Mohini Shakti Devi
09 January 2010, 03:01 PM
This Thread is a result of poster named, Devotee's request for Lord Caitanya's explaination of "acintya-bhedabheda” tattva:
Thank you devotee Prabhu,
your sincere and intelligent question caused me to research my books on sastra inorder to fulfill your request as best I can. Thank you for the adventure you inspired me to take.
Below is a collection of commentary by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami in regards to the subject of “acintya-bhedabheda” according to the vaishnavas in Lord Caitanya’s line.
. . .
The living entity is different from the material elements, and the supreme living entity, the Personality of Godhead, who is the creator of the material elements, is also different from the individual living entity. This philosophy is propounded by Lord Caitanya as acintya-bhedäbheda-tattva. Everything is simultaneously one with and different from everything else. The cosmic manifestation created by the Supreme Lord by His material energy is also simultaneously different and nondifferent from Him. The material energy is nondifferent from the Supreme Lord, but at the same time, because that energy is acting in a different way, it is different from Him. Similarly, the individual living entity is one with and different from the Supreme Lord. This “simultaneously one and different” philosophy is the perfect conclusion of the Bhägavata school
. . .
An example may be cited here: The different limbs of the body cannot enjoy life independently; they must cooperate with the whole body and supply food to the stomach. In so doing, all the different parts of the body enjoy equally in cooperation with the whole body. That is the philosophy of acintya-bhedäbheda, simultaneous oneness and difference. The living entity cannot enjoy life in opposition to the Supreme Lord
. . .
The impersonalist idea is an impurity of the Kali-yuga and it is refuted by the Vedas. The pure truth taught by the Vedas is the philosophy of acintya-bhedabheda (simultaneous oneness and difference).
The conclusions taught in the Upanisads are called “Vedanta” (the conclusion of the Vedas). Srila Vyasadeva summarised these conclusions in a book of four chapters, a book called the Brahma-sutra or Vedanta sutra. The truly learned people of this world respectfully accept the authority of this book. The general conclusion is that the Vedanta-sutra gives a proper exposition of the truths taught in the Vedas.
The different acaryas have each explained Vedanta-sutra in a way to support their conclusions. Sri Sankaracarya used the Vedanta-sutra to support his philosophy of impersonalism (vivarta-vada). He said that the philosophy of parinama-vada is not correct, for it must lead to the conclusion that Brahman is not the highest. He taught a philosophy called vivarta-vada, which is also called mayavada. To support this philosophy of vivarta-vada, he collected quotations from all the Vedas.
It seems that the philosophy of parinama-vada must have been popular before his time. By establishing his vivarta-vada, Sri Sankara suppressed the parinama-vada. Still, the vivarta-vada is only one of many theories. Displeased with it, Sri Madhvacarya created the theory of dvaita-vada.
He collected quotes from all the Vedas to support his theory of dvaita-vada. In the same way Srimad Ramanujacarya established the Vasistadvaita-vada and collected quotations from the Vedas to support it. Sri Nimbarka Acarya established his philosophy of dvaitadvaita-vada and he also collected many quotes from the Vedas to support it. Sri Visnu Svami preached the philosophy of suddhadvaitavada, which he based on the Vedanta-sutra and the texts of the Vedas.
The mayavada philosophy preached by Sri Sankaracarya is opposed to the truths of devotional service. Each with his own philosophy, the four Vaisnava acaryas taught that devotional service is the highest conclusion. Sriman Mahaprabhu based His philosophy on all the statements of the Vedas. His philosophy is called 'acintya-bhedabheda” (simultaneous oneness and difference). This philosophy accepts the basic framework of Madhvacarya's teachings.
What is the parinama-vada?
There are two kinds of parinama-vada: brahma-parinama-vada and sakti-parinama-vada. The brahma-parinama-vada teaches that Brahman becomes transformed into the individual souls and the material world. Thus they say that only Brahman exists, and to support their idea they quote these words of the Chandogya Upanisad (6.2.1): “Brahman is one without a second.”
