part and parcel?

December 9, 2005

AC Bhaktivedanta Swami was fond of saying that the soul is "part and parcel" of God. Same in quality but minute in quantity.

God, he taught, is fully transcendental and Absolute, therefore everything about Him or pertaining to Him is also absolute. No part of his being can become fragmented or covered in illusion, he said. How could a part of God come under illusion and suffering? This is the agrgument leveled against the Shankarites by ACB Swami, thus giving them the derogatory name "mayavadi's" because they claimed that "sarva khalvidam brahma", i.e. everything is brahman, God, including the souls of beings in this world, but they have just been covered by Maya.

Although pointing out this contradiction in the Shankarite philosophy, ACB Swami and the Vaishnava philosophers still don't seem to fully dispel the contradiction. He still uses the term "part and parcel". The jiva is a part of God, although minute in quantity. But if God is absolute, how could a part of Him not be absolute? How could a "part and parcel" of God become subject to illusion and suffering? It is a contradiction. God being absolute first of can not be fragmented, much less be forced to suffer.

On the one hand, to say the soul suffering in the world of illusion is part and parcel of God illustrates the noble calling of human beings to seek a higher purpose to existance. But on the other hand, it minimizes God's absolute character and defines God as being fragmented and involuntarily forced to suffer. To say God's "part and parcel" has attained a fallen nature is to attribute the fallen nature of this world to God.

December 9, 2005

You will see that it is explained that the jiva or minute souls (us) are endowed with our oen free will. It is that free will that marks us as eternally separate souls.

Now free will would be meaningless without there being different options to choose from.

The major choice can be said to be between serving the Supreme Enjoyer in loving service or trying to be the central enjoyer ourselves. Choosing the later brings us into the material dream covering known as maya (not this) where we mistakingly identify ourselves with that that is not ourselves.

This maya is an enrgy of Krishna and it is actually more powerful than we jivas. She can over power us very easily but she is always subordinate to Krishna. Krishna can never come under the control of His subordinate energies so our falling under maya's control does not affect Him directly in anyway.

Prabhupada taught Mahaprabhu's philosophy of simulataneous oness and difference. This is inconceivable to the mundane mind but Krishna can kindly give us a glimpse from time to time.

December 9, 2005

apparently are a category of beings that are part of Gods absoluteness but they are prone to become conditioned by maya which Krishna is in control of. If Krishna is in control of maya it doesn't diminish his absoluteness I don't think. Not trying to defend the Hare Krishna's but most of their philosophy is pretty good it seems to me.

Pankaja_Dasa · December 9, 2005

On so many forums and talked with Mayavadis, Impersonalists, Personalists, the problem is, well anyway I just tell you the answer to save time.

The Jiva's are ETERNALLY Fragmented Parts and Parcels of Krishna, but NOT The Krishna, it is actually Balarama. [Krishna and Balarama are one and the same [Vishnu-tattva], Balarama is Krishna's First and immediate expansion]. We are called Jiva-tattva, small infinistimel parts of Lord Balarama. Now the confusion about this is clear. We are not Vishnu-tattva [never can be, because we are Eternally Jiva-tattva]. We are in essence only Jiva-tattva, that is our position. All this is in Prabhupada Books.

December 9, 2005

The "part & parcel" idea used by iskcon comes from the bedha-abedha (oneness-difference) system.

Bheda-abheda has been around before the time of Shankara, was later borrowed in part by Ramanuja and then by Gaudiya Vaishnavas (partially again).

This is in fact, a much simpler way to reconcile the monist parts of the veda with the parts that indicate duality.

Cheers

December 9, 2005

GV view is flawed in this regard. According to Dvaita, there is absolute Bheda between Krishna and the souls. That way, you wouldn't have the problem of dissecting Krishna (the absolute) into parts and parcels, nor would you have 'little Krishnas' or Balarams, as someone else mentioned, getting trapped in maya.

December 9, 2005

To say the jivas are "eternally fragmented" parts and parcels is even more confusing and contrdictory. That's my point. To say a "part and parcel" of God is "eternally fragmented" in essence means God is eternally fragmented, i.e. eternaly flawed. It's just not consistent with the concept of God as "absolute" and "transcendental". Transcendental means without fragmentation... You can't say God is Absolute but a "part and parcel" of Him is eternally fragmented, not to mention nitya baddha. And Adding acintya to it doesn't reconcile the the contradiction. Only abheda makes sense (abheda means different right. I'm trying to remember /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

December 9, 2005

so is bheda-abheda. Only abosolute bheda (dvaita) between Vishnu and jivas is correct. Think about it and you'll know why. In abheda, you'll have the problem of Brahman Himself coming under illusion (because jiva and brahman are one), whereas in bheda-abheda, there is the problem of fragmentation. In bheda or dvaita, these problems are avoided because the jivas are mere pratibimbas and therefore, they aren't quantitatively or qualitatively one with Vishnu.

