‘अचिन्त्यभेदाभेद’ शब्द की शास्त्रीयता के प्रमाण –
क) विष्णुपुराणे (१.३.२) – “शक्तयः सर्वभावानमचिन्त्यज्ञानगोचराः | यतोऽतु ब्रह्मणस्तास्तु सर्गाद्या भावशक्तयः | भवन्ति तपतां श्रेष्ठ पावस्य यथोष्णता ||”
श्रीधरस्वामिपादकृता टीका – “अचिन्त्या भिन्नाभिन्नत्वादिविकल्पैश्चिन्तयितुमशक्याः |”
“शक्तयः सर्वभावानमचिन्त्यज्ञानगोचराः | यतोऽतु ब्रह्मणस्तास्तु सर्गाद्या भावशक्तयः | भवन्ति तपतां श्रेष्ठ पावस्य यथोष्णता ||”
श्रीधरी टीका — “अचिन्त्या भिन्नाभिन्नत्वादिविकल्पैश्चिन्तयितुमशक्याः |” – इसका सही अर्थ है कि जो भिन्नता (भेद वा द्वैत) एवं अभिन्नता (अभेद वा अद्वैत) आदि विकल्पो के द्वारा चिन्ता के अयोग्य है वैसी ब्रह्म की शक्तिया | यहा पर तो स्पष्ट रूप से ब्रह्म की क्षेत्रज्ञा शक्ति (जीवस्वरूपा) एवं अविद्यामयी माया शक्ति (विष्णुपुराण के ‘विष्णुशक्तिः परा प्रोक्ता क्षेत्रज्ञाख्या तथा परा’ श्लोक में ब्रह्म की तीन मुख्य शक्तिया प्रतिपादिता है) आदि को अचिन्त्य बताया जा रहा है क्योकि उनका भेदाभेद संबन्ध है शक्तिमत् ब्रह्म के साथ | शक्तिमान् के साथ युगपत् भेदाभेद के कारण ही तो शक्तियो का अचिन्त्यत्व बनता है, अन्यथा श्रीधरस्वामी यह न कहते की ‘भिन्नता एवं अभिन्नता के विकल्पो के कारण जो अचिन्त्य है’ | अतएव ‘अचिन्त्यभेदाभेद’ का तात्पर्य शक्तियो का ब्रह्म के साथ युगपद्रूपेण अभेदत्व एवं भेदत्व का होना ही तो है! यदि शक्तियो का ब्रह्म के साथ युगपद्रूपेण भेदत्व एवं अभेदत्व नही रहेगा तब तो उन शक्तियो का ‘अचिन्त्यत्व’ ही समाप्त हो जायेगा! अतः शक्तियो का ब्रह्म के साथ भेदाभेदमय संबन्ध ही जहा पर अचिन्त्यत्व है वह श्रीधरस्वामी की सूत्ररूपा व्याख्या के द्वारा समर्थित है | शक्तियो के ब्रह्म के साथ भेद एवं अभेद के संबन्ध को (जो कि अचिन्त्यत्व है) ही तो गीता में भी स्थापित किया गया – (गीत ७.४) – “मे भिन्न प्रकृतिरष्टधा” अर्थात् “अष्टभौतिकतत्त्वमयी जो शक्ति है वह मेरी भिन्ना प्रकृति है” – ऐसा भगवान् कहते है | दूसरी ओर वेदान्तदर्शन यह भी कहता है कि ‘शक्तिशक्तिमतोरभेदः’ अर्थात् ‘शक्ति एवं शक्तिमत् में अभेद है’ | अतः शक्ति के ब्रह्म के साथ अभेद एवं भेद – उभय के प्रतिपादक वचन शास्त्रो में दृष्टिगोचर होने के कारण ब्रह्मशक्तियो का ब्रह्म के साथ जो युगपद्रूपेण भेदाभेदमय संबन्ध है वही उन शक्तियो का ‘अचिन्त्यत्व’ है जो की विष्णुपुराण के ऊपर दिये गये १.३.२. के द्वारा स्थापित है |
ख) महाभारतस्योद्योगपर्वे – “अचिन्त्याः खलु ये भावाः न तांस्तर्केण योजयेत् | प्रकृतिभ्यः परम्यत्तु तदचिन्त्यस्य लक्षणम् ||”
