The Meaning of Non-Existence and its Implications on the Self’s Bondage

By Satyanarayana Dasa

In Indian Logic (Nyāya), non-existence is called abhāva. There are various divisions and subdivisions of non-existence.

 

 

Mutual Non-Existence (anyo’nya-abhāva)

“Mutual non-existence” means non-existence due to being different. For instance, a table is different from a chair. In a table, a chair does not exist. This is true for all three phases of time: A chair never existed within a table, nor does it currently exist within a table, nor will it ever in the future exist within a table. The chair and the table mutually demonstrate the non-existence of the other, because they are eternally different from each other.

Co-relational Non-Existence (saṁsarga-abhāva)

Another, more significant, type of non-existence is inherent within the object itself – not merely demonstrated by the object not existing within another object. There are three types of such “co-relational non-existence,” differentiated by the time at which the non-existence occurs.

Prior Non-Existence (prāg-abhāva)

Before an object came into existence, it was non-existent. That is “prior non-existence.” It implies that a non-existent object could be created, produced or generated in future.

Indian Logic accepts eight general and three specific causes of any creation. The eight general causes are:

1. God
2. God’s knowledge
3. God’s will
4. God’s effort
5. Fate
6. Prāg-abhāva
7. Space
8. Time

Prāg-abhāva is particularly significant, because if an object is not initially non-existent, there is no question of “creating” it. If there is no non-existence, it means that the object already exists.

To give an example: Before a cake comes into existence, its non-existence was prevailing without any beginning. This non-existence is called prāg-abhāva. However, when the cake is produced, its non-existence terminates.

Subsequent Non-Existence (pradhvaṁs-abhāva)

Continuing with the example of a cake, when it is entirely eaten the cake once again exists no more. This is “subsequent non-existence.” It implies that the object previously existed.

“Subsequent non-existence” has no end. Never again will that specific cake come back into existence. It will always remain non-existent. “Prior non-existence has an end, but no beginning; and “Subsequent non-existence” has a beginning but no end.

Eternal Non-Existence (atyanta-abhāva)

“Eternal non-existence” refers to things that never existed in the past and will never exist in the future, like the horns of a rabbit.

Implications for the “Fall of the Soul”

Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī says the living entity suffers because of an ignorance that has no beginning (prag-abhāva). Ignorance is merely the non-existence of knowledge, in this case of the Supreme Lord. In other words, the living entity suffers because of “prior non-existence” of divine knowledge.

This ignorance cannot be “subsequent non-existence of divine knowledge.” Because if it were so, then divine knowledge would have existed before the ignorance. However, it is a dictum that one who has knowledge of the Supreme Lord can never be put into ignorance. So Jīva Gosvāmī describes the soul’s ignorance as “beginningless” – the soul never possessed the divine knowledge to begin with. And this is why the jīva is called nitya-baddha, “ever-conditioned.”

When we apply this to the question of when, how or if the living entity fell from the spiritual world, we can conclude that he never fell, because his conditioned state has no beginning. This is the meaning of nitya-baddha. This also implies that it is possible to bring ignorance to an end. “Prior non-existence of knowledge” can be ended when one attains divine knowledge.

When divine knowledge comes into existence, it will never end. It puts ignorance into “subsequent non-existence” which is an endless condition. Therefore a person with divine knowledge is called nitya-siddha, “ever-liberated.” Such persons never fall down. This is the meaning of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s statement, yad gatvā na nivartante tad dhāma paramaṁ mama: “reaching which one never returns – this is my supreme abode” (BG 15.6).

This abode, the Lord’s planet (dhāma), is not physical. When we say, “after going there,” we think “going” means moving from one physical location to another, but this is not the case here. “Going” here refers to consciousness: When one’s consciousness “goes” transcendental, it cannot be lost, na nivartante.

Therefore, once a person becomes liberated, he cannot be bound again, and if someone is conditioned, there is no question that he or she was liberated prior to that.

