Tattva-viveka
Bhedabheda vs. acintya-bhedabheda
Caitanya-daya Dd - August 4, 2015 11:56 pm
So I have never really learned about Nimbarka and his philosophy. Although there are differences in his philosophy of bhedabheda, i.e., dvaitadvaita, vs. Lord Caitanya's acintya-bhedabheda philosophy, ultimately, to me, they are not grossly different, aside from perhaps his proposed methods to spiritual liberation, as well as the belief that mukti is the ultimate liberation. Is Nimbarka's tradition devoid of bhakti? I am aware that Radha-Krishna are the highest objects of worship in Nimbarka's lineage, so I can't imagine this to be so. To me, a lot of his philosophy sounds similar to Lord Caitanya's Gaudiya Vaisnavism, except just worded differently and with some concentration on different aspects more than GVs would.
Maybe I should pose this question: What is it about Nimbarka's philosophy of bhedabheda that would make a practitioner/believer of acintya-bhedabheda be opposed to it? Out of the other three sampradays, Nimbarka's seems to have the most in common with ours.
These questions really stem from my inability to understand Nimbarka's philosophy. Thank you for your patience.
Gauravani Dasa - August 5, 2015 10:22 am
Good question Caitanya-daya. I am also not that familiar with Nimbarka's bhedabheda, especially not enough to explain to anyone. I vaguely remember Guru Maharaja stating that the Nimbarka sampradaya emphasizes vatsalya-rasa, whereas our sampradaya represents the opportunity for madhurya and sahkya (and dasya for Radha, and dasya for Gaura). Did the Nimbarka line begin with someone in Gaura-lila? Anyways, I'm vaguely remembering a few things that Guru Maharaja said in the past.
Here is a good article explaining acintya-bhedabheda in relation to Ramanuja's vishishtadvaita.
Swami - August 6, 2015 2:16 am
It is the Valalbha sampradaya in which vastly plays a significant role. I have been told that Nimbarkis, on the other hand, pursue madhurya rasa but they do not acknowledge parakiya in the paravyoma. Thus they are svakiya-vadis.
Nimbarkacarya predates Mahaprabhu but some feel that Kesava Kasmiri was a prominent Nimbarki who appeared in Gaura-lila.
Nimbarkacarya's bhedabheda is called "svabhaika" (natural) and ours is called "acintya" (inconceivable) and emphasizes Bhagavan's sakti.
The bhedabheda of Nimbarka acknowledges that God is one and also different, transcendent and immanent. God is the cause of the world and the effect that is the world. There is God as whole and part.
However, Jiva Goswami does not feel that this explanation goes entirely to the heart of what is meant in the sruti when God is spoken of as being one and also as being different. For example, the cause does not appear as effect in its state of cause and the effect does not appear as cause in its state of effect. Thus this explanation/example, while acknowledging the unity and different of Brahman rather than trying to do away with one or the other or to make one subordinate to the other as other forms of Vedanta do, does not speak of the inter-penetrable nature of God's simultaneous unity and difference.
Sri Jiva also feels that Nimbarka's example of the part and the whole fails to get at the heart of the identity and difference of Brahman, for while the part is one with the whole in the sense of being connected to it, at the same time it is not itself the whole. For Jiva Goswami the part is entirely the whole and is not the whole at the same time in a manner that eludes logical understanding. Thus he describes the unity and difference of Brahman as "acintya" rather than merely svabhavika.
Sri Jiva also says that if the Absolute is merely svabhavika bhedabheda, then the faults of the jiva would be the faults of God and the omniscience of God would also be present in the jivas. Since this is not the case, the oneness and difference between jiva and Brahman is not only svabhavika but also acintya.
I believe that Nimbarka describes Brahman as sometimes one and sometimes different, rather than simultaneously one and different, which again is acintya.
Gauravani Dasa - August 6, 2015 9:53 am
However, Jiva Goswami does not feel that this explanation goes entirely to the heart of what is meant in the sruti when God is spoken of as being one and also as being different. For example, the cause does not appear as effect in its state of cause and the effect does not appear as cause in its state of effect. Thus this explanation/example, while acknowledging the unity and different of Brahman rather than trying to do away with one or the other or to make one subordinate to the other as other forms of Vedanta do, does not speak of the inter-penetrable nature of God's simultaneous unity and difference.
Does this apply only to God's relationship to the world? Or would this also describe how Krishna is who he is, because of Radha (cause in the effect)?
Caitanya-daya Dd - August 6, 2015 1:16 pm
Good question Caitanya-daya. I am also not that familiar with Nimbarka's bhedabheda, especially not enough to explain to anyone. I vaguely remember Guru Maharaja stating that the Nimbarka sampradaya emphasizes vatsalya-rasa, whereas our sampradaya represents the opportunity for madhurya and sahkya (and dasya for Radha, and dasya for Gaura). Did the Nimbarka line begin with someone in Gaura-lila? Anyways, I'm vaguely remembering a few things that Guru Maharaja said in the past.
Here is a good article explaining acintya-bhedabheda in relation to Ramanuja's vishishtadvaita.
Thanks for the link, Gauravani. I admit that I have tended to avoid thinking about/learning the intricate differences between the Vaishnava lineages/teachings, except in a vague way. This is a good one in relation to Ramanuja.