“अचिन्त्याः खलु भावाः न तांस्तर्केण योजयेत्” – यह महाभारत का वाक्य ब्रह्म की पराशक्तियो के ऊपर लागु पडता है (ब्रह्म की परा एवं अपरा – दो प्रकार की शक्ति है जो कि गीता के “अपरेयमितस्त्वन्यां प्रकृतिं विद्धि मे पराम्” श्लोक के द्वारा स्पष्ट है) और ब्रह्म की पराशक्तियो को भी अचिन्त्य घोषित करता है (विष्णुपुराण १.३.२ ब्रह्म की अपरा शक्ति को अचिन्त्य घोषित करता है – ब्रह्म के साथ उनके भेदाभेदमय संबन्ध के कारण) |
ग) विपक्षी का यह मानना कि ब्रह्म से जीव का भेद मानने वाला मृत्यु की मृत्यु को प्राप्त होता है कठोपनिषद् २.१.१० के आधार पर, उनकी उस भ्रान्ति का निवारण करने के लिये हमने माध्वभाष्य में से क.उ. २.१.१० का उद्धरण दिया है — ‘भेदवादी को मृत्यु की भी मृत्यु प्राप्त होती है’ (‘य इह नानेव पश्यति…स मृत्योः मृत्युमवाप्नोति..’) – इसका वास्तविक जीव-ब्रह्म-द्वैत-परक अर्थ माध्वभाष्य में — “मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति” (क.उ.२ । १ । १०) – एतेन श्रौतवाक्येन शाङ्कराद्वैतवादस्य सिद्धिः न जायते । माध्वगौडीयैः स्वीकृतं माध्वभाष्यम् यथा – (भगवद्रूपाणाम् भेदाभावोक्तिः) “सर्वज्ञो भगवान् विष्णुररण्योर्गुरुशिष्ययोः । ‘सुभृत: स्तूयते नित्यं जानद्भिः पुरुषोत्तमः’ इति च । अर्यते णआभ्यामित्यरणी ।। य: प्रादुर्भावगो विष्णुर्देहादिषु च संस्थितः । स एव मूलरूपश्च साक्षान्नारायणाभिधः। मूलरूपश्च यो विष्णुः प्रादुर्भावादिकश्च सः ।। गुणतः स्वरूपतो वाऽपि विशेषं योऽत्र पश्यति । अत्यल्पमपि मृत्वा स तमोऽन्धं यात्यसंशयम् । भेदाभेदविदश्चात्र तमो यान्ति न संशय: ।। तथैवावयवानाञ्च गुनानाञ्च परस्परम् । क्रियाणां तेन चैतेषां भेदविच्चोभयं विदुः । यान्त्येवान्धन्तमो नात्र कार्या काचिद विचारणा’ इति च । ‘भवेदेकत्र संयोग इव शब्दो विरूद्धयोः । धर्मयोरुपमायां वा स्वल्पत्वे वा विवक्षिते’ इति शब्दनिर्णये ।। अतो ‘नानेव’ इतीवशब्दोऽत्यल्पविषयो भेदाभेदविषयश्च । प्रथमं ‘य इह नानेव पश्यति’ इति स्वरूपभेदनिषेधार्थम् । ‘नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन’ इति किञ्चनाशब्दादवयवानां गुणानां क्रियाणां च परस्पर तद्वतां च भेदनिषेधार्थम् ।।”
भक्तिरसवेदान्तपीठाधीश्वरा: आचार्य श्री: गुरुपादाः
How close is the concept of ‘viśeṣa’ in pañca-bhedātmaka-dvaita-vedānta and the abhedatva facilitated by the acintya-śakti of brahma. BNK sharma of the Mādhva Sampradāya argues that there is nothing special about the Acintya-bheda-abheda philosophy and it has been refuted by Madhva even before it was postulated. He states this in his book “History of Dvaita Vedānta”. How to defeat this contention?