This theory may be called 'advaita-vada' (impersonalism). Look. In this context 'vivarta' and 'parinama' are synonyms. On the other hand, the philosophy of sakti-parinama-vada declares that Brahman Himself never becomes transformed. Rather it is Brahman's inconceivable potency that becomes transformed. The jiva-sakti becomes transformed into the individual spirit souls and the maya-sakti becomes transformed into the material world. If this version of parinama-vada is accepted, Brahman does not become transformed. The act of transformation is defined in these words:
“Transformation is when something appears to be what it is not.”
What is transformation?
Transformation is when something appears to be different that what is it. Milk becomes transformed into yoghurt. It is still milk in essence. It only appears to be something else. That is transformation. According to the brahma-parinama-vada, the individual spirit souls and the material world are both transformations of Brahman. This idea is not correct. Of this there is no doubt.
The impersonal Brahman has no qualities. Therefore it has nothing that could be transformed into something else. Therefore it cannot be said to be the origin of transformations. Therefore the brahma-parinama-vada theory is not good. On the other hand, the sakti-parinama-vada does not have these defects. According to sakti-parinama-vada, Brahman is not transformed. Rather it is Brahman's potency, which can do any impossible thing, that is transformed into the atomic individual souls and into the perverted reflection that is the material world.
When Brahman desires, “Let the individual souls come into existence”, numberless souls are manifested from His potency. When Brahman desires, “Let the material world come into existence”, material universes without limit are manifested from His potency. These things are not transformations of Brahman.
If someone says, “If Brahman has a desire, then Brahman is transformed. The desire itself is a transformation of the original desireless Brahman. How is it possible that Brahman can be transformed in this way?” then I reply, “You are assuming that Brahman's desire is like the desires possessed by the individual spirit souls. That is why you say Brahman's desire is evidence that Brahman becomes transformed. The individual spirit soul is very small, and therefore his desire naturally touches Brahman's other potencies.
For this reason the soul's desires are actually transformations. However, Brahman's desires are completely independent. They are part of His intrinsic nature and are not subjected to outside influences. They are at once the same as and different from His potencies. Therefore Brahman's desires are part of His original nature. They do not involve any transformations. Ordered by His desires, His potencies act. His potencies then become transformed.
The living entity's small intelligence does not have the power to discover these subtle truths unaided. These truths are known only by hearing the testimony of the Vedas. Now we may consider the nature of the transformation of the potency. The example of milk being transformed into yoghurt is not the only example to show the transformation of potency. Although material analogies cannot give one a complete understanding of spiritual realities, they can help one understand certain aspects of it. Even though it is material in nature, a cintamani jewel is said to produce many other jewels within itself being changed in any way.
The Spiritual Supreme Personality of Godhead creates in a way like that. The Supreme Personality of Godhead remains completely unchanged after creating, by His desire and with the aid of His inconceivable potency, the numberless individual souls and numberless material universes consisting of fourteen planetary systems. This explanation that the Supreme is “untransformed” does not mean that the Supreme exists only as the qualityless impersonal Brahman. The word 'brahman' means the greatest (brhat).
Therefore the word “brahman” directly refers to the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the master of six opulences. If we only say that He is 'untransformed' and do not say anything else about Him, we do not accept His cit-sakti (spiritual potency). The truth is that by the power of His inconceivable potency, He is simultaneously the qualityless Brahman, and the Supreme Person who possesses a host of spiritual qualities. Therefore to say only that He is 'untransformed' means to understand only half of His nature, and thus not understand Him in full. The Vedas have used the instrumental (by), ablative (from), and locative (in) cases to describe His relationship with the material world. In the Taittiriya Upanisad (3.1.1) it is said:
“Please know that Brahman is He from whom all living beings are born, by
whose power they remain alive, and into whom they enter at the end.”
When it is said that the living beings are manifested from Brahman, the ablative case is used. When it is said that the living beings live by Brahman's power, the instrumental case is used. When it is said that the living beings enter into Brahman, the locative case is used. In this way it is said that the Supreme has qualities. This shows that He is the Supreme Person, for it is a person that has qualities. Srila Jiva Gosvami describes the Supreme Person in these words:
“The Absolute Truth is one. Still, by His inconceivable potency He is manifested in four ways: 1. svarupa (His original form), 2. tad-rupa-vaibhava (Hisincarnations), 3. jiva (the individual spirit souls), and 4. pradhana (the material energy).
