Don’t Take Me Seriously–My [Anādi] Lighter Side

Vaiṣṇavas are gracious in general, but some go out of their way to pull others onto their way. I experienced this recently through a comment on my blog. I was made to realize that when it comes to understanding śāstra, I am an ignorant toddler. I was ignorant (anāḍi, which means foolish in Hindi) of the true meaning of the word “anādi [lit. beginningless].” What struck me most was that my ignorance about “anādi” was anādi. It was revealed to me that the word “anādi” actually means “sādi [with beginning].” Although it is nowhere explicitly said so, the Vaiṣṇava generously explained how it must be understood that way. Why is “anādi” not anādi but sādi? Because it is caused by “bhagavad-vimukhatā,” and anything that has a cause cannot be anādi. I thought “bhagavad-vimukhatā,” which literally means “averseness to Bhagavān,” was also anādi. But that is not true! It actually means “the choice of averseness to Bhagavān.” Again, how the word “choice” came into this meaning is not explained. It has to be like this because anādi things become sādi when they enter into the material world from the spiritual world. Some kind of magic happens at the entry point. I tried to break my head over it to understand it, but my head would not break. Then, it dawned on me that the head cannot break because it needs something solid to break it, but time is neither solid nor liquid. Indeed, not even gas. So how can it break my thick head? And this was a break for me. It was the only break I got. This whole process must be acintya. And we should not raise questions about acintya things; otherwise, they will become cintya and that will be a cause of big cintā [anxiety]. We should simply follow what the great people say—mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. These mahājanas have already broken their mahā heads over these things and thus we can keep our heads intact.

Why doesn’t śastra use unambiguous terms or explain explicitly that anādi is actually sādi, and that bhagavad-vimukhatā has an element of choice in it? The answer is that śāstra does not teach common sense or common non-sense things. It is the very śāstra-ness of śāstra that it teaches only that which cannot be known by any other means: 

pratyakṣenānumityā vā vastūpāyo na budhyate  
etaṁ vidanti vedena tasmād vedasya vedatā

The forementioned gracious Vaiṣṇava explained that the real meaning of these terms is “self-understood.” Thus, śāstra does not explain them. “Self-understood,” I think, means that these meanings are understood by the “self.” I guess I was missing my “self” all this time and now I finally got it! I guess these are some of the secrets of śāstra that are revealed only to great personalities, as stated in Śvetāśvataropanisad (6.23): 

yasya deve parā-bhaktir yathā deve tathā gurau
tasyaite kathitā hyarthāḥ prakāśante mahātmnaḥ 

Obviously, I never had a clue that these words had such meanings. I then realized that I must have much more ignorance like this. I thought of writing this article, advising people not to take me seriously. And that applies even to this article!

The gracious Vaiṣṇava also opened my eyes to the teachings of Govinda-bhāṣya. I was mostly hooked on the work of Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī, but the gracious Vaiṣṇava revealed that Govinda-bhāṣya overrides Jīva Gosvāmī. That is why I say that I am an ignorant toddler, because I did not know even this simple fact, that a great luminary like Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa had set aside the siddhanta elucidated by Jiva Gosvāmī. Historically, it is believed that Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa was a great Mādhava scholar, and had accepted Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, being influenced by the Ṣat Sandarbhas of Jīva Gosvāmī. However, the fact is that Govinda-bhāṣya was revealed to Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa by Govindadeva Himself, hence the name
“Govinda-bhāṣya.” It therefore has to be superior to the writings of Jīva Gosvāmi, who merely spun them from his head which was probably troubled by the extreme heat and mosquitos of Vrindavan. It is a pity that Jiva Gosvāmī did not have Govinda-bhāṣya available to him; if so, he would not have propagated apasiddhānta, such as no fall-down from Vaikuṇṭha, the conditioning of the jīva being beginningless, etc. 

While studying Pāṇini’s Sanskrit grammar, we were taught Kaiyaṭa’s principle: yathottaraṃ hi munitrayasya prāmāṇya—“among the three munis, the latter muni is more authentic than the previous one.” In the world of Pāṇini grammar, there are three main munis who are considered as authorities. The first is Pāṇini himself, the author of the sutras; the second is Kātyāyana, who wrote the vārttikas on the sutras; and the third is Patañjali, who wrote the great commentary on the sūtras called Mahābhāṣya. It is accepted that if there is any contradiction among the three, then the latter is taken as the authority. I guess the gracious Vaiṣṇava must be following this principle because in our sampradaya, we also have three great ācāryas, mainly Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī (by lakṣaṇā vṛtti, Śrī Rūpa and Śrī Sanātana are included), Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, and Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. If there is a contradiction among these three, Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa is the most authoritative. So I am really thankful to this gracious Vaiṣṇava for opening my eyes. Now I can see the light entering inside me and dispelling the ignorance about anādi, which has been lying there since anādi, which is actually sādi.