The concept of visesas seen in the pancabhedavada of Madhvaites denotes speciality created within non – distinction e.g. variety perceived within the manifold divinely innate attributes possessed by Sri Hari and Hari Himself i.e. the variety seen in the abheda prevailing amidst the Bhagavan and His svarupabhuta-gunas. This concept of visesa is accepted even by the Gaudiyas. Visesa prevails within a non-distinct entity and its presence does not culminate in svagata-bheda or the distinction seen within an entity. For example, though there is variety between the bhagavad-gunas and Bhagavan, both are non-distinct ontologically. However, the concept of acintyabhedabheda of the Gaudiyas denotes the ontological distinction between five different tattvas or elements like isvara, jiva, kala, prakrti and karma. Though these are ontologically distinct mutually (both Gaudiyas and Madhvaites agree here), nonetheless, the latter four are also, non – distinct from the initial isvara – tattva in the sense that the latter quadruple elements rely on the isvara – tattva for their existence. Hence, the non – distinction accepted here is not svarupa-gata, but rather, sambandhagata. In this way, there arises no question of misalignment with the Madhva-siddhanta by the Gaudiya philosophy. It’s another issue if some contemporary Madhvaite scholars wrongly target Caitanyaite conclusions due to their not being aware of how the acintyabhedabhedavada is defined by the latter.
If it is only sattā-pāratantriyatā that qualifies as abheda, how is it any different from Vishishtadvaita where the same kind of abheda already exists on the platform of sharira-shariri-sambandha. Even according to Anandatirtha Madhvacharya, when he interprets abheda-vakyas, he goes further and debates it on svarupa of Sri Hari that is revealed in every entity based on its own qualification. He quotes the famous ‘purnam adah’ verse and debate on the basis of bimba-pratibimba-sambandha and shows how each pot, lake or ocean is full according to its own limit and reveals the quality of Sri Hari according to its own capacity.
- a) The sattā-pāratantryātmaka abheda (the non-distinction prevalent between jīva and parabrahma based on the former’s existential dependence on the latter) as accepted by the Caitanyaites aka Gauḍīyas is not wholly on par with the viśiṣṭādvaita of the Śrī-vaiṣṇ Why? Because of the following reason –
Śrīpāda Rāmānuja accepts jīva and jagat to be the body of parabrahma and he has cited evidences from the śrutis to ascertain the same. The relation between jīva and jagat with the brahma is that of the body and soul or the jīva (living entity) and jagat (world) have been defined as the adjectives qualifying the brahma (absolute).
- b) Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī holds the view that the jagat is inert and thus, opposite to consciousness (cit-virodhī) and that brahma is conscious and thus opposite to the inert (jaḍa-virodhī). If jagat is accepted as the body of brahma, then an ontological distinction between the body and soul of the Lord will have to be accepted (because jagat is cit-virodhī and brahma is jaḍa-virodhī). Accepting the difference between the body and soul of the Lord will allow the concept of the internal distinction (svagata-bheda) to prevail within the bhagavat-tattva. The existence of this svagata-bheda has been denied within the existence of the Lord by scriptures (‘deha-dehi-vibhāgo ‘yam neśvare vidyate kvacit’). On the other hand, brahma is advaya-tattva (one without a second – ekamevādvitīyam brahma) devoid of the triple distinctions of ‘sajātīya’, ‘vijātīya’ and ‘svagata’.