Caitanya-daya Dd - August 6, 2015 1:51 pm
It is the Valalbha sampradaya in which vastly plays a significant role. I have been told that Nimbarkis, on the other hand, pursue madhurya rasa but they do not acknowledge parakiya in the paravyoma. Thus they are svakiya-vadis.
Nimbarkacarya predates Mahaprabhu but some feel that Kesava Kasmiri was a prominent Nimbarki who appeared in Gaura-lila.
Nimbarkacarya's bhedabheda is called "svabhaika" (natural) and ours is called "acintya" (inconceivable) and emphasizes Bhagavan's sakti.
The bhedabheda of Nimbarka acknowledges that God is one and also different, transcendent and immanent. God is the cause of the world and the effect that is the world. There is God as whole and part.
However, Jiva Goswami does not feel that this explanation goes entirely to the heart of what is meant in the sruti when God is spoken of as being one and also as being different. For example, the cause does not appear as effect in its state of cause and the effect does not appear as cause in its state of effect. Thus this explanation/example, while acknowledging the unity and different of Brahman rather than trying to do away with one or the other or to make one subordinate to the other as other forms of Vedanta do, does not speak of the inter-penetrable nature of God's simultaneous unity and difference.
Sri Jiva also feels that Nimbarka's example of the part and the whole fails to get at the heart of the identity and difference of Brahman, for while the part is one with the whole in the sense of being connected to it, at the same time it is not itself the whole. For Jiva Goswami the part is entirely the whole and is not the whole at the same time in a manner that eludes logical understanding. Thus he describes the unity and difference of Brahman as "acintya" rather than merely svabhavika.
Sri Jiva also says that if the Absolute is merely svabhavika bhedabheda, then the faults of the jiva would be the faults of God and the omniscience of God would also be present in the jivas. Since this is not the case, the oneness and difference between jiva and Brahman is not only svabhavika but also acintya.
I believe that Nimbarka describes Brahman as sometimes one and sometimes different, rather than simultaneously one and different, which again is acintya.
This is deep stuff that I am not going to pretend to fully grasp.
But what I can understand--if I am correct--is the main difference is that acintya signifies that Bhagavan Krishna is too complex and beyond our mental capacities to understand.
Guru Maharaja, I feel confused by this statement: "For Jiva Goswami the part is entirely the whole and is not the whole at the same time in a manner that eludes logical understanding." Where, then, does the examples I've grown up with about God being the ocean and the jiva being a drop of the ocean and their having the same qualities but not the same magnitude and are still simultaneously one but different or the example of the sunshine and the ray of sunshine fall into this? Are these mere examples in order to help try to assign logic to the concept of acintya?
I feel surprised also to read this: "Sri Jiva also says that if the Absolute is merely svabhavika bhedabheda, then the faults of the jiva would be the faults of God and the omniscience of God would also be present in the jivas." My understanding is that aside from any svabhavika application, the faults of the jiva have nothing to do with God in the first place. That is ultimately the gist of bhedabheda, isn't it?
I do understand the statement: "Nimbarka describes Brahman as sometimes one and sometimes different, rather than simultaneously one and different, which again is acintya." Sometimes one and sometimes different doesn't make sense to me.
I am realizing now that I had a completely different idea of what acintya meant and that I actually don't quite understand the essence of this word.
I also don't know much about Vallabhacarya nor his philosophy. What I do know about it, though, is that there is a strong focus on pusti-marg, or spontaneous, selfless love and devotion to Krishna, which is essentially krishna-bhakti. In my initial statement, "Out of the other three sampradayas, Nimbarka's seems to have the most in common with ours," I was talking strictly on the advaita/dvaita aspect. Vallabhacarya propagated suddhadvaita, which I understand to be "pure non-dualism," which in absence of the pusti-marg aspect, seems quite removed from the bhedabheda concept, because suddhadvaita is emphasizing that there is no difference between God and the jiva, which to me sounds a bit like, well, nondualism! The "we are all one" concept.
Swami - August 6, 2015 1:51 pm
Guaravani,
I was speaking of Brahman and the world as cause and effect but Radha and Krsna are one and different.
Swami - August 6, 2015 2:15 pm
That which is inconceivable is the fact that we are fully one with and fully different from God at the same time. Yes, we are the part and he is the whole, we are the spark and he is the fire, but the part/spark and whole/fire are one and different simultaneously. How can that be? It is so by his acintya sakti, inconceivable power.
I believe that Nimbarka sees God and jiva as one or different, depending upon how one looks at them, but JG sees them as one and different at the same time. So because the difference is always there, the faults of the jiva cannot be God's faults. Whereas if God or jiva can be viewed as one or different, then when viewing them as one the jiva's faults would also be God's faults. Nimbarka is a Vainsvava, but note that there are earlier forms of bhedabheda that are monistic, such as Bhaskara's aupadhka bhedabhdea in which the eternal reality is abheda and the temporary reality is the upadhi of bheda similar to Sankara.
I believe that among the four Visnava sampradayas Nimbarka's svabhavika bhedabheda is most similar to JG's acintya bhedabheda.
Gauravani Dasa - August 6, 2015 4:23 pm
So we might talk about the jiva or Krishna from different points of view, either emphasizing the oneness or difference, but in all cases, both points of view are simultaneously true? And they are true at all times or just when Krishna wills it to be so? Or has he willed it to be so already, at all times? 
Swami - August 7, 2015 3:15 pm
Simultaneously one and different.