Another revelation for me was some book called, “BB.” I had never heard of “BB” before, so when I read it in his comment, I scratched my head. What is this BB? Does it mean Big Ben, the clock in the London tower, or does it mean “Big Brother,” from George Orwell’s book 1984? Of course, these meanings don’t make sense. So, I took shelter of Google guru to figure out what this “BB” really means. And lo and behold! It is a book by Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī, entitled Bṛhad-bhāgavatamṛta. Wow, I am truly blessed to have heard about this book and the story of some fellow named “Gopa-kumāra.” I am sure the story is quite mysterious because it is the story of a mysterious boy, Gopa-kumāra [gopa = secret, kumāra = boy]. There must be many secrets in the book which are unknown to me. I surely plan to read it and to get rid of any further anādi ignorance.

Finally, taking a clue from the following statement of Cāṇakya, I bow down my head to the gracious Vaiṣṇava for enlightening me. Otherwise my anādi ignorance about anādi would remain ananta.

ekākṣaraṁ pradātāraṁ yo guruṁ nābhivandati
śvāna-yoni-śataṁ bhuktvā cāṇḍāleṣvabhijāyate

“One who does not bow down to the guru who has taught [even only] one word, will be born as a dog for hundred lives and then become a cāṇḍāla.”

I do not mind being a dog in the west, even for one hundred lives. They lead better lives than most human beings. But, I am scared of being born a cāṇḍāla!!

So, my disclaimer again: Don’t take me seriously!

Notify me of new articles

Comments ( 31 )
  1. It is a good thing that the Goswamis are not around to see the sorry state of Caitanya Vaisnavism today.

  2. Sibusiso Nkambule

    LOL…this article is “anadi” kind of funny.

  3. Madhava Das

    Offense is very grave thing.

  4. Anurag

    Personal space and respect are essential for healthy human interactions.

  5. Tarun

    PAMHO!!

    I have read BRS with commentaries of JG and VCT. Nowhere was the O of J controversy mentioned.. Neither in CC nor BB for that matter.. Now everyone talks of it… SP and NM and your good self SB. Why the sudden interest??

    • Sibusiso Nkambule

      did you even read the last sentence? …”So, my disclaimer again: Don’t take me seriously!”

    • Vivek

      This is really awesome! 😊🙏

    • Vraja Kishora Post author

      What do you mean “no one talks of the origin of the Jīva”. Everyone talks about it, because it is extremely essential. Vyāsa’s samādhi includes it. Every telling of Sarga (kapila to devahuti, maitreya to vidura, etc) tells of it. Jīva Goswāmī comments on it.

      Of course it is not in BRS – BRS is about abhideya, not sambanda jñāna. Computer manufacturing is not discussed in books about how to program in C++.

      If you mean it wasn’t a *CONTROVERSY* – yes, finally I agree. But then you answer your own question: it is recently a controversy because only recently (ISKCON/Prabhupada) has any major guru figure offered a point a view that wasn’t explicitly conformant to what Vyāsa, Kapila, Maitreya, Śrī Jīva, etc. explained.

      As for Bābājī – why ask why he is involved in this discussion??? You know him and his history. He came through and out of ISKCON (the cause of controversy) and his break from ISKCON was directly connected to this topic.

  6. purushottam das

    now the anadi word sticks to the mind till anadi liberation or bondage, whichever anadi falls into. like the spiritual humor in the article with some leanings of course.

  7. Hahahahaha!!!

    By the way, who is the author of this article?
    I want to thank him/her.
    Very well done!
    Hahaha!!

  8. Tarun

    I should have ended my comment with that line eh…

  9. Vajradhara Das

    You know, as someone with a mere casual interest in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, I don’t often see y’all being funny. Krishna himself seems eminently fun loving, but his followers often seem to be pretty cantankerous and dour. Distinctly unattractive to most outsiders, I would say. This is a refreshing article.

  10. Madan Gopal Das

    Pranam.

    The link to the comment mentioned in the post: https://www.jiva.org/grace-of-a-devotee-as-primary-cause-of-bhakti/#comment-34295

    It was written as continuation of my previous comments there.

    In this comment I didn’t write that because there is a spiritual cause to anadi karma of jiva, that anadi karma is therefore actually sadi karma. I wrote karma of jiva is anadi, but it has a spiritual cause, not material one.