That is the meaning of Jīva Gosvāmī’s statement in Priti Sandharbha (Anuccheda 1), saṁsargābhāva yuktatvena: A person’s pre-non-existence of knowledge implies that there is a possibility of acquiring knowledge. Although the ignorance has no beginning, it has an end.

“Eternal”

Anything which has no prior non-existence, is called “eternal.” Things which were never created cannot be destroyed, they are outside the influence of chronology. Kṛṣṇa, for example, has no prior non-existence, therefore the terms “creation”, “existence” or “destruction” do not apply to Kṛṣṇa. To say Kṛṣṇa has existence implies in terms of Logic that prior to existence He did not exist, the non-existence was destroyed and then He came into existence. Obviously, this is not applicable to eternal objects.

Boat on the GangaHowever, this is not the case when it comes to ignorance, because ignorance itself is not a substance, it is merely the non-existence of another substance: knowledge. Thus, although it is beginningless, it has an end. Owing to our material conditioning, we think that everything has a beginning, and sometimes ācāryas may explain philosophy in terms implying that ignorance has a beginning, to circumvent the material conditioning that often prevents us from understanding the concept of “beginningless.”

Eternal beings like Kṛṣṇa and everything directly related to Him (e.g., His associates, His planets and His pastimes) have no beginning. Māyā and material nature are also related to Kṛṣṇa, and thus also have no beginning. We are also related to Kṛṣṇa, therefore we ourselves have no beginning and we seem to accept it without much thought. However, when it comes to our conditioned state, we somehow seem to object that our ignorance is beginningless.

Even though we may feel troubled by the thought that our ignorance has no beginning, we can rejoice to know that it can come to an end.

 

COMMENTS ARE CLOSED

  1. When one’s consciousness “goes” transcendental, it cannot be lost, na nivartante. You explained this very clearly. Also the very last sentence, “Even though we may feel troubled by the thought that our ignorance has no beginning, we can rejoice to know that it can come to an end”, brings ample of hope to the seeker of the truth that it is all not that bad. Everything may sound sound so pessimistic, but that that very desire for real knowledge can bring an end to the endless suffering and of course the Jiva can eternally serve Krishna. Wonderful!

    Bimal

    01.27.2013

  2. Question: It seems like the most common type of non-existence is something has both prior and post non existence – it only exists for a short time in between. For example, the cake. First it didn’t exist. Then it was made and came into existence. Then it was eaten and returned to non-existence. It seems like most things in the world fall into this category. But it didn’t sound like there was a category for it in the tree of different types of abhava. Can you explain?

    Answer by SND: You are mixing two types of non-existences into one. Cake had prior and subsequent non-existences. Most objects in the world will have these two non-existences because they are temporary. Any temporary object is created and destroyed. Before it is created there is prag-abhava. After it is destroyed, there is pradhvamsa-abhava.

    malati

    01.27.2013

    • So prior- and subsequent- non-existence can apply to the same entity? [As in the cake example].

      Vraja Kishor das

      01.29.2013

  3. Thank you for the article.

    I have two questions.

    1.How to understand BG verse, “nasato vidyate bhavo” with the prag abhava nature of knowledge/ignorance in the jiva?
    Per this BG verse, the logic used is – that which never existed, can never come into existence.That which has real existence can never go into non-existence.
    Hence if knowledge never existed in jiva, it can never come into existence on a jiva.
    Similarly if ignorance existed in jiva, it can never come into non-being in a jiva.

    2. You mentioned “Prāg-abhāva is particularly significant, because if an object is not initially non-existent, there is no question of “creating” it. If there is no non-existence, it means that the object already exists.”
    However per Vaishnavas, is the world not eternal? We say creation is merely a manifestation of the world in subtle state to a gross state. There was never a time the world did not exist. Is it not? This being so, what is the prag abhava of the creation we are talking about?

    Thank you for the time.

    Regards

    scooty ram

    01.28.2013

  4. Answer to question no 1. The Gita verse says that which is non-existent cannot come into existence. It does not say that an existing object cannot move to a place where it does not already exist. Knowledge is given by the grace of guru or Krishna to the jiva. It is not created.
    Of course there are other ways to translate this verse but i am answering accepting your translation.

