Volume III, No. 23: Jivas: 'hope and God's act of salvation'
Q. Baladeva Vidyabhusana gave considerable importance to Madhvacarya's 'Nava Prameya.' Bhaktivinoda Thakura reformulated them as Dasa Mula. Why nava (nine) and dasa (ten), respectively in the two versions? Why has our Western Gaudiya movement not focused greater attention on them?
A. As you point out, the importance of Prameya Ratnavali has been underscored by Thakura Bhaktivinoda, and it probably should get more attention from his modern day followers. His reformulation , however, is perhaps a bit more than that. It is distinctly Gaudiya, whereas Baladeva's appears influenced by Madhva's teaching with emphasis on the doctrine of visesa.
Many Gaudiya Vaisnavas outside the lineage of Bhaktivinoda Thakura play down Baladeva's relationship with the sampradaya, if they admit it at all. They trace their lineage to one of Mahaprabhu's associates, Nityananda, Advaita, Gadadhara, the Goswamis etc., without concern for being known as members of Madhva's lineage. Understandably these Gaudiyas have no interest in Prameya Ratnavali. The important verse regarding the four sampradayas and the necessity of being connected with one of them cited by Baladeva in Prameya Ratnavali is not found in many editions of the Padma Purana. Thus many feel it can be dismissed.
Q. I came across a Bhagavatam purport where Prabhupada comments, ''Isvara (the Supreme Lord), jiva (the living entity), prakriti (nature), eternal time and karma (activity) are all explained in the Bhagavad-gita. Out of these five, the Lord, the living entities, material nature and time are eternal. " How do we understand material nature as being eternal?
A. What Prabhupada is referring to is the five truths that Baladeva Vidyabhusana speaks of in his Bhagavad-gita commentary. Of the five, four are eternal in that they have no beginning and no end. These four are God, the individual soul, time, and material nature (prakrti). Karma is not eternal. It has no beginning, but it can come to an end. Material nature is either manifest or unmanifest.
When it is manifest, its three constituents, sattva (intelligibility/clarity), rajas (movement/passion), and tamas (inertia/ignorance) are in an unbalanced state that manifests in both physical and psychic dimensions. When it is unmanifest, these three constituents are in a state of equilibrium. However, in either condition, manifest or unmanifest, material nature has no beginning and no end. It is one of the saktis of Godhead.
For past discussions on Creation and Sristi-lila, click (here).
Volume II, No. 21: Internet sankirtana: 'silencing the abuse'
Q. In many of Srila Prabhupada's purports in the Bhagavad-gita, the word yoga is translated as devotional service. Couldn't the word yoga be translated as hatha, jnana, or any other form of yoga?
A. The second and third chapter of the Gita are primarily about niskama-karma-yoga. The word yoga in these chapters is almost exclusively in reference to karma-yoga. However, niskama-karma-yoga is taught in the Gita such that it leads to bhakti-yoga. Indeed, it is very similar to bhakti, and karma-misra-bhakti in particular. It stresses the foundation of yoga, its heart of selflessness. One cannot be a yogi without this (Bg. 6.2), and the best yoga is bhakti (Bg. 6.47). Thus Prabhupada takes a license in his translation in rendering yoga in these early chapters as devotion. In doing so he follows the lead of Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhu, whom he dedicated his commentary to. Baladeva Vidyabhusana does not distinguish between karma-yoga and bhakti-yoga.
Volume IV, No. 3: Gaudiya Vedanta and Saguna Brahman
Q. I was very surprised to read (as you have written) that a jnani could be considered a mukta without having finished prarabdha karmas.
A. Here is the logic: The body itself is prarabdha karma. It is possible to be liberated within it, yet the prarabdha must play itself out. In the stage of jivan mukti, the jnani is liberated while still in the body. Thus he witnesses the prarabdha but is not affected by it. He is free from it, but the body is the prarabdha karma and he remains in the body until it has played itself out at death. Read the conclusion of the second chapter of Sri Gita. The prarabdha is the difference between jivan mukti and videha mukti. When the prarabdha is finished so is the body that it is made of it. Baladeva Vidyabhusana discusses this at some length in his Govinda Bhasya.
