · January 26, 2005

Haribol, ive been following this thread recently, and have learnt alot, would it be possible shiva prabhu if you address the quotes which sumedh prabhu gave and vice versa, as when there are contridictory quotes, only by reconciliation can we understand in more detail.

ie shiva prabhu has quoted prabhupada saying shiva is jiva, and sumedh prabhu has quoted prabhuada and others to the contrary.

January 26, 2005

As far as I'm concerned I've already answered all questions by sumedh somewhere on this thread. If you're more specific it would be easier to know what point you are questioning.

sumedh · January 26, 2005

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

Really, shiva prabhuji you thought give up! we have been through this before.

1) Srila Baladeva Vidhyabhusana's Govinda Bhasya: Mother Lakshmi is not different from Lord being His cit-sakti, and she has all potencies which are employed in accordance with Lord's desires.

2) Sri Krsna-bhakti-ratna-prakasa of Srila Raghava Goswami: Similiar as for 1)

3) "Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in accordance with the statement in the Visnu Purana, has described Laksmi as being identical with the visnu-tattva", just as cit-sakti/maya-sakti is considered identical with the powerful entity (vishnu-tattva) being the inherant function, as Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur has explained.

4) "Thus she is also included in the independent visnu-tattva."; A included in B <=> B includes A i.e. vishnu-tattva includes cit-sakti because the latter is inherant to former and inseparable in all circumstances.

5) The quote from "Teachings of Lord Chaitanya" which you gave to support your statements but which can only be understood as given in 4). "Therefore Gadadhara and Srivasa, although included in Visnu-tattva": the nature of Srivasa Pandita is given elsewhere.

Teachings of Lord Chaitanya, Introduction:

Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu (sometimes called Krsna Caitanya) is the embodiment of all of these; He is God, guru, devotee and the expansion of God. As His associate, Nityananda, He is the first manifestation of energy; as Advaita, He is an incarnation; as Gadadhara, He is the internal potency; and as Srivasa, He is the marginal living entity. Thus Krsna should not be thought of as being alone but should be considered as eternally existing with all His manifestations, as described by Ramanujacarya. In visistadvaita philosophy, God's energies, expansions and incarnations are considered to be oneness in diversity. In other words, God is not separate from all these; everything together is God.

Also in Chapter 17

We can also come to understand that Advaita Prabhu is also in the category of the Supreme Personality of Godhead but is subordinate to Lord Caitanya and Nityananda Prabhu. The Supreme Personality of Godhead and His immediate subordinate expansions are worshipable by the other two—namely the representation of the internal potency and the representation of the marginal potency. The representation of the internal potency, Gadadhara, represents the confidential devotee, and the representation of the marginal potency is the pure devotee.

And again in Chapter 17

In that sankirtana movement of Lord Caitanya, Nityananda and Advaita are His expansions, and Gadadhara and Srivasa are His internal and marginal potencies. The living entities are also called marginal potency because they have, potentially, two attitudes—namely the tendency to surrender unto Krsna and the tendency to become independent of Him.

So Srivasa Thakur is pure devotee and jiva-tattva (incarnation of Narada Muni as given in gaura-ganodesa-dipika). Vishnu-tattva includes all the potencies, and that is the meaning of the statement "Therefore Gadadhara and Srivasa, although included in Visnu-tattva". The quote you gave also makes it clear (and also a number of others) that only Mahaprabhu, Nityananda and Advaita prabhu are the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the remaining two are His energies (which are included in visnu-tattva i.e. visnu-tattva includes them also).

As given in Jaiva-Dharma, Mahaprabhu's Dasa-mula 2 and 3 establish Sri Bhagavan as the energetic, that His cit-sakti is inherant to Him and so is non-different from Him (or included in Him). But para-tattva/vishnu-tattva refers to the energetic who is independent and not to His cit-sakti energy who is dependent on Him. Thus the acintya-bheda-abheda; also in Dasa-mula 8 the material/spiritual creation have been described as His energy having acintya-bheda-abheda relation with Him and not God/vishnu-tattva.

