The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 12: Understanding Śakti
By Vrindaranya Dasi
Additional articles in this series
Overview
This article may be a little more difficult to follow than some of the others, so I will begin with an overview of the points I will cover. When the jīva acts in the material world, this action is not part of the jīva’s intrinsic characteristics. Such action is performed by material nature, and although material nature is animated by the soul, the soul does not directly perform the action. When Jīva Gosvāmī says that one of the jīva’s intrinsic characteristics is to be a doer, he is referring to action that is undertaken with the svarūpa-śakti. Since action performed with the svarūpa-śakti is bhakti and because all of the characteristics of the jīva are eternal, bhakti is inherent but unmanifest in the jīva. Since one who is covered by māyā cannot manifest the bhakti that is inherent without the bestowal of grace, bhakti is both inherent and bestowed.
The Śakti the Jīva Uses for Action
As I discussed in the previous article, there are three main śaktis: the svarūpa-śakti, the taṭastha-śakti, and the māyā-śakti. It intuitively seems that the jīva would use taṭastha-śakti to carry out three of its characteristics of knowing, doing, and enjoying (jñātṛtva, karṭrtva, and bhoktṛtva). However, Bhagavat Sandarbha 117 establishes something else. There, Jīva Gosvāmī says that there are higher (spiritual) and lower (material) forms of all the śaktis. The jīva uses different śaktis to do anything, such as knowing, doing, or enjoying. For each of these śaktis that the jīva uses, there is a higher (svarūpa-śakti) or lower (māyā-śakti) form. In other words, the jīva uses the svarūpa-śakti or māyā-śakti to perform action, not the taṭastha-śakti.
It may be surprising that the jīva does not use the taṭastha-śakti to act, but it actually makes sense. Because the soul is taṭastha (“on the border”), it can use either the material or spiritual energy. When the soul acts with the māyā-śakti, he is acting as Paramātma’s taṭastha-śakti to manifest the world (the potency by which the world is animated). When the soul acts with the svarūpa-śakti, he is acting for the pleasure of the Lord. Once a soul is fully situated in his inherent nature, then he can no longer be covered by māyā. Since such a soul is no longer situated between the svarūpa-śakti and māyā-śakti, he is only taṭastha in the sense that he is not in the category of the Lord (svāṁśa). Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, there is no difference between the sādhana-siddha and nitya-siddha devotees.
To understand the higher and lower śaktis, take the example of the vidyā-śakti. The internal vidyā-śakti causes realization of the Lord, being a special function of the saṁvit-śakti. The material version of the vidyā-śakti is “the door to revelation of the first type of vidyā.”1 Thus, material vidyā gives knowledge that the jīva is not the material body. This knowledge is of the nature of sattva-guṇa. The higher vidyā (svarūpa-śakti) causes realization of the Lord.
Thus, it is from these two śaktis that the jīva gets material and spiritual knowledge. When the jīva performs spiritual action, he does so with the svarūpa-śakti; when the jīva performs material action, he does so with the māyā-śakti. The same dynamic holds true for all the myriad śaktis that enable anything to happen.
But what exactly is the relevance of this information? Is both the māyā-śakti and the svarūpa-śakti part of the jīva? For example, Jīva Gosvāmī says that the soul has jñāna-śakti. Is the material jñāna-śakti part of the soul? Jīva Gosvāmī answers this doubt: “Though it is established that the jīva is naturally a knower, his knowing that he is a body by ignorance is also the jīva’s knowledge, but because of its relation to ignorance, it is not natural to the jīva. Rather it is a distortion.”2 In other words, the answer is no. Material jñāna is not natural to the jīva. Thus, when Jīva Gosvāmī says that one of intrinsic characteristics of the soul is to have jñāna-śakti, this jñāna-śakti does not refer to material jñāna-śakti.3 Rather, it refers to spiritual jñāna-śakti, which is a form of svarūpa-śakti.
