Two Eternal Entities

[caitanya]

Pranams ,

As far as I understand ISKCON philosophy , Bhagvan and Jiva are two eternally existing entities . But Jiva is dependent on Bhagvan . How can something which is dependent be eternal ? Either they are one or there is no dependence . Please make me understand .


Jai Shree Krishna

[markandeya 108 dasa]

Pranams caitanya Prabhu,

The ultimate dependency is prem pure love for Bhagavan, it transcends all boundary's, its not comparable to this manifested phenomenal world of dependent causation.

Free will is choice, and the perfection of the jiva is to express his free will in the mood of Prem. Love has no cause or dependency, its just the pure expression of free will.

Ys

Md

[wundermonk]

Greetings,

There is a difference between ontological priority/precedence and temporal priority/precedence.

There are many possible cases.

(1) Two entities can have a temporal infinite past and yet be at the same ontological level. This would be the infinite series of --->seed--->sprout--->seed--->sprout--->

(2)Two entities can have a temporal infinite past and yet one entity could be ontologically prior to the other. In this respect, ontological priority has the following definition: A is ontologically prior to B if A's existence can be analyzed/actually is independent of B's existence. Examples of this are Bhagavan (ontologically independent) and Jiva (ontologically dependent). Another example is the case of an eternally existing pot. The pot is dependent on its material cause (clay) while clay is independent of the specific pot in question.

(3)Same is the case with any property/property bearer. An eternal property bearer is conceived of independently of its property. An example would be a "blue lotus". Assume for the moment that this "blue lotus" has been eternally existing. In this case, the way to analyze this would be "This lotus has blue-ness". Every attribute/property necessarily exists only in a property-bearer, while a property-bearer can have a wide variety of changing attributes while the property-bearer, in itself undergoes no change. So, every guna is dependent on the substance/property bearer, while the latter does not depend on the former although both could be eternally existing.

[ameyAtmA]

Pranams caitanya Prabhu,

The ultimate dependency is prem pure love for Bhagavan, it transcends all boundary's, its not comparable to this manifested phenomenal world of dependent causation.

Free will is choice, and the perfection of the jiva is to express his free will in the mood of Prem. Love has no cause or dependency, its just the pure expression of free will.

Ys

Md

:goodpost:

Bhakta ki vyathA bhakt hi jAne dujA jAne na koi

ghAyal ki gati ghAyal jAne dujA jAne na koyA

(A devotee understands the plight of another devotee.
The one injured by the love-arrow in the heart alone knows the plight of another so injured.)

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Pranams ,

As far as I understand ISKCON philosophy , Bhagvan and Jiva are two eternally existing entities . But Jiva is dependent on Bhagvan . How can something which is dependent be eternal ? Either they are one or there is no dependence . Please make me understand .

Jai Shree Krishna

Who told you that something (someone) which is dependent can't be eternal? :)


regards

[Amrut]

Namaste BJ ji :)

I am confused too

1. How is eternal defined - that which does not have a beginning and end or that which has a beginning i.e. it is created, but does not die.

2. If Jiva is not created, then we have shastras which say ISvara is the creator. Will this not contradict.

btw, caitanya ji

:goodpost:

Jai Shri Krishna

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste Amrut

Namaste BJ ji :)

I am confused too

1. How is eternal defined - that which does not have a beginning and end or that which has a beginning i.e. it is created, but does not die.

Eternal -- that which does not have a beginning and end in time. ;)


2. If Jiva is not created, then we have shastras which say ISvara is the creator. Will this not contradict.

Yes, Ishvara or the Lord is the creator, but He didn't create the jiva soul but only the material body of the jiva soul.
Jiva soul is eternal.


regards

[Samraat Bhismadeva Maurya]

Hari Bol!
All glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga!


Namaste BJ ji :)

2. If Jiva is not created, then we have shastras which say Isvara is the creator. Will this not contradict.



Dandavats Amrut Prabhu,

I had thought that Jiva's came from the Brahma Jyoti? And that Jiva's are constantly being created?