On the nature of Lord Siva:

Regarding first quote, no one ever said that Lord Siva is an independent Godhead rather that he is neither jiva-tattva nor vishnu-tattva and subservient to Vishnu.

The second quote has already been explained by Srila Prabhupada in purport of CC Adi Lila 6.79 as follows:

"Sometimes it is found that Rudra is compared to Brahma and considered a living entity", but "when Rudra is explained to be a partial expansion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he is compared to Sesa" and so "Lord Siva is therefore simultaneously an expansion of Lord Visnu and, in his capacity for annihilating the creation, one of the living entities. As an expansion of Lord Visnu he is called Hara"; the conclusion is then as given in CC Madhya 20.308 "Rudra is simultaneously one with and different from the visnu-tattva. Due to his association with maya, he is different from the visnu-tattva, but at the same time he is an expansion of Krsna's personal form. This situation is called bhedabheda-tattva or acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, simultaneously one and different."

Jiva-tattva specifically refers to atomic expansions of the Lord, but the nature of Lord Siva is described as "combination of the stupefying quality of the deluding energy, the quality of nonplenitude of the marginal potency and a slight degree of the ecstatic-cum-cognitive principle of the plenary spiritual potency" in Brahma-Samhita while if we consider the ontological nature of jivas they are neither adulterated by "stupefying quality of the deluding energy" nor have "slight degree of the ecstatic-cum-cognitive principle of the plenary spiritual potency" though one can argue the latter as empowerment of jiva but would not be correct since this statement is specifically about the tattva of Lord Siva.

Shiva prabhuji give up? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Oh, i give up if that pleases you ...

January 26, 2005

O.K Vijay, I see which quote you are refering to.

From CC

Rudra, Lord Siva, has various forms, which are transformations brought about by association with maya. Although Rudra is not on a level with the jiva-tattvas, he still cannot be considered a personal expansion of Lord Krsna.

PURPORT

Rudra is simultaneously one with and different from the visnu-tattva. Due to his association with maya, he is different from the visnu-tattva, but at the same time he is an expansion of Krsna's personal form. This situation is called bhedabheda-tattva or acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, simultaneously one and different.

Shiva is not easily understood because Shiva is both an entity and a state of consciousness. Therefore there are conflicting statements about Shiva. Some have to do with the entity and some have to do with the principle.

Look at the above.

In the verse spoken by Mahaprabhu to Sanatana Goswami He says Shiva is not a personal expansion of Krishna [svamsa] yet he is above the jivas in the material world. This doesn't mean he is not a jiva, just that he is superior to all other jivas. Then Prabhupada says Shiva is an expansion of Krishna's form. This seems contradictory. Shiva is not a personal expansion of Krishna, but he is an expansion of Krishna's form?

Prabhupada also says Shiva is one and different from Visnu tattva. Visnu tattva means personal expansion of Krishna.

This is because Shiva is a Guna-Avatar. He is partially Visnu tattva only in that sense. He is empowered by Visnu, but he is not identical to Visnu or Visnu tattva.

When Prabhupada says Shiva is an expansion of Krishna's form this can be clarified by Bhaktisiddhanta from Brahma Samhita commentary:

This specifically adulterated reflection of the principle of the subjective portion of the Divinity is Sadasiva, in the form of the effulgent masculine-symbol-god Sambhu from whom Rudradeva is manifested. In the work of mundane creation as the material cause, in the work of preservation by the destruction of sundry asuras and in the work of destruction to conduct the whole operation, Govinda manifests Himself as guna-avatara in the form of Sambhu who is the separated portion of Govinda imbued with the principle of His subjective plenary portion.

So Bhaktisiddhanta says Shiva is a separated portion of Govinda, that means Jiva, but he is imbued with the principle of Govinda's subjective plenary portion, which means Visnu tattva.

Shiva is a Jiva who has been elevated due to the fact of being imbued ( meaning inspired or influenced thoroughly ) with the principle of Visnu tattva, i.e Guna Avatar.

Bhaktisiddhanta also says "In the work of mundane creation as the material cause". This is a bit deeper and has to do with the principle of Shiva rather then the person.