- c) The sattā-pāratantryātmaka abheda as accepted by the Gauḍīyas is not the only reason for the acceptance of abhedatva. The definition of acintya-bheda-abheda as given by Śrī Jīva in the Sandarbhas is as follows –
“tasmāt svarūpādabhinnatvena cintayitumaśakyatvād bhedaḥ, bhinnatvena cintayitumaśakyatvād abhedaśca pratīyata iti śakti-śaktimatorbhedābhedāvevāṅgīkṛto tau ca acintyau iti.” (Sarvasamvādinī)
“apare tu ‘tarkāpratiṣṭhānāt’ (Brahmasūtra 2.1.11) bhede ‘pyabhede ‘pi nirmaryyādadośasantatidarśanena bhinnatayā cintayitumaśakyatvādabhedaṁ sādhayantuḥ tadvadabhinnatayāpi cintayitumaśakyatvād bhedamapi sādhayanto ‘cintyabhedābhedavādaṁ svīkurvanti. svamate tu acintyabhedābhedāveva acintyaśaktimayatvāditi.” (Sarvasamvādinī)
- d) One of the main reasons why the Caitanyaites have not ditto imbibed the dvaitavāda of Madhvācārya is as follows –
The ātyantika-bheda or the ultimate distinction between jīva and brahma as accepted by Madhva is rejected by the Gauḍīyas. Both in the baddhāvasthā (conditioned stage) and the muktāvasthā (liberated stage), jīva exists separate from the Lord which means that the bheda is only avasthānagata (condition based) and not wholly svarūpagata (identity based). The distinction of alpajñatā (less knowledge) and sarvajñatā (full knowledge) as prevalent between the two is guṇagata-bheda. However, in the context of ‘jñātṛtva’ (the power of knowing), there cannot be denied any slight non-distinction between the two (as both have ‘jñātṛtva’). Hence, the ‘ātyantika-bheda’ or the ultimate distinction between the jīva and brahma is not verified by the śrutis according to Gauḍīyas.
The dvaitavāda of Śrī Madhvācārya is fully rooted on a scriptural substratum. In fact, Madhvaites not only refute the theory of Śaṅkarācārya, but they also allege many philosophical discrepancies in the philosophy of Rāmānujācārya (both preceding Madhvācārya). In this scenario, even Rāmānuja’s philosophy is based on scriptures. There are many direct evidences within the Upaniṣads and Purāṇas which support the advaitavāda of Śaṅkara, too! However, when the question of the most refined, developed and flaw-less philosophy comes, acintya-bheda-abheda stands apart as it is the last ‘vada’ or philosophy on Vedanta to be propagated in the history of the Vedantic system of thought.
- Regarding vijatiya, sajatiya and svagata-vastu, will the examples of material domain vs. Supreme Lord, living entity vs Supreme Lord and Lord and His flute- in that order suffice? If this is true, then we are told that Lord and His potency are non-different (which is true since all three above are the works of His extrinsic, marginal and intrinsic potency, for which you have already cited the reference). Now while this is true, my question is that is it not so the absolute non-difference between these entities is also not established by the fact that after all both entities have different names, namely the energy and the energetic? My opinion is that the relation between two is explained more clearly by bhedabheda rather than pure non difference, is that not correct?
- You have mentioned that the shrutis also depict proofs in support of Advaitavada (Absolute Monism) of Shripada Shankaracharya. I think in reality those statements only depict qualitative and not quantitative oneness, but which the Kevaladvaitavadis (Absolute Monists / Shankarites) otherwise theorize. Correct?
- In point 4 you have mentioned that in both conditioned and unconditioned state, the living entity is eternally separated parcel from the Lord. This is ok to me. But then you mentioned that such difference is only condition based and not identity based? How is that? Don’t the living entity and the Lord have their own eternally separate spiritual identity? If that difference is only conditioned based then that would mean to say that the difference is temporal- which isn’t? I am unable to understand this point.
- As far as power of knowing is concerned, the magnitude of that between Lord and a living entity is enormous, albeit the fact that it can be unmistakenly witnessed between the two. Is that statement correct?