    Question no 2. The unmanifest state is the prag-abhava. Obviously if the world is eternal then there is no creation and dissolution. But all Vaisnavas accept that the world is created and annihilated. Prakriti is eternal but undergoes modifications, e.g. the body takes birth and dies. We do not say that the body is eternal.

    snd

    01.29.2013

    • Thank you for the quick response.

      Reponse 1 : You mentioned ” It does not say that an existing object cannot move to a place where it does not already exist. Knowledge is given by the grace of guru or Krishna to the jiva. It is not created.”
      In this context, we are dealing with knowledge(its prag abhava in baddha Jiva). How can knowledge be limited to space or How can there be coming and going for knowledge? There can be coming and going for heat or fragrance based on proximity to similar objects.However knowledge(in my understanding) is not of similar kind. If you imply this coming and going imply manifestation of knowledge, then this implies knowledge is already inherent in the living entity and that knowledge is manifest at some time and not manifest at other times by that entity.
      My understanding of 11.11.3 and 4 is that proximity to prakrti covers the knowledge of jiva. Covering and uncovering is the property of prakriti/maya.
      Jiva’s contact with prakriti is without beginning.
      Please help me understand.

      Response 2 :
      I thought the concept of existence is on the ABSOLUTE level. I thought both manifest and unmanifest states point to the EXISTENCE of a single entity.

      Thank you for your time.

      scooty ram

      01.29.2013

  5. Answer to Vraja. Yes prag abhava and pradhvamsa abhava can apply to the same object, before creation and after destruction respectively.

    snd

    01.29.2013

  6. Reply to Scooty Ram: You have a wrong understanding about what knowledge is, and hence the doubt. Prag abhava means there is no knowledge. It is not that knowledge is covered by ignorance. The statements of Gita such as ajnanena avritam jnanam tena muhyanti jantavah do not really mean that there is knowledge in the atma and it got covered by ignorance. There is no knowledge in atma. Ignorance cannot cover knowledge just as darkness cannot cover light. It will be helpful if you read an earlier article by me, “what is jnana.”
    In brief, there is material knowledge which we get through our senses. This is vritti jnana. This is outside the atma. It is in the mind. It is referred in SB 11.22.11 as guna of prakriti. There is atyanta abhava of this jnana in atma. This jnana cannot be in atma because it is material. The other jnana is the internal potency of bhagavan and it comes by the grace of guru or God. It is stated in SB 11.22.10. Here the word jnanada or giver of knowledge is used. This is given. There is praga abava of this jnana in atma.
    I hope this clears your doubt.

    snd

    01.30.2013

    • Thank you for the time.

      I have understood this : There is no knowledge in atma.There is atyanta abhava of material knowledge in atma.There is praga abava of spiritual knowledge in atma.

      It is clear now. I mistook jnana as svarupa jnana, the Iness . I have noted that you are talking about vritti jnana.

      You mentioned Jnana/internal potency is given. Does this imply Attainment of something new/external is defined as Moksha/Purushartha in Gaudiya school? Is not mere removal of Ignorance, moksha?

      scooty ram

      01.31.2013

  7. Reply to Scooty: This jnana which is given is bhakti-jnana, or devotion.
    dadami buddhiyogam tam yena mamupayanti te (Gita 10.10). This is the internal potency. Moksha is a side-effect of it. Moksha is not the purusartha pursued by Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Prema is the purusartha and this prema comes by the grace of guru and Krsna. In the Gita verse cited above the word buddhiyoga is used for prema.(an example of parokshavada because prema is guhya, a secret, the only secret). This is the new thing given which does not exist in atma.

