Below is a mail that i recived froma dear friend of our congregation here in gothenburg (sweden). But I feel that I don't have the necessary knowledge about this topic, so I cannot give him a good answer. So I wonder if you dear devotees could help me with this one?
/ Mathuranatha
"hare krishna mathuranatha prabhuji,
hope you are doing fine. Yesterday, I happened to
struck with a quite intricate question. I thought it
would be better to share it with you, may be you can
help me with some answer. In the gaudiya vaishnava
philosophy, we believe that 'brahman is impersonal,
impersonal brahma jyothi is the light emerging from
the body of the Lord, all the living beings are small
particles in the impersonal brahma jyothi and these
living beings are sat-chit-ananda swaroopa in nature'.
If these propositions are all true, then we are in a
logical self contradiction because brahman by nature
is impersonal, and individual particles of this
brahman by nature are persons. One can attempt to give
some logic to this, but it ends up in bigger
questions(logical contradictions). At the same time,
the 2 other vaishnava schools namely visishta advaitha
and dwaitha,vehemently oppose to an idea that brahman
can be impersonal. In view of the question raised by
me, these two schools do not run into this logical
contradiction. so what is the answer to this question
from gaudiya perspective. Do they compromise to say
brahman is also personal? then it is a demerit on the
part of gaudiya school, for not being able to explain
this problem with its own dictionary meaning of the
term 'brahman'.
when I am posing this question, I am not biased
towards any particular school, I would put it as of
academic interest. There can be some problem with my
question also, in that case, u can point me out where
I have been illogical.
thank you very much,
your servant,
vinod."
Your friend does not sum up the Gaudiya Vaishnava conception of brahman correctly.
If these propositions are all true, then we are in alogical self contradiction because brahman by nature
is impersonal, and individual particles of this
brahman by nature are persons.
This is faulty. The jivas can be said to dwell *in* the brahmajyoti (since it is all-pervading, it would be hard not to), but that doesn't make them part of it. The jivas are *not* individual particles of brahman. They represent different shaktis altogether (svarupa/ tatastha). The "origin" of the jivas is also not brahman. So there isn't really any logical problem.
Otherwise, what we call brahman in GV is not the same as what for example Madhva calls brahman. For us, brahman is the impersonal aspect of God; for Madhva, brahman is just a generic name of God. So it is not that brahman is impersonal in GV and personal in Madhva's philosophy. It is a difference of wording.
This quote is from the purport of manta.16 in Sri Isopanisad.
The all-pervading feature of the Lord—which exists in all circumstances of waking and sleeping as well as in potential states and from which the jéva-çakti (living force) is generated as both conditioned and liberated souls—is known as Brahman. Since the Lord is the origin of both Paramätmä and Brahman, He is the origin of all living entities and all else that exists.
Anything that exist necisarily is conected with the Absolute Truth, and therefore must fall into one of these 3 categries Brahman, Paramatma, or Bhagavan. The libereated or conditioned jiva can never come into the category of Paramatma, or Bhagavan, therfore they must be accepted within the category of Brahman along with the material energy. But still we hear that the Brahman is impersonal, so it appears that there is some kind of contradiction. There is a verse that I cannot remeber exactly or where it is from, but it describes 3 divisions of Brahman; ignorance or the field of action and reaction, then those desirous of action, and the Permitter or Overseer. The point is that although the scriptures use the term "Brahman" all over the place, the scriptures also describe differentiation in Brahman wich they also deem as Brahman. So to say that the jivas are Brahman and personal is correct, and to say that Brahman is impersonal and therefore the jiva is different then Brahman is also proper.
I dont actually understand this topic, but I gave my understanding anyway, partly in response to the question but more so to see if it is right.
Don't this Gita verse and purport answer it very well?
http://www.asitis.com/14/3.html
BG 14.3
"The total material substance, called Brahman, is the source of birth, and it is that Brahman that I impregnate, making possible the births of all living beings, O son of Bharata."