Avinash · December 9, 2005

abheda means different right. I'm trying to remember

'bheda' means different. 'abheda' means not different.

som · December 9, 2005

Hare Krishna!

To say the jivas are "eternally fragmented" parts and parcels is even more confusing and contrdictory. That's my point. To say a "part and parcel" of God is "eternally fragmented" in essence means God is eternally fragmented, i.e. eternaly flawed.

Here you are using your own mind and intelligence to understand something which cannot be understood by the material mind & intelligence.

But still in order to discuss this we can take an example - For exampe the heat and light is emanating from the sun so it is sun but at the same time it is not the sun. Similarly the jivas are eternally fragmented but at the same time part of God.

Try to understand and pray to Krishna that he gives us the knowledge to understand Him.

Teshaam Evaanukampaartham ... Deepena Bhaasvatha.

It's just not consistent with the concept of God as "absolute" and "transcendental". Transcendental means without fragmentation... You can't say God is Absolute but a "part and parcel" of Him is eternally fragmented, not to mention nitya baddha.

If you try to understand clearly the fragmentation is there because of the difference in the Bhava (trancendental emotions) towards Krishna otherwise if the Bhaava to serve Krishna is the same there is no fragmentation and original nature of all the living entities is to render service to Krishna (Jiivera Svarupa Haya Krishnnera Nitya Daasa)

And Adding acintya to it doesn't reconcile the the contradiction. Only abheda makes sense (abheda means different right. I'm trying to remember )

Actually speaking it is only the Achintya tattva that reconciles all the so-called contradictions because however hard we try to understand Krishna and His creation by our material mind and intelligence we cannot understand unless there is a slight trace of mercy from Krishna Himself.

Hence Brahma Ji says:

Ahtaapi Te Deva Padaambuja Dvayam

Prasaada Leshaanugrhita Eva Hi

Jaanati Tattvam Bhagavaan Mahimno

Na Chaanya Eko'pi Ciram Vichinvaan.

Hare Krishna!

Pankaja_Dasa · December 9, 2005

To say the jivas are "eternally fragmented" parts and parcels is even more confusing and contrdictory. That's my point. To say a "part and parcel" of God is "eternally fragmented" in essence means God is eternally fragmented

The Jiva souls come from two places one from the Brahmajyoti and one from Baladeva, too complicated to explain this, but to answer your question, it is as previous devotees have stated 'ahintya bheda bheda tattva' we are [sorry bout the spelling] simultenusly one with and different from God'. So we are one in quality with God, [spiritual] but in quantity we are different. Qualtity means attributes, God has many more attributes. It's these attributes which are stated in Holy Books, i.e Bhagavatam.

Krishna says this in Gita-

Although the Supersoul appears to be divided, He is never divided. He is situated as one. Although He is the maintainer of every living entity, it is to be understood that He devours and develops all.

Bg.13.17

And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities, and although I am everywhere, still My Self is the very source of creation.

Bg.9.5 Ref www.vedabase.net

It also says Jivas are born in the Brahmajyoti, now how can something be born? Eternality is a concept beyond the scope of the sences. [the mind is conditioned under the Mayaic forces of nature] We ARE Eternal. Krishna says-

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

Bg.2.12

So we were always exsisting. Plus, something which is born has to die. If we were never born then how can we die?

The Mayavadis claim that when the soul is covered by Maya the soul in in illusion, and with the covering taken off, he becomes God. Merges in the Brahmajyoti. And becomes God. This is the Brahmajyoti. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Our goal as devotees is to go right above this Brahmajytoi.

December 21, 2005

Still, to say we are a part of God, same in substance, "consubstantial" if you will, seems like just a more elaborate form of Mayavada monist philosophy. How could any part what so ever of God ever become covered in Maya? It is a glaring contradiction.

"Sarvam khalvidam brahma - All this is verily Brahman." So if a part of God can become contaminated, then He's isn't God, whether you call His "parts" superior or marginal or minute, it doesn't matter. It makes no sense to say "God is absolute" and "God's part is in maya" in the same sentence.

Pankaja_Dasa · December 21, 2005

We are small Jivas. So we are always likely to be covered by something, whether it be material [yr body] subtle [yr subtle body]. Actually the soul [yr soul] is never covered by Maya, is it these other coverings which cover it.