Thank you devotee Prabhu,
your sincere and intelligent question caused me to research my books on sastra inorder to fulfill your request as best I can. Thank you for the adventure you inspired me to take.
Below is a collection of commentary by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami in regards to the subject of “acintya-bhedabheda” according to the vaishnavas in Lord Caitanya’s line.
. . .
The living entity is different from the material elements, and the supreme living entity, the Personality of Godhead, who is the creator of the material elements, is also different from the individual living entity. This philosophy is propounded by Lord Caitanya as acintya-bhedäbheda-tattva. Everything is simultaneously one with and different from everything else. The cosmic manifestation created by the Supreme Lord by His material energy is also simultaneously different and nondifferent from Him. The material energy is nondifferent from the Supreme Lord, but at the same time, because that energy is acting in a different way, it is different from Him. Similarly, the individual living entity is one with and different from the Supreme Lord. This “simultaneously one and different” philosophy is the perfect conclusion of the Bhägavata school
. . .
An example may be cited here: The different limbs of the body cannot enjoy life independently; they must cooperate with the whole body and supply food to the stomach. In so doing, all the different parts of the body enjoy equally in cooperation with the whole body. That is the philosophy of acintya-bhedäbheda, simultaneous oneness and difference. The living entity cannot enjoy life in opposition to the Supreme Lord
. . .
The impersonalist idea is an impurity of the Kali-yuga and it is refuted by the Vedas. The pure truth taught by the Vedas is the philosophy of acintya-bhedabheda (simultaneous oneness and difference).
The conclusions taught in the Upanisads are called “Vedanta” (the conclusion of the Vedas). Srila Vyasadeva summarised these conclusions in a book of four chapters, a book called the Brahma-sutra or Vedanta sutra. The truly learned people of this world respectfully accept the authority of this book. The general conclusion is that the Vedanta-sutra gives a proper exposition of the truths taught in the Vedas.
The different acaryas have each explained Vedanta-sutra in a way to support their conclusions. Sri Sankaracarya used the Vedanta-sutra to support his philosophy of impersonalism (vivarta-vada). He said that the philosophy of parinama-vada is not correct, for it must lead to the conclusion that Brahman is not the highest. He taught a philosophy called vivarta-vada, which is also called mayavada. To support this philosophy of vivarta-vada, he collected quotations from all the Vedas.
It seems that the philosophy of parinama-vada must have been popular before his time. By establishing his vivarta-vada, Sri Sankara suppressed the parinama-vada. Still, the vivarta-vada is only one of many theories. Displeased with it, Sri Madhvacarya created the theory of dvaita-vada.
He collected quotes from all the Vedas to support his theory of dvaita-vada. In the same way Srimad Ramanujacarya established the Vasistadvaita-vada and collected quotations from the Vedas to support it. Sri Nimbarka Acarya established his philosophy of dvaitadvaita-vada and he also collected many quotes from the Vedas to support it. Sri Visnu Svami preached the philosophy of suddhadvaitavada, which he based on the Vedanta-sutra and the texts of the Vedas.
The mayavada philosophy preached by Sri Sankaracarya is opposed to the truths of devotional service. Each with his own philosophy, the four Vaisnava acaryas taught that devotional service is the highest conclusion. Sriman Mahaprabhu based His philosophy on all the statements of the Vedas. His philosophy is called 'acintya-bhedabheda” (simultaneous oneness and difference). This philosophy accepts the basic framework of Madhvacarya's teachings.
What is the parinama-vada?
There are two kinds of parinama-vada: brahma-parinama-vada and sakti-parinama-vada. The brahma-parinama-vada teaches that Brahman becomes transformed into the individual souls and the material world. Thus they say that only Brahman exists, and to support their idea they quote these words of the Chandogya Upanisad (6.2.1): “Brahman is one without a second.”