- a) Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī accepts the existence of only brahmavastu. According to Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, five tattvas are accepted (īśvara, jīva, kāla, karma and prakṛti). Even Jīva Gosvāmī accepts these five tattvas’ existence, but ultimately confinesthe existence of the latter four to the former one viz., īś In Śaṅkarite theology, īśvara is not identical with the concept of nirguṇa-brahma or the nirupādhika brahma (the most original form of absolute as they perceive). However, in the Gauḍīya theology, īśvara is the same as para-brahma.It is another matter that Gauḍīya theologians have accepted three levels of absolute while technically defining the para-brahma-padārtha viz., brahma, paramātmā and bhagavān. The advayajñānatattvasvarūpa svayam bhagavān displays Himself in the said three phases. Now, as far as the acceptance of five tattvas vs. one tattva is concerned, Jīva Gosvāmī’s view reflects the view of Śrīḍhara Svāmī wherein, only the sattā of the advitīya-brahma-padārtha/vastu/tattva is accepted. In that perspective, though ontologically different in existence (but yet dependent) from the para-brahma (this is where the acceptance of the five-fold tattvas or panca-tattva-vāda as done by Vidyābhūṣaṇa also comes true), they viz., the latter quadruple tattvas are not wholly distinct from the para-brahma (this is where the acceptance of only one tattva or the eka-tattva-vāda of Jīva Gosvāmī comes true). Why? Because, as Śrīdhara Svāmī propounds based on the śruti – ‘ekavmevādvitīyam brahma’ (the Absolute or brahma is one without a second) in his Bhāvārthadīpikā commentary on ŚBMP 1.1.2 – ‘vastuno ‘ṁśo jīvaḥ vastunaḥ śaktir māyā ca vastunaḥ kāryaṁ jagacca tat sarvaṁ vastveva’ or ‘vastu or substance is brahma; its āmśa is the jīva, its śakti is māyā and its work (creation) is this phenomenal world’. Now, reflecting on this statement, Śrī Jīva considers four principles viz., a) svarūpa, b) tad-rūpa-vaibhava, c) tad-aṁśa and d) tat-pratiphalanam. Svarūpa is the medium sized icon of Śrī Nandanandana. Tad-rūpa-vaibhava is the wholly identical (with bhagavat-svarūpa) paraphernalia like bhagavannāma, rūpa, guṇa, līlā, dhāma, nitya-siddha-parikara and śvāṁśas etc. arising from the antaraṅgā śakti. Tad-aṁśa is the vibhinnāṁśa jīva arising from the taṭasthā śakti. Jīva Gosvāmī considers jīvas to be raśmī-paramāṇu-sthānīya and para-brahma to be sūrya-sthānīya. tac-chāyā or pratiphalanam is the mundane world arising from the Lord’s glance on bahiraṅgā māyā śakti. (This acceptance of chāyā or pratiphlanam is not the same as the Śankarites’ acceptance of the brahma-pratibimbavāda and/or brahma-paricchedavāda). Hence, vastu (the source of all latter four tattvas as accepted by Baladeva (like prakṛti, kāla, karma and jīva) or the source of all latter three elements like tad-rūpa-vaibhava, tad-āṁśa, tac-chāyā etc.) is one only and it is para-brahma also known as īśvara (name found in Baladeva’s enumeration) or svārupa (name found in Jīva’s enumeration). Since, taṭastha-jīva is brahma’s āmśa (ontologically separate, but dependent), bahiraṅgā māya is brahma’s energy (ontologically separate,but dependent) and jagat (mundane world) is brahma-śakti-kārya (ontologically separate, but dependent) or the effect of māyā-śakti which is brahma’s śakti — for the said reason, all the latter three (brahma-śakti, brahma-śakti-kārya and brahma-aṁśa) are affiliated with the brahma and therefore, ultimately vastu or parama-tattva is only one due to its being considered as ‘āśraya-tattva’ of all subsidiary categories or the avāntara-tattvas.