From Srimad-Bhagavatam (2.9.33)

aham evāsam evāgre
nānyad yat sad-asat param
paścād ahaḿ yad etac ca
yo 'vaśiṣyeta so 'smy aham

Brahmā, it is I, the Personality of Godhead, who was existing before the creation, when there was nothing but Myself. Nor was there the material nature, the cause of this creation. That which you see now is also I, the Personality of Godhead, and after annihilation what remains will also be I, the Personality of Godhead.

So on this is think of the philosophy achintya-bheda-abheda tattva states that God is "simultaneously one with and different from His creation" From what i hear, with out material limitations It is not something we can properly describe, but what I get from it is That Jiva and Brahman are equal in quality but different in quantity, qualitative equality but quantitative difference, i don't know, anyway, here is Srila Prabhupada's purport on the verse above.

aham evāsam evāgre
nānyad yat sad-asat param
paścād ahaḿ yad etac ca
yo 'vaśiṣyeta so 'smy aham

"Brahmā, it is I, the Personality of Godhead, who was existing before the creation, when there was nothing but Myself. Nor was there the material nature, the cause of this creation. That which you see now is also I, the Personality of Godhead, and after annihilation what remains will also be I, the Personality of Godhead."

We should note very carefully that the personality of Godhead is addressing Lord Brahmā and specifying with great emphasis Himself, pointing out that it is He, the Personality of Godhead, who existed before the creation, it is He only who maintains the creation, and it is He only who remains after the annihilation of the creation. Brahmā is also a creation of the Supreme Lord. The impersonalist puts forth the theory of oneness in the sense that Brahmā, also being the same principle of "I" because he is an emanation from the I, the Absolute Truth, is identical with the Lord, the principle of I, and that there is thus nothing more than the principle of I, as explained in this verse. Accepting the argument of the impersonalist, it is to be admitted that the Lord is the creator I and that the Brahmā is the created I. Therefore there is a difference between the two "I's," namely the predominator I and the predominated I. Therefore there are still two I's, even accepting the argument of the impersonalist. But we must note carefully that these two I's are accepted in the Vedic literature (Kaṭhopaniṣad) in the sense of quality. The Kaṭhopaniṣad says:
nityo nityānāḿ cetanaś cetanānām
eko bahūnāḿ yo vidadhāti kāmān
The creator "I" and the created "I" are both accepted in the Vedas as qualitatively one because both of them are nityas and cetanas. But the singular "I" is the creator "I," and the created "I's" are of plural number because there are many "I's" like Brahmā and those generated by Brahmā. It is the simple truth. The father creates or begets a son, and the son also creates many other sons, and all of them may be one as human beings, but at the same time from the father, the son and the grandsons are all different. The son cannot take the place of the father, nor can the grandsons. Simultaneously the father, the son and the grandson are one and different also. As human beings they are one, but as relativities they are different. Therefore the relativities of the creator and the created or the predominator and the predominated have been differentiated in the Vedas by saying that the predominator "I" is the feeder of the predominated "I's," and thus there is a vast difference between the two principles of "I."
In another feature of this verse, no one can deny the personalities of both the Lord and Brahmā. Therefore in the ultimate issue both the predominator and predominated are persons.

