BY: SUN STAFF
Jan 9, CANADA (SUN) —
Tattva Sandarbha
by Srila Jiva Goswami
SECTION FORTY-THREE
Therefore, the scriptural statements instructing us about non-difference between the jiva and Brahman, because both are conscious by nature, must be used to come to the same conclusion as Sri Vyasa did in his trance. The jiva, being by nature like an atomic ray of the sun, is both identical and distinct from the Lord. Any contradiction in this is dispelled by the inconceivable inherent potency of the Lord, who can make even the impossible possible.
Sri Jiva Toshani Commentary
Here Srila Jiva Gosvami gives the conclusion about the relation between the jiva and the Supreme Lord. By nature the Lord and the jiva are both conscious beings and the scriptural statements about their non-difference are only to indicate this common point. The scriptures use various examples and metaphors to help us understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is beyond our experience. To give us some idea of His nature, the statements about non-difference are given, comparing Him to ourselves. We know we are conscious and so the scriptures explain that the Lord is conscious like us.
This should never be taken to mean that the Lord and the jiva are one in all respects. Just as when it is said, 'He was a tiger in battle", no one thinks that a man actually turned into a tiger. Rather, the secondary meaning is applied and we understand the statement to mean, "He was ferocious like a tiger in battle." Similarly, the statements in the Vedic literature about non-difference must be taken in the secondary sense, and the guiding factor is its consistency with the conclusion derived from Srila Vyasadeva's trance.
Srila Jiva Gosvami is a follower of the acintya-bheda-abheda philosophy of the Srimad Bhagavatam, which he alludes to in the last sentence of this section. Acintya-bheda-abheda means "inconceivable, simultaneous oneness and difference" between the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the living entity or between the energetic source and its energy. The energy is identical with the energetic because it cannot exist without it. At the same time the energy is different from the energetic source, because its effect can be perceived outside the energetic. This relation is inconceivable from the logical point of view.
The jiva is like an atomic ray in relation to the sun-like Lord. As stated in the Svetasvatara Upanishad (6.8), parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate, the Supreme Lord has multifarious energies. Just as a ray is neither different from the sun nor is it the same as the sun, so the jiva is simultaneously one with and different from the Lord. The statements of non-difference refer to their qualitative oneness and the statements of difference refer to their quantitative difference.
To help us understand a comparison similar to the one of the sun and the sunray is given in the Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad (2.1.20), yatha-agneh visphulinga vyuccaranti, "Just as sparks emanate from a fire, so all these planets, demigods, and living beings come from the Personality of Godhead". The sparks are simultaneously one and different from its source. Any seeming contradiction in this relationship is resolved by the inconceivable potency of the Lord, who can make impossible things possible.
This inconceivable nature of the Lord should not be confused with the inexplicable (anirvacaniya) concept of the Mayavadis. They say that Maya is neither sat nor asat and hence indescribable. Vaishnavas, however, do not say the Lord and His energies are indescribable, for both are described in the scriptures. The Vaishnavas say the Lord is understood only by the sabda pramana, because His nature and qualities are inconceivable to our limited mind and intellect. An example of this inconceivable nature of the Lord is in the Isopanishad, fifth verse:
"The Supreme Lord walks and does not walk. He is far away but He is very near as well. He is within everything, and yet He is outside of everything."
Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana gives the following example to further clarify the relation of simultaneous oneness and difference. He says that a fair-skinned brahmana boy and a dark-skinned brahmana boy are one by caste (both being brahmanas) but as individuals they are different. So the Lord is one with the jiva because of their both possessing consciousness; and they are different because the Lord is all-pervading, all-knowing, independent, and the controller of Maya, whereas the jiva is localized, has limited knowledge, is dependent, and is controlled by Maya.
Sometimes the jiva is equated with Brahman because he is subservient to Him. This must be understood properly. We have experience that sometimes a servant is equated with his master. An ambassador, for example, is respected like the Chief-of-State whom he represents. Any respect or disrespect shown to the ambassador is taken as for or against his Chief-of-State. The reason is that the servant has some of the power of the master and so people accept him as non-different from his master; but they are never considered as one in identity, for their non-difference is not absolute. This is not an especially difficult point to grasp. The error of the Mayavadis is that they choose to see only one side of the equation, emphasizing only the non-difference aspect of the relationship.
The Vedas have statements declaring both difference and non-difference. These seemingly contradictory points can be most naturally reconciled by accepting the philosophy of acintya-bheda-abheda. One cannot apply the logic of "ardha kukkuti"[i] to the Vedas by accepting only the statements favorable to one's point of view and rejecting the opposing ones. Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu's teaching of acintya-bheda-abheda is the greatest gift of philosophy to the world. His teachings do not condemn any Vedic scripture or point of view; rather it reconciles and integrates the many apparent contradictions and makes them all consistent with the Vedic conclusions. His teachings are the natural and direct meaning of the Vedic literature. More details on the living entity and his relation with the Supreme Lord are given in the Paramatma Sandarbha.
In summary, these are the reasons for the Vedic statements that speak of oneness between Brahman and the jiva using the examples of reflection or limitation:
1. The jiva, like Brahman, is conscious by nature.
2. The jiva is distinct from matter.
3. The jiva is the energy of Brahman.
4. The jiva is eternally dependent on the Lord.
5. The jiva can never be one with the Lord in an absolute sense.
6. The jiva is constitutionally the eternal servitor of the Lord.
7. The example helps us to understand the conscious nature of the Lord.
In the next section, abhidheya, or the process of realizing this subject, is summarized.
[i]Ardha-kukkuti-nyaya, or the logic of half a hen, is the example used when a person accepts only that part of scripture which agrees with his view and rejects the part with which he disagrees. Like a man who rejects the mouth end of the chicken, because he has to feed it, but accepts the rear half, because it gives eggs.
Go to Section Forty-four
Return to Section Forty-two