Now, when there is only one parama-tattva or vāstava-vastu (refer to ŚBMP 1.1.2) in existence with other tattvas’ existence being considered as avāntarīya or sub-categorical, there cannot be any vijātīya-pratiyogi-vastu or sajātīya-pratiyogi-vastu i.e. there cannot be any second or third ultimate substance which is either of opposite or similar calibre to the parama-tattva/para-brahma/vāstava-vastu/advitīya-brahma/advaya-jñāna-tattva/svarūpa/īśvara/brahma/paramātmā/bhagavān/svayam-bhagavān/parama-puruṣa/ādi-puruṣa. Categorical substances or avāntarīya-padārtha like jīva, kāla, karma and prakṛti may be vijātīya or sajātīya to the parama-tattva, but there are no other second or third parama-tattvas which are sajātīya or vijātīya to the actual para-brahma which is one without a second. This is where even the dvaitavāda is incomplete as they consider jīva and prakṛti etc. to be not sub-categorical tattvas but, fully autonomous tattvas. Considering as such would bring about sajātīya and vijātīya bheda within the brahma-padārtha. Though, Madhvaites consider jīva to be paratantra-tattva and īśvara to be svatantra-tattva, nonetheless, they fail to consider jīva and prakṛti etc. to be sub-categorical. Not taking these avāntara-tattvas as sub-categorical will contradict the Upaniṣadic assertion of ‘ekam eva advitīyaṁ brahma’.
Jaḍa-jagat or the mundane world is not vijātīya-tattva vs. brahma. Otherwise, vijātīya-bheda will be created which the śrutis have forbidden. Rather, jaḍa-jagat is a vijātīya avāntara-tattva of brahma. Likewise, the position of the jīvas have to be analyzed. Now, here also, a question arises that if sub-categories are considered vijātīya and sajātīya to brahma, wouldn’t this bring about svagata-bheda (the internal difference) within the overall brahma-tattva? No. Because, though jīva is sajātīya and jagat + prakṛti are vijātīya, they are not part of the brahma-svarūpa or even tad-rūpa-vaibhava, though these jīva, jagat and prakṛti are considered sub-categorical aspects of the brahma-tattva as per the Gauḍīya theology.
As far as tadrūpa-vaibhava is considered, divine items like the Lord’s flute etc. do not produce svagata-bheda, though they are the expansions of Lord’s svarūpa (tadrūpa-vaibhava). Why? Because, tadrūpa-vaibhava’s ontological existence is wholly identical with the Lord, though it may be externally appearing in multifarious forms like flute, Yamunā river etc. If they would be ontologically different from the svarūpa or the Lord, only then the svagata-bheda would prevail. Hence, the concept of ‘viśesa’ has to be applied to understand the outward difference (not actual ontological one) perceived between the svarūpa (Lord) and His tad-rūpa-vaibhava. The concept of viśeṣa (variety) is wholly different from the concept of bheda (actual distinction). When there is no actual ontological difference and still, the difference is perceived, it is termed as viśeṣa. Hence, the possibility of svagata-bheda between svarūpa and tad-rūpa-vaibhava is rejected on the said ground.
Only the intrinsic potency (antaraṅgā) is wholly non-distinct from the Lord with the application of the concept of viśeṣa. The marginal and extrinsic potencies are ontologically different. The concept of acintya-bhedābhedavāda applies only between the taṭasṭhā-śakti, taṭasṭhā-śakti-kārya-svārūpa-jīva, bahiraṅgā-māyā-śakti, bahiraṅgā-māyā-śakti-kārya/pariṇāma-svarūpa-jaḍa-jagat and the para-brahma. Why? Because the taṭasthā and bahiraṅgā śaktis + their kāryas (jīvas and jaḍa-jagat) are ontologically different from the para-brahma’s identity or svarūpa. Therefore, abheda is seen on top of the underlying actual bheda. Ontological bheda is there and only due to the concept of the existential dependence on the Lord (brahma-āśrayitva), abheda is accepted. However, the relation of the para-brahma with His antaraṅgā śakti and antaraṅgā-śakti-kāryātmka-tad-rūpa-vaibhava/cid-vaibhava is not that of acintya-bheda-abheda. Why? Because, there is no ontological difference between the para-brahma and the antaraṅgā-śakti + Her kārya. Hence, the concept of viśeṣa is applied there, not the concept of acintya-bheda-abheda.