This conclusion refutes the conclusion of the impersonalist that in the ultimate issue everything is impersonal. This impersonal feature stressed by the less intelligent impersonalist school is refuted by pointing out that the predominator "I" is the Absolute Truth and that He is a person.
The predominated "I," Brahmā, is also a person, but he is not the Absolute. For realization of one's self in spiritual psychology it may be convenient to assume oneself to be the same principle as the Absolute Truth, but there is always the difference of the predominated and the predominator, as clearly pointed out here in this verse, which is grossly misused by the impersonalists. Brahmā is factually seeing face to face his predominator Lord, who exists in His transcendental eternal form, even after the annihilation of the material creation. The form of the Lord, as seen by Brahmā, existed before the creation of Brahmā, and the material manifestation with all the ingredients and agents of material creation are also energetic expansions of the Lord, and after the exhibition of the Lord's energy comes to a close, what remains is the same Personality of Godhead. Therefore the form of the Lord exists in all circumstances of creation, maintenance and annihilation. The Vedic hymns confirm this fact in the statement vāsudevo vā idam agra āsīn na brahmā na ca śańkara eko nārāyaṇa āsīn na brahmā neśāna, etc. Before the creation there was none except Vāsudeva. There was neither Brahmā nor Śańkara. Only Nārāyaṇa was there and no one else, neither Brahmā nor Īśāna.
Śrīpāda Śańkarācārya also confirms in his comments on the Bhagavad-gītā that Nārāyaṇa, or the Personality of Godhead, is transcendental to all creation, but that the whole creation is the product of avyakta. Therefore the difference between the created and the creator is always there, although both the creator and created are of the same quality.
The other feature of the statement is that the supreme truth is Bhagavān, or the Personality of Godhead. The Personality of Godhead and His kingdom have already been explained. The kingdom of Godhead is not void as conceived by the impersonalists.

The Vaikuṇṭha planets are full of transcendental variegatedness, including the four-handed residents of those planets, with great opulence of wealth and prosperity, and there are even airplanes and other amenities required for high-grade personalities. Therefore the Personality of Godhead exists before the creation, and He exists with all transcendental variegatedness in the Vaikuṇṭhalokas. The Vaikuṇṭhalokas, also accepted in the Bhagavad-gītā as being of the sanātana nature, are not annihilated even after the annihilation of the manifested cosmos. Those transcendental planets are of a different nature altogether, and that nature is not subjected to the rules and regulations of material creation, maintenance or annihilation. The existence of the Personality of Godhead implies the existence of the Vaikuṇṭhalokas, as the existence of a king implies the existence of a kingdom.

In various places in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and in other revealed scriptures the existence of the Personality of Godhead is mentioned. For example, in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (2.8.10), Mahārāja Parīkṣit asks:

sa cāpi yatra puruṣo
viśva-sthity-udbhavāpyayaḥ
muktvātma-māyāḿ māyeśaḥ
śete sarva-guhāśayaḥ

"How does the Personality of Godhead, the cause of creation, maintenance and annihilation, who is always freed from the influence of the illusory energy and is the controller of the same, lie in everyone's heart?" Similar also is a question of Vidura's:

tattvānāḿ bhagavaḿs teṣāḿ
katidhā pratisańkramaḥ
tatremaḿ ka upāsīran
ka u svid anuśerate
(Bhāg. 3.7.37)

Śrīdhara Svāmī explains this in his notes: "During the annihilation of the creation, who serves the Lord lying on the Śeṣa, etc." This means that the transcendental Lord with all His name, fame, quality and paraphernalia exists eternally. The same confirmation is also in the Kāśī-khaṇḍa of the Skanda Purāṇa in connection with dhruva-carita. It is said there:

na cyavante 'pi yad-bhaktā
mahatyāḿ pralayāpadi
ato 'cyuto 'khile loke
sa ekaḥ sarvago 'vyayaḥ

Even the devotees of the Personality of Godhead are not annihilated during the period of the entire annihilation of the material world, not to speak of the Lord Himself. The Lord is ever-existent in all three stages of material change.