Ah yes, tattva-viveka!
Bhaktivinoda Thakura:
“As Krsna, in Vraja, He brings into existence everything that is fully and wholly spiritual. In Vraja, expanded as Sri Balaräma, He generates the nitya-siddha-pärsadä, the eternally liberated associates and servitors, who execute the eight types of devotional service to Him as Sri Krsna in Vraja. In Vaikuntha, Sri Balaräma expands as Saskarsana, Ananta Sesa, to generate the nitya-siddha-pärsadä of Çré Näräyaëa who accomplish the eight kinds of service to Him as Sri Näräyana in Vaikuntha. Sri Sankarsana then further expands as Mahä Visnu to preside over the mäyä-sakti. Mahä Visnu generates the tatasthä-sakti-jivas, borderline potency souls, who are susceptible to the influence of mäyä, and further expands accepting the form of Paramätmä as the heart of the tatasthä-sakti-jivas.
“As long as these tatasthä-sakti-jivas generated by Mahä Visnu do not receive the shelter of the hlädini-sakti, which is bestowed by His mercy alone, they are always prone to be subjugated by mäyä.
for some reason, I have been thinking about the example of fish, a river and merging... Does anybody know what I mean? I can't seem to find the reference and I'm sure I've read it somewhere...
for some reason, I have been thinking about the example of fish, a river and merging... Does anybody know what I mean? I can't seem to find the reference and I'm sure I've read it somewhere...
It's a sruti refrence that BVT cites to support the idea that the tastatha jiva swims to one side or the
other and becomes liberated or conditioned. Highly interprative, he cites it in Jaiva Dharma. It doesn't seem to apply much in this discussion, however.
Bhrghu's point is conclusive in one sense; The jiva is not a particle of Brahman, but a particle of God's sakti. In a more general sense one could say it is part and parcel of Brahman (The Absolute), since God and his saktis are one and different. But when we look at it more closely we differentiate and say it is a particle of one of God's saktis, a partial manifestation of his svarupa sakti otherwise known as jiva or tatashta sakti.
Regarding the overall discussion, even if for the sake of argument we say that the jiva is a particle of Brahman (as is sometimes loosely said), this does not mandate that the jiva must be impersonal. Brahman is only impersonal in that personality of Godhead is not experienced in Brahman realization. There may be zillions of individual souls merged in Brahman unaware of their individuality.
could we say that when souls merge with Brahman that they don't become one, but rather covered or frozen, like water freezes when it comes in touch with temperatures below zero celsius or 35 fahrenheit?
could we say that when souls merge with Brahman that they don't become one, but rather covered or frozen, like water freezes when it comes in touch with temperatures below zero celsius or 35 fahrenheit?
Suspended animation. But it's sometimes referred to as a spiritual type of suicide.
We talked about merging into Brahman few days ago and today I`ve read Dr. Kapoor book "Experiences in Bhakti" where he says thus:
"The realization of Nirvisesha Brahman through jnana is also not permanent without bhakti. Śri Caitanya speaks of two kind of men who follow tha jnana marga- those who do not have faith in Bhagavan and seek to realize Nirvisesha Brahmana independently and those, who have faith in Him, but desire mukti (CCMadhya 24.16)
The former attain mukti and state of immersion in Brahman after a great deal of effort (BG 7.5) but there is every possibility of them again falling a prey to Maya. The latter attain the state of immersion in Brahman more easily due to the grace of Bhagavan. Bhagavan lets them enjoy that state for some time, but ultimately lifts them to His own Dhama, so that they may enjoy of state of contiguity with Him, which is much more pleasurable then the state of immersion in Brahman"
Doctor Kapoor doesn`t support this last sentence with any scripture. I don`t remember hearing about such possibility before... Sounds like souls do not stay for ever in Brahman even if that was their goal... Unless it should be understood that those Mayavadis who do not fall down do remain there and Brahmavadis are promoted to Vaikuntha