Volume III, No. 38: We Are Students Forever
Q. This may be a silly question, and I have been laughing for thinking of such a thing, but I heard it is said in scripture that the individual soul (atma) and the Supreme soul ( Paramatma) are situated in the heart of each material body. I would like to know about trees and those animals that don't have a heart? Where are the atma and Paramatma placed in creatures who don't have a heart?
A. The description of the Paramatma seated within the heart the size of one's thumb is for the purpose of conceptualization in the practice of meditation. It is not to be taken literally. Because meditation is for humans, the heart is mentioned. This is the opinion of Baladeva Vidyabhusana found in his Govinda Bhasya. Otherwise, the Paramatma is said to be within every atom.
Volume III, No. 39: Scripture: Literal and Allegorical
Q. I have been very fortunate to receive one of the advance copies of your Bhagavad-gita and have been enjoying it and appreciate your perspective. One could not help but notice on two occasions thus far into the book your viewpoint and/or the viewpoint of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura concerning literalism within the scriptures. For example, you stated that the size of the atma (soul) as described in the Srimad-Bhagavatam is not to be taken literally. If it pleases you, tell me why it is not to be taken literally? Is it not that if Vyasadeva made such a statement it is then indeed a fact? Similarly, if Vedic literatures state that the moon is farther away from the earth than the sun, where is the need to question? The only alternative is modern science, which is based on the research of fallible beings and is questionable to say the least.
A. The answer to your question is that we must study the scripture under the guidance of a realized soul. Scripture is the passive agent of divinity, and the sadhu and guru are active agents who bring the true meaning of scripture to light. Simply taking everything in scripture literally will cause as many problems for some as taking everything metaphorically does for others. The balance lies in hearing from realized devotees in the present.
You cited the example of the scriptural statement (not found in Srimad-Bhagavatam) that the soul is one ten-thousandth the size of the tip of a hair. Why can't this statement be taken literally? Because the scripture also states that the soul is immeasurable (aprameyasya) and with modern instrumentation it may be possible to measure one ten-thousandth the tip of a hair.
The individual soul is atomic whereas God is all-pervasive. God is infinite and the individual soul is infinitesimal. Thus in scripture the individual soul is compared with very small things. In Svetasvatara Upanisad (5.8) the soul is compared to the the size of one's thumb because it dwells in the heart, which in humans is approximately the size of the human thumb. Here the sruti is speaking metaphorically, because actually the soul is atomic in size. Therefore, the same sruti goes on to say the soul is the sizeof the point of a goad, and in the following verse (Svet. U. 5.9) the soul is compared to a fraction of the tip of a hair. These comparisons are meant to indicate that the individual soul is atomic rather than all-pervasive. While the jiva soul is atomic, at the same time it has the power to pervade the entire body through its inherent knowledge/sentience.
It is immeasurable, yet it has a definite size because it is not all-pervading like God. Where in the body does it reside? Scripture says in the region of the heart. Here scripture is speaking to humans and it says that the soul resides in the vital region of the body--the heart. What about those species that do not have hearts? The soul in these bodies resides in the vital region of these species, that which when destroyed causes the soul to depart. It is the source of vitality within the body.
Another example of metaphorical speech in scripture is the descriptionof the Paramatma appearing in the human heart the size of one's thumb. Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhu has explained in his Govinda bhasya that this is a figurative description for the sake of conceptualization during meditation. Because meditation is possible for humans, the human heart has been mentioned. Vedanta-sutra says, hridi apeksayas tu manusya adhikaratvat: "The size of the thumb is in reference to the human heart, because humans are qualified to meditate on God in their heart and thus imagine him to be limited to that size."
Sometimes there is exaggeration in scripture, metaphorical speech, etc. However, it should be made clear that exaggeration does not occur in descriptions of Krsna lila, which is governed by acintya sakti (inconceivable energy). Although much of Krsna lila serves as a metaphor through which we are taught a philosophical conclusion, Krsna lila itself is a reality--the highest reality. Otherwise, poetic license is sometimes invoked throughout the Bhagavatam, which is an explanation of the Absolute through poetry (rasa sastra).