To furthur this idea Bhaktisiddhanta writes in Brahma Samhita:

TRANSLATION

The function of Sambhu in relation to jivas is that this universe enshrining the mundane egotistic principle has originated from Sambhu.

Purport (by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati)

The basic principle is the Supreme Lord Himself who is the embodiment of the principle of existence of all entities devoid of separating egotisms. In this mundane world the appearance of individual entities as separated egotistic symbols, is the limited perverted reflection of the unalloyed spiritual (cit) potency; and, as representing the primal masculine divine generative function Sambhu, it is united to the accommodating principle, viz., the mundane female organ which is the perverted reflection of the spiritual (cit) potency, Ramadevi. At this function Sambhu is nothing but the mere material clausal principle embodying the extension in the shape of ingredient as matter. Again when in course of the progressive evolution of mundane creation each universe is manifested, then in the principle of Sambhu, born of the space between the two eyebrows of Vishnu, there appears the manifestation of the personality of Rudra; yet under all circumstances Sambhu fully enshrines the mundane egotistic principle. The innumerable Jivas as spiritual particles emanating from the oversoul in the form of pencils of rays of effulgence, have no relation with the mundane world when they come to know themselves to be the eternal servants of the Supreme Lord. They are then incorporated into the realm of Vaikuntha. But when they desire to lord it over Maya, forgetting their real identity, the egotistic principle Sambhu entering into their entities makes them identify themselves as separated enjoyers of mundane entities. Hence Sambhu is the primary principle of the egotistic mundane universe and of perverted egotism in jivas that identifies itself with their limited material bodies.

That is quite an earfull. Shiva or Sambhu is the cause of the material world because he is "the primary principle of the egotistic mundane universe and of perverted egotism in jivas that identifies itself with their limited material bodies".

When the jiva falsely identifies his body and the world and his self to be separate from God, then the material world exists for that Jiva.

Bhaktisiddhanta explained "At this function Sambhu is nothing but the mere material clausal principle embodying the extension in the shape of ingredient as matter.".

The principle of the material world is in the vision of the jiva. The jiva free from the modes of nature sees God in everything, comprising everything, and controlling everything, that state of consciousness enables the jiva to live in the spiritual world, regardless of where he or she is physically.

When the mundane ego which identifies the world and everything in it as separate from God, then that clausal principle is known as Sambhu or Shiva. In that sense Shiva creates the material world, as the causual principle, which is ignorance and ahankara. Matter at that time comes into existence, the material world exists at that point for the jiva.

As Bhaktisiddhanta says "when they desire to lord it over Maya, forgetting their real identity, the egotistic principle Sambhu entering into their entities makes them identify themselves as separated enjoyers of mundane entities. but when they are free from that he says "Jivas as spiritual particles emanating from the oversoul in the form of pencils of rays of effulgence, have no relation with the mundane world when they come to know themselves to be the eternal servants of the Supreme Lord. They are then incorporated into the realm of Vaikuntha."

And also from Bhaktisiddhanta:

This specifically adulterated reflection of the principle of the subjective portion of the Divinity is Sadasiva, in the form of the effulgent masculine-symbol-god Sambhu from whom Rudradeva is manifested. In the work of mundane creation as the material cause...

Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada then writes in the CC

In his constitutional form, Siva is a maha-bhagavata, a supreme devotee of the Lord, but because he accepts maya's association -- especially the quality of ignorance -- he is not free from maya's influence. Such an intimate association is completely absent in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Visnu. Lord Siva accepts maya, but in the presence of Lord Visnu, maya does not exist. Consequently Lord Siva has to be considered a product of maya. When Lord Siva is free from maya's influence, he is in the position of a maha-bhagavata, a supreme devotee of Lord Visnu. Vaisnavanam yatha sambhuh.

This is all very complex. Shiva is a product of Maya? Yes. The jiva exists in the material realm due to the principle of Shiva, Sambhu being the causual principle of material ego and delusion. When the jiva is free from the modes of nature then he becomes Vaisnvanam yatha sambhu, a maha bhagavata.