Under all this you feel great, [ego]. And you go about daily duties, [eating meat, having sex, gambling, getting pissed]. Basically enjoying yourself. [Yr body]. Because yr soul is aloof from all this business. Many because of these sinful acitivies [sinful because they cover the soul eternally]. So you think how can I be coevered? Because you want it, you need it. You want to become God in yr own right. [don't you feel great when you go against god?] That feeling is what brought us here. You want something you will eventually get it. So what is the confuction? The confucion is I am not God. I am actually very small. Humble. When anybody [whoever they are] starts thinking they are sarvan idam brahman, or aham brahmasmi or any other bogus sanskirt verses, then Maya-devi [you have to avoid Her] attacks you in her most venomoius way [she luvs it really]. To think YOU are God. You are actually a stool eating hog, [hogs-aham brahmasi]. This is Maya personified. Please continue reading Prabhupada Books.

December 21, 2005

.... but never clever enough.

Wrestling with words and idiom, and concepts, massaging that ego-driven mind will not lead us to our desired goal. God is simply too big to fit into our bucket of synapses. When we finally accept this, humility arises.

If God were here before us, we would be so humble in His glorious presence. But when we are not that humble, then He can't be here. Only ME - the great ME.

December 21, 2005

Hi Pankajaji,

I think what you said in this last post makes sense, but the difficulty I am having is when it's said that this "little jiva" (jiva literally translates as 'life' I think) is a "part and parcel of God". It is obvious that the soul in this world is in some kind of illusion, but if the soul is an actual part of God, and God is absolute, how can He be in illusion? You see?

As I said before, to say that we are part's of God is successful in ascribing nobility to the "human vocation" if you will, but at tha same time describes God (His part) as being in illusion. A solution to this problem would be to say that God creates humanity (soul and body) "ex nihilio" or simply from nothing. This displays the magnificance and all powerfulness of God more than saying the "little jivas" are a part of Him, and at the same time preserves the nobility of and inspires the "little jiva's" to worship God, the One who has braught them into existence from non-being for the purpose of a loving relationship.

Pankaja_Dasa · December 21, 2005

The above word, the soul is never in Maya. It is the body and subtle mind/intlligence/ego. So we are never actually in Maya, the word used is 'covered by igornace'. Thx

Something cannot be created from nothing, there is no proof of this, even here in this world. I cannot make a sandwitch from cheese and use no bread. This is just a material example. People will believe anything, that this entire world was created from nothing. There is no such instance in this world. Only unitelligent people with no brains say this. WHY? Because they do not want to believe that God exsists. For them God is dead. WHY? Because they want to 'enjoy'. WHY? Because they think they are great/ WHY! ? Then the final thing is I AM GOD. This is the final complete violation, when Maya completely deludes the living entity. [poor soul]

December 21, 2005

That is the word you are grappling with, El-even.

The separated energies are inconceivably (acintya) one and different from Sri Krsna.

Everything, everyone depends on God's existence, like pearls are strung on a thread.

Don't worry about acintya because it is indeed inconceivable. Worry about who is this thread that grants me existence.

JSdas · December 21, 2005

doesn't any of the devotee's know the philosophy here?

in 15 threads nobody has mentioned that:

the three energies of the lord are,

the superior energy of the lord

the inferior energy of the lord

and

the marginal energy of the lord

the superior energy of the lord is the spiritual energy consisting of the spiritual sky and planets,

the inferior energy of the lord is the material energy and consists of the material universes,

and

the marginal energy of the lord is the jiva, the spirit soul. The jiva or the marginal energy of the lord can either be covered by the spiritual energy or the material energy because of the marginal aspect meaning it could go either way depending on our desire.

part and parcel means we are the same quality of the lord but in a small quantity, part of the lord, small parcel of the lord.......

Pankaja_Dasa · December 21, 2005

Read this its to do with this-

Going beyond vaikuntha Narayana Maharaja-

Brahma-loka consists of two sections: the upper part is called sadasiva-loka, and the lower part is Siddha-loka, which is the destination given to the demons who are personally killed by Bhagavan. The nirvisesa-vadis also attain this destination after meditating on the formless light for millions of years. That is called sayujya-mukti. This lower part is also called Maha-kala-puram or Sayujya-loka by the sages. This mahakala-puram is where Krsna took Arjuna to retrieve the son of the brahmana.

__

Mahakalapuram is another name for Brahmajyoti and this is where mayavadis merge with. Nirvisesa-vadis are going to the same destination as well as those who are killed by Bhagavan directly.