The impersonalist adduces no activity in the Supreme, but in this discussion between Brahmā and the Supreme Personality of Godhead the Lord is said to have activities also, as He has His form and quality. The activities of Brahmā and other demigods during the maintenance of the creation are to be understood as the activities of the Lord. The king, or the head executive of a state, may not be seen in the government offices, for he may be engaged in royal comforts. Yet it should be understood that everything is being done under his direction and everything is at his command. The Personality of Godhead is never formless. In the material world He may not be visible in His personal form to the less intelligent class of men, and therefore He may sometimes be called formless. But actually He is always in His eternal form in His Vaikuṇṭha planets as well as in other planets of the universes as different incarnations. The example of the sun is very appropriate in this connection. The sun in the night may not be visible to the eyes of men in the darkness, but the sun is visible wherever it has risen. That the sun is not visible to the eyes of the inhabitants of a particular part of the earth does not mean that the sun has no form.
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.4.1) there is the hymn ātmaivedam agra āsīt puruṣa-vidhaḥ. This mantra indicates the Supreme Personality of Godhead (Kṛṣṇa) even before the appearance of the puruṣa incarnation. In the Bhagavad-gītā (15.18) it is said that Lord Kṛṣṇa is Puruṣottama because He is the supreme puruṣa, transcendental even to the puruṣa-akṣara and the puruṣa-kṣara. The akṣara-puruṣa, or the Mahā-Viṣṇu, throws His glance over prakṛti, or material nature, but the Puruṣottama existed even before that. The Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad therefore confirms the statement of the Bhagavad-gītā that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Person (Puruṣottama).

In some of the Vedas it is also said that in the beginning only the impersonal Brahman existed. However, according to this verse, the impersonal Brahman, which is the glowing effulgence of the body of the Supreme Lord, may be called the immediate cause, but the cause of all causes, or the remote cause, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Lord's impersonal feature is existent in the material world because by material senses or material eyes the Lord cannot be seen or perceived. One has to spiritualize the senses before one can expect to see or perceive the Supreme Lord.

But He is always engaged in His personal capacity, and He is eternally visible to the inhabitants of Vaikuṇṭhaloka, eye to eye. Therefore He is materially impersonal, just as the executive head of the state may be impersonal in the government offices, although he is not impersonal in the government house. Similarly, the Lord is not impersonal in His abode, which is always nirasta-kuhakam, as stated in the very beginning of the Bhāgavatam. Therefore both the impersonal and personal features of the Lord are acceptable, as mentioned in the revealed scriptures. This Personality of Godhead is very emphatically explained in the
Bhagavad-gītā in connection with the verse:

brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham (Bg. 14.27).

Therefore in all ways the confidential part of spiritual knowledge is realization of the Personality of Godhead, and not His impersonal Brahman feature. One should therefore have his ultimate aim of realization not in the impersonal feature but in the personal feature of the Absolute Truth. The example of the sky within the pot and the sky outside the pot may be helpful to the student for his realization of the all-pervading quality of the cosmic consciousness of the Absolute Truth. But that does not mean that the individual part and parcel of the Lord becomes the Supreme by a false claim. It means only that the conditioned soul is a victim of the illusory energy in her last snare. To claim to be one with the cosmic consciousness of the Lord is the last trap set by the illusory energy, or daivī māyā. Even in the impersonal existence of the Lord, as it is in the material creation, one should aspire for personal realization of the Lord, and that is the meaning of paścād ahaḿ yad etac ca yo 'vaśiṣyeta so 'smy aham.
Brahmājī also accepted the same truth when he was instructing Nārada. He said:

so 'yaḿ te 'bhihitas tāta
bhagavān viśva-bhāvanaḥ
(Bhāg. 2.7.50)

There is no other cause of all causes than the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Hari. Therefore this verse aham eva never indicates anything other than the Supreme Lord, and one should therefore follow the path of the Brahma-sampradāya, or the path from Brahmājī to Nārada, to Vyāsadeva, etc., and make it a point in life to realize the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Hari, or Lord Kṛṣṇa. This very confidential instruction to the pure devotees of the Lord was also given to Arjuna and to Brahmā in the beginning of the creation. The demigods like Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Maheśvara, Indra, Candra and Varuṇa are undoubtedly different forms of the Lord for execution of different functions; the different elemental ingredients of material creation, as well as the multifarious energies, also may be of the same Personality of Godhead, but the root of all of them is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. One should be attached to the root of everything rather than bewildered by the branches and leaves. That is the instruction given in this verse.