    Your second question indicates that you have not understood the meaning of prag-abhava yet. Ignoranace is praga-abhava of bhakti-jnana. Ignorance is not some positive entity. It is an abhava padartha, not a satta padartha.

    snd

    01.31.2013

    • reply to scooty: Atman is like eye; jnAna is like sunlight; ajNAna is like darkness; light comes from sun; sun has to rise for the eyes to see; what is svarUpa in the eyes is its ability to see light; not being the light; that ability is inherent in the Atman; but for the eyes to actually see, the sun light has to reach it;

      Anan

      02.01.2013

  8. Irrespective of how you define ultimate happiness or purusartha, such happiness is always considered internal. Is this not applicable to bhakti?
    All efforts are made to acquire happiness and remove sorrow. For some happiness lies in another’s welfare. Still happiness is felt by this person for which he endeavors in the form of helping others for others sake. I may sacrifice my job to take care of poverty in a society. This implies I suffer losing comforts of my job but in reality my real comfort is in seeing others happy and I strive for this happiness. Such happiness is within me and I am made to experience it by God’s will. There are gradations of happiness from absence to presence. Please explain where I am wrong.
    Regards

    scooty ram

    01.31.2013

    • To be more clear in what I am trying to understand..

      Parama purusartha is attaining ananda and removing sorrow. Definition of what constitutes this ananda may differ. However sukha prapti is the purushartha or prayojanam.

      Question is , does this ananda lie inherent to a jiva or external? Is it within svarupa of jiva or is it Aganthukam.

      I understand that the jiva has never experienced this ananda before. There this ananda is prag abhava.Jnana=ananda

      scooty ram

      02.01.2013

  9. How much ever the eyes try to see in the darkness, they cannot see; appearance of the light automatically removes the darkness; the eyes need not and cannot remove the darkness on its own;

    Anan

    02.01.2013

  10. To add to Anan’s comment: There is no way to remove darkness except by getting light. If u try to throw out darkness from a dark room by using a bucket u can try your whole life unsuccessfully. You can not cut darknes into pieces by a sword. You can not destroy it in any other way except by getting light. This is because darkness is absence of light.

    To scooty’s first comment: So what is the difference between social welfare and bhakti? One is action in sattva guna and other in visuddha sattva or internal potency of the Lord. Both give happiness by doing something for others but are not the same.

    Scooty’s second comment: Bhakti is both jnana+ananda. It is not in the atma. There is prag-abhava of bhakti in atma, which implies that atma is capable of having it. Atma is the intermediate potency of God, tatastha sakti, and bhakti is the internal potency, antaranga sakti. Two seperate types of saktis. Baddha jivas do not have antaranga sakti in them. It is given by guru/Krishna. This is the sense of SB 3.7.39, 11.22.10 Mam eva ye prapadyante mayam etam taranti te (Gita 7.14). Maya can only overpower the jiva, not the antarnga sakti. Once jiva has acquired antaranga sakti, it cannot be overpowered by Maya. Thus liberation is the concomittant effect of bhakti.

    snd

    02.01.2013

  11. Reply to Sri Anan or Sri SND :You had mentioned Atman is like eye with the ability to see.


    I have carefully noted that you have only shown an analogy to demonstrate how ananda is external to atma. I did not mistake it as material senses that perceives spiritual objects.I understand this is only analogy.I understand ananda or light we refer is spiritual.

    Following references seems to contradict your analogy:
    1. Na tad basayate suryo.The param dhama or prayojana or ananda is not perceived through an organ or medium.
    2. That which the eyes can not see and that through which the eyes sees is the atman. Atman is verily the bliss and ability to experience the bliss. This applies to jivatman and paramatman.
    3. Matras sparshas tu kaunteya. The experience arising out of senses/medium constitutes the knowledge of material world. The spiritual knowledge is self immanent , it does not require a medium. Atma is jnana svarupa and jnana gunaka. Jnana without ananda is similar to seeing sugar and not tasting it. This does not constitute real jnana or satkshatkara.
    Or is the jivatma anandamaya or not. I noted that in Brahma sutra this question is raised and settled saying the anandamaya referred in taitareya is brahman. This is per context of what this upanishad is talking about. It continues to say the head is verily bliss etc.

    In short, how can I experience something external to self ? Is not such an experience called material experience? Happiness is within and it is made to experience by grace of God.
    If this discussion is getting lengthy, let us stop here . Thank you for taking the time to explain and hinting the answer in this forum.