Now we can bring back Sridhar Maharaja's comments:

Devotee: Does a jiva attain the position of Siva?

Srila Guru Maharaja: Yes, he can be Siva,' when he is out of the clutches of Maya; and the Vaikuntha devotee is more than Siva. When a spiritual molecule is free from the clutches of the exploitation tendency, he is known as Siva.' Pasa-baddho bhavej jivah pasa-muktah sadasivah: When he is entangled, he is jiva,' and when he is free, he is Siva' (Sivo 'ham).

Devotee: Yes. But sometimes it is said that Mahesa Dhama is spiritual; it seems to be more like a marginal plane.

Srila Guru Maharaj: It is spiritual. Mahesa Dhama is of two kinds: first in the relativity of Maya, and secondly, Siva exists as Sadasiva, the devotee Siva. He may be entangled as a grhastha, but he can conceive that he has his superior position in a superior realm, and he holds the lowest position in that sphere. So, as I quoted, one who can successfully discharge his duty in the Varnasrama system for a hundred lifetimes attains to the position of Lord Brahma, who is the leader of the whole Varnasrama system in this world. Then, Mahadeva says tatah param hi mam: "After this, if he can continue in this way, he progresses even further: he comes to my position."

So to sum up. Shiva is very complex. The idea of Shiva as being an expansion of Visnu has to do with the principle of Shiva, as the causual principle of the material world. The other aspect of Shiva is when the jiva is elevated to the position of Shiva as a maha bhagavata devotee, when he is freed from the principle of mundane qualties i.e delusion of existing in the material world and being separate from God. That realm or state of consciousness is called Mahesa Dhama and it is right below Vaikuntha. From Bhaktisiddhanta's Brahma Samhita:

Lowest of all is located Devi-dhama [mundane world], next above it is Mahesa-dama [abode of Mahesa]; above Mahesa-dhama is placed Hari-dhama [abode of Hari] and above them all is located Krsna's own realm named Goloka. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda, who has allotted their respective authorities to the rulers of those graded realms.

PURPORT

The realm of Goloka stands highest above all others. Brahma looking up to the higher position of Goloka is speaking of the other realms from the point of view of his own realm: the first in order is this mundane world called Devi-dhama consisting of the fourteen worlds, viz., Satyaloka, etc.; next above Devi-dhama is located Siva-dhama one portion of which, called Mahakala-dhama, is enveloped in darkness; interpenetrating this portion of Siva-dhama there shines the Sadasivaloka, full of great light. Above the same appears Hari-dhama or the transcendental Vaikunthaloka. The potency of Devi-dhama, in the form of the extension of Maya, and that of Sivaloka, consisting of time, space and matter, are the potency of the separated particles pervaded by the penumbral reflection of the subjective portion of the Divinity. But Hari-dhama is ever resplendent with transcendental majesty and the great splendor of all-sweetness predominates over all other majesties in Goloka. The Supreme Lord Govinda by his own direct and indirect power has constituted those respective potencies of those realms.

Govinda manifests Himself as guna-avatara in the form of Sambhu who is the separated portion of Govinda (jiva) imbued with the principle of His subjective plenary portion (visnu). The personality of the destructive principle in the form of time has been identified with that of Sambhu by scriptural evidences that have been adduced in the commentary. The purport of the Bhagavata slokas, viz., vaisnavanam yatha sambhuh, etc., is that Sambhu, in pursuance of the will of Govinda, works in union with his consort Durgadevi by his own time energy. He teaches pious duties (dharma) as stepping-stones to the attainment of spiritual service in the various tantra-sastras, etc., suitable for jivas in different grades of the conditional existence. In obedience to the will of Govinda, Sambhu maintains and fosters the religion of pure devotion by preaching the cult of illusionism (Mayavada) and the speculative agama-sastras. The fifty attributes of individual souls are manifest in a far vaster measure in Sambhu and five additional attributes not attainable by jivas are also partly found in him. So Sambhu cannot be called a jiva. He is the lord of jiva but yet partakes of the nature of a separated portion of Govinda. (jiva)

So Shiva as the maha bhagavata is known as the lord of the jivas, and even though he is a jiva (separated portion of Govinda as opposed to plenary portion), he is not called a jiva. He is a jiva who is elevated to a unique position and he works in union with his consort Durga devi who is the material energy personified and an expansion of Sri Radha.