[caitanya]

Pranams ,

Thank you All for your deliberations.

@BrahmaJijnaasa ji : Well...As I heard the statement about the dependability of Jiva on Bhagwaan ,this thought sprang up . How can something which depends on another entity be eternal . I am finding it difficult to explain . I will try.May be we need to understand first as to what of Jiva is dependent on Bhagwaaan . Can you tell me ? What makes us say that Jiva is dependent ?

@Amrut: Thanks for liking the post . Yes, this is what I understand of Eternal . No beginning and no end . This very definition made my mind spin .:)


@Wundermonk ji : How was the Blue of Lotus when it was not Blue ?


Jai Shri Krishna .

[grames]

Dear Amrut.,

Eternal dependency can also mean, both are existing eternally but one is dependent on another! ( Existence does not put any limitation on dependency and that dependency is/can be anAdi as well - eternal dependency)

No where we understand the Jiva as created.... its wrong notion of some people! Jiva is anAdi as well as much as the dependency on Ishwara at least in the "Theistic" schools!

Hare Krshna!

[Samraat Bhismadeva Maurya]

Hari Bol!


Dear Amrut.,

Eternal dependency can also mean, both are existing eternally but one is dependent on another! ( Existence does not put any limitation on dependency and that dependency is/can be anAdi as well - eternal dependency)

No where we understand the Jiva as created.... its wrong notion of some people! Jiva is anAdi as well as much as the dependency on Ishwara at least in the "Theistic" schools!

Hare Krshna!

Dandavats Grames,

So Jiva and Ishwara are there from the beginning?

So all Jiva's where in the Brahma-Jyoti? And then we chose between side of dedication or exploitation and came to our respective areas, right?

Thank you,

Jai Sri Radhe-Syam!

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Pranams ,

Thank you All for your deliberations.

@BrahmaJijnaasa ji : Well...As I heard the statement about the dependability of Jiva on Bhagwaan ,this thought sprang up . How can something which depends on another entity be eternal . I am finding it difficult to explain . I will try.May be we need to understand first as to what of Jiva is dependent on Bhagwaaan . Can you tell me ? What makes us say that Jiva is dependent ?

Actually it's quite easy to understand that the jiva soul is dependent on the Lord.
The Lord created this whole world and He maintains this whole world and the living beings (jivas) in it supplying them with everything they need for life.
In the scriptures there are quite explicit statements about all this. Here is an example, it is said in the Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.13:


nityo nityānāṃ cetanaś cetanānām eko bahūnāṃ yo vidadhāti kāmān

"He (The Supreme Lord) is the supreme eternal among all eternals and the supreme conscious entity among all conscious entities, who fulfills everyone's desires and needs."

In this verse living beings (jivas) are called "nityānāṃ" which means "eternals" and The Supreme Lord (paramatma) is called "nityo" which means "One eternal". Thus we see that eternal difference between the two souls -- jiva and paramatma -- is established in Shruti scriptures, and we also see that jiva souls are subordinate to the Lord because their existence depends on Him: "who fulfills everyone's desires and needs", ie He maintains the living beings supplying them with everything they need for life.

This is just one example from the scriptures where we can see that both, jiva souls and paramatma (the Lord), are eternal and that jiva souls are subordinate to the Lord because their existence is dependent on Him.

Here's another example from the Bhagavad gita 7.7:


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

Here Lord Krishna says "Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread", which means that He maintains everything because everything rests upon Him. Suppose the Lord suddenly decides not to maintain everything that exists. What would happen? Everything would collapse. From this it can be seen that everything is dependent on Him.
See above example "Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread". What would happen if the thread breaks? All the pearls would collapse. So all the pearls are dependent on the thread. Similarly everything is dependent on the Lord for He is like the thread on which everything rests.
Is there anything that does not rest on the Lord? Is there anything that is not dependent on Him?


regards

[Amrut]

Namaste All

thank you so much for clarification and explanation,

@SBM @BJ ji and @grames ji (and others in the thread)

Hari Hari Hari Bol!