This point is further established by understanding the jīva’s svarūpa and taṭastha characteristics. The taṭastha characteristics are incidental and extrinsic to the jīva and, as such, do not belong to the jīva’s essential or intrinsic nature (svarūpa-lakṣaṇa). In Paramātma Sandarbha 19, where Jīva Gosvāmī explains the svarūpa characteristics of the jīva, he mentions that in anuccheda 1 he already gave the taṭastha characteristics of the jīva when he explained the verse beginning with kṣetra-jñā etāḥ (ŚB 5.11.12). Śrīmad Bhagavatam 5.11.12, spoken by Jaḍa Bharata to King Rahūgaṇa, relates to the jīva as kṣetrajña, knower of the field of perception in this world. Hence, the jīva’s qualities of being a knower, a doer, and enjoyer in relation to this world all fall under the category of his extrinsic or accidental attributes (taṭastha-lakṣaṇa), not his intrinsic attributes (svarūpa-lakṣaṇa) arising from his svarūpa.
But what about when the soul acts with svarūpa-śakti? Is the svarūpa-śakti part of the soul’s intrinsic characteristics? Jīva Gosvāmī answers this question in his commentary to Paramātma Sandarbha 34, where he discusses the soul’s characteristic of being a doer (karṭrtva). As we will see, he says that when the jīva is identified with the material body, māyā-śakti is the doer. This indicates that the māyā-śakti is extrinsic to the jīva. However, when the jīva does spiritual action—action that is predominated by cit-śakti (another name for svarūpa-śakti)—the jīva himself is the doer, indicating that svarūpa-śakti is intrinsic to the soul:
The jīva who is absorbed in the material body is a doer through the body’s senses. The pure jīva is inspired to act by Paramātmā. However, when prakṛti predominates, matter or upādhis are said to be the doer. But since it was already explained that the jīva outside the body is without [material] senses, ultimately it is the jīva himself who is the doer… the śruti describes that in the liberated state the jīva is a doer, playing in the spiritual world… In the spiritual world the jīva moves, laughs, plays, and enjoys (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3). Being a doer does not in itself mean suffering. Action related to prakṛti brings suffering. Agency in relation to that which is pure does not contaminate the pure self due to the supremacy of cit-śakti.4
Again, Jīva Gosvāmī is saying that when action is performed using the māyā-śakti, the māyā-śakti—and not the jīva—is directly the doer because the māyā-śakti is extrinsic to the jīva. Although the action is performed by the māyā-śakti, it is considered to be caused by the jīva in the same way that a magnet causes iron filings to move.5
The Svarūpa-Śakti and the Jīva
In contrast, Jīva Gosvāmī clarifies that when the jīva performs action with the svarūpa-śakti, the jīva itself is the doer, even though such action is “inspired by the Paramātmā” and carried out with the svarūpa-śakti. The reason why the jīva is considered the doer is that when the jīva acts in relation to the Lord, he is one with the svarūpa-śakti. In other words, the natural state of the jīva is to have a relationship with Bhagavān and act with intrinsic svarūpa-śakti. Although the svarūpa-śakti is Bhagavān’s own energy, for the sake of the difference that facilitates līlā, it manifests the bodies, qualities, śakti, and so on, of his devotees. Because Kṛṣṇa’s devotees are one with him, it is not that their bodies and so forth are not their own (even though these bodies are made of Kṛṣṇa’s own śakti).
This truth is shown in the brahma-vimohana-līlā, where Kṛṣṇa expanded his own form (svāṁśa) to replace the stolen cowherd boys (vibinnāṁśa). Although the cowherd boys’ bodies are svarūpa-śakti, as is Kṛṣṇa’s body, he experiences more bliss in relation to them (in their original forms). In contrast, Kṛṣṇa’s devotees experience more bliss in relation to him directly: the mothers felt more bliss when their sons had forms that were Kṛṣṇa himself (svāṁśa). In other words, just because Kṛṣṇa’s body and the devotees’ bodies are both svarūpa-śakti, they are not identical from the angle of rasa. If they were, then there would be no difference in regard to how much bliss was experienced, but such was not the case. These are the subtle workings of simultaneous oneness and difference.
As Kṛṣṇa’s body is nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa, the devotee’s body is similarly nondifferent from the devotee. In his commentary to Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.112–114, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī confirms:
Paramānanda here refers to the hlādinī-śakti. Rati is nondifferent (tādātmya) from it because its root is hlādinī-śakti. The form of Kṛṣṇa is the vibhāva. This form is nondifferent (tādātmya) from the hlādinī-śakti because the Lord, origin of the śakti, and His śakti are considered one. The form of the devotee (the āśraya element of vibhāva) is filled with rati (whose root is the hlādinī-śakti) and is therefore nondifferent (tādātmya) from it.6
It is a misunderstanding to say that the jīva (as taṭastha-śakti) is different from his spiritual body (which is svarūpa-śakti). As the quotation establishes, the devotee is the shelter of love and Kṛṣṇa is the object of love. The devotee is filled with rati and is therefore one (tādātmya) with the hlādinī-śakti. Some devotees have misunderstood tādātmya to mean the relationship between two objects (fire and iron). What tādātmya actually means is the relationship of something with itself. I will address this misunderstanding in part 15.