This theory may be called 'advaita-vada' (impersonalism). Look. In this context 'vivarta' and 'parinama' are synonyms. On the other hand, the philosophy of sakti-parinama-vada declares that Brahman Himself never becomes transformed. Rather it is Brahman's inconceivable potency that becomes transformed. The jiva-sakti becomes transformed into the individual spirit souls and the maya-sakti becomes transformed into the material world. If this version of parinama-vada is accepted, Brahman does not become transformed. The act of transformation is defined in these words:
“Transformation is when something appears to be what it is not.”
What is transformation?
Transformation is when something appears to be different that what is it. Milk becomes transformed into yoghurt. It is still milk in essence. It only appears to be something else. That is transformation. According to the brahma-parinama-vada, the individual spirit souls and the material world are both transformations of Brahman. This idea is not correct. Of this there is no doubt.
The impersonal Brahman has no qualities. Therefore it has nothing that could be transformed into something else. Therefore it cannot be said to be the origin of transformations. Therefore the brahma-parinama-vada theory is not good. On the other hand, the sakti-parinama-vada does not have these defects. According to sakti-parinama-vada, Brahman is not transformed. Rather it is Brahman's potency, which can do any impossible thing, that is transformed into the atomic individual souls and into the perverted reflection that is the material world.
When Brahman desires, “Let the individual souls come into existence”, numberless souls are manifested from His potency. When Brahman desires, “Let the material world come into existence”, material universes without limit are manifested from His potency. These things are not transformations of Brahman.
If someone says, “If Brahman has a desire, then Brahman is transformed. The desire itself is a transformation of the original desireless Brahman. How is it possible that Brahman can be transformed in this way?” then I reply, “You are assuming that Brahman's desire is like the desires possessed by the individual spirit souls. That is why you say Brahman's desire is evidence that Brahman becomes transformed. The individual spirit soul is very small, and therefore his desire naturally touches Brahman's other potencies.
For this reason the soul's desires are actually transformations. However, Brahman's desires are completely independent. They are part of His intrinsic nature and are not subjected to outside influences. They are at once the same as and different from His potencies. Therefore Brahman's desires are part of His original nature. They do not involve any transformations. Ordered by His desires, His potencies act. His potencies then become transformed.
The living entity's small intelligence does not have the power to discover these subtle truths unaided. These truths are known only by hearing the testimony of the Vedas. Now we may consider the nature of the transformation of the potency. The example of milk being transformed into yoghurt is not the only example to show the transformation of potency. Although material analogies cannot give one a complete understanding of spiritual realities, they can help one understand certain aspects of it. Even though it is material in nature, a cintamani jewel is said to produce many other jewels within itself being changed in any way.
The Spiritual Supreme Personality of Godhead creates in a way like that. The Supreme Personality of Godhead remains completely unchanged after creating, by His desire and with the aid of His inconceivable potency, the numberless individual souls and numberless material universes consisting of fourteen planetary systems. This explanation that the Supreme is “untransformed” does not mean that the Supreme exists only as the qualityless impersonal Brahman. The word 'brahman' means the greatest (brhat).
Therefore the word “brahman” directly refers to the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the master of six opulences. If we only say that He is 'untransformed' and do not say anything else about Him, we do not accept His cit-sakti (spiritual potency). The truth is that by the power of His inconceivable potency, He is simultaneously the qualityless Brahman, and the Supreme Person who possesses a host of spiritual qualities. Therefore to say only that He is 'untransformed' means to understand only half of His nature, and thus not understand Him in full. The Vedas have used the instrumental (by), ablative (from), and locative (in) cases to describe His relationship with the material world. In the Taittiriya Upanisad (3.1.1) it is said:
“Please know that Brahman is He from whom all living beings are born, by
whose power they remain alive, and into whom they enter at the end.”
When it is said that the living beings are manifested from Brahman, the ablative case is used. When it is said that the living beings live by Brahman's power, the instrumental case is used. When it is said that the living beings enter into Brahman, the locative case is used. In this way it is said that the Supreme has qualities. This shows that He is the Supreme Person, for it is a person that has qualities. Srila Jiva Gosvami describes the Supreme Person in these words:
“The Absolute Truth is one. Still, by His inconceivable potency He is manifested in four ways: 1. svarupa (His original form), 2. tad-rupa-vaibhava (Hisincarnations), 3. jiva (the individual spirit souls), and 4. pradhana (the material energy).