[caitanya]

Pranams,

Thanks SBMji.


My question is where was the created "I" when only Creator "I" existed?


Jai Shri Krishna.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste


I had thought that Jiva's came from the Brahma Jyoti? And that Jiva's are constantly being created?

Jiva soul is eternal.
Eternal -- that which does not have a beginning and end in time.
Jiva souls have never been created because they existed from the infinite past!
See my post in this thread as a reply to caitanya in which I explained using the example from the scripture, Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.13 (nityo nityānāṃ cetanaś cetanānām ...) that both - living beings (jivas) as well as The Supreme Lord - are eternal.
The same fact is repeated in the Bhagavad gita 15.7 where the living beings (jivas) are called sanātanaḥ which means "eternal": jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ (See a word for word translation for this verse at the BBT vedabase).


So Jiva and Ishwara are there from the beginning?

So all Jiva's where in the Brahma-Jyoti? And then we chose between side of dedication or exploitation and came to our respective areas, right?

No, originally we all come from Vaikuntha.
We had a discussion on this topic in the old thread starting from post #61 and forward: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=11407&page=7


regards

[caitanya]

Pranams Brahma_JIjnasaji,

Thanks for the detailed reply . You said "and we also see that jiva souls are subordinate to the Lord because their existence depends on Him " .

Now Lord does not create jiva as you mentioned , likewise it could not destroy jiva as well. This means there is something that Lord cannnot do . Isnt this strange that Lord is helpless as far as creating and destroying Jiva is concerned . So If Lord cannot create or destroy Jiva . How is he dependent on him for his existence . Jiva, as far as I understand, is individual soul . Nature of jiva is sat-chit-ananda . Is it actually this nature that is dependent on Lord? Do we mean this when we say Jiva is dependent on lord ? But then, these qualities are also inherent and eternal in Jiva . They cannot be created or destroyed .Am I right ?

Then we are left with needs of Jiva i.e; his body etc. May be , this is where the dependence lies.

Please share your views.


Jai Shri Krishna .

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Now Lord does not create jiva as you mentioned , likewise it could not destroy jiva as well. This means there is something that Lord cannnot do . Isnt this strange that Lord is helpless as far as creating and destroying Jiva is concerned .

This is not considered to be a deficiency in the Lord.


How is he dependent on him for his existence . Jiva, as far as I understand, is individual soul . Nature of jiva is sat-chit-ananda . Is it actually this nature that is dependent on Lord? Do we mean this when we say Jiva is dependent on lord ? But then, these qualities are also inherent and eternal in Jiva . They cannot be created or destroyed .Am I right ?

Then we are left with needs of Jiva i.e; his body etc. May be , this is where the dependence lies.

Please share your views.

Everyone and everything is dependent on the Lord. Remember I quoted a verse from the Bhagavad gita 7.7? It says "Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread." Jiva's nature is also dependent on the Lord, it's sat cit ananda because jiva is a part of the Lord who is sat cit ananda Brahman, and thus a jiva is also a tiny sat cit ananda part of sat cit ananda Brahman. Yes, these qualities are inherent and eternal in jiva soul because jiva soul is eternal soul. This is confirmed in the scriptures, I quoted in this thread.

Everyone and everything is dependent on the Lord. Thus the Lord created this world, earth, water, air, sun over our heads, food, etc. So we are dependent on Him because of all that.


regards

[wundermonk]

@Wundermonk ji : How was the Blue of Lotus when it was not Blue ?

Hi,

It is not clear to me why this question should arise.

I wrote:


Assume for the moment that this "blue lotus" has been eternally existing

That is, there was no point in time in the past when this lotus was NOT blue.

In any case, the point is, as I mentioned, the concept of ontological dependence. There are many things that could be eternally existing and have eternally existing properties that are dependent on the underlying substance.