As we saw in the last article, when the jīva is liberated, he can be called svarūpa-śakti in that he is now acting for the pleasure of Bhagavān. It is also correct to say that the jīva is eternally taṭastha-śakti in the sense that he is not Kṛṣṇa’s own form (svāṁśa). However, when Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja presents these concepts of Jīva Gosvāmī, he preferred to use the term vibinnāṁśa instead of taṭastha-śakti.7
More Evidence
In Prīti Sandarbha, Jīva Gosvāmī again explains this dynamic: “The jīva’s ability to act in relation to transformations of prakṛti arises by the mercy of the Lord’s māyā-śakti. Because of a relationship with māyā, the jīvas experience saṁsāra. Action in relation to experiencing the self, Brahman, and Bhagavān takes place by the mercy of the Lord’s svarūpa-śakti.”8 It is notable that Jīva Gosvāmī says that even action in relation to experiencing the self takes place by the mercy of the svarūpa-śakti. The reason is that the self is actually known only in relation to Bhagavān because the self is a devotee of the Supreme Self.
The twenty-one qualities of the jīva are eternal and intrinsic, and they clearly require śakti, as one cannot be a knower (jñātṛtva), doer (karṭrtva), or enjoyer (bhoktṛtva) without śakti. As we have seen in this article, Jīva Gosvāmī clearly specifies that the śakti by which the jīva is actually a knower, doer, and enjoyer is the svarūpa-śakti. The relevance of this fact is that bhakti is inherent in the jīva, even as the jīva needs mercy to realize his inherent nature.
The Relevance of the Jīva’s Being Self-Manifesting
The fact that the svarūpa-śakti is intrinsic to the soul is also apparent from the fact that his quality of svayam-prakāśaḥ (self-manifesting) is also achieved with svarūpa-śakti. As we have established in this article, when the soul is not identified with māyā, all the śaktis of the soul are svarūpa-śakti. One can hardly be self-manifesting with an energy that is extrinsic to the self. In fact, Jīva Gosvāmī makes just this point: “the jīva reveals itself by its own śakti (not depending on another entity).”9 He also says in his commentary to anuccheda 8, “Self-manifestation does not depend on another entity at all. If it depends on something else, it cannot fulfill its definition.”10 Although the individual soul is fully dependent on the Supreme Soul for his śaktis, Jīva Gosvāmī confirms that this does not negate the soul’s self-manifesting nature.11 The reason for this is that the Supreme Soul is not considered “another entity” because of the acintya-bhedābheda relationship between the individual soul and the Supreme Soul.
In conclusion, we have discussed how the svarūpa-śakti is responsible for the soul’s knowing, doing, and enjoying when the sādhaka turns to God by the mercy of God or a devotee. The svarūpa-śakti is unmanifest in the jīva when he is turned away from the Lord and manifests when he is turned to the Lord. Jīva Gosvāmī establishes that the soul himself is the doer when he acts with svarūpa-śakti. Since that action is bhakti, bhakti is simultaneously inherent and bestowed. In the next article, I will return to the topic of the soul’s knowledge and bliss. Some devotees reference Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta (2.2.175–196) to try to establish that cid-ānandātmakas tathā means “conscious and free from material suffering.” I will show the weakness of such an argument.
Additional articles in this series: Part 1: The History of a Debate, Part 2: A Road Map, Part 3: The Swan, Part 4: Vaiṣṇava Vedānta, Part 5: The Twenty-One Intrinsic Characteristics of the Jīva, Part 6: The Search for Bliss, Part 7: The Soul is a Servant of Bhagavān Hari, Part 8: A Servant of God (Śeṣatva), Part 9: Unmanifest Qualities of the Soul, Part 10: Intrinsically of the Nature of Knowledge and Bliss, Part 11: Jīva Gosvāmī on Taṭasthā-Śakti, Part 12: Understanding Śakti, Part 13: The Bliss of the Jīva, Part 14: The Soul Is Not Subject to Transformation, Part 15: Identity/Oneness (Tādātmya), Part 16: The Manifestation of Śakti, Part 17: Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s Govinda-Bhāṣya, Part 18: Concluding Words.
- Bhagavat Sandarbha 117. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 2) (p. 239). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]
- Paramātmā Sandarbha 33, commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]
- Paramātmā Sandarbha 22. [↩]
- Paramātmā Sandarbha 34, commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]
- From Jīva Gosvāmī’s Sarva-saṁvādinī commentary: “Commenting on Brahma-sūtra 2.2.2, Śaṅkara says: One may propose that the ātmā endowed with a body cannot initiate action, since ātmā performs no action, ātmā being knowledge alone. That is not so, since it is suitable for ātmā to cause action even though it is without action itself, as is the case of a magnet which does not move causes movement of iron and or the case of form which provokes movements in the eye.” Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 2) (p. 255). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]
- Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Śrīla Rūpa. Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu: Volume One. Kindle Edition. [↩]
- Please see part 11 of this series for scriptural references for these statements. [↩]
- Prīti Sandarbha 5. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Prīti Sandarbha: With commentary of Jīva Gosvāmī (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha Book 6). Tattva Cintāmaṇi Publishing. Kindle Edition. [↩]
- Paramātmā Sandarbha 28. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]
- Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Bhagavat Sandarbha. [↩]
- “Though jīva depends on Paramātmā for its self-revealing nature, it is not dependent like a pot on another entity’s revelation, since Paramātmā does not depend on another entity for its revelation—because he is the ultimate form.” Paramātmā Sandarbha 27. Swami, HH Bhanu; Gosvāmī, Jīva. Paramātmā Sandarbha. [↩]
Related Posts
A Mysterious Incarnation →
Sri Madhavendra Puri →
Joy of Self, Introduction →
Srila Prabhupada, when quoting Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3 in BG 15.8, describes it as speaking about Paramatma. Does that mean they go and play together?
Dear Harijana,
In Śrīla Prabhupada’s purport to Bg. 15.18, he is quoting Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s commentary on Bg. 15.18. Here is a translation of that commentary:
tāvad eṣa samprasādo ’smāc charīrāt samutthāya paraṁ jyotīrūpaṁ sampadya svena rūpeṇābhiniṣpadyate, sa uttamaḥ puruṣaḥ
The ātmā, the object of mercy, rising from its body, attains the supreme light, the Supreme Person, and manifests his natural form. Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3
That supreme light attained by mercy is the Paramātmā. In the scriptures written by men (smṛti), He is also praised as the supreme person: tair vijñāpita-kāryas tu bhagavān puruṣottamaḥ avatīrṇo mahā-yogī satyavatyāṁ parāśarāt
The Supreme Person, Bhagavān, appeared in Satyavatī through Parāśara. Skanda Purāṇa
Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Śrīla Baladeva; Swami, HH Bhanu. Gītā Bhūṣaṇa: Srimad Bhagavad Gita commentary by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (Bhakti Shastri Package Book 2) (pp. 420-421). Kindle Edition.
Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa also uses the verse in this way in his Govinda-bhāṣya commentary on Vedānta-sūtra, as does Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī in the anuccheda that I referenced. Śrīla Prabhupada is drawing another meaning from the verse. He is making the point that the Paramātmā is the localized aspect of Bhagavan. Often several valid meanings can be drawn from the same verse.
In service,
Vrindaranya
Mataji!
//As Kṛṣṇa’s body is nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa, the devotee’s body is similarly nondifferent from the devotee.//
Does this mean that the Spiritual Body of the jiva is Absolutely Non-Different from the Svarupa of the jiva?
//As we saw in the last article, when the jīva is liberated, he can be called svarūpa-śakti in that he is now acting for the pleasure of Bhagavān. It is also correct to say that the jīva is eternally taṭastha-śakti in the sense that he is not Kṛṣṇa’s own form (svāṁśa).//
So, what exactly is the jiva? Is it the manifestation of Tatastha Sakti or Svarupa Sakti of Bhagavan?
//The reason for this is that the Supreme Soul is not considered “another entity” because of the acintya-bhedābheda relationship between the individual soul and the Supreme Soul. //
What is the meaning of the Above Statement?