    How the choice on jiva’s part came into meaning? I quoted two times the reference to Govinda bhasya 2.3.31-40 as evidence that jiva has free choice to act in different ways. So, to either do karma (Bhagavad vimukhata) or to do bhakti (Bhagavad unmukhata) is a choice on the part of jiva.

    I didn’t write or intended to say that Govinda bhasya overrides Jiva Goswami or that it is superior. I didn’t write or intended to say that jiva fell from Vaikuntha or that jiva’s karma is not beginningless.

    I’m sorry I didn’t write full name of Brihad Bhagavatamrita. I thought “BB” would be enough to understand as the name of Gopakumar was given before that. I will be more careful in future. Thank you for pointing it out.

    If by writing my comments there or this one I committed any offence to you in any way, kindly please forgive me, it was not intended.

    • Sibusiso Nkambule

      Spiritual cause?? Really?? Prema gives karma? Or the envy of the jiva issue?? Lol. You are on track Prabhu…Everything is fine 🙂

    • Babaji Post author

      My suggestion to you is that when you make a philosophical point, especially that which goes against a principal established by someone like Jiva Gosvami to whom
      all posterior acharyas like Sri Baladeva Vidyabhushana are indebted and bow their head, you have to be very thorough. You cannot just glibly give a reference to Govind-bhashya and think
      you have made your point. The article on which you commented is a direct translation of Sri Jiva Gosvami’s writing. You should think ten times, “Will Sri Baladeva contradict Sri Jiva?”
      Read the original Govinda-bhashya in sanskrit and do not depend on someone’s translation in such a case where you think there is a contradiction. General assumption should be that no posterior acharya would contradict Jiva Gosvami. So if you see contradiction then stop in your tracks and pay deep attention to the writings of the acharyas.
      Whatever you wrote can be refuted point by point, but that is not my interest. Yena iṣṭam tena gamyatām.

    • Madan Gopal Das

      I didn’t make a philosophical point that goes against Sri Jiva Goswami and also didn’t write or think that Sri Baladev Vidyabhusan is contradicting Sri Jiva Goswami.

    • Malatimanjari Post author

      If you did not do all this, then what is the point you were making?

    • Madan Gopal Das

      That Sastra describes a spiritual cause of anadi bondage of jiva which involves personal choice of jiva and personal choice of Bhagavan. I gave evidence from Govinda bhasya and Chaitanya Bhagavat. And by this I didn’t mean to say that jiva fell from Vaikuntha. For example: there is a table and on left side there is rice and on right side there is bread. The person sitting can choose either. If he chooses to eat bread, simultaneously he will also turn away from rice. Like that, jiva is particle of tatastha sakti and has capability to choose to act in one way or another (Govinda bhasya 2.3.31-40). If she chooses to enjoy maya (instead of taking shelter of antaranga sakti to serve Krishna) she will simultaneously become Bhagavad-vimukha. Jiva is anadi. Her quality of choosing how to act is anadi. Her actions are anadi. Choosing to act to enjoy maya means simultaneously not choosing to serve Bhagavan (Bhagavad-vimukhata). That is why Srila Jiva Goswami described in Paramatma sandarbha that some jivas are anadi Bhagavad unmukh and some jivas are anadi Bhagavad paranmukh. By this he described the spiritual cause of anadi bondage of jiva involving personal choice of jiva and that of Bhagavan. Without jiva personally choosing how to act there can be no action of jiva (Govinda bhasya 2.3.31-40). So only if she chooses to do karma she will do karma. There can be no anadi karma without the personal choice of jiva to do karma and by this choice she simultaneously becomes Bhagavad vimukh.

    • Tanmaya Krsna Das Post author

      When you were asked to explain where the word ‘choice’ is in ‘bhagavad-vimukhata’, you said “Yes, it is not explicitly written, but it is self-understood”. I reproduce that below. You openly agree that the word ‘choice’ is not present in ‘bhagavad-vimukhata’. We do not believe you when you insert your own meaning into these two simple words.

      “Yes, it is not explicitly written, but it is self-understood, as who else than jiva (eternally endowed with her own specific qualities (Govinda bhasya 2.3.26) of which relative freedom to choose how to act is one, Govinda bhasya 2.3.31-40) can decide to be averse to Bhagavan or not?”