To provide another example, the Nyaya-Vaiseshikha consider that atoms are eternal. Atoms are the material cause (more technically inherent cause) of any complex combination. Now, one of the properties of each atom is its *distinctness*. Technically, this is called, viseshana. Now, if each atom did NOT have a viseshana, there would be no way to differentiate one from the other.

So, if a multiplicity of entities are admitted in one's ontology to have been eternally existing, the property of "distinctness" of each one of the entities should also be admitted.

This distinctness is necessarily *dependent* on the entity that this distinctness qualifies.

I am not sure where exactly the problem is.

[grames]

Dear

Ishwara, Jada and Jiva are always eternal and this is the philosophy of all the Vaishnava traditions! ( TriVidhya).

There is no origin to eternal existence - that is an oxymoron question! ( Google what Oxymoron is) - we call it simply Anadi!

Brahmajyothi, this is not origin or source of Jiva - For Gaudiyas, this is also a status and place for certain Jivas which liberate with out seeking personal association of Lord!

( Another question in this thread is, lord cannot destroy Jiva - This is not true... Lord is capable of doing so but He does not! It is His promise as well that He won't and imagine His karuna here!)

Hare Krshna!

[Marga mana das]

As the sun rays are dependent on the sun, and is an energy of the sun - so the jiva is one of the eternal energies of the Lord.

Hare krishna:)

[Omkara]

Pranams ,

As far as I understand ISKCON philosophy , Bhagvan and Jiva are two eternally existing entities . But Jiva is dependent on Bhagvan . How can something which is dependent be eternal ? Either they are one or there is no dependence . Please make me understand .


Jai Shree Krishna

The dependence is in the sense that the jiva's very existence is dependent on the ontological support of Ishvara. Ishvara is the Antaryamin who pervades the jiva and supports it, like a skeleton supports the human body. Remove the skeleton, the body collapses. Remove God, and the jiva cannot exist.

[jaswant]

Dear


( Another question in this thread is, lord cannot destroy Jiva - This is not true... Lord is capable of doing so but He does not! It is His promise as well that He won't and imagine His karuna here!)

Hare Krshna!

HARE KRISHNA!

Just curious, where does the Lord promises this that he will not destroy any Jivas.... Does the same apply to matter ?

[hinduism♥krishna]

lord cannot destroy Jiva - This is not true... Lord is capable of doing so but He does not! It is His promise as well that He won't and imagine His karuna here!)

Hare Krshna!

Hello, enlighten us where did Krishna say like this. :)

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,



Ishwara, Jada and Jiva are always eternal and this is the philosophy of all the Vaishnava traditions! ( TriVidhya).

That means Jada and Jiva are not created by Ishvara. Did they create themselves ? Moreover, it would also mean that Ishvara is neither origin nor end of all beings ... otherwise their being "eternal" doesn't hold good !

OM

[grames]

Dear devotee.,

Did you really ask this question?
Jada and Jive can be eternal - even with out getting created by the Brahman! Its only not possible with your school of thought but, nothing is lost if jada and jiva are understood as eternal entities.

Ishwara - is never said to be origin of Jiva or Jada - Rather Vaishnava schools believes that, Ishwara, Jiva and Jada are related and the former being completely independent and later two being TOTALLY dependent! Since, the dependent entities draws every possible character and features etc from the Ishwara, one school says that

1. There is no difference on the special case - but they are not same objectively - The Advaitam is from the angle of the capability that is gained through the Brahman by His Grace - Still Brahman alone is Brahman and Jiva and Jada are what they are. VA
2. There is difference between Ishwara, Jiva and Jada - The five fold differences are eternal - no matter what, they remain different - This is sufficient to understand the Vedic idea and reality - The school of TattvaVada
3. There is similarity and also difference simultaneously - As long as you don't separate and see ishwara from its dependant entities - dvaitadvaita
4. There is no difference between Ishwara, jiva and Jada - all are categorically same in essence - not objectively again. - The SuddhAdvaita
5. There is inconceivable similarity and difference simultaneously - between Ishwara, jiva and jada - Acintya BedhAbedha Tattva - Gaudiyas

all of them are walking same though with different philosophical background and none of them deny the eternal reality of Jiva or Jada!