Volume VI, No. 2: From Bhagavad-gita to the Bhagavatam
Q. I have a question regarding this verse from Bhagavad-gita: "Even if you are the worst of sinful persons you can cross over all sin by the boat of transcendental knowledge" (Bg. 4.36). Srila Visvanatha Cakravati Thakura states that three contradictory conditions are implied in this verse that when juxtaposed with transcendental knowledge (jnana) serves to glorify it. My sense is that the Thakura's comments refer to the jnana arising in a bhakta. The term "jnana plavena" in 4.36 seems to refer to the situation of jnana arising within an unsteady sadhaka (practitioner) or a steady sadhaka who still has within him the seeds of sin. Otherwise, how could one on the path of jnana commit sins and simultaneously be a part of the jnana-marga, which as Sankaracarya taught requires one to be situated on the platform of pure goodness?
A. In Bhagavad-gita 4.36 Sri Krsna is speaking of the purifying nature of jnana and thus posits an impossible scenario to underscore its power: jnana does not manifest in a sinful heart, but if it somehow did, it would purify that heart. He is not speaking of bhakti in this verse, but rather the result of niskama karma yoga, the yoga of selfless action. However, the discussion of the purifying power of knowledge in Bg. 4.36 is carried over into 4.37, where according to Srila Prabhupada the knowledge under discussion is synonymous with bhakti. His interpretation of this verse in reminiscent of how Baladeva Vidyabhusana more or less equates knowledge with bhakti in his commentary on Vedanta-sutra.
Volume III, No. 22: 'aura, omniscience and the liberated soul'
Q: Is a liberated devotee omniscient?
A. The omniscience of a liberated devotee is mentioned in Bhagavad-gita 15.19. Krsna describes this devotee as 'sa sarva vid bhajante mam.' He is sarva vit (all knowing) and thus he worships Krsna (bhajante mam).
"O descendant of Bharata, one who is undeluded knows me as the Supreme Person. He knows everything and thus worships me with his entire being." Bg. 15.19
Baladeva comments that Krsna says in this verse, "One who knows me as I have described myself in the previous three verses, as the Supreme Person, is all-knowing (sarva-vit)." Visvanatha Cakravarti clearly explains that such souls are all-knowing in the sense that they know the actual meaning and tattva of all the scriptures. They are not omniscient in every respect. Baladeva Vidyabhusana says further that those who do not know Krsna in this way, even if they worship him, are not his devotees. And if they know everything else in the Vedas but do not understand this point they gain nothing.
Advaitin Madhusudana Saraswati comments that the undeluded are those who know that Krsna is not merely a human being. They know that he is the Supreme Person himself. Such undeluded persons are all-knowing (sarva-vit) because they know Krsna, who is all-pervasive and thus all-knowing.
The ninth Adhikarana of the fourth pada of the fourth adhyaya of Vedanta Sutra discusses the omniscience of the liberated soul over two sutras (15-16). There it is declared that the liberated soul is omniscient. However, the context reveals that this refers to one who has attained videha mukti, or liberation involving release from the body, as opposed to the condition of jivanmukti, in which one, while liberated, remains in this world pending final release. The liberated soul who has attained vastu siddhi and has thus gone 'back to Godhead' is all knowing through his aura. He can hear the prayers of his disciples even while absorbed in Krsna lila.
Volume III, No. 35: Ultimate and Practical Reality
Q. Why did God create demons and evil in the world?
A. This is a perennial religious question. "If God is all good, why is there evil in this world?" Gaudiya Vedanta acarya Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains that God's motive behind the manifestation of the world is only joy or sport: lokavat tu lila kaivalyam. It is not that God gains joy from manifesting the world, but rather the world is a manifestation of his joy.
However, because we see both godly and ungodly in the world we are pressed to ask if in manifesting the world God is partial. Is he kind to some and cruel to others? If so, how can he be all good? The Vedanta-sutras answer this question by stating that the evil in the world is not the arrangement of God. The evil in the world is a result of karma. God merely manifests the environment suitable to the karma of the living beings.
Here we are talking about the eternally conditioned souls (nitya baddha jivas), whose conditioning is beginningless (anandi), as is the world that manifests and becomes unmanifest in beginningless cycles. Karma governs this world, and for the most part God defers to its jurisdiction. When he shows his mercy, karma can be transcended and souls who have been conditioned from beginningless time can attain liberation from the jurisdiction of karma. Thus God did not create the evil in the world.
According to Gaudiya Vedanta, accepting this answer involves deferring to scripture as an authority on matters beyond our ability to conceive of. From the scriptural point of view we cannot ask why there is evil any more than we can ask why there is God. Both simply are, and scripture explains their nature.