Tattva-viveka
acintya-bhedadbheda-tattva
Gaurasundara Das - December 9, 2007 4:54 pm
Does acintya-bhedabheda-tattva apply only in the relationship between the shaktiman and his shakti, or does it apply internally within the shakti / shaktiman ? Ive heard different things in this regard and wanted to be clear on it. Thanks
Syamasundara - December 9, 2007 5:55 pm
What do you mean? :Just Kidding:
Zvonimir Tosic - December 9, 2007 7:40 pm
What do you mean? :Just Kidding:
Dear Syamasundara,
what I believe Gaurasundara wants to know
- does acintya bhedabheda applies to God and His energies "externally" only (eg, in their lila)
- or "internally" (in their own substance)
Ys, Z
Syamasundara - December 9, 2007 8:12 pm
I sort of grasped that, but we are talking of a tattva, quite a vast and complex concept.
It means simultaneous oneness and difference. Externally, to use the terminology of the above posts, would mean that God is one with and different from his energies. Internally, you want to know if Radharani, Laksmi, Sita and Vrnda have the same sameness/difference?
Zvonimir Tosic - December 9, 2007 10:10 pm
Does acintya-bhedabheda-tattva apply only in the relationship between the shaktiman and his shakti, or does it apply internally within the shakti / shaktiman ? Ive heard different things in this regard and wanted to be clear on it. Thanks
Just a quick query to Gaurasundara ... Did you hear about that dilemma somewhere in ISKCON?
Ys, Z
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - December 9, 2007 10:13 pm
... relationship between the shaktiman and his shakti, or internally within the shakti / shaktiman?
What is the difference? :Just Kidding:
Gaurasundara Das - December 10, 2007 1:36 am
Ya it was somthing that I heard from Iskcon, but I cant remember where or who exactly. It came up in conversation this morning and I realised i wasnt exactly sure if i understood properly. I think the argument was that ACBbT was being used too loosely and that it really only applied to the relationship of God to his shakti. But since everything is only God and his energy I'm not exactly sure what my question is anymore :Just Kidding:
Maby this: is visnu tattva one and different from itself?
Are Caitanya and Nityananda one and different in the same way as Caitanya and Srivas?
If not, is the onenss always the same but the difference had gradations?
I guess the key word is acintya, but still I want to understand this better. 
Zvonimir Tosic - December 10, 2007 4:18 am
Ya it was somthing that I heard from Iskcon ..
I knew it! :Just Kidding:
It's about time for them to start reading Swami's books. Err, let's start with "Tattva Sandarbha", for example.
Uh, why ISKCON today reminds me of Christianity? Not only they don't read important texts of our acaryas, but not even Srila Prabhupada's books any more, it seems to me. Or if they read them at all, they turn some special software on that automatically blocks important conclusions out. So they're left with their own ideas.
Well, this is not meant as an insult, but rather a concerning remark. I've experienced so many strange things coming from them (for example, that Yogananda issue I've asked in Sanga a while ago. Uh!) So I've learned my lesson -- don't bother when it comes to their conclusions or ideas. They're probably wrong. I rather stick to what Swami says in his books and I meditate about that.
Ys, Z
Zvonimir Tosic - December 10, 2007 4:26 am
Maby this: is visnu tattva one and different from itself?Are Caitanya and Nityananda one and different in the same way as Caitanya and Srivas?
Dear Gaurasundara,
This and other things are beautifully presented in Caitanya Caritamrta, at the beginning.
Hope that will help.
Ys, Z
Guru-nistha Das - December 10, 2007 4:55 am
Here's something from O.B.L. Kapoor's book The Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caitanya, that clearly says the opposite than what the person that Gaurasundara is referring to, said. This comes in the context of Dr. Kapoor explaining the differences between acintya-bhedabheda tattva and Nimbarka's Svabhavika-bhedabheda:
" Nimbarka can, at the most, be said to have recognised acintya-bhedabheda (by implication) in the case of Brahman and his shaktis, or parts. But, Sri Caitanya and his followers have adopted acintya-bhedabheda as an universal principle, applicable to shakti and its possessor everywhere, and have tried to establish it as such by reasoning."
Syamasundara - December 10, 2007 7:47 am
Ya it was somthing that I heard from Iskcon, but I cant remember where or who exactly. It came up in conversation this I think the argument was that ACBbT was being used too loosely and that it really only applied to the relationship of God to his shakti. But since everything is only God and his energy I'm not exactly sure what my question is anymore
Yes, I also was confused when I first read your question, because my feeling was that the acintya-bhedabheda tattva was applied in more instances than saying God and his saktis are one and the same, but then I started to think of what those instances were, and yes, it boiled down to the fact that there is nothing but saktiman and sakti anyway, so back to square one.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 10, 2007 9:16 am
I guess the key word is acintya, but still I want to understand this better. :Just Kidding:
We're all in the same boat, dear Gaurasundara.
But luckily, I've found some answer, done by some expert helmsman.
These are his words:
It is important to note that the inconceivable simultaneous one and different nature of the absolute is inconceivable to those whose consciousness is covered. Covered consciousness only peers out of its own confinement through the crack in the wall that amounts to reasoning power. Reasoning dictates that no one thing can be one and different simultaneously. Yet the plane of consciousness proper is not restricted as the world of our present experience is. In the plane of consciousness, the polar opposites of one and different do not cancel one another out resulting in a void or motionless, undifferentiated consciousness. They are synthesized into a higher reality that harmonizes both concepts. As vast possibilities exist in the mental realm, so even greater possibilities abound in the plane of consciousness.
Swami BV Tripurari, Tattva Sandarbha, p. 130-131
Anyone knows him?
Ys, Z
Swami - December 10, 2007 6:41 pm
"Being exisits" is a tautology. Nonetheless we may use this kind of expression to explain the reality of being and its power. By one's sakti one is known. ACBbT is a universal principle. Fire (saktiman) and its heat and light (saktis) are inconcievably one and different. Sun and sunlight are one and different at the same time. Macrocosmiclly Bhagavan is the powerful and his innumerable saktis are his power. They are his and in this sense they are not different from him. They have no separate independent existence. However, we can talk about them nonetheless as if they were unto themselves, or different from Bhagavan--Radha Krsna. Mirocosmically all things--all energetic realities--are non different from their energies, but at the same time these energies can be identified and thus in some sense separated from their energy. Thus the idea is that ACBbT is a universal principle.
Sri Caitanya is different from Srivas in that Sivasa represents sakti tattva and Sri Caitanya is saktiman. He is different from Nitaicand as well, but in this case the difference is an emotional (bhava) difference by which the one appears somewhat differently and this in relation to the sakti (devotees) whose love corresponds with him. So the difference between the different manifestations of Visnu-tattva is in one sense a result of the influence of his sakti. Having said that, I do not think that the term ACBbT is typically used to explain the difference between the various forms of Visnu-tattva.
I have seen the term used loosely and inappropriately, and this may be what some members of the Iskcon sect reacted to and in doing so tried to draw attention to the philosophical/theological reality it seeks to describe.
Syamasundara - December 10, 2007 10:55 pm
What would be an inappropriate usage then?