    I agree we were never in spiritual world and we never experienced the ananda. I also agree once we are let to experience, it can never be stopped.

    scooty ram

    02.01.2013

  12. Sorry Scooty, it will need few pages to answer your questions which is beyond the scope of this article.

    snd

    02.01.2013

  13. For scooty: Please see AnandamayAdhikaraNam in the brahma-sUtras; it is very clear from the siddhAnta of all AcAryas that jIva is not Ananda-maya and it is clear from the sUtra tat-hetu-vyapadezAcca that jIva is given the Ananda by brahman; the hetu for jIva’s Ananda is brahman;

    Anan

    02.05.2013

  14. No Problem Ji. Thank you for the article. Atleast I have grapsed the information that jiva does not have ananda in its svarupa.

    If I may ask another question directly related to the article..

    It is said Sri Vyasa was not happy after writing all scriptures. Seeing Sri Vyasa without peace of mind, Sri Narada appeared and told him to write Srimad Bhagavatam.

    Per this article (and other articles on ananda), jiva is anandAtmaka.
    1.ananda is simply dukha pratiyoga (mere absence of distress)
    2.Jnana is simply jada pratiyoga (opposite of non-sentience)

    Only through bhakti, a jivatma get the real knowledge and real sukha/ananda.

    Also once one gets bhakti, distress and its cause-ignorance , both are put into pradvamsa abhava.This implies there can be no distress to a person who has got bhakti since the cause being ignorance is uprooted for ever.

    Per Sri Vishvanatha’s commentary to BG 2.65 , sri vyasa’s unhappy state is due to absence of bhakti. If this is so, does this imply every text prior to srimad bhagavatam is lacking bhakti ?
    Infact at one point sri narada says Sri Vyasa also very well knows the cause of distress. If so, how to understand the intermittent unhappy state of Vyasa.

    This is related to the article in the sense, bhakti which never existed in jiva will never diminish once it enters a jiva. If so, Sri Vyasa should have never been unhappy. Ignorance being the cause of distress.

    Thanks in advance.

    scooty ram

    02.07.2013

  15. Reply to malati: I have read this question 4 times and my dull brain is unable to grasp the logic behind it.
    Prag-abhava means something which does not exist but will come into existence in future. Ignorance=pragabhava of knowledge – it implies that knowledge will appear in future.

    snd

    02.08.2013

  16. reply to scooty:
    In BG 2.65 SVCT says that happiness comes from Bhakti only and then he gives the example of Vyasa. Vyasa was not happy after dividing the Vedas and writing Puranas and Mahabharata etc. Narada said that Vyasa is not happy because the latter has not glorified the Lord sufficiently or purely.
    First of all, it is not that Vyasa was completely miserable. It is only to show that only pure devotion gives complete happiness. Social welfare may give some happiness but not complete happiness.
    Secondly, it does not mean that there is no bhakti in the sastras written before Bhagavata Purana. It means that bhakti is not as clearly and purely explained as in Bhagavata.
    Thirdly, it depends whether you consider Vyasa an avatara or a mortal being. If he is an avatara then it is just lila to teach us and does not mean that he was unhappy or has no bhakti.
    If u consider him as a mortal being then your conclusion is right but that does not match with the facts. If Vyasa had no bhakti how could he sit in trance of devotion and write Bhagavata – bhaktiyogen manasi samyak pranihite’male, apasyat purusam purnam ….?

    snd

    02.09.2013

    • I do not consider sri vyasa mortal. However Per 2.65 , it is shown He had no bhakti.It is also shown through Sri Narada , He got bhakti.

      If there is bhakti , there can be no kapatam.Nothing can eclipse bhakti to promote kapatam in any slightest form. If there are sastras written by vyasa that promotes something other than bhakti, it implies there is kapatam. If Sri vyasa was always in bhakti, how to understand the cheating religion taught by Sri Vyasa in His other works?
      If bhakti is the topmost shakti and it is equated to Sri bhagavan, How to understand different teachings of sri vyasa ranging from teachings within gunas (tamasa purana) to misra bhakti and finally nirupadika bhakti?

