Category: Krishna Tattva

The Ideal of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas

Swami Tripurari

The ideal of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas is to attain lila-seva in the circle of Sri Krsna’s Vrindvana lila. Thus they engage in an appropriate sadhana, one that aims at attaining a spiritual form in which to serve Sri Krsna in divine love, a gopa or gopi form. This sadhana thus involves pursuing an ideal that members of that lila exemplify. It is termed “raganuga sadhana,” which literally means “following those who have raga for Krsna.” Those who have raga for Sri Krsna are his gopas and gopis, who are eternally liberated entities. They are called “ragatmikas,” “those in whom raga is inborn.” So again, raganuga sadhana means to follow in the footsteps of the ragatmikas.

Just as those who attain the ideal of ragatmika bhakti never loose sight of it, similarly and necessarily, those whom they follow to attain this status also never loose sight of it. Indeed, the following by which one attains the ideal is something that also eternal. So to follow eternally, one needs someone to follow who is always there, not someone who is unreliable.

When Sri Krsna says that those who attain my abode never return to the material world, he is saying that this abode is of an eternally perfect nature. He says it twice, once in comparison to the worlds of the demigods. From there everyone falls. By contrast, from his abode no one falls. This is what he says in the 8th chapter of the Gita. The second time he says that those who attain my abode never return, he is pointing out the luminous nature of his abode. Here luminosity—sun, moon, fire—is used to imply that his abode is devoid of darkness/ignorance. In other words, because of its luminous nature one going there never experiences darkness. This is what he says in the 15th chapter.

So in each instance that Krsna says this in the Gita, he is not qualifying the nature of his abode to say that only those who attain it through sadhana having previously been in ignorance never return to ignorance after attaining it. He is not saying that while perfected sadhakas never again experience ignorance, my eternal associates (ragatmikas) do, which of course would make no sense.

For that matter, the abode of Krsna in essence consists of the ragatmikas love for him. That love and Krsna himself are one and different. There is no meaning to love of Krsna without Krsna, and no meaning to Krsna without love of Krsna. Just as Krsna himself does is not subject to ignorance, similarly love of Krsna—prema—is not subject to corruption. If it were, Krsna himself would not be perfect. Krsna is himself and and love of himself—Radha Krsna. The two are philosophically inseparable. Krsna is not subject to ignorance and neither is love of Krsna.

In other words, those who follow those who are never subject to ignorance, upon attaining their association, are never subject to ignorance. That is what the Gita says. Again, Krsna is not alone. Attaining him means attaining the association of his eternal associates. That is what love of Krsna involves.

Advaita Vedanta

Swami Tripurari

The Advaitin understanding requires one to import foreign ideas into the sastra, notions brought to the text that are not found anywhere in the scripture itself. The foremost example of this is Sankara’s notion of saguna Brahman as a provisional manifestation of the Absolute that he inserts in his commentary on Vedanta-sutra (1.1.17) and unceremoniously identifies Krsna with in his Gita Bhasya.

Contrary to the Advaitan position, Vedanta-sutra (1.1.10) states, gati-samanyat: “Saguna Brahman is not taught anywhere in the Vedas, which consistently describe only nirguna Brahman.”

Sankara’s argument is the lens through which he looks at all the scriptural references glorifying the form of God and devotion to it. It appears first in his highly interpretive explanation of Vedanta-sutra 1.1.17. This sutra appears in a section in which Brahman is described as having qualities. It begins with the statement anandamayo ’bhyasat, “Brahman is joyful” (Vs. 1.1.12). Sutra 1.1.13 states that Brahman is not made of joy (a creation), but rather possessed of an abundance of joy. Evidence for this is offered in 1.1.14, which states that since Brahman is designated elsewhere as the cause of joy (Taittiriya Upanisad 2.7) he must be full of joy. Sutra 1.1.15 states that the scripture of joy (Taittiriya Upanisad) also celebrates Brahman as being joyful. Following this sutra in 1.1.16, that which is Brahman and joyful is distinguished from the individual soul. The Brahman who is joyful is also described in the scripture as being the creator. Thus it is Brahman who is described as joyful and not the individual soul, for only Brahman is described as possessing the ability to create the world. Sutra 1.1.17 then states that the individual soul and Brahman are declared to be different, bheda-vyapadesac ca. Even Sankara himself admits that sutras 1.1.16–17 concern the difference between Brahman and the individual soul. However, Sankara adds his own comment, declaring that the difference only exists on a lower level of reality (vyavaharic), whereas in ultimate reality (paramarthic) this illusion of difference ceases to exist. However, nowhere in Vedanta-sutra is there any reference to Sankara’s two levels of reality and thus two levels of Brahman—a provisional manifestation of the Absolute (Krsna, the avatara, isvara, etc.) and an ultimate reality (unmanifest, indeterminate Brahman).

Thus Sankara has attached his own doctrine to the sutras. In this doctrine he calls his provisional manifestation of Brahman “saguna Brahman,” Brahman with material adjuncts. The form of Krsna as saguna Brahman is thus considered a manifestation of Brahman constituted of the material quality of sattva that serves the purpose of helping individual souls realize the illusion of their individuality, at which time the form and person of the avatara is dispensed with as the enlightened realizes himself to be Brahman. This idea has no basis in the sutras and thus nowhere in the Upanisads.

The svarupa of the jiva is described in the Visnu Purana thus:

“The atma is not inert matter, it is immutable, and not simply awareness. It is self aware and self luminous. It is uniform and thus delimited, dwells in its own nature, it is conscious, all pervading within the body, it is knowledge and bliss, it is possessed of the sense of ‘I am,’ it is individual in that each atma is different from the atma in another body, it is indivisible, and eternally pure. Furthermore, it is an apprehender, agent, and experiencer, and its nature is to be eternally related with the Paramatma.”

The jivatma is not Brahman and cannot become Brahman, but it can identify with Brahman in Brahma sayujya if it so desires and if it is blessed by bhakti. But it is better to identify with Krsna in prema and enter his eternal lila, where the jivatma will attain a spiritual body, as described in the 4th Adhyaya of Vedanta-sutra. And the jivas are not many through the power of maya-sakti. The sutras explain that the One becomes many out of lila: lokavat tu lila kaivalyam. This is not the function of maya-sakti. It is the will of the Purusa who stands above maya.

As you can see, we Vaisnvavas have our own understanding of sastra. Thus we do not subscribe to the Advaitin understanding. Here we follow Sri Caitanya. We are bhaktas.

Krsna is not influenced by maya-sakti. His lila is the influence of his own svarupa-sakti. It is a drama of his own invention for sport that includes an appearance of death.