[Prev][Next][Index]
Dvaita and Acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva
In article <3eeu24$pun@ucunix.san.uc.edu>,
Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vidya@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Before you quote Vishnudasacharya, also please note that really,
>Madhvacharya's bheda-tattva is not compatible with Chaitanya's achintya
>bheda-abheda tattva.
Here Vidya is, once again, just plain wrong.
Jiva Goswami refers to Madhva's Brahma-sutra-bhasya extensively in
his Sat-sandarbha, and Baladeva Vidyabhusana continued this
trend in the Govinda-bhasya. The famous "acintya sakti" verse
in the BSB naturally suggests that Madhva was referring to ABBT
even then, though indirectly.
Similarly, in Vadaratnavali, Visnudasacarya comments on "aham
brahmasmi" by invoking the relation of the jiva to the Parambrahma.
Commenting on "paramam brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati", he brings
up the point that the one who knows the Supreme Lord is
related with the Lord, and reaches the Absolute platform,
but that the qualifier "paramam" guarantees that the Supreme Lord
is always indeed distinct and that neither jiva nor Isvara
ever lose their identities.
That remains the message of recent Gaudiya acaryas. For example,
Srila Prabhupada refers to "aham brahmasmi" as a step in
self-realization, but disagrees with those who say that this
verse makes them in all respects one with the Supreme.
Krishna and the jiva are one in the sense that the energetic
is the same as the energy (ie qualitatively), but while the Lord is
quantitatively infinite, the jiva is quantitatively finite.
Satsvarupa Dasa Gosvami brings up the point that although the devotee
and the Lord remain distinct, the devotee's interest is completely
dove-tailed with the Lord's, and that the desires of the devotee
are only to be used in the service of the Lord. So, despite distinct
identities, the jiva and the Supreme Lord should have a
nondistinct interest.
That is just part of acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva.
>S. Vidyasankar
Yours,
Vijay