January 26, 2005

So what about Shiva as destroyer of the material world?

Shiva is both the causual principle of the material world and ultimately when the Jiva attains the Maha Bhagavata stage of Shiva he destroys the material world that he has created for himself.

In other words the material world exists for the jiva due to tamo guna, ignorance, Shiva is the principle of the mundane ego and ignorance, or lord of tamo guna. When the jiva is elevated and freed from the modes of nature he becomes Shiva in his constitutional position as a maha bhagavta devotee. At that time the material world is destroyed for the jiva. He no longer lives in the material world, the material world exists as a condition of a conditioned soul, when the jiva sees everything as God's energy and under God's control and serving God, the material world is effectively destroyed for that jiva. He is then elevated to Mahesa Dhama. While it is not Vaikuntha, it is a spiritual realm, it is above the mundane material world. At that point the material energy, Maha Maya, personified as Durga Devi, becomes the jiva's/Shiva's consort, and works with him, instead of against him to try and free him from illusion.

sumedh · January 27, 2005

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

I had suspected that this is what you had been trying to drive to; no comments on this for the time being just request for explanations/quotes.

You said:

In other words the material world exists for the jiva due to tamo guna, ignorance, Shiva is the principle of the mundane ego and ignorance, or lord of tamo guna.

Do you mean that the material world exists for jiva due to ignorance or that the perception of the material world as in the conditioned state exists for jiva due to ignorance, because the two are very different things.

You said:

Shiva is both the causual principle of the material world and ultimately when the Jiva attains the Maha Bhagavata stage of Shiva he destroys the material world that he has created for himself.

Again do you mean he destroys the material world or that the perception of the material world is changed. Can we have any quotes from gaudiya scriptures which say that the jiva destroys the material world which he has created for himself (i.e. firstly jiva creates the material world for himself, and secondly jiva destroys it). Do you mean that the material world exists in the mind of a jiva, or that the incorrect perception exists in the mind? If former is the case then can we have explicit quotes to substantiate this point.

At that point the material energy, Maha Maya, personified as Durga Devi, becomes the jiva's/Shiva's consort, and works with him, instead of against him to try and free him from illusion.

Can we have quotes from gaudiya scriptures which say that siva is also in illusion and MahaMaya works with him to free him from illusion.

January 27, 2005

Can we have quotes from gaudiya scriptures which say that siva is also in illusion and MahaMaya works with him to free him from illusion.

You misunderstood what I wrote.

"At that point the material energy, Maha Maya, personified as Durga Devi, becomes the jiva's/Shiva's consort, and works with him, instead of against him to try and free him from illusion."

When the jiva is in illusion Maya works against him to try and free him from illusion, when he become Shiva then Maya works for him.

As for the rest of your questions, I think they are already answered. But I have written about your questions already also on another thread HERE

"Material" substance exists in the mind of a jiva in illusion. What is the difference between an apple pie before it is offered to the Lord and after when it becomes prasadam? Before and after the pie is made of the same thing, it hasn't changed physically. But the prasadam is considered to be spiritual whereas before it was considered to be material. The same for this world.

From a Bhagavatam purport:

"But here Dhruva Maharaja, upon realization of the Vedic conclusion, says, “You are spread all over the cosmic manifestation by Your energy.” This energy is basically spiritual, but because it acts in the material world temporarily, it is called maya, or illusory energy. In other words, for everyone but the devotees the Lord’s energy acts as external energy."

For the devotee who is free from illusion, the material energy is transformed into the spiritual energy. Same exatc place, but the your relationship with Krishna's energy changes when your consciousness changes. Prabhupada used to say that wherever the pure devotee is, that is the spiritual world.

Is Kali Ma Krishna's energy?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads