Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Two Eternal Entities

  1. #1

    Two Eternal Entities

    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

  2. #2

    Re: Two Eternal Entities

    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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,290
    Rep Power
    1633

    Re: Two Eternal Entities

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    November 2013
    Posts
    155
    Rep Power
    268

    Re: Two Eternal Entities

    Quote Originally Posted by markandeya 108 dasa View Post
    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


    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.)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Two Eternal Entities

    Namaste
    Quote Originally Posted by caitanya View Post
    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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1350

    Re: Two Eternal Entities

    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



    Jai Shri Krishna
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  7. #7
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Two Eternal Entities

    Namaste Amrut
    Quote Originally Posted by Amrut View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amrut View Post
    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Pataliputra, Magdha, Bharata
    Age
    16
    Posts
    68
    Rep Power
    25

    Re: Two Eternal Entities

    Hari Bol!
    All glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga!

    Quote Originally Posted by Amrut View Post
    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.
    "Hare Krisha Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare, Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare" ¬ The Glorious Mahamantra. Chant this 108 times a day and keep Samsara away

  9. #9

    Re: Two Eternal Entities

    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 .

  10. #10
    Join Date
    June 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    541
    Rep Power
    744

    Re: Two Eternal Entities

    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!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Is everything impermanent ?
    By VVV in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 31 July 2014, 03:55 AM
  2. Brahman, Prakriti and Jivas per Dvaita
    By wundermonk in forum Dvaita
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07 January 2012, 09:01 PM
  3. Justifications for eternal hell
    By wundermonk in forum Abrahamic Religions (Closed For Posting)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 24 December 2011, 06:49 PM
  4. Hint of Eternal Damnation?
    By Gopal Dasa in forum Bhagavad Gita
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10 April 2011, 03:38 PM
  5. How did God manifest the universe?
    By Spiritualseeker in forum God in Hindu Dharma
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 18 August 2009, 01:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •