(1) Sri Balarama Rasayatra

Q & A with Swami B.V. Tripurari

Q. Because Sri Balarama participated in the rasa dance, does he have a primary expansion of his
pleasure potency in the same way that Lord Krishna expands his pleasure potency as Sri Radha?

A. Balarama does not participate in the sarad purnima rasa lila of Radha-Krishna. His rasa dance
takes place with his own gopis, at Rama ghat in the spring. Our sampradaya does not speak of his
gopi lila in any depth, but prefers to depict him in light of his devotion to Krishna as guru (elder),
friend, and servant, kabhu guru, kabhu sakha, kabhu bhrtya-lila. Indeed, it emphasizes his
respectful encounter with Krishna’s gopis when he visited Vrindavana on Krishna’s behalf—
rama-sandarsanadrtah—more than his dancing with his own gopis.

In Balarama’s encounter with Krishna’s gopis, it is stated, sankarsanas tah krishnasya sandesair
hrdayam-gamaih: Sankarsana delivered a message that was confidential. He spoke to the hearts
of Krishna’s gopis. Why is Balarama called Sankarsana in this verse? Because sankarsana means
to draw together and here Sankarsana was drawing Krishna and the gopis together. Even though
Krishna was in Dvaraka, Balarama’s confidential talks with Krishna’s gopis made Krishna fully
manifest in the hearts and minds of the gopis. In this exchange, Balarama has the mood of a
servitor of Krishna. He is fully representing Krishna with no desire to enjoy Radha’s group for
himself in any way.

For the most part, when the Bhagavata speaks of Balarama’s affairs with his own gopis it does so
covertly, as we find in 10.15.8 where Krishna says, gopyo ‘ntarena bhujayor. In this phrase,
Krishna speaks overtly of Balarama embracing forest vines and covertly of his future lila in
which he embraces his own gopis, as this phrase can be read to indicate that Balarama embraces
either creepers or milkmaids.

As for his principal consort, from Bhagavatam we know of Revati in Balarama’s Dvaraka lila.
From the literature of the six Goswamis of Vrindavana we also know that he manifests as sakti-
tattva in the form of Ananga manjari, the younger sister of Radha. It is only in this form that he
directly participates in Radha and Krishna’s romantic affairs.

(2) Balarāma’s Romantic Life

By Swami Sri Bhaktivedanta Tripurari, excerpted from his forthcoming book, Circle of Friends
as part of a series of articles concerning Balarāma Tattva.
In Vraja, Balarāma is Kṛṣṇa’s best friend, but he is not directly involved in Kṛṣṇa’s romantic life,
and his own romantic life in Vraja is but an afterthought. Because Balarāma is Kṛṣṇa’s older
brother, this precludes his being directly involved in the romanticism of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa that is
central to the Vṛndāvana līlā. His direct involvement or presence would inhibit the intimacy of
Kṛṣṇa’s romantic love for Rādhā. As Kṛṣṇa’s elder brother, he is the maryādā puruṣa in his
younger brother’s life, ably assisting Yaśodā in looking out for him and assuring Kṛṣṇa’s
maryādā (appropriate behavior). But while he will report on Kṛṣṇa’s behavior, he does not report
Kṛṣṇa’s secret romantic rendezvous to the elders. Instead, he facilitates them during the day by
occupying in play those of Kṛṣṇa’s friends not inclined to participate in these affairs. Thereby he
assures these friends’ restful nights filled with dreams of fraternal sport, and at the same time, he
indirectly facilitates Kṛṣṇa’s midday love sports accompanied by his most intimate friends.
Surely if Balarāma does not report on Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa’s romantic affairs, they are no more than
rumors. This is what Rāma’s elders make of his silence. Thus, in the drama of the Vraja līlā,
Balarāma is an important supporting actor. His own romantic life is like that of the hero’s best
friend, who also has a wife, but in the drama, the audience does not even know her name.

The first reference to Rāma’s romantic life appears in the fifteenth chapter of the tenth canto of
the Bhāgavata Purāṇa referred to above. As Kṛṣṇa concludes his eulogy of Rāma, his humor
heightens. While ostensibly glorifying Balarāma, in this line he humorously refers indirectly
much more to himself:

The gopīs are fortunate because you directly embrace them to your chest, which is desired even
by Lakṣmī.17

Here, Kṛṣṇa’s glorification of Balarāma refers more directly to himself because it is Kṛṣṇa’s
chest that Lakṣmī desires to embrace, not Balarāma’s. However, there is truth in jest, and as such
Balarāma does have his own gopīs and romantic life. But as we shall see, romanticism is not
central to his life as it is to Kṛṣṇa’s līlās.

Balarāma’s gopīs first appear in the Bhāgavata’s thirty-fourth chapter of the tenth canto. The
setting is the eve of Holī, the “festival of colors” as it is popularly known around the world today.
This gathering is categorically different from Kṛṣṇa’s late-night secret rendezvous with his gopīs.
Holī, in contrast, is publicly celebrated by young and old alike throughout Vraja. It is the
religious play following the observance of Śivarātri, as opposed to a paramour tryst of adolescent
longing and lovemaking.18 This chapter describes both Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma frolicking together
with Vraja’s young milkmaidens while notably also accompanied by their many cowherd
friends.19 This līlā also involves the aiśvarya of slaying the lustful Śaṅkhacūḍa. Jīva Goswāmī
writes about Balarāma in this līlā that “along with Balarāma, filled with the joy of sakhya, the
group gathered together.”20

However, the seed of what will become love’s longing is sometimes sown in such settings.21 As
such, a particular group of young gopīs fell in love with Balarāma during Holī, and it is to this
seed of their love that Balarāma eventually tends many years later, albeit with some measure of
hesitation. As we shall see, he married these gopīs only with prodding from others upon
returning to Vraja from Dvārakā in the context of delivering Kṛṣṇa’s message to Kṛṣṇa’s gopīs.22
In order to better understand the secondary nature of Rāma’s personal romantic life in
comparison to his primary preoccupation with Kṛṣṇa’s friendship—his sakhya-rati—it will be
helpful to examine the essence of this līlā—Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.65—drawing upon the
Gauḍīya commentaries and related texts.

Kṛṣṇa’s longing to return to Vraja from Dvārakā was also shared by Balarāma. Rāma wanted to
return to Vraja and wanted Kṛṣṇa to return along with him. However, day after day Kṛṣṇa made
excuses for not returning, to the point that Rāma began to question his brother’s love for Vraja—
for their parents, friends, servants, cows, and for the young gopīs that had fallen in love with
Kṛṣṇa. Thus, Rāma finally confronted Kṛṣṇa. Reassuring Rāma of his love for his devotees,
Kṛṣṇa explained his dilemma: Nanda had instructed him to follow the orders of Vasudeva, who
would not allow him to depart to Vraja. Thus, he suggested that Rāma return without him,
bearing news of him and reassuring everyone in Vraja of his love for them. In particular, he gave
Rāma a message to deliver to the gopīs who had risked their reputations for him. As an aside,
Kṛṣṇa also told Balarāma to marry the young gopīs who had fallen in love with him during the
Holī celebration, who had not really been on Balarāma’s mind. Thus, Rāma departed for Vraja.
As he approached the village, he changed his clothes into rustic attire to reunite with his rāga-
mārga devotees. Once there, he reassured them of Kṛṣṇa’s love for them, and with further
prodding, he also married the gopīs who had fallen in love with him during the Holī celebration.

Rāma met with his parents first and then his friends. It was abundantly clear to him that his
friends and well-wishers were internally unhappy without Kṛṣna but went through the motions of
caring for their cows externally in an effort to please him during his visit, and this in turn brought
a constant flow of tears to his eyes. His friends said:

O Bala, will you and Kānu soon play again together with us? Our lives and the cows’ lives are
now in a precarious position. Please revitalize us so that we can live and play as we did
previously.23

Then, after two or three days Balarāma made arrangements to meet with Kṛṣṇa’s gopīs. This
meeting is the very heart of his return. It is really what the chapter is all about: Rāma’s ability to
represent Kṛṣṇa before those gopīs who gave their lives to him during the rāsa-līlā.24

Viśvanātha Cakravartī comments on Śukamuni’s description of Balarāma’s meeting with Rādhā

and her companions: The sage’s words, rāma-sandarśanādṛtāḥ—honoring Rāma after having had
his darśana—have a twofold meaning. They imply not only that the gopīs show deference to
Rāma but also that Balarāma bows to the mahabhāva exhibited by Kṛṣṇa’s gopīs.25 In his
rendering of this līlā in the Gopāla-campū, Śrī Jīva depicts Balarāma referring to Kṛṣṇa’s gopīs
“respectfully.”26 Śukadeva then invokes Balarāma’s epithet Saṅkarṣaṇa, implying that Balarāma
had the ability to represent and thus attract Kṛṣṇa, or draw his attention and thus his presence, in
such a way that Kṛṣṇa actually appeared there before the gopīs in the person of Balarāma. From
the oral tradition, it is thought that this resulted in Rāma’s assuming the complexion of Kṛṣṇa,
even as he never thought of enjoying Kṛṣṇa’s gopīs for himself. It was in the confidence—
viśrambha—central to sakhya-rasa that Kṛṣṇa had entrusted Rāma with this task of pacifying the
gopīs in ways that previously Uddhava was unable to do. Rāma did so by causing Kṛṣṇa’s
presence to be felt and then promising to go to Dvārakā and bring Kṛṣṇa there by force in a
manner that Uddhava could not. This is an example of Balarāma’s expertise in representing
Kṛṣṇa. After this, only at Rādhā’s compassionate request and not without permission from his
elders did Balarāma separately meet with the unnamed gopīs,27 who were attracted to him in
youth during the Holī celebration:

Rādhā said, “We accept your promise to bring Kṛṣṇa back. Now, if you will accept all of my
associates who have preserved their youthful chastity all along for you alone, rejecting their own
enjoyment and remaining in their homes, thin and as if infirmed, then I will keep these women
close to me, while you go and bring your brother.

To which Balarāma replied, “Although this is not the time for that, still I shall do it somehow in
order to console all of you. But still, I must first receive the permission of the elders.”28

The elders gave their permission. Indeed, they repeatedly requested him to do the needful, yet
still, Rāma hesitated to participate in a marriage celebration in the absence of Kṛṣṇa. As such,
Balarāma hesitatingly married these anonymous gopīs by the gandharva rite in a secluded area—
Rāma Ghāṭa—just north of the great banyan tree at the base of which Rāma, Kṛṣṇa, and their
sakhās often met together to sport and strategize. The marriage took place with no formal
arrangement and no wedding guests, with Rāma intoxicated and in the midst of majesty,
chastising the river Yamunā and miraculously dragging her to him with his plow. While Śrīmad
Bhāgavatam employs five lengthy chapters in describing Kṛṣṇa’s rāsa-līlā—the centerpiece of
the entire text—this Gauḍīya grantha-rāja employs only four verses to describe the so-called
rāsa-līlā of Balarāma at Rāma Ghāṭa (10.65.17–18, 21–22), the last two of which do not appear
in all manuscripts of the text.29

His gopīs’ anonymity underscores in the least the inability of the sādhaka to follow their
example, as is essential in rāgānuga-bhakti. Furthermore, Rāma’s majestic display on this
occasion is telling for the discerning devotee.30 In his commentary on Caitanya-bhāgavata,
Bhaktisiddhānta Saraswatī Ṭhākura writes that the difference between Rāma’s rendezvous with
his gopīs at Rāma Ghāṭa and Kṛṣṇa’s rāsa-līlā is one of maryādā as opposed to rāga.31 In other
words, the romantic affairs of Rāma are not an example of the kāma-rūpā bhakti experienced
between Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa but rather bhakti in the mood of maryādā—vaidhī-bhakti. On the other
hand, Rāma’s fraternal love is an example of the rāga-bhakti referred to as sambandha-rūpa,
which involves dāsya, sakhya, or vātsalya-rati. Thus, Balarāma’s rāsa-līlā, as Vṛndāvana dāsa
refers to his gandharva marriage at Rāma Ghāṭa, is anticlimactic in the chapter that it is
described.32 Indeed, Gauḍīya theologians commenting on this līlā stress the fact that Rāma has
his own gopīs only with a view to emphatically assert that he does not consort with Kṛṣṇa’s
gopīs, and they open no window into Rāma’s relationship with his wives through which a
sādhaka can pass.33

Footnotes

17 Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.15.8

18 On the eve of Holī, fires are lit in memory of the burning of Hiraṇyakaśipu’s sister, who
unsuccessfully tried to burn Prahlāda to death.

19 Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.34.20. See Vaiṣṇava-tosaṇī and Jīva Goswāmī’s reference to Bhaviṣya
Purāṇa. Furthermore, in his commentary to Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 3.5.23, Jīva Goswāmī depicts
Balarāma during Holī with parental feelings for Rādhā.

20 Prīti-sandarbha 403

21 In his Ānanda-vṛndāvana-campū, Kavi-Karṇapūra mentions a mutual attraction between

Balarāma and his gopīs that arose during the Holī festival, comparing it to Kṛṣṇa’s relationship
with his gopīs. He does this even as he invokes Balarāma’s majestic epithet Haladhara and
ignores the fact that the love between Rāma and his gopīs as seen through the lens of the
Vṛndāvana Goswāmīs is svakīya in nature rather than parakīya.

22 Notably, at this time Balarāma was already married to Revatī, a Dvārakā līlā marriage
arranged and performed by Kṛṣṇa himself. Balarāma married Revatī only to please Kṛṣṇa, while
he himself was reluctant to marry. Jīva Goswāmī explains, “Previously, following Kṛṣṇa’s
example, Balarāma was not inclined to marry. However, fearing the fault of going against
Kṛṣṇa’s desire and in deference to public opinion, he accepted marriage” (Gopāla-campū
2.15.28).

23 Gopāla-campū 2.20.28

24 In this līlā, Baladeva exhibits sympathy for the romanticism of Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs, a rare
instance in which he serves like a narma-sakhā. Jīva Goswāmī explains that at this time his
sakhya was mixed with mādhurya. See Prīti-sandarbha 173. However, in his commentary on this
section of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, Viśvanātha Cakravartī finds Balarāma experiencing the vātsalya
feature of his saṅkula sakhya-bhāva.

25 Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.65.9

26 Gopāla-campū 2.20.45
27 Kavi-Karṇapūra does mention a gopī named Pūrṇānandā, describing her only as “Balarāma’s
dear-most girlfriend,” and he identifies this gopī in part with Gadādhara dāsa of Gaura lilā,
whom he also identifies with Candrakāntī-gopī. See Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā 155. Garga-saṁhitā
describes Balarāma’s gopīs as “nāga girls.” The text describes the worship by which these snake-
girls attained Balarāma. This upāsanā is in the mood of aiśvarya and involves worshiping
Balarāma along with his Dvārakā wife, Revatī.

28 Gopāla-campū 2.20.49

29 That Bhāgavata verses 10.65.21–22 describing Rāma’s romantic encounter with his gopīs are
not found in all manuscripts is the opinion of Bhaktisiddhānta Saraswatī Ṭhākura stated in his
commentary on Caitanya-bhāgavata 1.1.28. He bases his opinion on the fact that Śrīdhara
Swāmī, Sanātana Goswāmī, Jīva Goswāmī, and Viśvanātha Cakravartī have not commented on
these verses, while Vīrarāghava Ācārya of the Rāmānuja sect and Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha of the
Madhva sampradāya have. Thus, only two verses are dedicated to describing Rāma’s rāsa-līlā in
some manuscripts.

30 It is also notable that the romanticism of both the Holī festival and the gandharva rite at Rāma
Ghāṭa, unlike the rāsa-līlā of Kṛṣṇa, does not include sādhana-siddhas entering these līlās.

31 Caitanya-bhāgavata 1.1.22

32 Vṛndāvana dāsa emphasizes Balarāma’s “rāsa-līlā” only in the context of asserting that he too,
like Kṛṣṇa, is God. In doing so, Vṛndāvana dāsa also conflates Balarāma’s gandharva marriage at
Rāma Ghāṭa described in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.65 and the text’s description of Holī in 10.34.
His basic argument is that while sages consider such romantic affairs between men and women a
stumbling block to spiritual progress, Rāma’s romanticism, like Kṛṣṇa’s, is glorified in the
Bhāgavata. He argues so in the context of building a case for the divinity of Nityānanda-rāma.
Thus, Vṛndāvana dāsa also cites other verses from the Bhāgavatam in this section of Caitanya-
bhāgavata to establish the divinity of Balarāma for his readers.

33 To be clear, it is not that Balarāma does not have a robust romantic life. He most certainly
does. This side of Balarāma is the focus of his devotees at the Daujī Mandira in Baldeo within
the Vraja-maṇḍala. There, he is the kula-devatā of the Ahivasi Gaur brāhmaṇas, and as such from
their angle of vision, Balarāma displaces Kṛṣna and takes his place as the protagonist in the līlā.
For these devotees, Daujī reigns supreme accompanied by Revatī-devī. From this angle of vision,
Balarāma is a kṣatriya and older brother who is stronger and more righteous than Kṛṣṇa. In
Baldeo, the virtues of Balarāma’s maryādā are extolled over the capricious nature of Kṛṣṇa. At
Daujī Mandira, one will not hear the Gauḍīya tattva-sūtra “kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam.”
However, at Baldeo textual support for the centrality of Balarāma is lacking.
(3)The Priya-Sakhas
By Śrī Nayanānanda Ṭhākura

Amongst the assembly of priya-sakhas1 four are outstanding. Śrīdāmā, Sudāmā, Vasudāmā, and
Kiṅkiṇi are the foremost among Kṛṣṇa’s beloved boyfriends, being in full knowledge of all his
secrets. They are equally aware of both types of Kṛṣṇa’s līlās—those that are agopya (suitable for
being revealed) as well as those that are gopya (appropriate to be concealed). All of the
confidential Vraja-līlās like vastra-haraṇa (the stealing of the gopīs clothes) are fully known to
these four boys.

One day the gopīs assembled together and traveled to the bank of the Yamunā in order to perform
pūjā to the Goddess Kātyāyanī. Leaving their garments on the riverbank they immersed
themselves in the water and engaged in water-sports in a playful spirit. Although situated
elsewhere at the time, Yogeśvara Bhagavan could understand everything from within himself,
and quickly came to that spot along with his confidential boy friends. For the purpose of
fulfilling the cherished desires of the gopikās, he secretly stole all of their clothes. Collecting the
garments with the help of his friends headed by Śrīdāmā, he climbed up a kadamba tree and
started laughing and joking along with them. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.22.8-9 states,

Kṛṣṇa, the master mysticism, was aware of what the gopīs were doing, and thus he went there
surrounded by his boyfriends in order to award the gopīs the perfection of their endeavor. Taking
the girls’ garments he quickly climbed to the top of the kadamba tree. Then, as he laughed loudly
and his companions also laughed, he jokingly addressed the gopīs.

In Jīva Goswāmī’s Laghu-toṣaṇī Bhāgavatam commentary it is stated,

In the verse beginning with the words bhagavan api the use of vayasyaiḥ (with the friends of the
same age) indicates bālaiḥ (with boys) and also sakhībhiḥ (with his cowherd boy friends). Being
surrounded by them , he arrived on the scene. It should be understood that these are the
supremely intimate and internal friends Śrīdāmā, Sudāmā, Vasudāmā, and Kiṅkiṇi. This is also
confirmed in the Gautamīya-tantra thus:

“The greatly famous Śrīdāmā, Sudāmā, Vasudāmā, and Kiṅkiṇi are the embodiments of Śrī
Kṛṣṇa’s of antaḥkaraṇa, being non-different from his very self and therefore they are equally
venerable with scented flowers as is Kṛṣṇa.”

Thus being the personifications of his antaḥkaraṇa feature, they represent his intelligence,
egoism, heart, and mind.

This is the authoritative statement of the Goswāmī. These four sakhas are not different from
Kṛṣṇa himself. Their dress and ornaments are impossible to describe in writing. The embodiment
of Kṛṣṇa’s intelligence is the gopa named Śrīdāmā; the embodiment of his egoism is Sudāmā; the
embodiment of his heart is Vasudāmā; the embodiment of his mind is Kiṅkiṇi. There are no
confidential pastimes that Śrī Kṛṣṇa Chandra secretly performs in Vraja that are not witnessed by
these four boys. Truly, one is never abandoned by one’s own intelligence, ego, heart, and mind;
in all activities, these accompany one, while always remaining in the background. All of Kṛṣṇa’s
līlās performed in Vraja throughout his three different ages—bālya (infancy), paugaṇḍa
(childhood), and kishore (adolescence)—are never enacted without these particular boys. There
is not a single thing about Kṛṣṇa that they are unaware of, from his relationships with parental
associates up to the extent of his dealings in amorous love sports.

Other boys—the priya-narmā sakhas—are accomplices in the gopīs’ pastimes with Kṛṣṇa, and
different members of this class will participate in different portions of these līlās. The priya-
narmās headed by Subala, Arjuna, and others thus continually sport in the amusements enacted
between the gopas and gopīs. However, the priya-sakhas can understand the internal intricacies
of all these pastimes but never reveal such secrets externally for fear of causing discord in the
flow of rasa. Again, among the priya-sakhas the above-mentioned boys embody the indwelling
witness (antaḥkaraṇa) of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and they are completely full to overflowing with kṛṣṇānanda.

This article is an edited excerpt of Śrīmān Daśarath-suta’s English translation of Nayanānanda

Ṭhākura’s 18th Century Bengali text Preyo-bhakti-rasārṇava. The Ṭhākura hails from a sakhya
rasa lineage in the line of Nityānanda Prabhu’s associate Sundarānanda, an incarnation of the
dvādaśa gopla Sudāmā of Vraja-līlā. His lineage is still current to this day with its sripat in
Mangala-dihi, West Bengal.

(4)Dry Reason Needs a Drink

By Swāmī Śrī Bhaktivedānta Tripurāri

Reason is the bouncer at the bar, where the heart sits and is served the holy wine of bhakti rasa in
the form of the Bhagavata’s līlā narratives, a bouncer who throws us out into the street of so-
called sobriety. As such, we lose the prospect of experiencing meaning that transcends the limits
of reason and that should instead be served by it. Reason unto itself is dry. It needs a drink, and it
says so if we listen to it. It cries out at its inability to accommodate the paradoxes of life and the
sheer vastness of the world, from its subatomic realm to the boundaries of outer space, what to
speak of its cries of desperation in trying to wrap itself around consciousness.

Does a seed contain a tree? Yes, it does. How it does we can say, but why it does we cannot. That
answer lies in the imagination of God, who has included us in his dream where we have become
accustomed to his magic as the norm as a result of losing sight of him. He is not our dream that
we need to wake up from to a realm where reason presides and meaning is reasoned away. Such
a realm is not worth inhabiting, nor does it really exist.
Līlā narratives are not meant to serve our intellect. They are intended to disarm it by their charm
and expand the contracted heart where possibilities that transcend the limits of reason reside.
Otherwise, if we bear down on the narratives with our intellect alone and submit to its demand
that ultimate reality must answer to the court of reason, we lose the opportunity to experience the
fact that life transcends logic. Reality does consist of paradoxes and possibilities that reason
cannot explain.

The Kṛṣṇa līlā narratives are the meditative experience of Vyāsa, more than they are a feature of
the limited objective world. Is it not more reasonable to listen to a fully controlled meditative
mind as to the nature of mind and the reality that transcends it than it is to listen to the modern
rational yet uncontrolled mind as to the nature of ultimate reality?

Gaura līlā is of course more relatable, but it is a portal into understanding Kṛṣṇa līlā.
Bhaktivinoda’s testimony as to his conversion says as much. It is through Gaura līlā that he
understood the significance of the Bhagavata’s līlā narrative. After all, the beauty of Gaura līlā is
driven by his preoccupation not with reason but with the charm of Kṛṣṇa līlā. Thus the road to
Kṛṣṇa līlā runs through Gaura and the method to his divine madness in the form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa
saṅkīrtana.

(5)The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 1: The History

of the Debate
By Vrindaranya Dasi

Is bhakti bestowed upon a jīva by God or a devotee at some point in material time or is it already
part of the jīva’s constitutional nature, albeit covered by māyā? Or can it be both, in which case
bhakti is inherent but needs to be bestowed because the jīva is covered by māyā and thus lost to
his true nature?1 Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura expressed the third option (that it is both), and following
his lead, so have those in his parivāra. During the time of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, the well-known
Rādhā Ramana Carana dāsa Bābāji, among others, agreed with Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s
interpretation of Jīva Gosvāmī’s Sandarbhas concerning this topic. For example, he wrote,
“Similarly, one has only to remove the impurity of the heart by means of sadhana-bhakti to see
and feel that prema is already there.”2 That said, not all Gauḍīya parivāras embraced this
understanding. Nonetheless, there is no evidence I’m aware of that anyone objected to
Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s interpretation during his own time. And as we shall see, the Ṭhākura
clearly derives his interpretation of Jīva Gosvāmī from previous ācāryas such as Baladeva
Vidyābhūṣaṇa and his Madhva heritage, which the Brahma-Madhva-Gauḍīya lineage is derived
from in some respects. Furthermore, as I will show in my fourth article, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s
interpretation runs through the other four Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas as well.

Thus, we should be clear that non-inherency versus simultaneous inherency and bestowal is not a
debate in which Jīva Gosvāmī and the rest of the Gauḍīya sampradāya are on one side of the
divide and Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and his parivāra stand alone on the other side. Although the
example that I gave in the previous paragraph refers to the time of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, the
same holds true after his disappearance. For example, David L. Haberman states in his
groundbreaking work within academia, Acting as a Way of Salvation, that when researching his
book in Vraja he came across two distinct perspectives embraced by Gauḍīya sadhus in regard to
the siddha-deha: inherent and non-inherent.3 It is notable that he was referring to parivāras other
than that of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura.4 Dr. Mahanamabrata Brahmachari, who travelled to the
United States from India in 1933, did a PhD thesis called Vaiṣṇava Vedānta: the Philosophy of
Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī for the University of Chicago and became a mentor of Thomas Merton. In this
deeply philosophical dissertation, the author presents an implicitly inherent and bestowed
perspective.5 In a more recent academic publication, Barbara A. Holdrege, in her well-
researched and insightful Bhakti and Embodiment, also implicitly takes an inherent and
bestowed perspective regarding the meditative siddha-deha of the aspiring devotee.6

However, when Jīva Gosvāmī’s Sandarbhas were first published in English, some devotees in
parivāras outside the Bhaktivinoda parivāra questioned, based on the Sandarbhas, Bhaktivinoda
Ṭhākura’s writings that state that bhakti is the jīva’s svabhāva (natural state or constitution) and
particularly that the jīva’s siddha-deha is inherent within a jīva. Those within the Bhaktivinoda
parivāra have mostly discounted these questions, but some have argued in support of
Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s position, and thus a debate has raged on for years, mostly on Internet
forums. While most of those in the Bhaktivinoda parivāra have continued to support
simultaneous inherency and bestowal, some have modified their positions—particularly those
who have closely examined the arguments of the opposing side. For example, some have a
qualified understanding of simultaneous inherency and bestowal, some have argued that bhakti is
bestowed and not inherent and thus there must be a reason why Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura preached
this understanding, and a few have even left his parivāra altogether.

My inspiration for this series of articles was another series of articles by Swāmī Padmanābha
published on the Harmonist website as well as several podcasts, in which he expresses an
openness to Socratic dialogue on the topic of whether bhakti is “inherent or inherited,” as well as
a podcast and in-depth presentation made by Sundara Gopāla dās that answer that call for
dialogue. Swāmī Padmanābha’s position was that bhakti is not inherent, and he thus opines that
only Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s statements that establish that bhakti is bestowed are in full
alignment with Jīva Gosvāmī and those statements that indicate inherency “beg for proper
reconciliation.”7 He argues that the primary meaning of such statements is inappropriate because
he asserts that Jīva Gosvāmī is unequivocal that bhakti is not inherent.8 As I was writing this
series of articles, Swāmī Padmanābha came out with a book, Inherent or Inherited, based on his
series of articles from the Harmonist.9

In his presentation based on research for his PhD dissertation at the University of Oxford,
Sundara Gopāla dās upheld that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura says that bhakti is both inherent and
bestowed.10 Vigorously disagreeing with Swāmī Padmanābha’s contention that Bhaktivinoda
Ṭhākura’s position was merely a preaching strategy, Sundara Gopāla provided extensive
evidence to establish that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s statements that bhakti is the dharma of the
soul (jaiva-dharma) was not a provisional concept but rather a foundational aspect of his
teachings. He also gave historical evidence that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura had studied Jīva
Gosvāmī’s Sandarbhas extensively, thereby dispelling any doubt that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
might not have been aware of Jīva Gosvāmī’s position. Perhaps the most ground-breaking
revelation of Sundara Gopāla’s presentation was that Śrī Jāmātṛ Muni, whose verses form the
basis of Jīva Gosvāmī’s explanation of the characteristics of the jīva, also maintained that bhakti
is inherent as well as bestowed. Furthermore, Sundara Gopāla substantiated that while
Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura was in Jagannātha Purī, he studied Jāmātṛ Muni’s books under the
guidance of scholars in his line. Sundara Gopāla also discussed the different types of inherency
in both the Western and Vedic traditions, and he presented the revolutionary idea that the
inherency that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura spoke of is a teleological inherence—the purpose for which
something exists.11

On account of a preponderance of evidence, Sundara Gopāla was successful in establishing that

Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura held a deeply reasoned conviction that bhakti is both inherent and
bestowed. Indeed, after this presentation, Swāmī Padmanābha adjusted his stance on whether
Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s position was a preaching strategy.12 Nonetheless, although Swāmī
Padmanābha came up with a few alternative suggestions as to why Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura would
present something that Swāmī Padmanābha felt differed from Jīva Gosvāmī, such reasons fell
short in answering why Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura preached both inherency and bestowal.13 About
the revelation that Jāmātṛ Muni maintained that bhakti is inherent as well as bestowed, Swāmī
Padmanābha argued that Śrī Jāmātṛ Muni’s understanding of his own verses was irrelevant
because it is untenable to conclude that Śrī Jīva is in full agreement with the Muni’s opinion even
in the specific cases when he quotes him.14

Furthermore, Swāmī Padmanābha held firm in emphatically dismissing the notion that bhakti
could be inherent: “What we find here is a totally unclear and convoluted notion—the idea of
remembering or regaining one’s svarūpa.”15 He even suggests that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
himself “cancels” such a possibility with his statements that bhakti is bestowed.16 Swāmī
concludes by affirming: “But one thing remains beyond question: The undisputed and consensual
siddhānta of the Gauḍīya sampradāya is that bhakti is not inherent in the jīva—neither
physically, nor etiologically, nor teleologically.”17

Although Swāmī Padmanābha provided impressive support that bhakti is bestowed, the problem
with his approach was that the support for the bestowal of bhakti was not under contention—at
least not by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura. Comprehensively answering the question of whether
bhakti is both bestowed and inherent is not a simple matter of producing quotations that support
the point that bhakti is bestowed. There are quotations that support both inherency and bestowal
for the simple reason that Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī and, following in his lead, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda
Ṭhākura establish that bhakti is simultaneously inherent and bestowed. Therefore, producing
hundreds of quotations to establish that bhakti is bestowed does not settle the argument because
both sides agree on that point.

Furthermore, I was rankled by Swāmī Padmanābha’s contention that he was bringing

Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and Jīva Gosvāmī closer together by presenting “different ways of
appreciating” Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s understanding that were in line with Jīva Gosvāmī’s
ultimate intention.18 As far as I was concerned, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and Jīva Gosvāmī were
already in perfect alignment, and it was Swāmī Padmanābha’s understanding that needed
adjustment. Moreover, I had always found certain implications of the bestowal-only argument to
be distasteful. For example, the bestowal-only argument holds that the soul has no inherent
knowledge or ānanda—only consciousness and a lack of material suffering.19 Thus, essentially
this understanding posits that the soul is impersonal without the bestowal of bhakti.20 It holds
that the soul is simply a quantum of consciousness that powers a material or spiritual body, much
like a battery that powers a car. As such, the soul does not constitutionally have any personality
at all. Its personhood in the state of perfection, such an interpretation postulates, resides in the
siddha-deha and its śaktis, which this theory understands to be constitutionally different than the
soul. This argument further holds that the soul never actually contacts the siddha-deha directly
because in this understanding such contact would cause the soul to transform. Thus, essentially
the theory considers that after an eternity of wandering in the material world, the sojourn of the
jīva culminates in merely identifying with something other than what it is.

It was for these reasons that I began considering how I might respond to the contention of Swāmī
Padmanābha that “the undisputed and consensual siddhānta of the Gauḍīya sampradāya is that
bhakti is not inherent in the jīva.”21 I thought that something that had not been done was to show
how Jīva Gosvāmī establishes the inherency of bhakti in the Sandarbhas. As the bestowal of
bhakti has already been shown by Swāmī Padmanābha and others, this addition would show that
Jīva Gosvāmī established both inherency and bestowal of bhakti in the Sandarbhas. Such an
undertaking would thus add considerable weight to the argument that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura was
perfectly in line with Jīva Gosvāmī.

In the scriptures, there are many apparently contradictory concepts. For example, that God has
form and is formless and that we are one with God as well as different from God. Statements
about the inherency and bestowal of bhakti are similar: although the statements seem
contradictory, you can find many instances of both. The genius of the ācāryas of Vaiṣṇava
Vedānta, as opposed to the understanding of Śaṅkarācārya, is that they embrace scripture in its
entirety rather than asserting that some scriptural statements cancel out other statements, as
Swāmī Padmanābha did when he suggested that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura cancels the possibility of
inherency with his statements that bhakti is bestowed.22

It took me a year to complete my undertaking. I am posting this article on the auspicious

appearance day of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, a perfect day to begin my humble attempt to serve the
devotees by elucidating his Sandarbhas. Tomorrow is the appearance day of Śrīla Bhaktivinoda
Ṭhākura, whose profound insight was the inspiration and guiding force of my writing. On this
day, I will present a summary of the points I will make in the articles that will follow. I pray that
my articles may please these two great Vaiṣṇavas, as well as the devotees who read this series.
Please keep in mind that the Sandarbhas can be abstract, terse, and difficult to comprehend. As
such, a substantial argument based on the Sandarbhas will also be similarly challenging. In this
regard, as well as for any shortcomings in my presentation, I beg the indulgence of my readers.

(5.1) The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 2: A Road

Map
By Vrindaranya dasi

On the holy appearance day of Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, I present the second article in my
series—an overview of the topics covered in each article. This is designed to give you a sense of
what to look forward to over the coming weeks, as well as a road map of how the presentation
will unfold. After this article, I will be publishing one article each week on www.harmonist.us.

Part 1: The History of a Debate. A brief summary of the history of the debate on inherency within
the Gauḍīya sampradāya and a general overview of what will be discussed in this series of
articles (released already).

Part 2: A Road Map. An overview of the topics covered in each article.

Part 3: The Swan. An explanation of simultaneous inherency and bestowal by way of an analogy,
as well as a description of a parable that Caitanya Mahāprabhu related to Sanātana Gosvāmī. To
give a foundation to the more technical arguments to come, this article gives a general overview
of the concept of simultaneous inherency and bestowal without presenting extensive scriptural
quotations.

Part 4: Vaiṣṇava Vedānta. A school of Vedānta is formally established by writing a commentary

on the Vedānta-sūtra. This chapter shows that all the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas who have done so—
including Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa for the Gauḍīya sampradāya—establish both inherency and
bestowal. Although a whole book could be dedicated to this topic, this article provides a
compelling summary of the evidence. In the subsequent articles of this series, I will show how
Jīva Gosvāmī also establishes simultaneous inherency and bestowal.1

Part 5: The Twenty-One Intrinsic Characteristics of the Jīva. The section of the Paramātma
Sandarbha that delineates the twenty-one attributes of the jīva is the primary section of the
Sandarbhas for establishing whether bhakti is inherent in the jīva. By summarizing these twenty-
one attributes, I begin the discussion of how the Sandarbhas establish the inherency of bhakti. I
also explain how all these attributes are only fully manifest when the soul is freed from
identification with the material body, which is the so-called fourth state of consciousness. The
fact that the fourth state of consciousness is a state of God-consciousness is an initial indication
that the natural state of the jīva is a state of God-consciousness: bhakti.

Part 6: The Search for Bliss. In this article, I point out a fatal flaw of those who contend that
bhakti is not inherent: the idea that the soul searches not for bliss but rather for the absence of
suffering. Those who argue that Jīva Gosvāmī establishes that bhakti is not inherent will have to
resolve this glaring problem, since such an idea contradicts not only countless scriptural
statements but also statements of Śrī Jīva himself.

Part 7: The Soul is a Servant of Bhagavān Hari. The famous statement dāsa-bhūto harer eva (the
soul is a servant of Bhagavān Hari only and never of anyone else) is found in the section of the
Paramātma Sandarbha that describes the twenty-one attributes of the jīva. Those who say that
bhakti is not inherent try to establish that this statement simply means that the soul is dependent
on God in a general sense. I show how this understanding is untenable.

Part 8: A Servant of God (Śeṣatva). A parallel statement to dāsa-bhūto harer eva (the soul is a
servant of Bhagavān Hari only and never of anyone else) is śeṣatva. Jamatṛ Muni considers
śeṣatva to be the primary quality of the soul. But what exactly does śeṣatva mean? We will
explore the term in context and see that it means a servant of God.

Part 9: Unmanifest Qualities of the Soul. In this article, I will explore in more detail how some of
the qualities of the soul are unmanifest. When one properly understands this point, it is obvious
that bhakti is inherent.

Part 10: Intrinsically of the Nature of Knowledge and Bliss. One of the qualities of the soul is
cid-ānandātmakaḥ. Those who say that bhakti is not inherent translate this quality as conscious
and free of material suffering. I will show how a more accurate translation is intrinsically of the
nature of knowledge and bliss, as well as why this knowledge and bliss are synonymous with
bhakti.

Part 11: Jīva Gosvāmī on Taṭasthā-Śakti. This article and the following one give an in-depth look
at how Jīva Gosvāmī explains śakti. As we will see, Jīva Gosvāmī presents a more nuanced
understanding of taṭasthā-śakti than most devotees realize. Without a proper understanding of
śakti, one is bound to misunderstand the soul’s relationship with svarūpa-śakti. The first step in
understanding taṭasthā-śakti is to understand that it is not the energy by which a soul acts but
rather an energy of the Paramātmā by which he manifests the world.

Part 12: Understanding Śakti. Continuing an in-depth exploration of śakti, this article explains
how Jīva Gosvāmī establishes that the soul uses either māyā-śakti or svarūpa-śakti to act,
depending on whether the action is turned away from God (material action) or toward him
(spiritual action). However, he clarifies that the soul is only directly a doer, knower, and feeler
when it acts, knows, and feels with svarūpa-śakti.

Part 13: The Bliss of the Jīva. This article picks up on the topic presented in article 10—the
proper translation of cid-ānandātmakaḥ (intrinsically of the nature of knowledge and bliss).
Some devotees try to establish that the ānanda of the jīva is merely the lack of suffering (not
bliss) based on Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta. I show why their understanding is incomplete.

Part 14: The Soul Is Not Subject to Transformation. This article refutes another objection of
those who say that bhakti is not inherent—that the manifestation of the soul’s qualities (jñāna-
śakti in particular) would violate the principle that the soul is not subject to vikāra
(transformation or change).

Part 15: Identity/Oneness (Tādātmya). The soul’s relationship with the śaktis by which it acts,
knows, and feels is tādātmya (identity/oneness); however, many devotees misunderstand this
term. As such, they misunderstand the soul’s relationship with the siddha-deha. This article
establishes the proper understanding.

Part 16: The Manifestation of Śakti. This article, an excerpt from the upcoming book of Swāmī
B. V. Tripurāri, Circle of Friends, illustrates practically the theoretical points that have been
discussed in this series of articles. It shows the interaction of the three śaktis in the life of a
sādhaka and illustrates how his or her svarūpa—with all its twenty-one qualities—slowly starts
to manifest as the jīva makes progress on the devotional path by the mercy of a devotee.

Part 17: Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s Govinda-Bhāṣya. Because Jīva Gosvāmī’s Sandarbhas can be
difficult to understand, it is immensely helpful to see how other ācāryas in our line understand
the siddhānta that Śrī Jīva establishes. Who better to look to than Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, who
has been called a second Jīva.2 I do so by examining his commentary on the final ādyāya of the
Vedānta-sūtra, where he establishes that the spiritual body (svena rūpeṇa) that the soul attains
upon entering the spiritual world is not a result of sādhana but rather a manifestation of the soul’s
svarūpa.

Part 18: Concluding Words. Bowing at the feet of Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and praying to
serve his vision on this 184th year after his appearance, I humbly present my series of articles
that aim to establish that Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura was perfectly in line with the teachings of
Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī.

Since it is obvious that Jīva Gosvāmī establishes that bhakti is bestowed, my main effort has
been to show how the Sandarbhas and other core Gauḍīya literature establish that bhakti is also
inherent. By so doing, I establish that bhakti is simultaneously bestowed and inherent. [↩]

“Just as Rūpa and Sanātana taught Jīva, so Viśvanātha and others trained Baladeva. He strikingly
resembles Jīva in the range of his interests and knowledge. In the Gaudīya sect, he is known as
Jīva II. As Jīva was pre-eminently a philosopher and grammarian, so also was Baladeva.”
Narang, Dr. Sudesh, The Vaisnava Philosophy According to Baladeva Vidyabhusana (Delhi: Nag
Publishers, 1984), 4. [↩]

(5.3)The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 3: The Swan

By Vrindaranya dasi

Before I establish simultaneous inherency and bestowal based on the Sandarbhas and other
foundational Gauḍīya literature, which will quickly become philosophically terse, I want to do a
couple of things that will be useful in understanding the articles that follow: (1) Illustrate
simultaneous inherency and bestowal in an accessible way by providing an analogy. Although
this analogy won’t satisfy those who want all points to be established with scriptural references,
it gives a framework that will hopefully make the later arguments somewhat easier to follow. (2)
Explain some topics related to simultaneous inherency and bestowal. (3) Explain the difference
between the ātmā and the jīva.

Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal

To illustrate simultaneous inherency and bestowal, I would like to relate an analogy that Sundara
Gopāla gave in his presentation mentioned in my first article. This analogy makes clear what
might otherwise seem like an opaque concept.

A swan in its natural state swims happily in a lake. Its nature (dharma) of being a swimmer is
inherent. However, when a swan is kept in a cage and not allowed to fulfill its nature, it becomes
unhappy and exhibits the perverted nature of plucking its own feathers. Despite experiencing
such suffering, a swan that has been held captive for a long time will not walk out of a cage even
if you open it. Being conditioned by its long imprisonment, the swan needs help to get out
(bestowal of mercy). When the swan is lifted out and put on a lake, only then will it exhibit its
true nature and thereby experience happiness. So a swan—even if it never has been in the water
because of being caged—is meant to swim. One could say that God created the swan with
swimming in mind. Nonetheless, because it is caged, its nature does not manifest. So we can ask,
“Is it the swan’s nature to swim, even though it is caged, plucking its own feathers, and not
touching water?” Yes, that is so even though the swan won’t swim unless someone lifts it out of
the cage and places it in the water.
This analogy shows both inherent nature (swimming) and bestowal of mercy (lifting the swan
onto a lake). Both are necessary for the caged swan. But we may ask further, “Which is more real
—the inherent nature or the bestowal of grace?” They are both real. Can we say that the swan is
a swimmer if it doesn’t exhibit that nature without grace? Of course, we can.

For a characteristic to be inherent, it must be an intrinsic part of something’s very nature. The
thing or person is incomplete and fails to manifest its nature if the characteristic doesn’t
manifest. For example, a person has the potential to be a millionaire; however, being a
millionaire is not an intrinsic part of being a person. Since being a millionaire is not an intrinsic
aspect of what it means to be a person, a person does not fulfill its nature by being a millionaire,
and a poor person can be fulfilled. A person who is poor is no less a person than someone who is
rich. In the case of a mango tree, can we say that its nature of producing mangos is solely due to
the person who watered it? Or are the mangoes due to something inherent in the seed? Or are
both things necessary? Both are necessary, thus showing simultaneous inherency and bestowal.

A soul with any of the five relationships with God is manifesting its nature. For example, one
who is in vātsalya-bhāva feels completely fulfilled in the relationship; he or she does not feel less
fulfilled than someone in mādhurya-bhāva. In contrast, the jīva takes on a false nature when
covered by māyā, and thereby fails to manifest its true nature. An individual soul only displays
all aspects of his true nature when he is established as a servant of God.1 Herein we see one
shortcoming of saying that bhakti is not inherent but is merely a potential. While being a
millionaire is not an intrinsic part of being a person, being a servant of God is an intrinsic part of
being an ātmā. Thus, to say that being a servant is merely a potential of the ātmā is to ignore the
fact that without being a servant of God, the ātmā displays a false nature. Therefore, we need to
acknowledge both inherency and bestowal to capture the true nature of the soul’s relationship
with bhakti. The inherency part of the equation underscores the fact that the purpose of our
existence is to serve God. Without this, we are incomplete and unfulfilled.

Our Inheritance

Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī recounts an excellent parable that Caitanya Mahāprabhu told
Sanātana Gosvāmī that explains simultaneous inherency and bestowal. Before telling the parable,
Mahāprabhu speaks several verses, including this one:
kṛṣṇa bhuli’ sei jīva anādi-bahirmukha

ataeva māyā tāre deya saṁsāra-duḥkha

Having forgotten Kṛṣṇa, the living entity has been attracted by the external feature from time
immemorial. Therefore, the illusory energy [māyā] gives him all kinds of misery in his material
existence.2

Although the verse says that the jīva has been attracted to the external energy from time without
beginning (anādi), it is significant that Mahāprabhu uses the word bhuli’ (having forgotten),
which effectively conveys the idea that the relationship already exists. The parable goes as
follows: a learned astrologer goes to the house of a poor and distressed man and tells him that the
man’s father, who was very wealthy, died elsewhere and was not able to reveal that he had left a
great treasure as an inheritance. Similarly, the Vedic literature tells us that we have a great
treasure in the form of a relationship with Kṛṣṇa, which is our inheritance. The astrologer advised
the man exactly how to remove the dirt to reveal the inheritance. There is likewise a proper way
to excavate our treasure: we should give up karma, jñāna, and yoga, and instead take to bhakti,
by which Kṛṣṇa can be fully satisfied.3

As the similarity of terms suggests, inherited implies a dimension of inherence. If I am searching

for my inheritance, it is because I own it inherently (by virtue of my relational identity as an
inheritor). By the grace of a sadhu (or the astrologer in the parable), I can locate that inheritance
and manifest my inherent identity as an inheritor. Thus, the story clearly shows both bestowal
(since the man would not have known about the inheritance without the mercy of the astrologer)
and inherency (since the man already possessed a treasure that he didn’t know about). After the
parable, Mahāprabhu says, “In all revealed scriptures, beginning with the Vedas, the central point
of attraction is Kṛṣṇa. When complete knowledge of him is realized, the bondage of māyā, the
illusory energy, is automatically broken.”4 By knowing Kṛṣṇa, one knows oneself.

Related Topics

The fact that bhakti is bestowed is clearly established throughout the Sandarbhas. In the coming
articles, I will thus not endeavor to establish this self-evident point. However, one must not think
that because I am establishing inherency, I am negating bestowal. But how can this be? Why
would bhakti need to be bestowed if it is inherent? Although I will answer this scripturally later,
let me begin by answering in more simple terms. Those who say bhakti is inherent would say
that our inherent nature is lost to us (think of the swan trapped in a cage) and we are
consequently suffering and cannot get out of our predicament without help. As Paramātma
Sandarbha, quoting Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (11.22.10) says, “Self-realization for the jīva, who is
saddled with beginningless ignorance, is not possible by his own efforts. It is possible only if
knowledge is imparted to him by another who knows the reality.”5

Therefore, although it is our nature to be a servant of God, this nature is unmanifest in our
present condition. Because of the extent of our material conditioning, there is no practical
difference in terms of sādhana between those who accept inherency and those who do not.
Therefore, all the verses that establish the need for accepting a guru, bhakti as abhidheya, and so
forth are accepted by both sides of the issue.

The Difference between the Jīva and the Ātmā

An important point to keep in mind when sorting out this controversy is the difference between
the ātmā and the jīva.6 In a general sense, the liberated soul is referred to as ātmā, and the bound
soul as jīva. Therefore, when you hear a statement about the jīva, such as “the jīva has no bliss,”
you have to remember that this statement is not discussing an eternal characteristic of the ātmā.
Although the ātmā is inherently blissful, when he is covered, he doesn’t realize his true nature.

For example, in the previous analogy, the man who didn’t realize that he had an inheritance
thought that he was poor, although he was actually rich. Similarly, although one of the svarūpa-
lakṣaṇa (intrinsic characteristics) of the jīva is that he is cid-ānandātmakaḥ (intrinsically of the
nature of knowledge and bliss), one of his taṭastha-lakṣaṇa (extrinsic or accidental attributes) is
that he is identified with the material world and is thus ignorant and suffering. Because the soul
has both intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics, it would be a mistake to think that every statement
about the jīva is describing an intrinsic characteristic. That said, there is a lot of overlapping of
the terms. For example, the soul’s twenty-one characteristics, being eternal, can be said to be the
characteristics of both the jīva or the ātmā. Furthermore, as we will see in part 11, Jīva Gosvāmī
sometimes even refers to eternally liberated devotees as taṭastha-jīvas.

The Paramātma Sandarbha describes both the intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics of the soul.
The extrinsic characteristics are not part of the soul’s eternal characteristics; they are temporary
and related to the fact that the soul is in bondage. The intrinsic characteristics are eternal—they
stay with the soul whether it is in bondage or liberated. However, whether the characteristics are
fully manifest or not depends on whether the soul is bound or liberated. For example, the soul’s
characteristic of cid-ānandātmakaḥ (intrinsically of the nature of knowledge and bliss) is not
manifest when the soul is covered by māyā. This characteristic is only fully manifest when the
soul is liberated from material nature, and one cannot be liberated without bhakti. Thus, as you
can see, it can be somewhat difficult to properly understand the characteristics of the soul. It is
very common in this controversy for someone to quote a statement that is describing a taṭastha-
lakṣaṇa of the soul as if it were a svarūpa-lakṣaṇa. As such, careful discernment is in order.

In this article, we have touched on the paradox of simultaneous inherence and bestowal. In doing
so, we have seen that whether a characteristic is intrinsic or extrinsic, fully manifest or covered,
is something that must be considered. As such, having a solid understanding of the foundational
principles covered in this article is immensely helpful. In the next article, we will look at what
previous Vaiṣṇava ācāryas have said in regard to bhakti being simultaneously inherent and
bestowed.

(5.3) The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 4: Vaiṣṇava Vedānta

By Vrindaranya dasi

As I will show in this article, all the major schools of Vaiṣṇava Vedānta agree that being a servant
of Bhagavān is intrinsic to the jīva but that this truth is covered by illusion.1 Gauḍīya Vedānta, as
propounded by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa in Govinda-bhāṣya, his commentary on the Vedānta-
sūtra, is no exception. If we are to believe the understanding of those who hold that bhakti is not
simultaneously bestowed and inherent, then Jīva Gosvāmī differs from these venerable Vaiṣṇavas
on this fundamental point.

Furthermore, according to the bestowal-only understanding, Jīva Gosvāmī’s conception of the

intrinsic nature of the jīva is in closer alignment with Śaṅkarācārya, who says that the jīvas are
ultimately mere contentless consciousness, than with the other Vaiṣṇava ācāryas.2 Although this
understanding is still an upgrade from that of Śaṅkarācārya—because those who advocate
bestowal-only still hold that the svarūpa-śakti has attributes—it is a downgrade from that of other
Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, who hold that the soul also has attributes.

Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa

Govinda-bhāṣya, which Śrī Govinda inspired Baladeva Prabhu to write in a dream, was
composed when the Gauḍīya sampradāya’s legitimacy was challenged. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
studied the Gauḍīya literature, including the Sandarbhas, in Vṛndāvana under the shelter of
Viśvānatha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, his śikṣā-guru:

Just as Rūpa and Sanātana taught Jīva, so Viśvanātha and others trained Baladeva. He strikingly
resembles Jīva in the range of his interests and knowledge. In the Gaudīya sect, he is known as
Jīva II. As Jīva was pre-eminently a philosopher and grammarian, so also was Baladeva.3

Śrīmad Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Gosvāmī upheld that “If Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa had not
been present at that time, our Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava identity would have disappeared from this
world. He established all the principles and philosophies established by Caitanya Mahāprabhu.”4
This observation was noted by others as well: “The Gauḍīya sect is highly indebted to Baladeva.
… But for Baladeva the Gaudīya sect would have gone into oblivion.”5 Rasik Vihari Joshi adds,
“It was only after his writing of the Govinda-bhāṣya that Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism became
recognized as an independent school of Vaiṣṇava Vedānta.”6 Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s
understanding of Gauḍīya siddhānta is thus extremely significant to our understanding of
Gauḍīya Vedānta as established in the Sandarbhas and other foundational Gauḍīya literature.
Who better to help us understand Jīva Gosvāmī than he who was considered a second Jīva? Thus,
at the end of this article, I will compare his interpretation of Vaiṣṇava Vedānta to the other
luminaries presented.

Śrī Rāmānuja

Śrī Rāmānuja is the earliest proponent of Vaiṣṇava Vedānta of those who I will outline. His
Viśiṣṭādvaita doctrine holds that “Forgetfulness that one is a śeṣa (servant) of God is due to
karma-born ignorance. When this is removed by enlightenment and the jīva realizes himself as
the eternal and natural attendant of an all-powerful, all-perfect and all-blissful Being, the jīva
only derives the highest bliss, and not the wretchedness of worldly subservience.”7

In Rāmānuja’s theology, God manifests the world in sport (līlā). That is, he is not lacking
anything but out of his fullness he plays. However, his cosmic play involves linking the jīvas
within him to external karmic bodies that they may ultimately attain eternal life in relation to
him. The jīvas are designed to serve him. In his Gītā commentary, Rāmānuja writes, “Being
supremely compassionate (parama-kāruṇika), he caused them to emanate (sṛṣṭvā) along with
sacrifice (yajña) instituted for the worship of himself.”8 This is, of course, a reference to the
karma-mārga. However, in Rāmānuja’s Vedānta, karma leads to jñāna and jñāna leads to bhakti,
by which mukti is attained and the jīva’s purpose in life is fulfilled in eternal service to God.
Alternately, the jīva may adopt the path of śaraṇāgati, understood by Rāmānuja as “a joyful
acknowledgement of the metaphysical fact, which was previously hidden from the devotee”9
that the jīva is by its very nature a servant of God. It is a part of the whole that exists exclusively
for the purpose of serving the whole. God is the śeṣi—the absolute ruler—and the jīva is his śeṣa
(servant), who upon realizing this understands his destiny and essence that is to give delight to
his śeṣi.10

Śrī Nimbārka

Śrī Nimbārka’s Dvaitādvaita doctrine similarly maintains, “The jīva, however, is an aṁśa, a
potency of īśvara, and so he retains his essential nature, though it is obscured by avidyā
constituted of beginningless karma while he is in the state of bondage. When liberated, he
realizes himself in his true relationship with the Lord.”11 Nimbārka’s Vedānta also explains that
the jīva’s ultimate attainment is twofold: attainment of qualities similar to Bhagavān’s qualities
(brahma-svarūpa-lābha) and the full development of one’s own individuality (ātmā-svarūpa-
lābha), the latter of which involves the full attainment of the jīva’s knowledge and bliss untainted
and unimpeded by matter. Avidyā covers the jīva’s knowledge and bliss when he wanders in
saṁsāra.12 Although it is only Brahman who is fully constituted of bliss (ānanda-maya),
Dvaitādvaita-vāda acknowledges that the jīva is constituted of a small portion of bliss.

Nimbārka’s Vedānta posits that this bliss of the jīva and its entire being is fully manifest upon
realizing Brahman as rasa, citing Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7: “And the individual soul, the knower,
is possessed of bliss in accordance with the text ‘For verily, on getting this essence one becomes
blissful.’”13 In other words, by attaining God as rasa, the jīva’s own ānanda—the joy of his
being—is realized and it tastes rasa. The date of Nimbārkācārya’s appearance remains unclear,
and scholars have tended to give him quite a late date. Recent studies, however, suggest that
Nimbārka’s Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha may well be the earliest commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra
available, earlier even than Śaṅkarācārya’s.14

Śrī Madhvācārya

Likewise, Śrī Madhvācārya’s Dvaita-vāda Vedānta posits, “In the endless movement of time, the
jīva is caught as a captive in the transmigratory cycle, going from birth to death and death to
birth, to reap the fruits of his own actions through enjoyment and suffering. Such a fate has
befallen the jīva, because of svabhāvājñāna or avidyā, the ignorance of his real nature, which is
characterized by consciousness and bliss and a sense of dependence on the Divine.”15
An important aspect of the “decisive contribution which Madhva has made to the interpretation
of the problem of life and its diversities”16 is his insight that the sameness of essence does not
rule out individual variety:

However beginningless the chain of karma may be, it is still incapable of explaining why a
particular course of action has been pursued in preference to another, without reference to an
ultimate difference in the nature and make-up of each moral agent. … Sameness or equality of
essence does not rule out individual variations. … But such underlying variations of degrees
must be recognized if plurality of selves is to have any real meaning or justification… identity
[sameness] of consciousness would render the present multiplicity of personalities
purposeless.17

Śrī Vallabha

Śrī Vallabhācārya was a contemporary of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. His Śuddhādvaita doctrine
holds: “Jīvas are countless in number and come out of the akṣara like sparks of fire, endowed
only with caitanya (consciousness) and no ānanda. It is not that the ānanda nature is lost; it is
only concealed owing to ignorance brought about by the will of the Puruṣottama, whose divine
sport the jīva and the world are meant to serve.”18 God manifests the world out of sport.
However, his sport or drama to be meaningful requires players for him to interact with. Thus, the
One becomes many and interacts with them—the jīvas.

Notably there are different types of souls in Vallabha’s perspective, and among those suited to
attain liberation, their inherent makeup determines the nature of their liberated life. Each type
attains his own nature in the service of God. In God’s world drama, he alone, as its director,
chooses which particular roles are given to which artists for the performance. Bhagavān assigns
roles at the onset of the world cycle, and “No one has the power to make changes in the choice of
the fruit, the path, the means, or the life that Bhagavān assigns to any particular being.”19 For
some types of souls, the life he assigns is ultimately a liberated one, and again, the enlightenment
and liberation of these jīvas in Vallabha’s Vedānta involves the removal of the veil covering their
inherent ānanda.

Among the types of souls designed for liberation, Vallabhācārya’s puṣṭi and maryādā souls are of
particular interest to Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas. Each attain different forms of liberated life in relation to
God by treading the bhakti paths of the same name—puṣṭi and maryādā. In his Bhakti-rasāmṛta-
sindhu, Rūpa Gosvāmī writes that these two paths are more or less the same as the paths he
outlines—rāgānugā and vaidhī.20 Vallabhācārya specifies that there are maryādā- and puṣṭi–
jīvas. They are designed for a particular sevā to Bhagavān, arising from his will. Baladeva
Vidyābhūṣaṇa teaches that there is a gradation of souls in terms of karma and bhakti—tāratamya.
Tāratamya is the very term that Madhvācārya uses in speaking of a gradation of souls, some of
whom are designed as servants of Bhagavān. According to Gauḍīya Vedānta, all jīvas are similar
in terms of their twenty-one characteristics, but they obviously cannot be exactly the same and
still be different, individual jīvas. The external differences, resulting from karma, are actually
derived from differences of internal volition. The same holds true for spiritual differences, which
are based on the jīva’s will, as part 17 of this series explains.

Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Revisited

Finally, in turning to Gauḍīya Vedānta, we defer to Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, the author of the
Govinda-bhāṣya commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra.21 Śrī Baladeva posits that all jīvas are
similar, in that they are all conscious entities endowed with knowledge, bliss, and eight other
attributes. In his Gītā-bhūṣaṇa 15.1, Śrī Baladeva mentions the eight attributes of the ātmā—
freedom from sin, freedom from old age, freedom from death, freedom from grief, freedom from
hunger, freedom from thirst, fulfilment of desire (satya-kāma), and fulfillment of will/resolve
(satya-saṅkalpa) along with knowledge and bliss. In his Gītā-bhūṣaṇa 3.17 he describes the ātmā
as possessed of the attribute of “self-manifesting bliss.” Similarly, in 3.43, he describes the ātmā
as “possessing condensed knowledge and bliss.”22 Because spiritual bliss implies bhakti, those
who hold that bhakti is not inherent consequently say that the bliss of the jīva is actually only the
absence of suffering. I address this point in subsequent articles of this series, but for now it is
interesting to note that their understanding does not align with that of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
since “condensed” bliss can hardly be merely an absence of suffering. After all, you can’t
condense an absence. Nor can an absence “self-manifest.”

As I will explain in more detail in part 17 of this series, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa discusses how
the liberated soul attains a spiritual body in his commentary on Vedānta-sūtra beginning with
4.4.1. Describing how such a soul attains a spiritual body by bhakti and “moves about laughing
and playing,” he makes the point that “the phrase ‘accomplishing one’s own form’ (svena
rūpeṇa-abhiniṣpadyate) means manifesting one’s own form because the word svena (his own) is
used.”23 This insight of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa is extremely important because it shows that
even though the specific form (rūpena) is bestowed upon a soul who has received bhakti, it is
nonetheless inherent.

Grace and Conclusion

Another point that all the ācāryas agree on is that grace is an essential condition of liberation.24
As such, they also concur that there is no jīvan-mukti in the sense that Advaita Vedāntins
understand the term (liberation of a jīva without bhakti while he is still in the material body). For
all the Vaiṣṇava Vedāntins, one’s true nature can only be realized in relation to the Lord. As such,
the idea that the jīva’s nature is merely eternal consciousness, free from material suffering, does
not find support in any of their commentaries on Vedānta-sūtra.

As we have seen, Rāmānujācārya, Nimbārkācārya, Madhvācārya, Vallabhācārya, and Baladeva

Vidyābhūṣaṇa all agree that knowledge and bliss are inherent in the jīva, and they hold that the
jīva is intrinsically a servant of Bhagavān although the jīva is covered by māyā. Although this is
exactly what Śrī Jīva says, those who argue against simultaneous inherency and bestowal have a
misleading way of interpreting his words such that many of the soul’s inherent characteristics
disappear on closer inspection. Thus, we should be aware that to argue against simultaneous
inherency and bestowal is a radical departure from other Vaiṣṇava traditions. Let us be clear on
what exactly their position is.

They argue that jīvas are not inherently meant to serve God even in the teleological sense (the
purpose for which they exist).25 Although they agree that the soul is eternal and conscious, they
say that the soul has no inherent knowledge or ānanda—only consciousness and lack of material
suffering.26 Their conception is that the soul is essentially a blank slate and is only a doer,
knower, and enjoyer in potential. Such a potential is realized when the soul identifies with a
material or spiritual body, both of which they consider to be constitutionally different from the
soul. One example they give of this concept is that the soul is like a car battery and the body
(material or spiritual) is the car. This understanding makes the jīva’s sojourn profoundly
purposelessness, culminating in redundancy.27 Like an extra battery for a car that won’t ever
need a new battery because it powers itself.

As we have seen, this interpretation of Jīva Gosvāmī is a radical departure from other Vaiṣvava
ācāryas. Thus, rather than thinking that Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa differs from Jīva Gosvāmī, the
more likely conclusion is that those who advocate the bestowal-only position differ from Jīva
Gosvāmī. In the next article, I will show how this is the case. By looking at the jīva’s twenty-one
qualities as delineated by Jīva Gosvāmī in the Paramātma Sandarbha, I will uncover some major
contradictions in the bestowal-only position.

(5.4) The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 5: The Twenty-One Intrinsic
Characteristics of the Soul

By Vrindaranya dasi

Let us examine the soul’s intrinsic characteristics (svarūpa-lakṣaṇa), which Śrī Jīva says were
enumerated by Śrī Jāmātṛ Muni, who is a very senior teacher of the Śrī Vaiṣṇava sampradāya. He
mentions that Jāmātṛ Muni bases his list of intrinsic characteristics on the Padma Purāṇa. The
Padma Purāṇa lists eighteen characteristics, and Jāmātṛ Muni adds three additional
characteristics (being a knower, doer, and enjoyer).1 Here are the twenty-one characteristics:

[1] The ātmā is not a demigod, human, animal, or immovable being [such as a plant]. [2] He is
not the body, senses, mind, vital force, or intellect. [3] The soul is not inert; [4] not subject to
change; [5] and not just knowledge alone. [6] The soul manifests himself to himself [he is self-
luminous] and [7] he reveals himself to others and reveals others to himself [like the rays of a
lamp]; [8] the soul is of one form and [9] is situated in his own essential nature. [10] The soul is
conscious, [11] pervades the body, [12] and is intrinsically of the nature of consciousness and
bliss. [13] The soul has its own identity, [14] is distinct from other individual selves, [15] is
atomic, [16] eternal, [17] and pure. [18] The soul is a knower, [19] doer, [20] and enjoyer. [21]
By nature, he is a servant of Paramātmā at all times.2

These are eternal, inherent characteristics of the soul. When devotees argue whether bhakti is
inherent or not, they will point to these characteristics. It seems, therefore, that it should be easy
to determine whether bhakti is inherent or not. I will now explain why what seems like an
obvious answer has become a controversy.

How Some Svarūpa Characteristics Can Be Unmanifest

Importantly, although these characteristics are eternal, they are not all fully manifest when the
jīva is conditioned by material nature. Thus, Jīva Gosvāmī devotes four anucchedas (Paramātma
Sandarbha 23–26) to explaining that when the jīva is materially conditioned, some of his svarūpa
qualities are hidden. For example, Jīva Gosvāmī quotes Śrīdhara Svāmī in anuccheda 23 as
saying that the jīva’s bliss is hidden (apeta-bhāgaḥ) when he is conditioned by material nature.
But what is the significance of this point in regard to whether bhakti is inherent?

All the Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas, Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism included, say that one cannot be liberated
without bhakti. Think about the relevance of this point in terms of the soul’s characteristic of
ānanda (cid-ānandātmika). If the soul’s bliss is not fully manifest without liberation, then it
means that the soul’s ānanda is either the bliss of Brahman or the bliss of bhakti. Why? Because
a liberated soul is either identified with Brahman or enjoying the bliss of a relationship with
Bhagavān.

But one may ask, why couldn’t cid-ānandātmika refer to the bliss of the jīvan-mukta? In other
words, why couldn’t it refer to the bliss of the ātmā who is not identified with material nature but
not identified with Brahman or Bhagavān? Jīvan-mukta is a term used by Śaṅkarācārya to refer
to someone who is liberated while still in the material body, waiting for his prārabdha-karma to
expire. The problem with this idea is that the Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas do not accept
Śaṅkarācārya’s definition of jīvan-mukta. For example, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī says that
only the Vaiṣṇava conception of jīvan-mukta is eternal:

There are two types of jīvan-mukta, one who is liberated in this life by bhakti and one who is
liberated by jñāna. One who is liberated by bhakti is attracted by the qualities of Kṛṣṇa and
worships him. One who is liberated by knowledge that has no fruit (śuṣka-jñāna) fall down due
to offenses.3

For Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, the only way to be liberated while still apparently in a material body is
to be a devotee with a perfected sādhaka-deha. I say “apparently in a material body” because the
perfected sādhaka-deha is not considered material.4 According to Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, a jīvan-
mukta is a devotee with a relationship with Bhagavān. Therefore, the most that someone without
bhakti can realize is that they are not the material body. However, such realization is a product of
sattva-guṇa, so someone with such realization is still conditioned by material nature.5
Accordingly, it is not transcendental bliss, and it is not possible that one of the eternal
characteristics of the soul is material. Therefore, we come back to the conclusion I stated earlier,
that the bliss of a liberated soul is due to either identification with Brahman or a relationship with
Bhagavān.

Furthermore, many of the twenty-one characteristics of the soul require śakti, and śakti is
unmanifest when the jīva is identified with Brahman. Therefore, the full manifestation of the
twenty-one qualities of the jīva occurs only when the soul has a relationship with Bhagavān.
What is the relevance of all this? It means that when Jīva Gosvāmī states that an intrinsic
characteristic of the soul is that he has ānanda, he is referring to the bliss of a relationship with
Bhagavān. In other words, the ānanda of the ātmā is bhakti.

Those who argue that bhakti is not inherent try to get around this problem by saying that Jīva
Gosvāmī defined the bliss of the ātmā as the mere absence of suffering. I will refute this
misreading of Jīva Gosvāmī in part 10 of this series.

Is it possible that the jīva’s natural state is not liberated? No, because Jīva Gosvāmī says:

…the jīva is liberated by its very own inherent nature, and it is due to ignorance alone that there
is but an appearance of bondage. When knowledge arises, the liberated state is simply brought to
light. So, the intended sense is that liberation is the jīva’s permanent state.6

Thus, we can see the problem with the idea of those who advocate bestowal-only. They say that
the jīva’s intrinsic characteristics can be fully manifest without bhakti. But without bhakti one
can’t be liberated.7 However, because Jīva Gosvāmī says that “the jīva is liberated by its very
own inherent nature,” this position is illogical: how can you fully experience your inherent
nature, which is a liberated state, and not be liberated? And yet, this is exactly the awkward
position that those who say bhakti is not inherent are forced into. In the opening anuccheda of
Prīti Sandarbha, Jīva Gosvāmī confirms: “As long as the jīva does not have devotion (prīti) for
me, Vāsudeva, he will not be liberated from the body (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 5.5.6).”8 As such,
those who reject inherency are backed into this troublesome corner. This fatal flaw of their
understanding proves to be a checkmate.

The Four States of Consciousness

To further establish this important point that the jīva can only realize the full manifestation of his
intrinsic qualities in liberation, let us consider the same point from another angle of vision—the
four states of consciousness described in Paramātma Sandarbha 20. The three states of the jīva—
waking, sleeping, and deep sleep—are material. God is famous as the fourth state (turīya). When
the jīva (the ātmā covered by avidyā, or ignorance) realizes his true nature, he will experience the
fourth state of consciousness.9 Tattva Sandarbha 63.4 clarifies this point: “When the mind,
giving up the three states of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep by bhakti-yoga, spontaneously
enjoys the lotus feet of the Lord, at that time the conditioned soul realizes the Lord and gives up
all material desires (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.7.20–21).”10 Bhagavat Sandarbha 105 confirms,
“One cannot realize the real svarūpa described in scripture by being absorbed in the effects of
māyā. Thus, for realization you must reject māyā. In the absence of māyā you realize prema.”11

As these quotations establish, bhakti is integral to experiencing the fourth state of consciousness,
God-realization, which is beyond the three material states of consciousness. Since three of the
states of consciousness are material and the other is God-consciousness, the jīva must either be in
material consciousness or God-consciousness. There is no state of consciousness in which the
jīva experiences himself separate from material or spiritual consciousness.12 Since the scripture
establishes that the jīva is not material, it naturally follows that God-realization is our natural
state. Obviously, the soul cannot be God conscious without bhakti. Therefore, having bhakti is
the natural state of the soul. Indeed, this is precisely what Jīva Gosvāmī affirms in Bhakti
Sandarbha 178 when he states that selfless bhakti “is natural for the jīvas” (iyam akiñcanākhyā
bhaktir eva jīvānāṁ svabhāvata ucitā).

This conclusion is also indirectly confirmed in Paramātma Sandarbha, quoting Śrīmad

Bhāgavatam: “Self-realization for the jīva, who is saddled with beginningless ignorance, is not
possible by his own efforts. It is possible only if knowledge is imparted to him by another who
knows the reality (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.22.10).”13 Why can’t the jīva realize himself by his
own effort? It is because of the inconceivable power of māyā:

The extrinsic potency of Bhagavān acts contrary to logic [i.e., her behavior cannot be understood
simply through logic]; otherwise, how is it possible that the living entity, who is the ruler of [i.e.,
superior to] prakṛti, being conscious and liberated, becomes bound and miserable? (Śrīmad
Bhāgavatam 3.7.9, quoted in Tattva-sandarbha)14

If self-realization were only the realization that one is separate from the material body, then it
would be possible for the jīva to realize such even while conditioned by material nature, because
such realization can be achieved with sattva-guṇa.15 Therefore, the reason why the bound jīva
needs someone to impart this knowledge to him is because the knowledge is transcendental to
the material world. Since the state of consciousness that is transcendental to the material world is
God-consciousness—the fourth state of consciousness—self-realization means to realize of our
true nature in relation to God.16

As we have seen in this article, to be fully situated in one’s intrinsic nature is to realize our
relationship with God by bhakti. This intrinsic nature is eternal, but it is unmanifest and requires
grace to realize. Thus, the situation is like the treasure described in part 3 of this series: although
the man was wealthy (inherence), he needed the astrologer (bestowal/grace) to tell him where to
find his wealth. Similarly, our natural state is to be established in God consciousness, but we
need help to turn to God because we are covered by the inconceivable potency of māyā. In this
way, we have seen powerful evidence that bhakti is both inherent and bestowed. In the next
article, we will consider the matter from another angle of vision: whether the soul searches for
bliss or merely for the absence of suffering.

(5.5) The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 6: The Search for Bliss

By Vrindaranya dasi

Additional articles in this series

In the last article, I discussed how all of one’s inherent characteristics are only fully manifest in
liberation and gave further support for this point by discussing the four states of consciousness
that the soul can experience. In this article, I will discuss another major philosophical problem
with the idea that bhakti is not simultaneously inherent and bestowed: a logical consequence is
that spiritual ānanda is not the nature of the soul and that the soul searches not for bliss but rather
for the absence of suffering. The reason for this is that there is no way to have spiritual ānanda
without bhakti. This irrefutable fact is an inconvenient truth for those who maintain that spiritual
ānanda is not the nature of the soul. This outlier position is hard to defend, and this is particularly
so in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism due to copious statements to the contrary.

Take, for example, what Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa says in this regard in his Govinda-bhāṣya
commentary to 4.4.1, which is an explanation of what the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3 is talking
about when it says that the mukta “attains its own form” (svena rūpeṇābhiniṣpadyate) and in
doing so “moves about laughing and playing (krīdaṇ).” Baladeva comments, “Some say that the
jīva, being self-illuminating consciousness alone, on attaining the supreme light, manifests
merely a state of destruction of all suffering caused by the superimposition of prakṛti. But that is
not so, because śruti states that one attains intense bliss. Rasaṁ hy evāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati:
the jīva, attaining the Lord who is rasa, becomes blissful (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7).”1

Those who say that bhakti is only bestowed and not simultaneously an eternal part of the jīva’s
nature will protest that this comment says just the opposite of the jīva being bliss. “It clearly says
that the bliss was attained and that due to receiving bhakti!” they will exclaim. But Baladeva
Vidyābhūṣaṇa already answered this doubt. He summarized the pūrvapakṣa position thus:

(Pūrvapakṣa) It [the jīva’s svarūpa as characterized by having a form of bliss] arises as a result of
sādhana since the word used is abhiniṣpatti: to attain. Otherwise, this word would be meaningless
and the scriptures dealing with liberation would not be teaching a goal, for if this form [rūpeṇa]
were naturally related to the ātmā, being a manifestation only, there would be no attainment,
since the natural svarūpa would have been previously present. Thus the form must be achieved
by practice.2

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa answers this doubt: “The jīva manifests his svarūpa on attaining the
Lord since the word ‘his own’ is used. Why is this the meaning?” To which he answers,
“Because of the word svena, which modifies rūpeṇa. This indicates his natural, inherent
form/nature. If he were to receive a new form, the word would have no meaning, since having
his own form can only be accomplished by not obtaining a new form.”3 Thus, although it seems
like that which is “attained” is a new acquisition, it is actually inherent: simultaneous inherency
and bestowal. The jīva, upon attaining liberation by way of the bhakti bestowed upon him,
realizes its own nature, laughing and playing in rasānanda with he who is himself rasa.4

The above understanding is straightforward, yet some devotees ignore it or try to interpret it
differently and force it to fit with what they consider overwhelming evidence for non-inherency.
But, fortunately, the straightforward reading of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s commentary saves us
from the awkward conclusion of such a position: that the spiritual body is merely superimposed
on the ātmā.

As we will see in a subsequent article, the inelegant solution of the bestowed-only side is that the
relationship between the ātmā and the siddha-deha is similar to that of the ātmā and the material
body: the souls drags the siddha-deha like a magnet drags iron filings, never actually making
direct contact.5 The numerous problems with this conception will be addressed in two articles:
part 13, which discusses vikāra in the ātmā, and part 14, which discusses the proper
understanding of tadātmya.

In the first verse of Prīti Sandarbha, Jīva Gosvāmī himself refutes the idea that the soul searches
not for bliss but rather for the absence of suffering:
All beings ultimately aim for prīti since one sees that a person exerts himself for that purpose.
But not finding a suitable object for his prīti, a person avoids directing prīti to the Lord. Since
everyone desires to find the ideal object for his prīti, it should result finally in prīti for the Lord.
Since it has been properly concluded that prīti for the Lord is the highest human goal, it is correct
to say that Prīti Sandarbha should be written. This Sandarbha has been compiled in sequence to
show that prīti is the highest goal.6

Why would the soul search for prīti if our actual spiritual nature is only to be conscious and free
from suffering? But the opposing side will argue, “Just see. This quotation says that prīti is the
goal; therefore, it is not inherent.” This is not a well-thought-out position. Why is prīti the goal?
Why do we strive for it? Because it is in our nature to experience it. Being in the unnatural
position of being covered by māyā, we search for our dharma: our nature is to serve Bhagavān,
dāsa-bhūto harer eva (the soul is a servant of Bhagavān Hari only and never of anyone else).

The Soul’s Svarūpa and Dharma

In the coming articles, we will explore the concepts of svarūpa and dharma, as they are essential
for the discussion. But in relation to this quotation of Jīva Gosvāmī, let me note that the twenty-
one characteristics of the jīva include both svarūpa and dharma. Some important points in regard
to svarūpa and dharma are essential for proper understanding of the nature of the soul:

The essential dharma or svabhāva is that characteristic which is unique to the object and which
determines the nature of that object. According to the Viśiṣṭādvaitin, every entity in the universe,
both physical as well as ontological, consists of two aspects; substantive aspect which is dharmī
and attributive aspect which is dharma. The latter cannot exist by itself and it necessarily inheres
in the former which is the basis or āśraya for the dharma. The two by virtue of their intrinsic
character are distinct but are inseparable. When an object is cognized, it is comprehended along
with its essential attributes….The implication of this is that the svarūpa of an entity cannot be
known or described except in terms of its essential attributes. In the opinion of Vedānta Deśika, a
mere svarūpa devoid of essential characteristics is a non-entity like the horns of the hare.7

Thus, both the jīva’s svarūpa and dharma are intrinsic, inseparable aspects of his being. The
bestowed-only adherents try to separate these two aspects of the jīva, saying that the jīva is
merely conscious but has the potential to act, know, and feel. For example, they say that the
jñāna of the jīva only amounts to consciousness and the jñāna-śakti is a “quality potential.” By
this they do not mean that jñāna-śakti is unmanifest in the jīva—in other words, that the potential
is within the jīva. Rather, what they mean is that the jīva, being conscious, has the potential to
identify with the svarūpa-śakti, which actually has the potential (jñāna-śakti). They say that by
identifying with the svarūpa-śakti, the jīva can become one with the svarūpa-śakti like an iron
rod can become like fire. Although such an iron rod essentially acts as fire, it still remains
constitutionally different from fire. Hence their need for the term “quality potential.” It is only a
potential because one is forced to admit that—according to their understanding—the śakti is
actually in the fire, not the iron rod. But in Paramātma Sandarbha 22, Jīva Gosvāmī says that the
jīva has jñāna and jñāna-śakti, not that the jīva only has the potential to identify with the śakti.8
Thus, contrary to the opinion that the jīva only has the potential to be a doer, Jīva Gosvāmī
establishes that the jīva is an actual doer. In part 9 of this series, I will show how he establishes
this point. In other words, those who advocate bestowal-only misunderstand the analogy of the
iron rod and fire. How the Gauḍīya commentators use the analogy is to explain the relationship
between the material body and the svarūpa-śakti, not the relationship between the jīva and the
svarūpa-śakti.

In summary, I have shown the major philosophical problems that the proponents of non-
inherency have to deal with. Keep these problems in mind when considering the relative
importance of different arguments. Although neither position in this debate is without some
weaknesses, even if only apparent, not every philosophical problem is on the same level of
severity. Each side will have some strong points, so we cannot be paralyzed when we see that the
debate is not entirely black and white. Black and white understandings are mere simplifications
for the less intelligent. Therefore, we need to be able to keep the big picture in mind while
assessing the relative importance of different arguments. And have no doubt about it—the
problems that I have pointed out with the bestowed-only position are not mere flesh wounds;
they are fatal.

(5.6) The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 7: The Soul is a Servant of
Bhagavān Hari

By Vrindaranya Dasi

As I mentioned in part 5 of this series, Jāmātṛ Muni bases eighteen of the jīva’s twenty-one
qualities on the Padma Purāṇa, Uttara-khaṇḍa 226.34–37. The statement dāsa-bhūto harer eva of
Padma Purāṇa 6.226.37 means that the soul is a servant of Bhagavān Hari only and never of
anyone else. Jāmātṛ Muni’s parallel term is śeṣatva. The proper understanding of dāsa-bhūto
harer eva and śeṣatva are essential to grasping the true nature of the jīva because Jāmātṛ Muni,
Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa all emphasize that service to
Bhagavān is the jīva’s central attribute. As we saw in part 4 of this series, other Vaiṣṇava ācāryas
hold service to the Lord to be central as well.

Nevertheless, some argue that they simply mean that the soul is not independent and, like
everything, including matter, ultimately conforms to the will of the Lord. Such devotees argue
that the word dāsa merely means subordinate or dependent; it does not literally mean a devotee.
This reading of Padma Purāṇa 6.226.37 is problematic on many levels. First, the passage has
already just stated that the jīva is “always dependent upon” (paravān sadā) the Lord. Thus, if
dāsa-bhūto harer eva means exactly the same thing as the attribute previously mentioned, it
introduces the fault of redundancy. Clearly, it must mean something other or more than simple
dependence upon the Lord.

We must remember that dāsa-bhūto harer eva is one of the soul’s intrinsic characteristics, which
are not all fully manifest when the jīva is covered by māyā.1 The attribute of dāsa-bhūtaḥ only
fully manifests when one has realized one’s svarūpa fully, that is, when one has completely
manifested the twenty-one essential attributes of the soul in full. Thus, although the attribute of
dāsa-bhūtaḥ may be unmanifest, it is still an essential defining attribute of the jīva. That is to say
that the jīva is a devotee constitutionally. That is why when the jīva realizes his essential nature,
he experiences complete fulfillment (kṛtārtha), meaning there is nothing further for him to wish
for or to attain.

That the state of perfection is the full manifestation of dāsa-bhūtaḥ is clear from Vedānta-sūtra
4.4.1, sampadyāvirbhāvaḥ svena-śabdāt, which affirms that the soul’s state of perfection is the
manifesting of his own true nature. This reading is accepted by all Vedāntins, including
Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, and Baladeva Vidyabhūṣana Prabhu. Otherwise, it would imply
that being a bhakta is extrinsic or superimposed on the jīva in the state of perfection. If Jīva
Gosvāmī had intended to overturn this central paradigm of Vedānta, he would surely have made
it very clear. Rather, he states in Bhakti Sandarbha 178 that bhakti is natural for the jīva
(svabhāvata, the innate disposition or own true nature).

Padma Purāṇa 6.226.37 begins as follows: ma-kāreṇocyate jīvaḥ, “The letter m [in aum] signifies
the jīva.” In other words, these attributes of the jīva are being explained in the context of an
explanation of the meaning of Praṇava (aum) within the Tirumantra (aum namo nārāyaṇāya).
The Śrī Vaiṣṇavas are the authorities on this subject, as this is after all one of the sacred mantras
of their lineage and, as Jīva Gosvāmī says in Bhakti-sandarbha 178, aum is their mahā-vākya.
Their ācāryas, including Jāmātṛ Muni, have written extensively on the meaning of the
Tirumantra, including aum, in their rahasya-granthas, or “secret texts.” Therein, they clarify that
the jīva’s essential nature is to have a mood of loving service towards the Lord, not simply to
serve the Lord indirectly without knowing it (in the sense that all things ultimately conform to
the will of the Lord).

Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī supports this, explaining that the jīva’s nature (svabhāva) is to
possess the conception (abhimāna) of being a servant of the Lord:

jīvera svabhāva—kṛṣṇa-‘dāsa’-abhimāna

dehe ātma-jñāne ācchādita sei ‘jñāna’

The jīva’s intrinsic nature is to have the conception of being a servant of Kṛṣṇa. That knowledge
is covered by the misconception of the body being the self.

Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya 24.201

Needless to say, serving Kṛṣṇa indirectly in some ultimate sense, without even knowing it, can
hardly be the defining nature (svarūpa or svabhāva) of the jīva, as such a definition could just as
easily designate prakṛti, or matter. Rather, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja is saying that the jīva’s true nature
is to serve the Lord with intentionality, and this is precisely what Śrī Rāmānuja and Jāmātṛ Muni
explain also.

In these essential attributes of the soul from Padma Purāṇa 6.226.34–37, it is worth noting śloka
6.226.33, which states: “Here (i.e., in the mantra) the letter u expresses Śrī, who is the support of
the world. The wise say that the letter ma expresses the soul, the servant of the two (i.e., Viṣṇu
and Lakṣmī).” Padma Purāṇa 6.226.22–23, which Jīva Gosvāmī quotes in Bhakti-sandarbha 178,
states much the same. Thus, we see that here again the soul is described as a servant, not only of
the Lord but also of Lakṣmī, his śakti, as the Lord’s mercy is possible only through her. In
Bhagavat Sandarbha 99, Jīva Gosvāmī clarifies that the Lord’s śakti refers to the goddess Mahā-
lakṣmī, who is nondifferent from him, and that the word śakti denotes “the supreme internal
energy of Bhagavān” (bhagavad-antaraṅga-mahā-śaktiḥ). He further states in Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha
189 that in Vṛndāvana this internal potency is Śrī Rādhā, who is the original and complete
Lakṣmī (svayaṁ-lakṣmī) and the pinnacle of the highest prema (śrī-vṛndāvane śrī-rādhikāyām
eva svayaṁ-lakṣmītvam).

From the repeated emphasis in Padma Purāṇa that the jīva is an eternal servant of Hari (and not
only Hari, but of the Divine Couple), it is clear that Padma Purāṇa 6.226.37 (and elsewhere) is
not simply saying that the jīva, like prakṛti, follows the will of the Lord. To be sure, Padma
Purāṇa 6.226.47–48 affirms, “The highest soul, Hari, is the master. I always belong to him. His
mind should be employed according to the desire of that Lord only.” This describes the
conception of being a servant and articulates the jīva’s essential attribute of dāsa-bhūto harer eva,
stated earlier.

Just in case there is still any doubt, let us turn now to the writings of Baladeva Vidyabhūṣana
Prabhu specifically on this verse from Padma Purāṇa. In his commentary on the third ray of
Vedānta-syamantaka, a work by his guru, Rādhā-Dāmodara Gosvāmī, Baladeva Prabhu writes:

dāsa-bhūto harer eva nānyasyaiva kadācaneti pādmāt । nanu sarveṣāṁ jīvānāṁ tad-dāsatve
svarūpa-siddhe nirviśeṣe ca saty upadeśāder vaiyarthyam iti cen na । tad-abhivyañjakatvena tasya
sārthakyāt । na hi mathanena vinā dadhni sarpir araṇau ca vahnir āvirbhavet ।

The individual soul must be considered a servant of the Supreme Lord, as stated in the Padma
Purāṇa (Uttara-khaṇḍa, 226.37):

dāsa-bhūto harer eva nānyasyaiva kadācana

“The individual soul is a servant of Lord Hari only, and never of anyone else.”

Someone may argue, “If all individual souls’ status as servants of Lord Hari is an accomplished
fact by their own nature and is invariable, then the instructions of the scriptures and so on would
be useless.” It is not so, for by revealing their status as the Lord’s servants, such instructions and
so on are useful. Without churning, butter certainly does not appear from yogurt, nor does fire
appear from wood without friction.2
If Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Prabhu were interpreting dāsa-bhūtaḥ as merely meaning that the soul
in all conditions is dependent upon, and ultimately follows, the will of the Lord, then the
hypothetical objection that Baladeva Prabhu raises and goes on to answer would not make any
sense. Rather, Baladeva Prabhu’s response to the hypothetical objection makes it clear that the
soul is a servant of Hari, but that this nature is concealed or unmanifest, just like butter is
inherent in yogurt or fire is inherent in firewood. With the right “churning” or “friction” this
unmanifest attribute of the soul becomes manifest or revealed.

Having understood the Padma Purāṇa verse dāsa-bhūtaḥ in context, I will next consider Jāmātṛ
Muni’s parallel term, śeṣatva.

(5.7) The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 8: A Servant of God (Śeṣatva)

By Vrindaranya Dasi

As I discussed in the last article, some devotees argue that the soul’s attribute of dāsa-bhūto harer
eva (the soul is a servant of Bhagavān Hari only and never of anyone else) in Padma Purāṇa
6.226.37 simply means that the soul is not independent and, like everything including matter,
ultimately conforms to the will of the Lord. Such devotees understand Śrī Jāmātṛ Muni’s parallel
term, śeṣatva, in a similar light. Examining the origin of the term śeṣatva, however, shows the
inadequacy of this interpretation. The śeṣa-śeṣi (servant/master) relationship is a key concept in
Śrī Vaiṣṇavism. Since the term is not common in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, it is easy for those
unfamiliar with its origin to fail to understand its significance. The concept of śeṣa-śeṣi is
explained on the Ramanuja.org website:

The essence of our Śrī Visiśtādvaita Sampradāya lies in its emphasis on the relationship of śeṣa
and śeṣi, subsisting between the individual soul and the Paramātmā respectively. Defining
śeṣatva, Śrī Bhāṣyakarā [Śrī Rāmānuja] says, paragata atisaya ādhāna icchhayā upāḍeyatvaṁeva
yasya svarūpam sa śeṣaḥparaḥśeṣi [A servant is one who always wants to add glory to his master.
So let us try to add glory to the Lord.]. Thus, broadly, one who exists solely for the purposes of
being of some use to another, is a śeṣa, and the counterpart, for whose sole benefit he exists, is
the śeṣi. The very reason for our existence is to be of service or kainkaryā to the Lord and to him
only. However, full-blown Bhagavat śeṣatva manifests itself in service not only to the
Paramātmā, but also to his devotees who are near and dear to him, viz., Bhāgavatās.1
As we see, śeṣatva does not refer to a general state of being subservient to God in the sense that
not even a blade of grass moves without God’s sanction. Such a general truth could hardly be
considered the “essence of our Śrī Visiśtādvaita Sampradāya.” Although those of us who have
little knowledge of other major Vaiṣṇava traditions might not realize the significance of the term
śeṣatva, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī—and the learned contemporaries whom he was writing for—would
know exactly what śeṣatva means. Thus, if Jīva Gosvāmī thought that Jāmātṛ Muni’s definition
of this attribute of the soul was incorrect, he would have made it clear.

It is true, however, that in Paramātma Sandarbha 37 and his commentary, Jīva Gosvāmī chose to
devote most of his discussion of the term śeṣatva to defeat Māyāvāda philosophy by stressing
that the soul is eternally subordinate to Bhagavān, a major theme of the Paramātma Sandarbha.
This focus on defeating Māyāvāda philosophy in this anuccheda is understandable since it is the
attribute of śeṣatva that most lends to highlighting the eternal difference between Bhagavān and
the individual soul. In the main text, Jīva Gosvāmī also does not spend much time discussing
śeṣatva in the liberated state, at which time śeṣatva is fully manifest. Furthermore, one of the two
English translations of Paramātma Sandarbha does not include Jīva Gosvāmī’s auto-commentary,
entitled Sarva-saṁvādhinī, which does discuss śeṣatva in the liberated state.2 Therefore, it is
understandable that some devotees do not understand the whole import of the soul’s
characteristic of śeṣatva.

Here are some of the important scriptural references in the Sarva-saṁvādhinī: raso vai saḥ, rasaṁ
hy evāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati, “The Lord is rasa. Attaining this rasa the jīva attains bliss
(Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.6.2).”3 “The jīva is described in his liberated state in sa tatra paryet jakṣat
krīḍan ramamāṇaḥ: the jīva moves about there, eats, plays and enjoys (Chāndogya Upaniṣad
8.12.3).”4 “The liberated soul rises from the body, reaches the Supreme Lord, and becomes
endowed with his own form (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3). Svarūpa āvirbhūta (his svarūpa
manifests through sādhana) in the sūtra refers to the jīva.”5 Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa has an
extensive commentary on this passage from Chāndogya Upaniṣad in his Govinda-bhāṣya
commentary. In part 17 of this series, I will discuss this important section.

Jīva Gosvāmī also quotes Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.7.93: “The jīva attains a state with the nature of
Brahman. In that sense, the jīva attains non-difference with Paramātmā by bhakti. Different from
the Lord, the jīva is covered by ignorance.”6 What does it mean to attain oneness with Brahman
by bhakti? Of course, in the Gauḍīya understanding, there is not absolute oneness with God.
Rather, there is simultaneous oneness and difference from God. Thus, oneness here means to
realize that we are particles of sac-cid-ānanda with inherent śakti that allows us to serve God.
The svarūpa-śakti is the energy that allows simultaneous oneness and difference: although God
and his devotees are one, by the svarūpa-śakti this oneness simultaneously expresses itself in
difference that facilitates līlā. In contrast, when the jīva identifies with the māyā-śakti, there is
false difference based on ignorance.

Jīva Gosvāmī also says in Paramātma Sandarbha 45 that three verses from Śrīmad Bhāgavatam
show the quality of śeṣatva as described by Jāmātṛ Muni:

When the mind is free of the contamination of lust and greed arising from the false identity of I
and mine, and becomes pure, without [happiness and distress], and peaceful, the jīva sees himself
different from ignorance, full of knowledge, devoid of coverings, subtle (small), undivided, and
unattached, and as well sees ignorance devoid of power to affect him, by a mind endowed with
jñāna and vairāgya, and principally with bhakti.7

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.25.16–18

These verses unequivocally show that śeṣatva includes bhakti.8 Of course, some devotees will
insist that bhakti is not part of the svarūpa characteristic itself. They will argue that bhakti is a
gift and, as such, it is separate from the svarūpa characteristic. By understanding the meaning of
śeṣatva in context, however, the absurdity of this claim is apparent—after all, how can bhakti be
separate from being a servant of God?

Having examined the statement dāsa-bhūto harer eva of Padma Purāṇa 6.226.37 (the soul is a
servant of Bhagavān Hari only and never of anyone else) and Jāmātṛ Muni’s parallel term
śeṣatva, let us return to the subject of how some of the soul’s characteristics are not fully
manifest when the soul is covered by māyā. Although I touched on this subject in part 5, I will
consider the matter in more depth.

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 9: Unmanifest Qualities of the Soul

By Vrindaranya Dasi

A Comparison of the Materially Conditioned Jīva Versus the Liberated Soul

In this article, I will discuss the point that many of the jīva’s qualities are not fully manifest when
the jīva is conditioned by material nature and that the qualities become fully manifest only when
the soul is situated as a servant of God.1 To understand how it is that some qualities of the soul
are unmanifest in the first place, let us consider the predicament of the jīva. We will recall that
“the jīva’s intrinsic nature is to have the conception of being a servant of Kṛṣṇa. That knowledge
is covered by the misconception of the body being the self.”2 Therefore, the jīva is in a situation
that defies logic—although he is conscious and liberated, and thus superior to matter, he
becomes bound and miserable.3 In this way, “that entity which is intermediately situated,
conscious by nature, whose self-awareness has been lost, and who is tainted by attachment to the
material guṇas, is called the jīva (Nārada Pañcarātra).”4

Although the ātmā’s self-awareness has been lost, two of the defining characteristics of the soul
are that he is “not just knowledge alone (jñāna-mātrātmako na ca)” and “made of knowledge and
bliss (cid-ānandātmakas tathā).”5 Contrast these characteristics with the pitiable state of the jīva
described in the Bhagavat Sandarbha: “The jīva, the very form of suffering, is surrounded by his
own ignorance.”6 As we can see from the stark difference between these two descriptions, some
of the qualities of the jīva are unmanifest when he is identified with the material body and its
material śaktis.

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.”7 When Śrīdhara Svāmī
says that the jīva adopts similar qualities, he means that the jīva identifies with the material body
and its śaktis, such as material jñāna-śakti. As the jīva is turned away from God, the jīva’s
inherent spiritual jñāna-śakti remains unmanifest.8 Paramātma Sandarbha 24 also describes how
certain qualities of the jīva are unmanifest: “By association with māyā, represented by a woman,
the jīva loses all his powers, his capacity for inherent knowledge etc. and follows her.”9

Many of the Soul’s Qualities Require Śakti to Manifest

Throughout the Paramātma Sandarbha, Jīva Gosvāmī specifies various spiritual śaktis that enable
the liberated jīva to be a knower, doer, and enjoyer. For example, he says, “Though it [the ātmā]
is knowledge itself, it also possesses the power of knowing (jñāna-śakti), just as light possesses
the power of illumination”10 and “In commenting on Brahma-sūtra 3.2.5, Śaṅkara says that ātmā
possesses śakti. Later it will be explained that the jīva has qualities similar to the Lord.”11 As
Prīti Sandarbha affirms, “By a relationship with the svarūpa-śakti, māyā disappears and the jīva’s
saṁsāra is destroyed.”12 What is the relationship of the jīva with the svarūpa-śakti? As I will
establish in part 15 of this series, this relationship is tādātmya (identity/oneness).

The Soul’s Qualities/Śakti Manifests in Liberation

Jīva Gosvāmī’s commentary on Paramātma Sandarbha 33 clarifies what is meant by the qualities
being “hidden”: “These qualities manifest in the jīva in liberation, just as qualities of males and
females manifest in a person as they mature.”13 When Jīva Gosvāmī says that the qualities
manifest in liberation, he means that spiritual śaktis manifest. This point is clear from the
comment that follows: “The jīva’s qualities which are similar to the Lord’s are hidden. From
meditation on the Supreme Lord, a śakti which defies darkness appears by the mercy of the Lord,
like the power of a medicine.”14 This comment very clearly shows simultaneous inherence and
bestowal because it says that the jīva’s hidden qualities (śakti) manifest by the mercy of the Lord.
Jīva Gosvāmī is not referring to impersonal liberation because at that time all śakti is unmanifest.
In his commentary to Paramātma Sandarbha 35, he also points out that one would always be able
to perceive the qualities of the soul if it were not for the fact that they can manifest or not
manifest. Since the qualities of the soul are eternal, they still exist even when they are
unmanifest. Consequently, if qualities appear, it means that the qualities must be inherent in the
svarūpa of the jīva. Otherwise, the jīva would have no tendency to manifest them.15

The Soul’s Qualities Are Only Fully Manifest in One of the Five Rasas with Bhagavān

To summarize, the qualities manifest in liberation; therefore, they are not material. Furthermore,
the qualities do not refer to impersonal liberation because there is no śakti manifest in impersonal
liberation—there is no knowing, doing, and feeling when the ātmā identifies with Brahman.
Thus, when Jīva Gosvāmī says that the jīvas’ qualities manifest in liberation, he is not referring
to the jīva in the material world (since eternal, spiritual qualities cannot be material) or the soul
merged in Brahman (since śakti is not manifest in Brahman), but rather the soul who is situated
in one of the five relationships with Bhagavān in the spiritual world.

Does the Soul Possess No Knowledge of the Lord?

In Bhakti Sandarbha 1, Jīva Gosvāmī says, “The jīva’s essential knowledge is covered by māyā,
by the misfortune of being opposed to the Lord, which means that the jīva has, without
beginning, possessed no knowledge (jñāna-saṁsarga-abhāva) of the beginningless supreme
entity. The jīva consequently believes he is made of dull matter composed of sattva, rajas, and
tamas.”16 Although jñāna often refers to knowledge of Brahman, in this context—knowledge
about Bhagavān—it is actually referring to an aspect of the sambandha-jñāna of bhakti. As Kṛṣṇa
says in the Bhagavad-gītā (18.55), bhaktyā mām abhijānāti, “I can only be known by bhakti.”
Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī says, “The essence of the saṁvit potency is knowledge that the
Supreme Personality of Godhead is Lord Kṛṣṇa. All other kinds of knowledge, such as the
knowledge of Brahman, are its components.”17 Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura writes, “Just as
the word sattva indicates vidyā, so knowledge arising from bhakti is often called bhakti.
Sometimes it is called bhakti and other times it is called jñāna.18

A superficial reading of Bhakti Sandarbha 1—the very first anuccheda of the book that is
specifically speaking about bhakti—seems to be saying that bhakti does not exist in the jīva. So
should we hang up our hats and call it a day, the answer to the question of whether bhakti can be
both inherent and bestowed conclusively established? Let us slow down and consider the matter
more deeply. If the answer were this obvious, the issue would hardly be a controversy. Is this
verse really saying that knowledge of God (bhakti) is not inherent in the soul?

On closer inspection, we notice that anuccheda 1 says that the jīva’s essential knowledge
(svarūpa-jñāna) is covered by māyā (māyayāvṛta) due to being opposed to the Lord (tad-
vaimukhya). Here essential knowledge cannot be referring to mere consciousness, because the
jīva doesn’t ever lose this quality. Furthermore, the anuccheda uses the term jñāna-saṁsarga-
abhāva. Saṁsarga-abhāva is a term from Vaiśeṣika that refers to a type of nonexistence: the
previous non-existence of an effect. A common example given is a pot that comes from a lump of
clay: before the clay is made into a pot, the pot does not exist.

Thus, jñāna-saṁsarga-abhāva in this context refers to something that will come into existence in
the future. In Vaiśeṣika philosophy, it refers to material effects: things that come into existence as
a result of transformation. Since knowledge of Bhagavān—unlike a material lump of clay—is
not an effect, but rather awakens in the purified heart,19 we can understand that Jīva Gosvāmī is
using the term in a special sense. Because the jñāna is eternal, he doesn’t mean that it will come
into existence. After all, he already said that the jñāna is covered, and how can you cover
something that doesn’t exist? Rather, the non-existence of knowledge of God means that it is
unmanifest. As Satyanarayana Dasa Babaji puts it, “The covering of consciousness means that
the awareness (jñāna) of the jīva, though eternal (nitya), becomes unmanifest (anādi-tad-
vaimūkhyena ajñānena jīvānāṁ nityam api jñānam āvṛtaṁ tirohitam). In other words, in the
conditioned state, the jīva lacks inherent awareness of its own svarūpa, of Bhagavān, and of their
relation.”20 Without the covering of māyā, the jñāna would manifest: “In the absense of māyā
you realize prema.”21
One might ask, “How can the jñāna be absent in the soul when it has just been said that jīva’s
jñāna is eternal? The answer is the inscrutable power of śakti. Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī clarifies in his
commentary to anuccheda 33 that if śakti didn’t cause spiritual qualities to be either manifest or
unmanifest, they would either always be manifest or always be unmanifest [because the jīva’s
spiritual qualities are eternal]. Some devotees claim that the soul’s knowledge is unmanifest not
in the soul’s svarūpa, but rather in the Lord. However, Jīva Gosvāmī does not support this
interpretation. Rather, he says, “If the jīva did not have these qualities inherent in his svarūpa,
there would be no tendency to manifest them.”22 Although the ultimate source of everything is
obviously the Lord, Jīva Gosvāmī clearly establishes that the qualities are inherent in the jīva’s
svarūpa. In conclusion, although there is apparently an absence of jñāna, it is actually eternally
with the soul and only unmanifest—and thus apparently absent—when the soul is covered by
māyā.

Having discussed how various characteristics of the jīva are unmanifest before liberation, let us
look at one characteristic in particular: cid-ānandātmaka. Does it mean intrinsically of the nature
of knowledge and bliss or merely conscious and free from material suffering? We will turn to this
question in the next article of this series.

Some devotees argue that if svarūpa-śakti were unmanifest in the soul, then its manifestation
would create vikārā (modification) in the soul, thereby making it like matter. I will address this
objection in the next article. [↩]

The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 10: Intrinsically of the Nature of
Knowledge and Bliss

By Vrindaranya Dasi

How the Soul’s Quality of Cid-Ānandātmaka Manifests in Liberation

In his discussion of cid-ānandātmaka (intrinsically of the nature of knowledge and bliss) in

Paramātma Sandarbha 28, Jīva Gosvāmī says, “It is knowledge as the opposite of insentience and
it is bliss (ānanda) and knowledge (jñāna) as the opposite of suffering.”1 Based on this
definition, some argue that cid-ānandātmaka means only conscious and free of material
suffering. However, the Sanskrit is jaḍa pratiyogitva (the opposite of inert) and duḥkha
pratiyogitva (the opposite of suffering). What exactly does Jīva Gosvāmī mean by pratiyogitva
(opposite/counterpart)? Conscious and free of material suffering is the very lowest possible
understanding.

We should recall that Paramātma Sandarbha 24 describes how certain qualities of the jīva are
unmanifest: “By association with māyā, represented by a woman, the jīva loses all his powers,
his capacity for inherent knowledge etc. and follows her.”2 Although the jīva’s knowledge is
eternal and fully expanded in liberation, his awareness of that knowledge is contracted by the
upādhis (limitations) of different material bodies.3 For example, an ant body contracts awareness
more than a human body. When the jīva is liberated from all material bodies, then the upādhis,
which constricted his knowledge, are removed.

Furthermore, in Paramātma Sandarbha 28, Jīva Gosvāmī writes, “Jāmātṛ mentions that the jīva is
not just knowledge. The reason was given…”4 What is the reason that Jīva Gosvāmī is referring
to? It is found in anuccheda 22. There, he says that the jīva is not knowledge alone because he
also has jñāna-śakti. As I will discuss in part 12, the jñāna-śākti that is a svarūpa characteristic is
composed of svarūpa-śakti. Jīva Gosvāmī confirms this later in the anuccheda: “It should be
understood that the intrinsic śakti of the jīva [svarūpa-śakti] will give him knowledge of his real
self (pratyak-jñāna) whereas turning outwards (understood through the words vilokya, mumuhe
and jñāna-gūhayā), the jīva in ignorance obtains material knowledge.”5

Indeed, Jīva Gosvāmī affirms, “For those who maintain that there is no experience of bliss in
liberation (only the absence of suffering), they have not achieved the ultimate goal.”6 What he
means is that those who identify with Brahman do not experience bliss because there is no śakti
in Brahman.7 Such is not the case for the liberated devotees, who are knowers, doers, and
enjoyers in the spiritual world. Just because the knowledge or bliss is not manifest when the soul
is conditioned by māyā does not mean that the śakti does not exist: “Thus the śakti of an object
exists previous to and after the effect, like a potency of a mantra. At the time of the effect, the
śakti manifests. This is so for Brahman’s śakti also.”8

Śārīraka-bhāṣya (2.3.18), quoted in the commentary to Bhagavat Sandarbha 8, points out, “In the
absence of an object it does not induce consciousness. This is not because it lacks
consciousness.”9 What this means is that in the absence of an object, consciousness remains an
unmanifest potential (śakti). When an object appears, one becomes conscious of it, just as light
traveling through space becomes visible only when it reflects off an object. Similarly, when we
are turned away from God, we do not experience the full manifestation of cid-ānandātmaka.
However, when we turn to God by the grace of a devotee, then transcendental śakti begins to
manifest. The more that we give up our false identification with māyā and instead serve God, the
more our inherent qualities manifest: “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…
the knowledge, detachment, power and dharma are eternally with the ātmā arising from
Brahman.”10

In Jīva Gosvāmī’s discussion of cid-ānandātmaka, he uses the word jñāna (knowledge) for cit.11
Jñāna is generally translated as knowledge; however, it is sometimes translated as consciousness.
Whether cit is consciousness or knowledge depends on whether the soul has manifest śakti or
not. For example, in nirviśeṣa Brahman, all śakti is unmanifest.12 When śakti is unmanifest, then
there is consciousness but no content of consciousness because Brahman is undifferentiated.
Thus, for the soul identified with nirviśeṣa Brahman, cit is merely consciousness and not
knowledge.

In contrast, when the soul turns to God by the mercy of a devotee, then jñāna-śakti manifests.
Because there is no duality between cit and transcendental jñāna-śakti, when jñāna-śakti is fully
manifest, then cit is transcendental knowledge. Therefore, when the soul is liberated, cit is
transcendental knowledge and not mere consciousness, and his ānanda is bliss, not mere freedom
from material suffering: “The jīva as a doer in his spiritual state is discussed. What else can be
said? Surpassing the bliss of Brahman, the jīva attains happiness as a doer.”13

When our consciousness is identified with material jñāna, we are aware of material knowledge.
Jīva Gosvāmī comments, “Though it is established that the jīva is naturally a knower, his
knowing that he is a body by ignorance is also jīva’s knowledge, but because of its relation to
ignorance, it is not natural to the jīva. Rather it is a distortion.”14 In other words, material jñāna-
śakti gives distorted knowledge; therefore, it is not part of the svarūpa-lakṣaṇa of the jīva. Thus,
when Jīva Gosvāmī says that the soul has jñāna-śakti as a svarūpa-lakṣaṇa, he is not referring to
material jnāna-śakti.

Another reason why cit refers to knowledge and not mere consciousness is that being conscious
of itself (sva-dṛk) is the sixth characteristic of the soul and being conscious (cetana) is the tenth
characteristic of the soul. Cit must have some difference in meaning from these two
characteristics or else the list of the soul’s characteristics would suffer from the fault of
redundancy.
The Dharma of the Jīva

In Prīti Sandarbha 1, Jīva Gosvāmī quotes the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 5.5.6, “As long as the jīva
does not have devotion (prīti) for me, Vāsudeva, he will not be liberated from the body.”15 In
other words, without bhakti one cannot experience one’s true nature (since material identification
is not one’s true nature). He also discusses how bhakti manifests: “Since it is a special function
of the svarūpa-śakti, bhakti arises by the mercy of the Lord. It manifests and is not produced.”16
Here again, we see how bhakti is both inherent and bestowed: it manifests in the jīva’s heart by
the mercy of the Lord. We will recall from earlier in the article that Jīva Gosvāmī pointed out,
“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…the knowledge, detachment, power
and dharma are eternally with the ātmā arising from Brahman.”17 The four śaktis mentioned in
this verse are not material śaktis. They are the four śaktis that surround the Lord (Bhagavat
Sandarbha 8). Therefore, they are svarūpa-śakti. As I mentioned previously in this article, śakti
does not manifest in Brahman; therefore, this quotation is referring to qualities of a devotee who
is situated in a relationship with Bhagavān. And what is spiritual dharma, the dharma of the soul?
It is paro-dharma—bhakti (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.2.6).18

Why are the qualities only fully manifest in a relationship with Bhagavān and not Paramātmā?
Since the three forms of Paramātmā—Kāraṇodakaśāyī, Kṣīrodakaśāyī, and Garbhodakaśāyī—
relate to the material world, once the jīva is liberated from the material world, worship of
Paramātmā leads either to identification with Brahman or serving Bhagavān. Of course,
identification with Brahman is not the full manifestation of the jīva’s potential because all śakti is
unmanifest in Brahman. Therefore, as we have seen throughout this article, the full manifestation
of the jīva’s twenty-one qualities occurs only when the jīva is liberated from māyā and is
established in love of God. When the jīva is situated in his svabhāva, he is no longer influenced
by the māyā-śakti, no longer acts as a medium of the Lord for producing the material world
(taṭastha-śakti), and instead has all his qualities fully manifest, which means that he wills, knows,
and acts with inherent svarūpa-śakti.19

We will explore this topic in more detail in part 13 of this series, in which I discuss Bṛhad
Bhāgavatāmṛta (2.2.175-196), which some devotees point to in their attempt to establish that
bhakti is not inherent. First, however, I would like to turn to the topic of taṭastha-śakti. A clear
picture of taṭastha-śakti is essential for understanding the soul’s characteristics. As we will see,
Jīva Gosvāmī uses the term in two distinct ways. If one fails to recognize this distinction, it can
throw off one’s understanding of the jīva’s relationship with the svarūpa-śakti.
(5.10) The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 11: Jīva Gosvāmī on Taṭasthā-
Śakti

By Vrindaranya Dasi

In Bhakti Sandarbha 178, Jīva Gosvāmī writes, “the jīva is an aṁśa of the taṭastha-śakti and is
not the Lord’s svarūpa-śakti.” This verse identifies the jīva with the taṭastha-śakti and not the
svarūpa-śakti; however, as we saw in my last article, Jīva Gosvāmī establishes that the jīva is
only directly a doer when he performs action with the svarūpa-śakti. And what about this
statement from the Paramātma Sandarbha which says that the jīva acts with cit-śakti (svarūpa-
śakti), not taṭastha-śakti: “Thus instigation to act from the pure Lord and being a doer related to
the pure Lord does not contaminate the pure jīva, since that action is predominated by the cit-
śakti.”1 Furthermore, he says, “Antaraṅga-śakti (internal śakti) is also called the cit-śakti and is
used in relation to the pure jīva and the Lord’s knowledge and power.”2 “Because of the non-
difference of cause and effect, the jīva is the manifested cit consciousness of the Lord (ātmā).”3
So what exactly is the relationship of the jīva with the svarūpa-śakti?

The Difference between the Jīva and the Ātmā

To begin with, we must understand that the state of being a jīva is not the natural condition of the
ātmā. As Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja puts it, “The original nature of every living entity is to consider
himself the eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. But under the influence of māyā he thinks himself to be the
body, and thus his original consciousness (ātmā-jñāna) is covered.”4 Therefore, when we hear a
statement about the jīva, we have to remember that the jīva is the ātmā who is misidentified with
the material energy. Because the ātmā is spiritual and eternal, it is not created at any time.
However, the jīvas are manifested from Mahā Viṣṇu at the beginning of each kalpa. Maha Viṣṇu,
who is lying in the Kāraṇa Ocean between the spiritual and material worlds,5 awakens the
material world by glancing at it and impregnating it with the jīvas.6 The cit-śakti is unmanifest in
the jīvas at that time because they are in suṣupti. When the jīvas are awakened, the cit-śakti is
unmanifest to the degree that each jīva is turned away from the Lord. Thus, we have to
understand the context of the verse cited at the beginning of this article: to describe those jīvas
who are turned away from the Lord because their knowledge of God is unmanifest.

The Different Forms of the Lord

Although there is a complex array of expansions, incarnations, and energies, there is still only
one nondual, absolute truth (advaya-jñāna-tattva). Bhagavān has one supreme potency but that
one potency manifests diversely, parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.8).7
The reason why the advaya-jñāna-tattva manifests in different forms and with various śaktis is
explained in Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.22.7-8:

Kṛṣṇa is the nondual Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although He is one,
He maintains different personal expansions and energies for His pastimes. Kṛṣṇa expands
Himself in many forms. Some of them are personal expansions, and some are separate
expansions. Thus He performs pastimes in both the spiritual and the material worlds.8

Therefore, the underlying purpose of both the spiritual and material worlds is to facilitate God’s
pastimes. As Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.33 affirms, lokavat tu līlā-kaivalyam: “The Lord’s creation of the
world is an act without motive, just a pastime.”9 Furthermore, the taṭastha-śakti is not an energy
of the jīva, but rather an energy of the Paramātmā.10 As we saw in my previous article, the jīva
uses either the māyā-śakti or the svarūpa-śakti to act (depending on whether the jīva is turned
away from or toward the Lord). Nārada-pañcarātra says, “The jīva is called taṭastha because it is
a conscious form which, leaving its knowledge of itself, becomes tinged by the attraction to the
material guṇas.” The world is manifest by the combination of the māyā-śakti and the conscious
souls, who animate the unconscious material nature. Jīva Gosvāmī writes that the jīva is “part of
the taṭastha-śakti…because he is a medium of the Lord in the production of the material
world.”11 He also says, “The jīva is considered a śakti because in that form he assists the Lord’s
pastimes.”12

The Śakti that the Soul Uses to Act

One might ask why the taṭastha-śakti has to use another śakti to act. Since the jīva is said to be
composed of taṭastha-śakti, it seems as though the jīva should be able to use that śakti to act. The
reason is that the taṭastha-śakti—which means marginal—stands between the two other śaktis
(māyā and svarūpa) and can use one or the other śakti (directly in the case of the svarūpa-śakti or
indirectly in the case of the māyā-śakti).13 The jīva is compared to a ray of sunlight (kiraṇa).14
As the jīvas’ taṭastha nature is paradoxical, so too is material light: quantum physics tells us that
light can function in two ways—either as a particle or as a wave. Similarly, the jīva functions
either materially or spiritually, depending on whether it is turned away from or toward the Lord.

Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.22.9 says that although the jīvas are separated aṁśas of the Lord, they are
counted among his different śaktis. This means that although a jīva is a separated expansion of
God, he acts as a śakti in relation to God. A śakti is a capability for performing a function. In the
case of the taṭastha-śakti, the function that the jīvas perform is manifesting the material world.15
Sanātana Gosvāmī clarifies the difference between an aṁśa, which is made of sac-cid-ānanda
and a śakti: “The universe is called śakti, since it is devoid of sac-cid-ānanda. It cannot be called
an aṁśa.”16 Thus, although jīvas are aṁśas, they act as śakti in relation to Bhagavān.

The Personified Śrutis Discuss Śakti

When the soul no longer identifies with māyā, then he ceases to function as the energy to
manifest the material world and instead acts as the energy for God’s pleasure (svarūpa-śakti).
This point is revealed in the Bhagavat Sandarbha 113: the Śrutis ask the Lord to uproot māyā and
bestow devotion on the jīvas. The Lord raises an objection that by destroying māyā, the jīva will
have no śakti. But the Śrutis reply that this is not the case because the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam says
that the Lord awakens not only the māyā-śakti in the jīvas, but also the svarūpa-śakti: “O you
who awaken all the material and spiritual energies of the jīvas.”17 The Śrutis go on to say:

“By destroying māyā, the śakti of the jīva, an upādhi of māyā, will also be destroyed.”18 But
Jīva Gosvāmī comments that the Lord says, “The answer is the same. By the svarūpa-śakti, the
complete śakti which gives happiness to the jīvas will appear” and concludes, “In this way the
śrutis indicate the taṭastha nature of the jīva.”19

In this important section, the Śrutis are saying that the taṭastha nature of the jīva is that it knows,
acts, and wills with either the māyā-śakti or the svarūpa-śakti—not that the jīva knows, acts, and
wills with the taṭastha-śakti. As we saw in the previous article, when the jīva knows, acts, and
wills with the māyā-śakti, it is indirectly a doer. When the jīva does so with the svarūpa-śakti, it
is directly a doer. In other words, when the Paramātmā manifests the material world, the jīvas are
covered by māyā, but they always have the possibility of turning away from māyā and towards
the Lord by the mercy of a devotee. When they turn toward the Lord, then the svarūpa-śakti
manifests in the jīva. Notice that the Śrutis did not say, “Don’t worry that when māyā is uprooted
the jīvas will not have śakti because they will have taṭastha-śakti.” Instead, they declare that the
svarūpa-śakti will be awakened. The taṭastha nature of the jīva is that it knows, acts, and wills
with either the māyā-śakti or the svarūpa-śakti. However, as we will explore next, whether jīvas
are considered eternally taṭastha-śakti depends on how taṭastha-śakti is defined. In the broadest
definition of taṭastha-śakti, even eternal associates like Garuḍa are considered taṭastha-śakti.

The Meaning of Taṭastha

Taṭastha means situated on a bank between land and water, indicating the jīvas’ ability to turn to
either the spiritual or material world. Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.7.62-63, quoted in Caitanya-caritāmṛta
2.20.114 says, “O King, the kṣetra-jña-śakti is the living entity. Although he has the facility to
live in either the material or the spiritual world, he suffers the threefold miseries of material
existence because he is influenced by the avidyā [nescience] potency.”20 Although taṭastha-śakti
indicates the facility to “live” in either the material or spiritual world, we see in Paramātma
Sandarbha 47 that some taṭastha-jīvas are eternally liberated and never come to the material
world. Jīva Gosvāmī describes that there are two classes of taṭastha-jīvas: the eternally liberated,
who have always had knowledge of the Lord, and those who lack such knowledge and are thus
averse to the Lord.21 He mentions that the eternally liberated devotees are endowed with the
antaraṅga-śakti and are eternal associates like Garuḍa. In the Bhagavat Sandarbha, we find that
Garuḍa is mentioned several times in the context of pointing out that Vaikuṇṭha and the
associates therein are all svarūpa-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.”22 According to this definition, it seems inaccurate to call an
eternal associate like Garuḍa a taṭastha-jīva. After all, Garuḍa is special even among eternal
associates. In his commentary to Bhagavat Sandarbha 8, Jīva Gosvāmī says that Garuḍa is the
Lord of the Vedas. Even a flag marked with Garuḍa’s picture is mentioned to be nondifferent
from the Lord.23 Nonetheless, Jīva Gosvāmī explains that “the jīvas of the first category [those
eternally devoted to Bhagavān] are also classified as part of the intermediary potency (taṭastha),
because the widely acknowledged condition that ‘jīva-hood’ (jīvatva) necessarily excludes them
from being included in the same category as Īśvara Himself.”24 That said, such devotees are
more commonly referred to as svarūpa-śakti, as Jīva Gosvāmī himself does in the Bhagavat
Sandarbha.

In relation to sādhana-siddha devotees, Jīva Gosvāmī clarifies that although they are still
taṭastha-jīvas, they can no longer become bewildered by māyā: “When the jīva is absorbed in
bhakti, the cit-śakti overpowers prakṛti by its strength. In the case of attaining a spiritual body,
the bliss protects the jīva.”25 Since sādhana-siddhas, like the nitya-siddhas, are endowed with
the svarūpa-śakti and thus act solely for the pleasure of the Lord, they no longer fit the Nārada-
pañcarātra description of taṭastha-jīvas, although according to Jīva Gosvāmī’s broader definition
—not in the category of Īśvara Himself—they can still be considered taṭastha-jīvas.

This concept is explained further in Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.22. While saying virtually the same
thing as Jīva Gosvāmī in Paramātma Sandarbha 47, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī uses the term
vibhinnāṁśa (separated expansions) instead of taṭastha-jīva. He contrasts the vibhinnāṁśa with
expansions of Kṛṣṇa’s own form (svāṁśa), which are forms that are nondifferent from him. In
other words, the vibhinnāṁśas or taṭastha-jīvas are not Viṣṇu tattva. In summary, the difference
between the eternally liberated jīvas and the conditioned jīvas is that one has eternal knowledge
of God that is manifest and the other does not. When the knowledge of God manifests, then there
is no essential difference between the nitya-siddhas and the sādhana-siddhas.

Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura also discusses this topic in his commentary to Śrīmad
Bhāgavatam 6.16.56–57. Therein, he puts the sādhana-siddha devotees within the same category
as the nitya-siddhas:

Because the forms of the associates of Bhagavān arise from the actions of the cit-śakti (the
Lord’s svarūpa), those associates who are nitya-siddha are also permanent objects which are the
Lord’s svarūpa. And some jīvas with desires for dāsya and other relationships, who have
perfected themselves by pure bhakti or by mercy of nitya-mukta bhaktas, are included among the
eternal associates as dāsas. They are also considered to be non-different from the svarūpa of the
Lord, since they are empowered by the svarūpa-śakti.”26

In a similar vein, Jīva Gosvāmī mentions in Bhakti Sandarbha 310 that rāgātmikā-bhakti (the
bhakti of the eternal associates) is the goal (sādhya) of rāgānugā-bhakti (bhakti that follows in
the footsteps of the eternal associates), thereby implying that a rāgānugā-bhakta becomes a
rāgātmikā.

The Relationship between the Svarūpa-Śakti and the Ātmā27

Someone might make the argument that although the ātmā requires svarūpa-śakti to perform
spiritual action, that śakti is not part of the ātmā, just as the māyā-śakti is not part of the jīva. As I
discussed in my previous article, Jīva Gosvāmī clearly states that the jīva is only directly a doer
when he performs action with the svarūpa-śakti.28 In the case of the māyā-śakti, the jīva acts in
the same way that a magnet drags iron filings, always at a distance from material nature. Why the
difference? It is because material nature is inert, whereas the soul is spiritual. Since the svarūpa-
śakti is also spiritual, the individual soul and the svarūpa-śakti are compatible. Bhagavat
Sandarbha 15 says, “In order to describe the antaraṅga-śakti, the bahiraṅga-śakti is described.
The two are called parā and aparā.”29 Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.8.153, quoting Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.7.61,
says that the jīva-śakti is also parā. Bhagavad-gīta 7.5 also confirms that the jīva is the superior
energy (parām). Śrī Brahma Saṁhitā also says that the nature of the jīva is the superior energy
(prakṛtiś ca paraiva sā).
Bṛhad Bhagavatāmṛta 2.2.195 asserts, “The jīvas always have their own identities, different from
that of the Supreme. But they are aṁśas of the Supreme and cannot exist separate from him, and
this eliminates vijātīya difference.”30 Jīva Gosvāmī makes the same point in his commentary to
Bhagavat Sandarbha 8: “Since ‘other things’ in the Lord are his śaktis they are not different
entities, having a nature similar in status to his (sajātīya) and since the Lord, though he is
avyakta, has śaktis, they are not completely different entities (vijātīya) which produce
insentience and suffering within the Lord.”31 This means that the individual soul and the
supreme soul are not in different categories. Sanātana Gosvāmī’s commentary clarifies:
“Oneness or advayam is here proven. Though there is difference of the jīvas from the Lord since
the jīvas are small and limited (vaijātyam), but in the highest sense (tattvataḥ) because of lack of
difference from the Lord due to being similar by the cit-vilāsa-śakti, vijātīya difference (between
the Lord and jīvas) is destroyed. This is because the aṁśa and aṁśī are considered nondifferent,
since the qualities of the aṁśī appear in the aṁśas.”32

In conclusion, the term taṭastha-jīva usually refers to the ātmā when it is turned away from God
and is manifesting the material world by identifying with the māyā-śakti. However, a broader
definition of taṭastha-jīva is vibhinnāṁśa (separated expansion) which is contrasted with
expansions of Kṛṣṇa’s own form (svāṁśa). In such a definition, the nitya-baddha, sādhana-
siddha, and nitya-siddhas like Garuḍa are all taṭastha-jīvas.33 By the narrower definition of
taṭastha-jīva (one turned away from God), both the sādhana-siddhas and nitya-siddhas, being
turned toward God rather than away from him, are in a different category: that of the svarūpa-
śakti. In the next article, I will discuss how some of the qualities of the soul are unmanifest and
how a jīva must be situated as a devotee for all of his twenty-one intrinsic qualities to be fully
manifest.

(5.11) The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 12: Understanding Śakti

By Vrindaranya Dasi

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.

(5.12) The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 13: The Bliss of the Jīva

By Vrindaranya dasi

In part 10 of this series, I explained why cid-ānandātmaka means intrinsically of the nature of
knowledge and bliss. Some devotees, however, point to Prīti Sandarbha 63 and Bṛhad
Bhāgavatāmṛta (2.2.175–196) to establish that cid-ānandātmaka only means “conscious and free
from material suffering.”1 If one wants to establish that bhakti is only bestowed, it is essential to
establish that the soul has no inherent bliss because as I showed in part 6 of this series, any
eternal bliss in the soul indicates bhakti. A reason why the argument that cid-ānandātmaka only
means “conscious and free from material suffering” has gained any traction is that sometimes the
ānanda of the jīva is contrasted with the bliss of bhakti to show that the bliss of bhakti is much
greater than that which the jīva experiences without bhakti. This argument becomes rather
technical, so please bear with me.
The bliss experienced by the Lord is of two types: bliss from his svarūpa (svarūpa-ānanda) and
bliss from his svarūpa-śakti (svarūpa–śakty-ānanda). This concept is somewhat difficult to
understand because the Lord’s svarūpa and his svarūpa-śakti are at the same time one. The bliss
of Bhagavān’s svarūpa arises from the fact that he is sac-cid-ānanda pūrṇa (the complete form of
eternity, knowledge, and bliss). The bliss of bhakti comes from his svarūpa–śakty-ānanda.

The liberated soul is a particle of sac-cid-ānanda, and thus his svarūpa-ānanda can similarly be
analysed separately from the svarūpa–śakty-ānanda he experiences. In such an analysis, his bliss
is minute since the individual soul is only a particle of sac-cid-ānanda, whereas Bhagavān is sac-
cid-ānanda pūrṇa. When the soul is analyzed in terms of svarūpa–śakty-ānanda, the amount of
the soul’s bliss increases exponentially.

Although the svarūpa-śakti is Bhagavān’s śakti, it is also the śakti that is used by Bhagavān’s
devotees, including those who are not nitya-siddhas. As I showed in part 12 of this series, Jīva
Gosvāmī says that when the soul acts with svarūpa-śakti, the soul himself is the doer; whereas,
when the soul acts with māyā-śakti, prakṛti is directly the doer and the soul is indirectly the doer
(because the soul and material nature never directly contact each other). The relationship
between the devotee (the āśraya of bhakti) and his body, which is made of svarūpa-śakti, is one
(tādātmya).2 These concepts are somewhat terse but are essential to understanding why Jīva
Gosvāmī is saying that the bliss of the ātmā is small. The important point to understand is that
the soul’s bliss is not small when his svarūpa-lakṣaṇa is fully manifest. As I showed in part 9, this
only happens when the soul receives bhakti. Thus, again, we see that bhakti is both inherent and
bestowed.

I will now discuss a section of Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta (2.2.175–196) that is sometimes used to try
to establish that cid-ānandātmakas tathā only means “conscious and free from material
suffering.”

In this section of Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta, the bhakti-śāstras discuss how to be happy and destroy
suffering. They present how this question is answered by three groups: the followers of Nyāya,
philosophers who accept only one portion of the Vedas, and the followers of Vivarta-vāda (the
Māyāvāda theory of the illusion of the Supreme).
Sanātana Gosvāmī accepts the premise that the goal of human life is to be happy and destroy
suffering. He then goes on to show how the three types of mokṣa (proposed by the three groups)
does not accomplish their desired result. As we know from Prīti Sandarbha 1, “The goal of the
human being is to attain happiness and destroy suffering. Complete happiness and destruction of
suffering is attained only by prīti for the Lord.”3

Thus, although the bhakti-śāstras accept these three ideas about liberation for the sake of
argument, the bhakti-śāstras’ main point, which they assert in the opening verse of this section, is
that “there is no happiness in any of these ideas of liberation.”4 The assumption of the third
group (Vivarta-vādins) is that “Liberation is realization of Brahman, which is one’s own ātmā, by
giving up distinctions in saṁsāra.”5 Verse 2.2.176 addresses realizing one’s self separate from
realizing Brahman. As we know from Prīti Sandarbha 60, knowledge of the soul apart from the
body is merely in sattva-guṇa. Therefore, it is of no surprise that Sanātana Gosvāmī says that the
bliss of realizing one’s svarūpa in this context is alpakam (meager). He says, “Accepting the
principle of ‘let the ignorant be satisfied,’ the word happiness is used in relation to liberation. It
should be understood as previously discussed that this is done in order to understand the
greatness of happiness in bhakti.”6

Verse 2.2.177 describes realizing oneself as a particle of Brahman. One has to keep in mind that
the bliss of identifying with Brahman is meager compared to bhakti because śakti is unmanifest
in Brahman. Furthermore, identifying with Brahman requires bhakti because the unqualified
Absolute is still an aspect of God. As we discussed previously, most of the twenty-one qualities
of the soul require śakti, which would naturally be unmanifest for one identified with Brahman.

Jīva Gosvāmī says something in relation to Brahman that is also relevant to the individual soul:
“Thus one vision is incomplete, manifesting the object without particulars. That is Brahman.
That vision is complete when there is a form with various qualities arising from the svarūpa.”7
Although Brahman is sac-cid-ānanda, compared to the ocean of condensed bliss of Bhagavān
with his svarūpa-śakti, the bliss of Brahman is no more than the water contained in a calf’s
hoofprint (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.3.197). Therefore, when Sanātana Gosvāmī says, “The
happiness that arises from directly perceiving the svarūpa of the jīva—the entity composed of
eternity, knowledge, and bliss—is actually meager,”8 we must keep in mind the context. He is
addressing those who believe that the individual soul and God are the same. By showing that by
perceiving the svarūpa of the individual soul separate from God gives meager happiness, he
establishes that the individual soul is not the same as God. Is this the full svarūpa of the jīva? No.
How do we know? Because he is describing the realization of sac-cid-ānanda without śakti, and
the full manifestation of the twenty-one characteristics of the jīva requires śakti.
Although Brahman and Bhagavān are advaya-tattva (nondual truth), the bliss of Brahman is
meager compared to the bliss of Bhagavān. The reason for this is that Bhagavān has condensed
sac-cid-ānanda. How does sac-cid-ānanda become condensed? When the śakti that is inherent in
it manifests. Śrī Jīva reveals that the individual soul can also have condensed sac-cid-ānanda:
“Sannyāsīs attain insignificant happiness on attaining liberation by knowledge of their svarūpa
alone, but the devotees do not attain directly such insignificant happiness. The reason for
rejection of both is that they have forms or svarūpas of condensed sac-cid-ānanda. Since they
have condensed knowledge, they cannot have ignorance by which they would think meager
happiness is the greatest. Since they have condensed bliss, none of them attain meager
happiness.”9 Therefore, when the jīva realizes his svarūpa in the context of bhakti, then his
ānanda is not meager because all of his twenty-one qualities are fully manifest.

This section of Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta says that the soul is composed of a particle of sac-cid-
ānanda (2.2.187). As we know from Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.4.61–62, Kṛṣṇa’s svarūpa is sac-cid-
ānanda pūrṇa. So obviously an atomic particle of sac-cid-ānanda is not equivalent to sac-cid-
ānanda pūrṇa. Even so, Sanātana Gosvāmī establishes those who identify with Brahman do not
experience happiness either. Why? Because experiencing happiness implies duality: the
experiencer and the experience. Since those with an impersonal conception of liberation reject all
duality, they are not able to experience the bliss of Brahman. Therefore, the śakti that would
allow them to taste bliss is not manifest. Brahman is sac-cid-ānanda, but its inherent śaktis are
unmanifest.10 From sac-cid-ānanda, the cit-śakti manifests as hlādinī-śakti, saṁvit-śakti, and
sandhinī-śakti.11 Although ānanda is bliss, hlādinī-śakti is condensed bliss.

The important point to glean out of this is that depending on your angle of vision, one gets a
different picture of someone’s svarūpa, even though that svarūpa doesn’t change. For example,
the svarūpa of Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān is the same, but still the bliss of Bhagavān is
greater than the bliss of Brahman. Brahman is without attributes and Bhagavān has attributes
(dharma). To know something, we must consider that thing’s svarūpa and dharma. The two
together are inseparable, although as we see in the case of Brahman and Bhagavān, the attributes
can be unmanifest. Even though they are unmanifest, they are still an inseparable part of the
absolute truth, which is known in three aspects: Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān.

Similarly, if you consider the amount of ānanda in the soul’s svarūpa—as a particle of sac-cid-
ānanda—and don’t take into consideration bhakti—which is the soul’s eternal dharma or nature
—the bliss is very meager because there is no condensed ānanda. One’s svarūpa doesn’t change
if the inherent śakti is unmanifest, but the degree of ānanda that one experiences certainly does.
With the mercy of Bhagavān or his devotee, the śakti that is inherent manifests, and the soul is
able to taste condensed bliss. Thus, bhakti is both inherent and bestowed.

I have established that the soul’s qualities can be unmanifest or manifest and that cid-
ānandātmaka means intrinsically of the nature of knowledge and bliss. However, some devotees
argue that because the ātmā is eternal and not subject to modification, the change of qualities
from unmanifest to manifest would make the ātmā modifiable (vikārī) like matter. I will address
this objection in the next article.

(5.13) The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 14: The Soul Is Not Subject to
Transformation

By Vrindaranya dasi

Although Jīva Gosvāmī says that the soul it not just knowledge alone but rather also has jñāna-
śakti, some devotees argue that the jñāna of the jīva only amounts to consciousness and the
jñāna-śakti is only a “quality potential,” by which they mean that spiritual jñāna-śakti is not
actually an inherent attribute of the jīva but one that has the potential to manifest in conjunction
with the svarūpa-śakti. In other words, the actual potency (śakti) does not reside in the jīva but in
the svarūpa-śakti. Such devotees explain that since the jīva is conscious, he has the ability to
identify with either a material or spiritual body. By identifying with the svarūpa-śakti, they say
that the jīva can become one with the svarūpa-śakti like an iron rod can become hot like fire.
Although such an iron rod essentially acts as fire, it still remains constitutionally different than
fire. Thus, they are forced to admit that in their conception, the potential actually resides in the
svarūpa-śakti, not the iron rod. Hence the term “quality potential.”

Along the same lines, these devotees argue that the jīva does not have inherent transcendental
dharma-bhūta-jñāna [knowledge as an attribute].1 They say that dharma-bhūta-jñāna is received
from devotees and that if such knowledge were present in an unmanifest state in the jīva, then its
manifestation would create vikāra (transformation) in the jīva. Since one of the characteristics of
the jīva is that he is not subject to change (na vikārī), they argue that the manifestation of
transcendental knowledge would create an unacceptable transformation in the jīva if such
knowledge were inherent. They uphold that the soul only has inherent jñāna-svarūpa, which they
define as consciousness. They say that consciousness identifies with transcendental knowledge
and becomes one with it in a similar way that an iron rod becomes one with fire.
In his Govinda-bhāṣya commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa discusses
these two kinds of transcendental knowledge: jñāna-svarūpa (knowledge itself) and dharma-
bhūta-jñāna (knowledge as an attribute). They are explained through the analogy of a lamp: a
lamp illuminates itself and other things. The terms jñāna-svarūpa and dharma-bhūta-jñāna are
used extensively in Śrī Rāmānujācārya’s Viśiṣṭādvaita system.2 When Jīva Gosvāmī uses the
same analogy of a lamp in Paramātma Sandarbha, he uses the term jñāna rather than jñāna-
svarūpa and the term jñāna-śakti rather than dharma-bhūta-jñāna.3

Devotees who assert that the manifestation of dharma-bhūta-jñāna would create vikāra in the
ātmā also say that the same argument holds true for the spiritual body as for dharma-bhūta-
jñāna.4 In other words, they say that if the spiritual body were inherent but unmanifest, its
manifestation would create vikāra in the ātmā. Therefore, they opine that the jīva merely
identifies with the siddha-deha in a similar way to how the soul identifies with the material body:
influencing it like a magnet drags iron filings. They argue that because the soul and the siddha-
deha do not contact each other (like a magnet does not contact iron filings to move them), there
is no change in the jīva when he identifies with the siddha-deha. In other words, they believe that
both eternal knowledge and the siddha-deha are external to the jīva (never directly contacting the
soul). In this article, I will discuss the numerous problems with this understanding. I will also
show the flaw in the primary assertion—that the manifestation of eternal knowledge would cause
unacceptable vikāra in the jīva.

Perhaps the most important point to consider is that although Jīva Gosvāmī often compares the
material body to iron filings, he never compares the svarūpa-śakti to iron filings. Indeed, the
analogy doesn’t hold because unlike material nature, which is compared to iron because it is
unconscious, the svarūpa-śakti is conscious. It would thus be inappropriate to compare the
siddha-deha to iron that is dragged by the ātmā (magnet). Notwithstanding, Jīva Gosvāmī does
quote a verse from Viṣṇu Purāṇa that some may mistakenly think supports the idea that the
relationship between the ātmā and the siddha-deha is like a magnet and iron filings: “O sage! The
Lord bestows his qualities on the person who meditates on him by his śakti, just as a magnet
produces similar qualities in iron.”5 You will notice that here it is the Lord who is compared to
the magnet, not the jīva. The iron filings seem to refer to the jīva; however, reading the verses
that come before and after Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.7.30 clarify that it is the practitioner’s material mind
that is drawn to the Supreme Lord and thereby becomes spiritualized. Therefore, this verse
describes the relationship between consciousness and matter in the same way as the other verses
that use the magnet and iron analogy: consciousness/spirit drags matter but never contacts it
directly.
Perhaps someone might argue that it is the siddha-deha (magnet) that drags the ātmā (iron
filings). However, this suggestion also fails. The reason again is that the ātmā is not inert like
iron. Being conscious itself, the ātmā does not need to be animated. Indeed, what would be the
purpose of a conscious soul that is merely dragged around as if it were inert? The whole point of
the magnet/iron filings analogy is that the real doer is the magnet, not the iron filings. Thus, if the
soul is like iron filings, then it is not a real knower, doer, and enjoyer—which, of course,
contradicts Paramātma Sandarbha.

But if we reject this understanding, then how do we answer the challenge that eternal knowledge
cannot be unmanifest in the soul because its manifestation would transform the soul? Before I
answer according to our Gauḍīya ācāryas, let me first point out that in Viśiṣṭādvaita not only the
jīvas’ jñāna-svarūpa but also the jīvas’ spiritual dharma-bhūta-jñāna undergoes no change:

The dharma-bhūta-jñāna of Paramātma never undergoes any changes. For Him, an object need
not be in contact with senses to receive knowledge of the object. He is fully cognizant of all
objects at all times to the fullest extent (yaḥ sarvajñaḥ sarvavit). For mukta-jīvas also, the
dharma-bhūta-jñāna is fully expanded, unbounded, and illuminates with a full intensity equal to
that of Paramātma. For baddha-jīvas in the saṁsāra, the dharma-bhūta-jñāna becomes covered
and the extent to which it gets covered depends on the body they take. The body is made up of
senses and it is through the senses that one can perceive things. The body they take depends on
their karma.6

One might protest that in Viśiṣṭādvaita dharma-bhūta-jñāna expands and contracts. The change
from contracted to expanded is vikāra. The answer is as follows: in Viśiṣṭādvaita, dharma-bhūta-
jñāna includes both material and spiritual knowledge. Fully expanded dharma-bhūta-jñāna is
eternal spiritual knowledge, and it undergoes no change. It is only the expanding and contracting
of dharma-bhūta-jñāna that causes change. In other words, it is only material knowledge that
undergoes change.

Unlike Viśiṣṭādvaita’s concept of expanding and contracting dharma-bhūta-jñāna, the Gauḍīya

concept of spiritual knowledge manifesting does not result in a change occurring. This is because
the Gauḍīyas say that there are two different jñāna-śaktis—material and spiritual—not one śakti
that expands and contracts. Thus, when spiritual jñāna-śakti (svarūpa-śakti) manifests, it is not
the same as dharma-bhūta-jñāna expanding because spiritual jñāna-śakti does not undergo
material transformation.

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa also refutes the idea that the manifestation of dharma-bhūta-jñāna
creates vikāra in the jīva by stating that the jīva’s dharma-bhūta-jñāna is eternal [and is therefore
not subject to change]. In his Govinda-bhāṣya commentary, he asks, “Is the knowledge which is
manifest as a quality (dharma-bhūta-jñāna) of the jīva eternal or temporary?7 He answers in his
commentary to sūtra 2.3.26:

Knowledge as a quality of the jīva is eternal. Why? Because other than the statement (pṛthag)
that the jīva is the seer, there are teachings of the jīva having eternal knowledge in Bṛhad-
āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5.14, avināśī vā are ‘yam ātmānucchitti-dharmā: the jīva is indestructible
and has indestructible qualities.8

Clearly, the jīva’s dharma-bhūta-jñāna, although eternal, is covered when the jīva is conditioned
by māyā. Therefore, the jīva’s dharma-bhūta-jñāna is considered intrinsic even though it is
unmanifest, and its manifestation is not considered a change.

A careful study of scripture reveals that it is material transformation that is problematic, not
spiritual transformation. The Padma Purāṇa informs us that the Lord is not subject to the six
transformations of material nature: birth, existence after birth, growth, transformation, decline,
and death.9 However, the spiritual world itself abounds with spiritual vikāra (transformation).
Indeed, Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī herself is called Kṛṣṇa’s praṇaya-vikāra (transformation of love). The
components of rasa are manifestations of spiritual vikāra, such as the aṣṭa-sāttvika-vikāra (the
eight kinds of transcendental transformation). Although svarūpa-śakti undergoes spiritual
transformation, Jīva Gosvāmī establishes that the svarūpa-śakti is unchanging: “Internal
difference does not produce the fault of contradiction to the statement that Brahman is advaya
(one entity alone) since internal difference is unavoidable as its very existence, though it is
devoid of the six transformations (which are present in material existence).”10 He also says that
the cit-śakti is separate from the material śakti and its transformations.11

Finally, in his commentary on Bhagavat Sandarbha 8, Jīva Gosvāmī confirms that spiritual śakti
does not change when it goes from unmanifest to manifest. He says that if śakti did not exist
when it was unmanifest, that would mean that its very svarūpa would be destroyed. This is
impossible because the svarūpa of spiritual things is eternal. Therefore, spiritual śakti still exists
even when it is unmanifest. He emphasizes, “One should not worry that there will be contrary
action in Brahman (producing change where there should be no change) since the manifested
object reveals itself. … The meaning is this. Because he does not have guṇas, he is without
change.”12 This truth is beautifully explained in Sanātana Gosvāmī’s Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta,
when he describes the inhabitants of Vaikuṇṭha: “Those devotees have attained the absolute limit
of changelessness, yet they playfully show all kinds of transformations while taking part in their
Lord’s pastimes.”13 Sanātana Gosvāmī comments: “The devotees who take part pretend to
undergo transformations just to create the varieties that give the Lord pleasure.”14

As these quotations establish, there is no validity to the assertion that the manifestation of
transcendental knowledge would create unacceptable vikāra in the jīva. Thus, unlike a magnet
and iron filings, which never make contact, the ātmā and the siddha-deha are nondifferent,
having an identity relation (a relation of something with itself, not to be confused with something
identifying with something else). How could it be otherwise? If we didn’t have oneness with our
own spiritual body and if we never directly contacted it, then we would be different from it. The
one who identifies with the spiritual body would be forever distinct from that spiritual body
because identification implies duality. Mere identification with the siddha-deha also implies that
the identification happened at a point in time, indicating that the relationship isn’t eternal. This
understanding also gives rise to the troubling doubt that our spiritual existence is akin to
watching a movie that we don’t directly participate in. Therefore, in the next chapter, let us fully
dispel these doubts by continuing to examine what the scriptures say about the nature of the
relationship between the ātmā and the siddha-deha.

(5.14) The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 15: Identity/Oneness

(Tādātmya)

By Vrindaranya dasi

An aspect of the inherency/bestowal controversy is the nature of the relationship of the ātmā with
the siddha-deha. In Nyāya-vaiśeṣika, the relation of the material body with its qualities (guṇa) is
one of samavāya (inherency). However, in this system of philosophy, form (rūpa) only inheres in
material objects. Thus, Vedāntins reject samavāya as the type of relation between the spiritual
form and the ātmā. For example, Śrī Rāmānujācārya’s Viśiṣṭādvaita doctrine uses the term
apṛtak-siddhi (the relation of inseparability) for the relation between God and his attributes.
Gauḍīyas often denote attributes using the concept of śaktis and employ the term acintya-
bhedābheda-tattva (inconceivable oneness and difference) to describe the relation between God
and his śaktis. The spiritual body (siddha-deha), emotions, qualities, and so forth are all aspects
of svarūpa-śakti.

In the last article, I discussed how the ātmā and the siddha-deha are nondifferent, having an
identity relation. The technical term for this in Nyāya-vaiśeṣika is tādātmya. The primary
meaning of tādātmya is the relationship of something with itself: “In tādātmya (identity), of
course, the relation is non-different from the entity. But in tādātmya the entity relates itself to
itself; it is not a relation between two entities.”1

Although tādātmya is a relation of identity, it is not necessarily taken in the sense of absolute
oneness, although this is the way that Advaita Vedāntins understand it. Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas
understand tādātmya in terms of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. Thus, we should not think that
tādātmya means absolute nondifference: “According to common sense, identity means absolute
sameness or equality. But when we say that A is identical with B, it does not mean absolute
sameness as it conveys the idea that A is, in some respect, having common characteristics with B
and yet it possesses a difference because of which it is called B.”2 For example, Rūpa Gosvāmī
says that Goloka and Gokula are in a relation of tādātmya.3 Similarly, in Vṛndāvana
Mahimāmṛta 2.35, Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī says that Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa are in a relation of
tādātmya. In his commentary to Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.112–114, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī says
that Kṛṣṇa is tādātmaka (identical) with the hlādinī-śakti because the Lord, the origin of the śakti,
and his śakti are considered one. In other words, śakti has a tādātmya relationship with the source
of the śakti. The form of the devotee is also tādātmaka with the Lord:

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.4

Thus, in the same way that Kṛṣṇa is nondifferent from his body, similarly the liberated jīvātmā is
nondifferent from his or her body, which consists of svarūpa-sakti. It is not that Kṛṣṇa has a soul
and a body. The two, Kṛṣṇa and his spiritual body, are interpenetrating realities. As the Caitanya-
caritāmṛta states, “At no time is there a distinction between the body and the soul of the Supreme
Personality of Godhead. His personal identity and His body are made of blissful spiritual energy.
There is no distinction between them.”5 The same truth holds true for the devotee and his or her
spiritual body.
One might ask why the jīva cannot manifest his inherent śakti himself. In other words, if his śakti
is inherent, why does it need to be bestowed? The answer, of course, is because of the
inconceivable power of māyā: “The extrinsic potency of Bhagavān acts contrary to logic [i.e.,
her behavior cannot be understood simply through logic]; otherwise, how is it possible that the
living entity, who is the ruler of [i.e., superior to] prakṛti, being conscious and liberated, becomes
bound and miserable? (SB 3.7.9)”6 The soul becomes identified with material nature and thereby
is unaware of his true nature. Paramātma Sandarbha 24 describes this process: “By association
with māyā, represented by a woman, the jīva loses all his powers, his capacity for inherent
knowledge etc. and follows her.”7 Of course, the powers are not really lost. As Jīva Gosvāmī
explains in Paramātma Sandarbha 33, “If the jīva did not have these qualities inherent in his
svarūpa, there would be no tendency to manifest them.”8 Therefore, the śakti that manifests in
the liberated jīva has eternally been with the jīva. He also mentions in this anuccheda that by
meditation on the Lord, śakti manifests by the mercy of the Lord, like the power of medicine.9
Although jñāna-śakti manifests by the mercy of the Lord, Jīva Gosvāmī, quoting Vedānta-sūtra
2.3.29, insists, “You cannot say that the jīva’s knowledge is not eternal, because it exists during
deep sleep and simply manifests on waking. It is like maleness which is unmanifest in a child but
appears when he grows up.”10

It is interesting to note that there can apparently be a tādātmya relation between something
material (the body, mind, and words) and spiritual (svarūpa-śakti). Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu-bindu
states:

But due to the causeless mercy of the ocean of mercy Śrī Kṛṣṇa or the parama-bhagavad-bhaktas,
the function of svarūpa-śakti obtains identification with (tādātmya) and manifests in the body,
mind, and words (even though they are material) of the devotees who have taken shelter of the
lotus feet of śrī gurudeva.… When fire permeates an iron rod it burns other objects. The iron rod
does not burn other objects. In this example the fire is said to have obtained oneness with the
iron rod (tādātmya). Similarly, by the mercy of the Lord, the bhakti-vṛtti of svarūpa-śakti obtains
tādātmya with the body, mind, and words of the devotees and then acts through them.11

As I mentioned in the beginning of this article, tādātmya is a relation of something with itself.
Fire and an iron rod are two things, so someone might object to the analogy. However, this
analogy is sometimes used by our Gauḍīya ācāryas when the svarūpa-śakti suffuses a devotee’s
material body and mind, transforming it into a sādhaka-deha. The sādhaka-deha of a devotee
who is not fully pure is partly influenced by the svarūpa-śakti and partly by the māyā-śakti. As I
discussed in the tenth article of this series, when the jīva’s action is influenced by the svarūpa-
śakti, he is considered a doer himself. When the jīva’s action is influenced by the māyā-śakti, he
is only indirectly considered a doer (because the soul is not tādātmaka with the material body).
Thus, a careful examination reveals that the tādātmya relation is actually between the svarūpa-
śakti and the manifesting spiritual body, not between the svarūpa-śakti and the material body.

To explain the situation of the sādhaka-deha being partly spiritual and partly material, the
sādhaka-deha is sometimes compared to a gold-plated box (the gold plating covering the material
body). As the devotee turns increasingly toward God, the sādhaka-deha becomes spiritualized.
When the devotee is fully pure, the sādhaka-deha is fully spiritual. The sādhaka purifies his or
her heart by the process of chanting, and spiritual emotion gradually manifests: nitya-siddha
kṛṣṇa-prema ‘sādhya’ kabhu naya, śravaṇādi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya.12 Accordingly,
Caitanya-caritāmṛta quotes Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu as saying, “The body of a devotee is never
material. It is considered to be transcendental, full of spiritual bliss.”13

The perfected sādhaka-deha is already the vessel of bhāva, and as much as the siddha-deha
corresponds with the devotee’s bhāva, it can be said that the siddha-deha is already partially
manifest in the sādhaka-deha. Sādhana-bhakti is the means by which bhāva manifests (prākaṭya)
in the heart.14 One’s bhāva corresponds with one’s siddha-deha. In fact, the siddha-deha is called
a bhāva-deha. It is possible that this bhāva-deha will take more than one form. For example, a
devotee might have a form in Kṛṣṇa līlā and another in Gaura līlā.

Nonetheless, a devotee will generally leave the sādhaka-deha behind when he or she enters the
spiritual world. However, underscoring the point that the sādhaka-deha can become fully
spiritual, sometimes we find examples of a devotee going to the spiritual world in his or her
sādhaka-deha. Gopa Kumāra is a case in point:

Gopa-kumāra saw his own body change from a product of the material elements into a
transcendental body. To achieve this perfection, he was not forced to die, to give up one body in
exchange for another. Rather, his body became refined so that he was able to travel through the
coverings of the universe and enter the abode of liberation.15

Dhruva Mahārāja is another example: “Sometimes the material body itself becomes a spiritual
body by the inconceivable śakti of the Lord as in the case of Dhruva (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam
4.12.29).”16 We also find some examples of svarūpa-śakti apparently taking the form of māyā-
śakti; for example, when Sītā was kidnapped by Rāvaṇa, her spiritual form was replaced with a
form of māyā. In such instances, however, it is understood that the original form of svarūpa-śakti
becomes unmanifest, not that it transmutes into māyā-śakti.

These concepts are somewhat abstract and hard to conceptualize. Therefore, in the next chapter,
we will explore in more depth how the sādhaka-deha is gradually fully spiritualized. This process
is detailed in a beautiful excerpt from Swāmī B. V. Tripurāri’s upcoming book, Circle of
Friends.17

(5.15) The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 16: The Manifestation of Śakti

By Vrindaranya dasi

Introduction to Excerpt

The following excerpt from Swāmī B. V. Tripurāri’s upcoming book, Circle of Friends, clearly
describes how the sādhaka-deha is partly influenced by the svarūpa-śakti and partly by the māyā-
śakti.1 The svarūpa-śakti is inherent but unmanifest in the jīva who is fully covered by māyā, but
as the jīva makes progress on the devotional path by the mercy of a devotee, his svarūpa slowly
starts to manifest. In contrast, the māyā-śakti is extrinsic to the jīva. As the sādhaka becomes
purified while coming more and more under the influence of the svarūpa-śakti, his identification
with the māyā-śakti diminishes and gradually his body is completely spiritualized with no
mundane portion remaining. Finally, the sādhaka-deha will become one with the siddha-deha. In
this way, the jīva gradually manifests all the twenty-one qualities described in Paramātma
Sandarbha.

Therefore, this excerpt shows that the ātmā, which is fully spiritual but in which his inherent
śaktis are unmanifest, slowly begins to have those śaktis manifest while he is still identified with
the material body. What is the unmanifest śakti of the ātmā? It is svarūpa-śakti. The soul is not
able to manifest his inherent śaktis on its own due to the acintya-śakti of māyā: “The extrinsic
potency of Bhagavān acts contrary to logic [i.e., her behavior cannot be understood simply
through logic]; otherwise, how is it possible that the living entity, who is the ruler of [i.e.,
superior to] prakṛti, being conscious and liberated, becomes bound and miserable? (Śrīmad
Bhāgavatam 3.7.9)”2 Therefore, although the twenty-one qualities of the jīva are inherent, they
can only fully manifest by the mercy of a devotee: Self-realization for the jīva, who is saddled
with beginningless ignorance, is not possible by his own efforts. It is possible only if knowledge
is imparted to him by another who knows the reality (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.22.10).3 These
points and others will be discussed in the following excerpt.

Excerpt from Circle of Friends

The sādhaka-deha is not a material body, nor is it a siddha-rūpa, at least not immediately. It is a
spiritual work in progress. The more the sādhaka’s senses are in touch with sense objects only for
the purpose of pleasing the transcendental senses of Kṛṣṇa, the more it is spiritualized. Adorned
with tilaka and kaṇṭhī-mālā, in this world but not of it, the sādhaka-deha is no longer moving
under the influence of the māyā-śakti, but rather that of the svarūpa-śakti, which bhakti is
constituted of. Śrī Kṛṣṇa describes such devotees in his divine song to Pāṇḍava Arjuna:

O cousin brother—son of Pārtha—those who engage in one-minded bhajana to me are mahātmās

moving under the influence of my svarūpa-śakti—daivīṁ prakṛtim. . . . They are always engaged
in kīrtana of my names, forms, qualities, and līlās—satataṁ kīrtayanto mām.4

The Sārārtha-darśinī comments of Viśvanātha Cakravartī in this regard are insightful:

One’s sādhaka-deha is considered to be nirguṇa because, on the order of one’s spiritual master,
all of one’s senses are engaged in the transcendental service of Kṛṣṇa, one’s ears in hearing about
Kṛṣṇa, one’s tongue in chanting Kṛṣṇa’s names and glories, one’s mind in remembering Kṛṣṇa,
one’s entire body in prostrating oneself in supplication to the deity, and one’s hands in various
types of service. Thus, because the objects of the devotee’s senses are Bhagavān’s qualities, the
devotee also becomes nirguṇa. However, at the same time, because the sādhaka also makes
material things the objects of his or her senses now and again, the sādhaka’s body is also guṇa-
maya, or constituted of material qualities. Therefore, the sādhaka-deha is partly nirguṇa and
partly guṇa-maya. According to the indications of the Bhāgavata verse (11.2.42) that compares
advancement in devotional service to the satisfaction felt by a hungry person while eating, the
gaining of strength, and the relief from the discomforts of hunger, one can understand that these
three things are attained gradually, for as much as one has eaten, to that extent one will feel these
beneficial effects. Similarly, as one progresses spiritually through sādhana, the spiritualized
portion of one’s body increases, and the material portion is gradually reduced. When one reaches
the stage of prema, one’s body is completely spiritualized, and no mundane portion remains.5
Thus the mature sādhaka-rūpa is a spiritually infused body such that despite the inevitable
demise of the sādhu’s sādhaka-deha, his or her form is entombed, venerated, and meditated upon,
resulting at times in meditative visitations and dreams wherein mantras and counsel are
sometimes imparted.6

As the citta is cleansed of material saṁskāras, the further ingress of svarūpa-śakti affords the
advanced sādhaka the opportunity to desire spiritually in greater detail under the influence of that
śakti, which exists only to please Kṛṣṇa. With a crystal-like cleansed citta, the sādhaka’s rāga
colors his or her citta. And the purified seat of the sādhaka’s desire and emotion—manas—gives
rise to the details of one’s siddha-rūpa, which, while one in kind—sakhya or mādhurya, and so
forth—is unique in detail from every other mukta’s, even as it follows a particular personified
ideal such as that of Subala-sakhā. The sādhaka’s will manifests as spiritualized buddhi, or
resolve, and causes that siddha-rūpa to manifest. In other words, as one progresses from the
higher stages of sādhana-bhakti—ruci and āsakti—to bhāva-bhakti, the details of one’s siddha-
rūpa are determined, and then they sprout. The sādhana stage of ruci is characterized by spiritual
longing for bhakti and absence of material desire. This longing is specific, and thus focused on a
particular spiritual emotion that corresponds with a specific object of love that the sādhaka
develops attachment for in the stage of āsakti. If the longing is for sakhya–rati, the object of that
love is Gopāla Kṛṣṇa replete with qualities that are excitants for sakhya-rati. Then, as the sprout
of one’s sthāyi-bhāva appears in bhāva-bhakti, it is further cultivated and gradually it flowers and
fructifies into prema—the form of the mukta’s love.

It is also important and of great interest to note that the mukta who attains a form for eternal
service attains an entire spiritual personality. In other words, the mukta’s form includes both a
spiritual body of working and perceiving senses as well as an ego, mind, intelligence, and
awareness. Śrī Jīva Goswāmī refers to the spiritual body as “paraphernalia suitable for Kṛṣṇa’s
recreational pursuit (krīḍana-deha).”7 The mukta desires and enjoys only in relation to pleasing
Kṛṣṇa. And it is for this reason that the Sūtras conclude that mukti with form is more fulfilling
than formless mukti—bhāve jāgradvat.8 Notably, the liberated attributes of satya-kāma and
satya-saṅkalpa have little meaning for one who attains formless mukti. In formless mukti, one
ends the ongoing attempt to become that drives us in material life, allowing the ātmā to be all
that it is, which far exceeds any of its efforts in material life to become. However, on the bhakti-
mārga, while the attempt to become in a material sense also comes to an end, the siddha-bhakta
does not rest with merely being but pursues all that the ātmā can become as a result of the ingress
of bhakti—svarūpa-śakti—into one’s life. Such transcendental becoming does not constitute a
transformation of the ātmā, but rather a becoming of all that it inherently has the potential to
become in connection with Kṛṣṇa’s svarūpa-śakti—bhakti. Simply stated, we are more when we
love.
To borrow a term from Charles Hartshorne, Kṛṣṇa is dipolar in nature. He personifies the
admirable aspects of both contrasting metaphysical poles. That is, he embodies that which is
admirable in immanence as well as that in transcendence—permanence as well as change, and so
on. He is full and also ever-increasing.9 This makes for a dynamic Absolute. It is said that at one
point Lakṣmī had never experienced Narasiṁha. Yet Narasiṁha is eternal. In the same sense, our
siddha-rūpa lies within the depths of God’s being and manifests when corresponding
devotion/prema appears. The siddha-svarūpa is an extension of God’s own form, and thus the
devotee identified with that siddha-rūpa experiences, through what is really an extension of
God’s senses, a dynamic union with God in love. In the siddha-rūpa, the mukta sees, hears,
tastes, and so forth only for God’s pleasure, just as God’s senses function for his own pleasure.10

Just as Śrī Rūpa prescribes sevā in one’s sādhaka-rūpa, he also prescribes sevā in one’s siddha–
rūpa. As mentioned earlier, this meditative internal sevā replicates the prema-sevā of the
rāgātmikā-jana of Kṛṣṇa līlā that one follows. In his Rāga-vartma-candrikā Viśvanātha
Cakravartī Ṭhākura cites two means by which knowledge required for meditative līlā-sevā is
acquired. In this regard, he paraphrases Uddhava’s words to Kṛṣṇa:

Śrī Bhagavān inspires the sādhaka by manifesting himself in two ways: Externally he gives
instructions in the form of the ācārya. Alternately, he provides this same instruction internally as
the caitya-guru—God himself within—inspiring a sādhaka from within the heart concerning the
means to achieve the desired goal.11

In his commentary on the above verse, Viśvanātha Cakravartī cites and paraphrases the essence
of Bhagavad-gītā 10.10, which further substantiates his latter claim that the caitya-guru in some
instances provides all one needs to know through gradual internal realization: “Inspiring them
with intelligence to attain you, and making them worship you, you reveal to them the goal of
becoming an associate with prema.” In his Rāga-vartma-candrikā, Ṭhākura Viśvanātha also cites
Bhāgavatam 11.14.26:

To the degree that the ātmā becomes purified by hearing and chanting my glories, a person is
able to perceive my real form and qualities, just as the eye when smeared with special ointment
is able to see finer objects.
This verse supports the idea that all that one needs to know—the details of one’s siddha-rūpa and
how to engage in meditative līlā-sevā with it—will arise naturally through gradual realization
derived from one’s appropriately rāga-mārga-oriented sādhana. Perceiving Kṛṣṇa’s form in
meditation on the path of rāga-bhakti also includes perceiving one’s siddha-rūpa because Kṛṣṇa
is perceived relative to how he is approached. If we approach him influenced by sakhya-rati, we
will experience him as he appears to his cowherd friends of Vraja. In other words, the beauty of
Gopāla Kṛṣṇa is not separate from or independent of the eye of its beholder.12 Śrīmad
Bhāgavatam explains that Kṛṣṇa enters his devotee’s heart in a particular form and in doing so
simultaneously bestows upon his devotee a spiritual form that corresponds with this particular
form as well as with the nature of the devotee’s worship—tat-tad-vapuḥ praṇayase sad-
anugrahāya.13 The implication of Bhāgavatam 11.14.26 cited by Viśvanātha Cakravartī is that
this is a gradual development and one approach to acquiring all that is required for meditative
līlā-sevā.

Thus, with spiritual progress and the purification of one’s citta, just how to serve internally in a
siddha-rūpa manifests in proportion to the manifestation of the siddha-rūpa itself. Notably, the
examples cited from the sacred lore of those who rendered this service and attained their ideal
through kāmānuga-sādhana—the sages of Daṇḍakāraṇya and the personified śrutis—learned
how to render siddha-rūpa–sevā in this way. The same holds true in the case of Bṛhad-
bhāgavatāmṛta’s Gopa-kumāra/Sarūpa in his sambandhānuga-sādhana. None of these devotees
received any esoteric instruction on siddha-rūpa-sevā aside from what they received through
internal realization. Indeed, Gopa-kumāra’s guru instructed him on how to chant the Kṛṣṇa
mantra and then told him that by the power of that mantra alone “all other secrets will be
automatically revealed to you.”14 Subsequently, Gopa-kumāra attained a form suitable for
liberated life.15

(5.16) The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 17: Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s
Govinda-Bhāṣya

By Vrindaranya dasi

Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.1

The end of the Vedānta-sūtra (adhyāya 4, pāda 4) discusses the manifestation of the jīva’s
svarūpa. What makes this section so important to our discussion is that it reconciles receiving
grace with realizing one’s own true nature. By directly showing the paradox of needing mercy to
realize one’s own inherent nature, it very clearly shows simultaneous inherence and bestowal. If
this point weren’t addressed so directly, it would be easy to misconstrue that what one attains is
something new—something that is not inherent in the soul.

Sūtra 4.4.1 references a passage from Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3, the same passage that Jīva
Gosvāmī quoted in his discussion of śeṣatva:

…in the very same way, this deeply serene one, after he rises up from this body and reaches the
highest light, emerges in his own true appearance. He is the highest person. He roams about
there, laughing, playing, and enjoying himself… (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3)1

In his commentary, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa asks: Does the liberated soul get a body that is a
result of sādhana (sādhyena rūpeṇa sambandhaḥ), like the body of a demigod, or is it a result of
his own nature (svarūpābhiniṣpattiḥ)?

The siddhānta is established: “The phrase ‘accomplishing one’s own form’ (svena rūpeṇa-
abhiniṣpadyate) means manifesting one’s own form because the word svena (his own) is used.”2
Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa comments:

When the soul approaches the Highest Light, through the force of its devotion, accompanied by
knowledge and dispassion, then there is release for it from the chain of karma, and there is
manifestation in it of the eight-fold superior qualities, which from latency come into
manifestation then. It is then said that there has taken place the manifestation of its natural
character. This particular condition, characterized by the rise of one’s natural condition to the
surface, is called svarūpa abhiniṣpatti (appearance of one’s nature).3

The paradox of simultaneous inherency and bestowal is on full display in this explanation.
Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa points out that the soul’s liberation occurs through the force of devotion
(having been bestowed by a devotee), and only by this mercy can the soul realize his own nature.
Again emphasizing inherency, he notes that the soul’s qualities manifest, rising to the surface.
What are these inherent qualities? They include satya-saṅkalpa (one’s will is instantly realized)
and satya-kāmaḥ (able to achieve anything desired). In Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.12, Baladeva Prabhu
will note that the ātmā’s form comes from the soul’s will, which began to manifest at the
beginning of the jīva’s spiritual life. This spiritual will, which gives rise to the spiritual body, is
inherent in the jīva and begins to manifest while the jīva is still partially covered by māyā.

The fact that satya-saṅkalpa and satya-kāmaḥ are part of the jīva’s svarūpa—that the jīva has
inherent will—is enough to discount the idea that the jīva is merely conscious and free of
material suffering, which is the position of those who advocate bestowal-only. A bodiless soul
that is merely a unit of contentless consciousness does not have manifest śakti. What we find in
the passage under discussion (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3), however, is that the soul’s svarūpa
and rūpa manifest simultaneously, as evidenced by the fact that this verse says that the soul
laughs, plays, and rejoices. One couldn’t do these activities without a form (rūpa).

In this regard, Rāmānujācārya comments, “The words ‘and the rest’ of the sūtra indicate that the
soul not only possesses these eight attributes, but that it acts in the way mentioned in the same
Upaniṣad [i.e. the soul laughs, plays, and rejoices].” In other words, it is part of the nature of the
soul to be a doer, not merely conscious and free of material suffering. Being a knower, doer, and
enjoyer are inherent attributes of the soul, as we saw in the twenty-one characteristics of the soul
that Jīva Gosvāmī presented in Paramātma Sandarbha. Rāmānujācārya continues, “Nor can it be
said that mere cessation of pain constitutes the well-being of the soul which has approached the
highest light, and that in this sense manifestation of its own nature may be called release; for
scripture clearly teaches that the released soul enjoys an infinity of positive bliss.”4 Again,
liberation for the soul is not the mere absence of suffering: it is “an infinity of positive bliss.”

Several of the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas mention that the form the jīva receives is not “adventitious.”
This means that the form does not arise by chance but rather from design or inherent nature. The
fact that the jīva can choose whether or not to have a form does not make it adventitious. If the
soul chooses to not manifest a spiritual form, that form remains unmanifest. The form arises
according to the inherent nature of the jīva: the soul’s quality of satya-saṅkalpa. Baladeva
Vidyābhūṣaṇa says that it manifests by the soul’s will. However, his prayer at the beginning of
this section of Vedānta-sūtra brings us back to simultaneous bestowal: The Lord, “gratified by
their devotion, gratifies all their desires.”5 In other words, our will is subject to the approval of
the Lord.

Form or Nature?

Some devotees think that Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.1 is not talking about the soul’s form (rūpeṇa) but
rather his nature (svarūpa). They insist that it is only the svarūpa (nature) that is inherent and that
nature is to be conscious and free of suffering. Everything else that a liberated soul attains, they
maintain, is a gift, not an inherent part of the soul’s nature. However, the point turns out to be
irrelevant and merely belies a shallow understanding. It is irrelevant because the rūpa is itself a
result of the svarūpa. Furthermore, the rūpa is also eternally with the jīva (although it is naturally
unmanifest when the jīva is covered by māyā).6 Thus, 4.4.1 is talking about both. Baladeva
Vidyābhūṣaṇa explains why the proper understanding is that the liberated soul gets a body that is
a result of his own nature:

Because the word svena in the above text requires this explanation. This word is an adjective
qualifying the word rūpa (form) in the above. If the soul assumed a new body, then this word
would have no force. Because, even without that, it would be clear that the new body belonged to
the soul. The other meaning of svena would be “belonging to it” and rūpeṇa would mean “in a
form belonging to it.” This would be purely a useless expression, for the body, which the soul
takes, must ipso facto belong to it. Moreover, the word niṣpatti does not always mean
accomplishment, but manifestation also.7

He goes on to say, “Some say that the jīva, being self-illuminating consciousness alone, on
attaining the supreme light, manifests merely a state of destruction of all suffering caused by the
superimposition of prakṛti. But that is not so, because śruti states that one attains intense bliss.
Rasaṁ hy evāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati: the jīva, attaining the Lord who is rasa, becomes
blissful (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7).”8 Here Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, quoting the same verse that
Śrī Jīva did in his commentary on śeṣatva, adds to his previous point—that the liberated jīva
attains his own intrinsic yet previously unmanifest form (svena rūpeṇa) as a servant of Bhagavān
—by saying that liberation involves tasting rasa, not merely the destruction of suffering. In other
words, he says that upon removing his negative material conditioning, the soul experiences his
own positive status in bhakti-rasa.

Does Accomplishment Negate Inherency?

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s point that niṣpatti can mean manifestation rather than accomplishment
is worth underscoring because those who advocate bestowal-only often make much of statements
that say the spiritual form is attained. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa says that what is accomplished is
the realization or uncovering of one’s own svarūpa. By keeping this point in mind, we will have
a broader perspective from which to understand when someone says that bhakti or the siddha-
deha is obtained, given, or acquired. Such reasoning is very convincing when one is limited by a
binary viewpoint, but Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa makes it clear that the paradoxical nature of
simultaneous inherency and bestowal is not bound by the logic of binary thinking.
The Qualities of the Liberated Soul

Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.4-7 is also very relevant to our discussion because it considers whether the soul
is consciousness alone—the position of those who say that bhakti is not inherent—or if it has
qualities as well.9 The conclusion is that the soul is consciousness and has qualities. The eight
qualities of the liberated soul are mentioned, as well as the qualities mentioned in Chāndogya
Upaniṣad 8.12.3 (that the soul laughs, plays, and rejoices). Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa also provides
several verses that confirm that the qualities of the soul are eternal but covered when the jīva is
influenced by māyā:

Just as by washing away dirt, light is not created in a jewel, so by destroying faults knowledge is
not created in the jīva.

Just as water is not created by digging a well, an existing thing becomes manifest. How can
something not existing appear?

Similarly, by destruction of bad qualities, the obscured qualities, which are eternal in the ātmā,
manifest and are not created. (Viṣṇu-dharma)10

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa thus clearly establishes that the soul’s characteristics—which are eternal
but covered when the jīva is conditioned by māyā—are not merely consciousness and freedom
from material suffering. The fact that these qualities manifest by bhakti in no way means that
they did not exist in an unmanifest form before liberation.

Does the Liberated Soul Have a Body?

Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.9-12 discusses whether the liberated ātmā is controlled by anyone other than
the Lord and whether the liberated jīva has a body (vigraha) when he attains the Lord. In this
regard, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa confirms simultaneous inherency and bestowal by saying that
the soul’s qualities manifest by the mercy of the Lord: “Though the jīva’s nature of satya-
saṇkalpa exists within himself (svātma-bhūtam), it manifests because of his worship of the
Lord.”11 He also points out: “Since the jīva is an aṁśa of the Lord (dependent on him), his
nature of being an agent and enjoyer comes from the Lord alone.”12
In regard to whether the liberated jīva has a body (vigraha) when he attains the Lord, it is
established that the liberated jīva can have a body or not, according to his will. As I mentioned
previously, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa says that this will began to manifest at the beginning of the
jīva’s spiritual life. Some devotees mistakenly think that the fact that Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
says that the soul can either have or not have a spiritual body means that the previous question—
does the liberated soul get a body that is a result of sādhana, like the body of a demigod, or is it a
result of his own nature—was not referring to body at all, but rather to the soul’s nature. I’ve
already pointed out the flaw in this understanding. Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.1 was discussing both the
svarūpa (nature) and the rūpa (spiritual body). The Upaniṣadic passage under discussion in sūtra
4.4.1 speaks about the soul “laughing, playing, and rejoicing,” all of which would be impossible
without a body or form. The spiritual body was established to have manifested due to the nature
of the devotee. The fact that it is possible for a liberated soul to not have a spiritual body in no
way negates the fact that 4.4.1 was discussing a situation in which the liberated soul does desire
a spiritual body.

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa explains:

The meaning is this. The liberated jīvas, having destroyed all suffering by Brahma-vidyā,
manifest their satya-saṅkalpa nature. Those among them who desire a body, by their will, have a
body. Thus śruti says sa ekadhā: he manifests one body. (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 7.26.2) Those
liberated jīvas who do not want a body do not manifest a body. Thus, śruti says aśarīram vāva: he
is without a body. (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.1) For those who desire to serve the Lord eternally
with a spiritual body, that body made of the cit-śakti manifests. Eternally possessing that body,
they serve the Lord.13

Eka-rūpa

Clearly, if the jīva eternally possesses a spiritual body that manifests according to his desire, he
still possesses that body even when it is unmanifest. After all, eternity has no beginning or end.
In Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, the soul has a fixed form in Kṛṣṇa līlā and, if he so desires, another in
Gaura līlā. In the foundational Gauḍīya literature, there is no mention of having various bodies in
Goloka Vṛndāvana with which to serve the Lord. In Vaikuṇṭha, the situation is somewhat
different. There, devotees can have various forms according to the necessity of service. However,
according to Rāmānujācārya, the consciousness of the ātmā will spread like a lamp to illuminate
the different forms, all of which are eternal. Because the jīva is not divisible, even if a jīva
occupies several bodies simultaneously, the jīva resides in one of the bodies and simultaneously
illuminates the others with consciousness. The jīva does not divide himself into several forms. In
this way, Rāmānujācārya still considers that the soul has eka-rūpa (one form). In his commentary
on Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.15, he says:

Just as a lamp, although abiding in one place only, enters through the light proceeding from it
into connection with many places; so the soul also, although limited to one place, may through
its light-like consciousness enter into several bodies.…The released soul… is capable of
extending as far as it likes, and thus to make many bodies its own.14

The question of one form or multiple forms aside, one might think that the fact that some jīvas
don’t desire a body shows that eka-rūpa (one of the twenty-one characteristics of the jīva) does
not mean “one form.” Jīva Gosvāmī answers this doubt in his commentary to Paramātma
Sandarbha 35: “When the pure jīva merges into Brahman, the jīva, though capable of acting, is
covered by the bliss of Brahman and is no longer connected with action. It is understood that at
this time his capacity as a doer remains internal.”15 When Jīva Gosvāmī says that his capacity as
a doer remains internal, he means that the capacity (śakti) is unmanifest in the jīva, who is a
particle of sac-cid-ānanda. Of course, to manifest one’s capacity as a doer, one needs a form. In
his Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Bṛhad-Bhāgavatāmṛta, Śrīla Sanātana Goswāmī confirms that souls
merged in Brahman have an inherent spiritual form that can manifest by the mercy of the Lord:

Similarly, in the state of liberation, the living beings merge into a distinct part of the effulgent
Brahman from which they originated, and therefore it is said that the jīva has become one with
Brahman. However, because the living being is limited by his very nature, whereas Brahman is
constitutionally unlimited, liberated jīvas cannot obtain the intense, boundless happiness found in
the unbounded Brahman. So, the reason the jīvas are nondifferent from Brahman is just that their
individuality is not visible in the state of liberation. Because they are finite, they are separate and
distinct, even though they are situated as if merged in some portion of Brahman. By the special
mercy of Śrī Bhagavān, at a certain point, some liberated living beings, because of their
individuality, desire a separate existence to experience the joy of loving devotional service
(bhakti-sukha). They are able to attain this in a body that is fit for worshiping the Lord, a sac-cid-
ānanda body comprised of eternality, knowledge, and bliss.16

As before, the fact that the soul “attains” the body does not mean that the body is not eternally
svena rūpeṇa (his own form). Thus, as we have seen, Vaiṣṇava ācāryas consider that the soul has
eka-rūpa (one form) even if the soul is merged in Brahman or if he is one lamp illuminating
several forms. Similarly, when a devotee has a form in Gaura līlā and another form in Kṛṣṇa līlā,
the two forms are considered nondifferent.

The term eka-rūpa (having one form) is the seventh intrinsic attribute of the soul. Śrī Jīva’s
explanation of the term is brief:

Since the jīva reveals itself by its own śakti (not depending on another entity), it has a single
form (eka-rūpa-svarūpa-bhāk) as its nature, just as a lamp functions as one unit. In ŚB 11.3.38
already cited, in the phrase upaladbhi-mātram the word mātram indicates that its qualities
emanate from its own form only.17

In this description of eka-rūpa (having one form), Jīva Gosvāmī makes the point that by
manifesting one’s inherent śakti, one reveals oneself. One’s form is śakti, and one needs śakti to
do anything. Here we see that Jīva Gosvāmī says the śakti comes from the jīva, even though this
śakti is svarūpa-śakti. He says it is svarūpa-śakti, i.e., the soul’s “own śakti.” As we saw in article
11, the soul’s “own śakti” is indeed Bhagavān’s svarūpa-śakti. Although Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
previously said that the devotee’s spiritual form comes from his nature, we see here that Jīva
Gosvāmī comments that the opposite is also true: the soul’s “qualities emanate from its own form
only.”

Although the literal translation of eka-rūpa is “one form,” some devotees opine that eka-rūpa
here refers to “uniform,” which they then take to mean that there isn’t any difference among
jīvas, because the jīva is merely an undifferentiated unit of consciousness. Accordingly, they
would disagree with B.K.N Sharma’s explanation of Madhvācārya’s belief that “Sameness or
equality of essence does not rule out individual variations…identity [sameness] of consciousness
would render the present multiplicity of personalities purposeless.”18 However, the problem
with their definition of eka-rūpa is this: if you compare the definition of “uniform” with Śrī
Jīva’s description of eka-rūpa, you will see that they do not correlate. A lamp functioning as one
unit shows that it has one form, not that it is uniform. The qualities emanate from the form, not
from uniformity. As we saw in the last quotation, the soul’s “qualities emanate from its own form
only.” Furthermore, “form” is a noun, and “uniform” is an adjective. You can see in Śrī Jīva’s
explanation that he is using eka-rūpa as a noun. Thus, their translation of eka-rūpa as “uniform”
seems improbable.
In conclusion, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa concurs with the other Vaiṣṇava ācāryas that the svarūpa
of the jīva manifests by the mercy of the Lord, and that this svarūpa is not mere consciousness
and the absence of suffering. Unlike those who say bhakti is not inherent, the position of
Baladeva Prabhu is clearly that of simultaneous inherence and bestowal. Given the fact that
Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism became recognized as an independent school of Vaiṣṇava Vedānta through
Baladeva Prabhu’s Govinda-bhāṣya commentary,19 it is implausible to think that there would be
a difference between Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa and Jīva Gosvāmī on such a fundamental point of
siddhānta. Furthermore, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa named his commentary Govinda-bhāṣya
because he said that Śrī Govinda himself spoke the commentary to him.

(5.17) The Simultaneous Inherency and Bestowal of Bhakti—Part 18: Concluding Words

By Vrindaranya dasi

Over the last seventeen articles, I have shown how Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī establishes both the
inherency and bestowal of bhakti. This teaching is in line with all the major schools of Vaiṣṇava
Vedānta. Each school of Vedānta has to reconcile the apparent difference between the world—
with all its variety—and the Vedāntic understanding of advaya-jñāna-tattva (one nondual
Absolute Truth). The way that Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism explains this apparent contradiction is
through śakti—the Lord is one and different with his śaktis:

advaya-jñāna-tattva kṛṣṇa — svayaṁ bhagavān

‘svarūpa-śakti’ rūpe tāṅra haya avasthāna

Kṛṣṇa is the nondual Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although He is one,
He maintains different personal expansions and energies for His pastimes.1

No other school of Vedānta puts as much emphasis on śakti as Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism. It is not
surprising, then, that śakti is the key to understanding how bhakti is both inherent and bestowed.
The soul is endowed with twenty-one intrinsic attributes, and many of these attributes cannot
manifest without śakti. In fact, the covering of the soul by māyā is only possible because the
śakti of the soul is not manifest. Because the soul is covered by māyā, the soul requires mercy to
realize his true nature—to manifest his inherent śakti.
Based on his extensive study of the Sandarbhas and other core Gauḍīya literature, Śrīla
Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura established both inherency and bestowal throughout his books. As I wrote
in my opening article, Sundara Gopāla provided extensive evidence to establish that
Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s statement that bhakti is the dharma of the soul (jaiva-dharma) was not a
provisional concept but rather a foundational aspect of his teachings. He also gave historical
evidence that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura had studied Jīva Gosvāmī’s Sandarbhas extensively, as well
as the writings of Śrī Jāmātṛ Muni, whose verses form the basis of Jīva Gosvāmī’s explanation of
the characteristics of the jīva.

Although other parivāras may have other valid interpretations, those of us in the Bhaktivinoda
parivāra have good reason to put our faith in Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s understanding of
Gauḍīya siddhānta. He edited and published over one hundred books—creating a resurgence of
Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism—and was appropriately hailed the seventh Gosvāmī. Furthermore, we
should not be bewildered by the fact that other parivāras may have different understandings.
After all, look how many different interpretations there are of the Vedānta-sūtras.

Moreover, it is not only those in the Bhaktivinoda parivāra who accept the inherence and
bestowal of bhakti. As we saw in the last chapter, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa came to the same
conclusion. In a similar vein, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kaviraja Gosvāmī writes:

jīvera svabhāva—kṛṣṇa-‘dāsa’-abhimāna

dehe ātma-jñāne ācchādita sei ‘jñāna’

The jīva’s intrinsic nature is to have the conception of being a servant of Kṛṣṇa. That knowledge
is covered by the misconception of the body being the self.2

jīvera ‘svarūpa’ haya — kṛṣṇera ‘nitya-dāsa’

It is the living entity’s constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa.”3

I’m sure that some devotees will insist that only their interpretation of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī is
correct, quite likely on the basis of my not being a Sanskritist. Moreover, I have no doubt that my
arguments can be improved. I see my articles as a first attempt, and I look forward to further
discussion and refinement. However, for those of us in the Bhaktivinoda parivāra, I believe that
the jury is no longer out on why Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura stressed both inherency and
bestowal. As such, any refinements to our understanding should be in keeping with his vision. A
prolonged debate with those in other parivāras is unlikely to be particularly fruitful. My own
inspiration in writing these articles was not to convince those in other parivāras, but rather to
defend the validity of my own parivāra against specific arguments that had not been made in the
time of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, or Śrīla A. C. Bhaktivedanta
Swami Prabhupāda and had therefore not been previously addressed.

I would like to draw to a close by saying that if we were merely units of being with only a
potential through an outside influence to know and love, we would have no real inherent reason
or necessity to be at all. Unless we have an inherent necessity to love, there is no meaning to our
existence, and we are purposeless. Sādhu-saṅga does not give us a purpose that we did not
already have. It sheds light on our inherent purpose. This is what Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda referred
to when coining the phrase jaiva-dharma. May his parivāra continue to bless the world with its
insight.

That said, interpretations of core Gauḍīya texts that reach a different conclusion, insisting that
bhakti is in no way inherent in the jīvātmā, will no doubt continue to resonate with some
practitioners, and we do for that matter find spiritually advanced devotees on either side of the
debate. Thus, no one has a monopoly on the siddhānta concerning this topic and hopefully all
parties are well served by robust sādhu-saṅga and as such will meet one another on the other
side.

Let me conclude with some quotations about the inherency and bestowal of bhakti from our
ācāryas in the Bhaktivinoda parivāra.

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura:

“Prema is the jīva’s eternal dharma. The jīva is not dull matter. It is an object beyond matter.
Consciousness is its constitution. Prema is its dharma. Being the servant of Kṛṣṇa is pure prema.
Thus prema, in the form of being Kṛṣṇa’s servant, is the jīva’s innate dharma.” (Jaiva Dharma,
ch. 2)4

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura:

“Bhakti is the natural impulse of the soul.” (The Harmonist, Vol. 28)

“Śrīmad Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has written all the books following the scriptural conclusions of
Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī. All his books are supplements to Śrīla Jīva and Śrī Baladeva’s books. Our
current endeavor is also to follow Śrīla Jīva.” (Prabhupader Samlap)

Śrīla B. R. Śrīdhara Mahārāja:

Sannyasi: How is it that one develops his innate nature? Is it developed?

Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja: It is not developed but discovered. What is already there is only to be
discovered, to remove the covering. Sādhana means that. It is there. It is there in a very germinal
form. Inactive, covered. Inactive. So, remove the cover, and then it will assert itself.

“Svarūpa-śakti is within. Only that should be discovered. That is within, the inner wealth, and
only the outer cover has checked the activities of svarūpa-śakti—that of distributing this divine
message to one and all.” (Encounters with Divinity)

“When analyzed, then, it is found that our svarūpa is more suitable for such and such service—in
Vaikuṇṭha or Goloka. So, we have our fixed svarūpa, some in Vaikuṇṭha, some in Goloka. In
Goloka also, there are different rasas, so it is within.”

Śrīla A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda:

“Krishna consciousness is not an artificial imposition on the mind; this consciousness is the
original energy of the living entity. When we hear the transcendental vibration, this
consciousness is revived.” [The Science of Self-Realization, Chapter 5]5

“Love of God is dormant in everyone, and if one is given a chance to hear about the Lord,
certainly that love develops. Our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement acts on this principle.” [Cc.
1.7.141, Purport]6

Śrīla Prabhupada, emphasizing bestowed and inherence within the same passage, shows clearly
that he intends both together:

“The fact is that devotional service is bestowed by the blessings of a pure devotee (sa mahātmā
su-durlabhaḥ). A pure devotee is the supreme transcendentalist, and one has to receive his mercy
for one’s dormant Kṛṣṇa consciousness to be awakened. One has to associate with pure devotees.
If one has firm faith in the words of a great soul, pure devotional service will awaken.” (Cc. 2.22,
Introduction)7