Dear Ojas,
(1) I will answer this question in Part 17: Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s Govinda-Bhāṣya.
(2) I explained the different definitions of the jīva in Part 11: Jīva Gosvāmī on Taṭasthā-Śakti. A widely quoted definition of the jīva in Nārada-pañcarātra is as follows: “The jīva is called taṭastha because it is a conscious form which, leaving its knowledge of itself, becomes tinged by the attraction to material guṇas.” However, Jīva Gosvāmī calls even Garuḍa, an eternal associate of the Lord, a taṭastha-jīva in the sense that he is not in the same category as Īśvara Himself.
(3) “The reason for this is that the Supreme Soul is not considered ‘another entity’ because of the acintya-bhedābheda relationship between the individual soul and the Supreme Soul.” The individual soul is both one and different from the Supreme Soul. Because the individual soul’s oneness with the Supreme Soul, the individual soul is not considered “another entity” from the Supreme Soul. It is a basic tenet of Vedānta that there is one, nondual Absolute truth (advaya-jñāna-tattva). Each school of Vaiṣṇava Vedānta has to reconcile advaya-jñāna-tattva with the apparent duality of God, his devotees, the material world, and so on. The way that the Gauḍīyas reconcile this apparent duality is acintya-bhedābheda-tattva.
In service,
Vrindaranya
Mataji!
Someone tried to refute your Argument that “Bhakti is Inherent”. And quoted this from Bhagavat Sandarbha:—>
Srī Jīva Goswami cites Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary on Visnu Purana 1.12.68:
vyākhyātaṁ ca svāmibhiḥ—
hlādinī āhlāda-karī, sandhinī santatā, saṁvid vidyā-śaktiḥ | ekā mukhyā avyabhicāriṇī svarūpa-bhūteti yāvat | sā sarva-saṁsthitau sarvasya samyak sthitir yasmāt tasmin sarvādhiṣṭhāna-bhūte tvayy eva na tu jīveṣu | yā guṇa-mayī trividhā samvit sā tvayi nāsti |
Śrīdhara Svāmī comments: “ Hlādinī bestows delight, sandhinī is existence, and saṁvit is the cognitive potency. Ekā (one) means predominant, undeviating, and intrinsic to the Lord’s essential nature. This energy is present in You only, the support of everything ( sarva-saṁsthiti ), or in other words, the one from whom all things come into being. This potency, however, is not present in the living beings. Moreover, the samvit energy consisting of the three material guṇas is not in You.”
That person also said this:
As seen above, this is a clear denial of the presence of Bhagavān’s svarūpa śakti in the jīva. By the well-known hermeneutic principle that a direct statement overrides all other statements, it is proven that bhakti is not inherent in the jīva.
This is how the commentary is represented in the Sandarbha itself:
“Sridhara Svami comments: ‘Hladini bestows delight, sandhini is existence, and samvit is the cognitive potency. Ekd (one) means predominant, undeviating and intrinsic to the Lord’s essential nature. This energy is present in You only, the support of everything (sarva-samsthiti), or in other words, the one from whom all things come into being. This potency, however, is not present in the living beings. Moreover, the energy consisting of the three material gunas, which is present in the living beings, is not in You.”
Jiva Goswami cites this commentary to emphasize that Krsna has svarupa-sakti. Thus this section is not about the constitution of the soul, while one sentence of the tika refers to it in a broad sense.
Jiva Goswami’s rendering of the commentary says that the material energy is in the jiva and the spiritual energy is not. But from his writing elsewhere, we know that maya-sakti is not part of the constitution of the jivatma, but rather that it is susceptible to the influence of the maya-sakti. Similarly, the svarupa-sakti is unmanifest in the materially-conditioned jiva. Thus the tika is, in Jiva Goswami’s mind, speaking about the simple fact that the baddha-jiva is influenced by maya-sakti and as such the svarupa sakti is unmanifest. And as explained earlier, the word “jiva” more readily refers to the materially condition soul, while the word “atma” more readily refers to the unconditioned soul. Furthermore, it has already been demonstrated in these articles with full support form JIva Goswami in what sense the svarüpa-sakti is in the atma. Thus the tika must be understood in light of this teaching.