Ishwara is the end - the Abode of eternal joy! But not becoming Him or imitating Him is the way! and to be just with Him is itself the End!

Hare Krshna!

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,

Welcome back !



Jada and Jive can be eternal - even with out getting created by the Brahman! Its only not possible with your school of thought but, nothing is lost if jada and jiva are understood as eternal entities.

When I am trying to understand from Vaishnava's line of thinking, I think you can avoid such statements like. "with your school of thought". For my school of thought, you try to understand from your school of thought and that is the problem and you want to create further problem by infusing "my school of thought into your school of thought" ! :)


Ishwara - is never said to be origin of Jiva or Jada - Rather Vaishnava schools believes that, Ishwara, Jiva and Jada are related and the former being completely independent and later two being TOTALLY dependent! Since, the dependent entities draws every possible character and features etc from the Ishwara, one school says that

1. There is no difference on the special case - but they are not same objectively - The Advaitam is from the angle of the capability that is gained through the Brahman by His Grace - Still Brahman alone is Brahman and Jiva and Jada are what they are. VA
2. There is difference between Ishwara, Jiva and Jada - The five fold differences are eternal - no matter what, they remain different - This is sufficient to understand the Vedic idea and reality - The school of TattvaVada
3. There is similarity and also difference simultaneously - As long as you don't separate and see ishwara from its dependant entities - dvaitadvaita
4. There is no difference between Ishwara, jiva and Jada - all are categorically same in essence - not objectively again. - The SuddhAdvaita
5. There is inconceivable similarity and difference simultaneously - between Ishwara, jiva and jada - Acintya BedhAbedha Tattva - Gaudiyas

all of them are walking same though with different philosophical background and none of them deny the eternal reality of Jiva or Jada!

Ishwara is the end - the Abode of eternal joy! But not becoming Him or imitating Him is the way! and to be just with Him is itself the End!


Thanks, dear ! However, please refer to my questions above. I am unable to figure out answer to those questions in your above reply. Can you elaborate ?

OM

[grames]

Dear Devotee.,

Namaste! I sometimes assume people to have ability to distill or understand the answer by themselves from an elaborated message. It does't work always good. So, answers to your questions..

1. Jiva and Jada are eternal - never been created or destroyed
2. Ishwara is the end - the Abode of eternal joy! But not becoming Him or imitating Him is the way! and to be just with Him is itself the End! Ishwara is not their origin either! They are different - by their own nature! and thus exists always ( as 'sat')

Hope the confusion gets cleared with the above answers!

Hare Krshna

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,


Dear Devotee.,

Namaste! I sometimes assume people to have ability to distill or understand the answer by themselves from an elaborated message. It does't work always good.

Please don't get angry ! Sometimes you have to explain things mercifully to dull-headed people like me. :)


1. Jiva and Jada are eternal - never been created or destroyed
2. Ishwara is the end - the Abode of eternal joy! But not becoming Him or imitating Him is the way! and to be just with Him is itself the End! Ishwara is not their origin either! They are different - by their own nature! and thus exists always ( as 'sat')So, Jada and Jiva are eternal and were never created nor destroyed. And Ishvara is not their origin. They are different from each other always.

Now, you have also said that this is what all Vaishnava schools subscribe to. I would like to make a little correction here. Vaishnavas of Digambar AkhArA (and most probably Nirmohi and Nirvani too) don't subscribe to this view. You can check and tell me if I am right or wrong.

I am curious whether the above assertion finds any support from our scriptures or Vaishnava Acharyas like Ramnujacharya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Can you quote any authority for stating so ? I would accept quotes from Shruti/Smriti or statements from Ramanujacharya/Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as authority.

OM