      If Sri vyasa already had bhakti, why He dimished bhakti to show other purusharthas as ultimate? Bhakti shakti can never show such marga with kapata.Does this imply will of the lord can cover bhakti for a specific lila? Does this imply will of the lord can bring back unhappiness (caused by ignorance) to a jiva who has already got bhakti?

      Regards

      scooty ram

      02.09.2013

  17. Scooty you have a brain and penchant for purva-paksha, I must acknowledge.
    You accept that Vyasa is not a mortal being. Later on you consider him as a jiva albeit with bhakti. No, that is not true. According to Jiva Gosvami, Badarayana Vyasa is Narayana, please refer to Tattva Sandarbha (anuccheda 15,16). He cites Puranas in his support.
    I wrote in previous reply that it is his Lila. No eclipse of bhakti.
    What u call kapatam (cheating), Bhagavatam (1.4.25) calls it Kripa (grace) on ignorant people. If Vyasa is not a mortal being, why should he engage in kapatam (cheating)? Why should he take big effort to write all these books?
    Our minds are very limited and we have a limited vision. If I am a Gaudiya or Sri Vaisnava, I want the whole world to be Gaudiya or Sri Vaisnava. But Bhagavan is more liberal. He gives support to all, even to demons. Ye yatha mam prapadyante; mam vartmanuvartante; samo’ham sarvabutesu. He understands that everyone is not eligible to the highest purusartha of pure bhakti. If He does not write any other sastra to support these people they will become atheists. So he propagates different types of sastra to entice these people and slowly bring them to path of bhakti (Bhagavata 5.5.12). That is Vyasa’s compassion.

    snd

    02.10.2013

  18. I thank you for giving answers that remove doubts. It is a big paropakara.

    I read your response. All you had mentioned (kripa, encouraging ignorant people with lower dharma, effort in writing books,eligibility for pure bhakti) seemed to be the cause of sri vyasa’s dissatisfaction. It appears sri vyasa was unsatisfied in all his prior attempts to emancipate the jivas. Infact 1.4.26 mentions Sri vyasa did not achieve what He wanted to acheive. It mentions that his attempts in 1.4.25 is futile.Infact SB begins condemning the kaitava dharma or scriptures that promote lower dharma. How to take such a thing as mercy? If it is indeed the right thing to do(for unqualified people), what does SB condemn?

    I have noted that it is sri vyasa’s kripa he wrote MBH and it is the same kripa He continued to write SB.I do not see Him as mortal. I am unable to understand the cause of His unhappy state.

    Thank you once again.

    scooty ram

    02.10.2013

  19. Since you are seeing forest for trees i would ask you a question.
    Purva-mimamsa is strongly refuted in Vedanta-sutra. Does it mean that Purva-mimamsa is completely useless? Should it be not followed at all? Should it be completely kicked out of Vedic culture? Does it serve any purpose, especially for Vedanta?

    snd

    02.11.2013

    • sri vaishnavas consider purva and uttara mimamsa as eka sastra on contrast to advaitis who call them separate sastra. In many places purva mimamsa is used to explain brahma sutras. Infact seshatvam is explained in jaimini sutra. Purva mimamsa is considered aradhana sastra while uttara mimamsa gives information about aradhya.Purva mimamsa talks about sadhya dharma while uttara mimamsa talks about siddha dharma.

      I agree in certain places sri vyasa disagrees with purva mimamsa.This goes per context and application of a rule and not to the whole text/author. It is not possible to expect, jaimini being a direct student of Sri vyasa ,to have not grasped his teachings well.

      If SB is not exclusive and unique, how to understand the efforts put in Tattva sandarbha to establish its greatness? Is that not seeing forest for trees? If MBH already has teachings of SB, why should sri vyasa be unhappy?Why should he go into samadhi? Is SB merely a text compiled by sri vyasa exclusive to topmost purusartha? Is it some alankara style to say sri vyasa was unhappy while there was nothing He actually missed in his previous texts? Sri Vishwanath says His unhappiness is due to lack of bhakti.If it is His mercy, how can there be absence of bhakti?Is this merely an attempt to praise bhakti(arthavada)?