Dear Ojas,
To elaborate on what my Guru Maharaja said, you will remember from Part 11, the following definition of the jīva from Nārada-pañcarātra: “The jīva is called taṭastha because it is a conscious form which, leaving its knowledge of itself, becomes tinged by the attraction to material guṇas.” As I have established in Part 9, the soul’s knowledge and so forth are unmanifest in the jīva until he turns to the Lord by the grace of the Lord or a devotee. Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary to Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.87.38, quoted in Prīti Sandarbha 23 informs us, “Because the jīva embraces ignorance caused by māyā, he serves the body and senses or identifies with them as his self. After that, with its qualities such as bliss (ānanda) hidden (apeta-bhāgaḥ), he adopts similar qualities and attains saṁsāra.” The inherent bliss that the jīva experiences is prema: “In the absence of māyā you realize prema.” (Bhagavat Sandarbha 105, translation by Swami, HH Bhanu)
As I quoted in this article, Jīva Gosvāmī says that the liberated soul is a doer with the svarūpa-śakti (cit-śakti). One of the soul’s intrinsic qualities is being a doer. “Ultimately it is the jīva himself who is the doer… the śruti describes that in the liberated state the jīva is a doer, playing in the spiritual world… In the spiritual world the jīva moves, laughs, plays, and enjoys (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3).” It is impossible to be a doer without śakti, and, as we have seen, the śakti by which a soul is directly a doer is svarūpa-śakti.
I have quoted many of relevant points in my articles. For example, “The qualities which appear when the inferior qualities are destroyed simply manifest on their own. They are not created. They are eternally with the ātmā. O king! The knowledge, detachment, power and dharma are eternally with the ātmā arising from Brahman.” (Prīti Sandarbha 5, translation by Swami, HH Bhanu)
In service,
Vrindaranya
Pranams,
That the Gopas are vibinnamsa and not svamsa is your on interpretation or are any references to that?
And if yes, that means that all the Nitai parsadas are also vibinnamsa? Like the Gopis like Lalita and so on are vibinnamsa too?
Pranam,
I discussed this issue in more detail in the last article (Part 11: Jīva Gosvāmī on Taṭasthā-Śakti). In Paramātma Sandarbha 47, Jīva Gosvāmī gives two types of taṭashta-jīvas: eternally liberated (eternal associates) and those who have been eternally conditioned but can become liberated. Similarly in Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja explains that there are different expansions of Īsvara and then there are the vibhinnāṁśa jīvas (eternally liberated and perpetually conditioned). Although it seems like there could be other categories, it is a grey area because these are the only categories that they give.
About the eternally liberated devotees, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja says:
‘nitya-mukta’ — nitya kṛṣṇa-caraṇe unmukha
‘kṛṣṇa-pāriṣada’ nāma, bhuñje sevā-sukha
“Those who are eternally liberated are always awake to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and they render transcendental loving service at the feet of Lord Kṛṣṇa. They are to be considered eternal associates of Kṛṣṇa, and they are eternally enjoying the transcendental bliss of serving Kṛṣṇa.” Thus, he clearly defines the nitya-mukta vibhinnāṁśa jīvas as Kṛṣṇa-pāriṣada (the associates of Kṛṣṇa).
In service,
Vrindaranya
I really fidn this last article very insightful.
I remember you citing o example of Garuda being a tatastha jiva but at the same time a Nitia parsada. For that I think that the Gopas Will enter in another category of jivas
and also the narrative of Brahma vimohana lila, it’s seems to try to show that the Gopas are also svamsa expansion of Sri Krishna.
So as you suggested it appear that it’s a grey area, and it’s difficult to me to imagine that the Gopas could be at the same category of us.
Pd:sorry if I am being redundant here, but it’s a question that I have since alot.
Dear Mathura,
My Guru Maharaja explains in his upcoming book, Circle of Friends, that in the Brahma-vimohana-lila, the boys and calves that Brahma apparently stole were only mayic versions of the original boys and calves. Krsna manifested svamsa versions of the boys and calves, showing his great love for them in that he knew their every detail. The original boys and calves waited for Krsna to return from retrieving the calves in a different prakasa. Although it took a year for Krsna to return, to them it seemed like only a moment.
The interesting point about the svamsa versions of the boys is that the mothers of the boys and calves were even more affectionate to them. The reason for this increased affection is that this lila gave all the mothers the chance to directly serve Krsna in a svamsa manifestation and taste enhanced vatsalya-bhava.
In service,
Vrindaranya