- b) Dvaitavādīs interpret the pro-advaitin assertions of Upaniṣadas as pro-dvaita. However, there are many such portions found in Purāṇas (as for example, the Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇam found within the Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa) and in Upaniṣadas like Sarasvatī-rahasyopaniṣad and Śuka-rahasyopaniṣad, where kevala-advaita-vāda is depicted clearly, even if books like Yoga-vāśiṣṭha are not taken into account. However, Jīva Gosvāmī has indicated that all such unambiguous pro-advaitin assertions are merely reiterating the pūrvapakṣa and not the siddhā To this, the advaitins argue that if they are depicted as pūrvapakṣa, then why the uttara-pakṣa or siddhānta (which should be pro-dvaita) is not given in the same Upaniṣads? To this, the Gauḍīyas’ answer is that just like in the four original Vedic samhitās (Ṛg, Yajuh etc.), there is no mention of the brahma-jñāna and only karma is depicted as supreme. But, latter treatises like Bhagavad-gītā reject the karma-pratipādyatva of the four Vedas (e.g. ŚBG 2.42-45) and reject the relevance of such Vedas in order to drag the sādhaka towards the path of mokṣa. Similarly, the relevance of advaita mentioned in many portions of śāstras is rejected in the hierarchically superior scriptures and scriptural passages.
- c) Paraphrasing should be done exactly. Otherwise, it will create perverted meanings. In both the conditioned and liberated stages, the jīvas are not ‘separated’ from brahma. The usage of ‘separated’ would mean ‘ṭaṅka-avacchinna-āṁśatva’ which Jīva Gosvāmī has rejected. Just like a stone was connected with the mountain and due to the pounding done by a hammer, it become separated later on. Such a theory gives rise to the pro-advaita feeling. According to ŚBG 15.7, jīva is sanātana aṁśa of the Lord. Sanātana-āṁśa indicates eternal expansion. But, jīva is a separate eternal expansion, not separated eternal expansion. Jīvatva is nitya in Gauḍīya theoloy. It is not anitya like in advaitavā When we said earlier that the bheda or the difference between the jīva and brahma is avasthāgata and not svarūpagata, it doesn’t tantamount to any aupādhika-bheda (bheda based on any underlying limiting adjunct or upādhi). Aupādhika bheda is accepted by Bhāskarācārya’s school on Vedānta. Not by the Gauḍīyas. Why the avasthāgata-bheda (condition based) accepted by the Gauḍīya is not temporal? Because, jīvas’ jīvatva is considered condition or avasthā herein. And as per the Gauḍīya theology, the jīvatva of the jīva is never destroyed and hence, it is an eternal condition. Since the condition is eternal, the bheda based on that condition is also eternal. But, if so, then why its not considered wholly svarūpagata-bheda? To some extent, it is considered svarūpagata-bheda (difference in identity) as far as the separate identity (separate existence) of the jīva and brahma is concerned. Identity or ‘svarūpa’ has double meaning. If the meaning of ontologically individual existence is taken, then there is difference in the identity of the jīvas (mutually) and between the jīva and brahma (mutually). All pañca-bhedas as accepted by Madhvaites are accepted by the Gauḍīyas (jīva-jīva-bheda, jīva-brahma-bheda, jīva-jaḍa-bhada, jaḍa-jaḍa-bheda and jaḍa-brahma-bheda). On the other hand, if the meaning of ‘identity’ or ‘svarūpa’ is taken as calibre, then in aspects like jñātṛtva, there is no bheda between the jīva and brahma, despite the sarvajñatva and alpajñatva factors playing the role. Why? Because, whether less knowledge or full knowledge, the jñānamaya-svarūpa is had by both jīva and īśvara and this jñānamaya-svarūpatva has its source in the Lord because of the ‘mattaḥ smṛtir jñānamapohanaṁ ca’ verse of ŚBG. Jñānamaya-svarūpa of jīva is never destroyed, though it might be covered due to the effects of avidyā.
- d) The magnitude of jñātṛtva is surely not comparable between the jīva and brahma.
Bhaktirasavedāntapīṭhādhīśvara Ācārya Śrī Gurupāda