      I completely agree your statement that vedas cater to people within and above trigunas. It is equal to 1000 mothers. However everything around the efforts to establish SB’s supremacy seems to show forest for trees, if we do not accept Sri VCT statement in BG 2.65.

      Please help me reconcile how bhakti is the cause of real uninterrupted , eternal happiness and how sri vyasa was unhappy.

      Regards

      scooty ram

      02.11.2013

  20. Hare Krishna. I am sorry to interject here. Scooty Ji, I agree with Prabhu Ji that you got a little too into details and lost the simpler, bigger picture. Sri Vyasa wrote everything that he wrote, and still wasn’t satisfied with his effort. Narada Ji came to remind and inspire him regarding the most important task. Then he conceived the Bhagavatam, and gave it to his son to bring to its actual form.

    The brahma bhuta is prasannatma, na socati na kansati. But it is from that foundation that “mad-Bhakti labhate”. In Bhakti there is personal activity and will, so there is a profound “socati” and “kanksati” as vyabhicari for the sthayi that is the basis of prema rasa. Sri Vyasa’s experience of dispair is something like a type of vyabhicari-bhava experienced in the course of his seva to Sri Vishnu, of whom he is an empowered expansion.

    I understand it in this way and have none of the perplexities you are expressing, so I hoped it would be of service to you to share my conceptualization, and hoped it would be of service to Babaji to submit it.

    Sri Radhe
    Vraja

    Vraja Kishor

    02.11.2013

    • Thanks Sri Ananda ji for your response.
      I was also thinking in line of discussion between sri caitanya and sri Ramananda raya. In this discussion sri caitanya expresses dissatisfaction and requests sri ramananda to give better and different answer. When we see from this light, we can say all scriptures culminate in Srimad bhagavatam.

      However sri Visvanaths commentary seems to give a totally different view. Also Tattva sandarbha 12.1 indicates SB contains information from the unavailable portion of vedas.This can be linked to sri vyasa’s unhappy state. I wonder if this portion of veda was already lost and Sri vyasa compiled SB which is from this lost portion.

      Instead of speculating, I would choose to accept what purvacharyas have said. In the attempt to do so, I ran into this confusion.

      Regards

      scooty ram

      02.12.2013

  21. Correction. The above comment is addressed to sri vraja kishor.

    scooty ram

    02.12.2013

  22. Scootyji, you are missing Sri Visvanatha’s point. You are reading too much into his statement. That is why i wrote that you are seeing forest for trees (which offended you). You accept that Vyasa is not a mortal being. He is Narayana.I wrote that it is His Lila to teach us that act devoid of pure bhakti does not give complete satisfaction. Sri Visvanatha is just pointing this out in BG 2.65. He is not saying that Vyasa did not have bhakti before he wrote Bhagavata. That is your extra understanding and this is the cause of confusion. If you want to have such conclusions then Lord Rama also had no bhakti because he was crying in seperation from Sita. He was completely morose. We need to study the intention of the author, otherwise we can be misled. Vyasa or Jiva Gosvami have not said that all other Puranas are useless. That is your extra reading.

    snd

    02.13.2013

  23. I took no offence ji.

    I went through 1.4.32 commentary by sri vishvanath where he says its Sri Krishna’s will to put sri vyasa into such a state to make Him write Srimad Bhagavatam.atra bhagavad-avatAratvAd asambhAvinAv apy asarvaj~natA cittAprasAdAdau vyAsasya svayaM bhagavatA shrI-kR^iShNenaiva sva-sadR^ishasya sarva-shAstra-shiromaNeH shrI-bhAgavatasya prArdurbhAvArtham eva balAd upapAditAv ity avasIyate .

    This has certainly removed my doubt about sri vyasa’s unhappy state. His unhappy state is also included in bhakti.

    Thanks.

    scooty ram

    02.13.2013