      * Insisting that there is choice does not make it so. It is clear that you believe it, but we dont. Show us where the word choice is used in the Sandarbhas in the context of Bhagavad-vimukhata (which Anuchheda). We will take you very seriously. We will abandon our beliefs. Please cite the anuchheda, and the specific Sandarbha. Please reproduce the Sanskrit. Be prepared to answer any questions of why words were inserted into the translation that were not present in the Sanskrit. *

      “That this averseness is anadi does not exclude that jiva decided it.”

      * Are you somebody special that as you pronounce it, we must accept it as true? We disagree with your interpretation*

      “For example, Mahavishnu is eternal, anadi, but still it is written that Krishna is his cause (sarva karana karanam). It refers to spiritual cause in which there is no material time gapping to the effect as it is in material cause and effect. In spiritual time, or beyond/above material time, all events are eternal. So, that jiva’s bondage is anadi (nothing prior to it) denies the material cause to it, but it doesn’t deny it’s spiritual cause.”

      * Please cite where in the Sandarbhas (which Anuchheda, which verse, which line), Sri Jiva says that 1) the bondage of the jiva has a spiritual cause, and 2) there is no material time between the spiritual cause and material effect. We don’t believe your personal views. *

      “Spiritual cause is Bhagavad vimukhata on the part of jiva (personal choice).”

      * Wrong. The jiva did not make a choice as bhagavad-vimukhata is anadi- without beginning- and therefore without cause. *

      “And Bhagavan gives the result, covering of maya, bondage. Both jivas and Bhagavan are eternal persons with their personal free will (Bhagavan absolute will, jivas have relative free will as explained in Govinda bhasya 2.3.31-40).”

      * Just typing Govinda bhasya 2.3.31-40 over and over again after every sentence does not prove that you are right. You have not given evidence- you have inserted the word choice into Sri Baladeva’s mouth. We disagree with you. *

      “How the choice on jiva’s part came into meaning? I quoted two times the reference to Govinda bhasya 2.3.31-40 as evidence that jiva has free choice to act in different ways. So, to either do karma (Bhagavad vimukhata) or to do bhakti (Bhagavad unmukhata) is a choice on the part of jiva.”

      * You can type the reference several times, but you have not provided evidence that the jiva has free choice. You inserted the word ‘choice’ into ‘bhagavad-vimukhata’ even though it is not there. You agree its not ‘explicitly there’. Then you want us to believe that you have given evidence. We don’t believe you. Why should we? Parroting the same falsity over and over again is not evidence.*

      I didn’t write or intended to say that Govinda bhasya overrides Jiva Goswami or that it is superior. I didn’t write or intended to say that jiva fell from Vaikuntha or that jiva’s karma is not beginningless.

      * Sorry, but you gave a meaning of anadi, beginningless, that no Vaisnava sampradaya, except yours perhaps, accepts. Talk to Sri Vaisnava acharyas. Talk to Sri Vallabhacarya’s followers. Do some research. Please report back to us what you find.*

      “That Sastra describes a spiritual cause of anadi bondage of jiva which involves personal choice of jiva and personal choice of Bhagavan. I gave evidence from Govinda bhasya and Chaitanya Bhagavat.”

      * This is begin to look like you made a sadi choice to be dishonest. You have not given evidence- you have so far only admitted you have added something that’s not there in bhagavad vimukhata. That is the one thing you have been honest about so far.

      And by this I didn’t mean to say that jiva fell from Vaikuntha. For example: there is a table and on left side there is rice and on right side there is bread. The person sitting can choose either. If he chooses to eat bread, simultaneously he will also turn away from rice. Like that, jiva is particle of tatastha sakti and has capability to choose to act in one way or another (Govinda bhasya 2.3.31-40).

      * You seem to dishonestly keep citing Govinda bhasya when you have already admitted that there is no word ‘choice’ in bhagavad-vimukhata. Giving an example does not prove sastric evidence- you give sastric evidence first and then give an example. *

      “Jiva is anadi. Her quality of choosing how to act is anadi. Her actions are anadi. Choosing to act to enjoy maya means simultaneously not choosing to serve Bhagavan (Bhagavad-vimukhata). That is why Srila Jiva Goswami described in Paramatma sandsandarbha that some jivas are anadi Bhagavad unmukh and some jivas are anadi Bhagavad paranmukh. ”

      * It appears that you are not interested in offering evidence. You are providing us with your belief system. We assert that it contradicts Sri Jiva. The word anadi means without beginning, which Sri Jiva explains, is something that has no cause. A choice is a cause. So you have contradicted Sri Jiva. *

      “By this he described the spiritual cause of anadi bondage of jiva involving personal choice of jiva and that of Bhagavan. Without jiva personally choosing how to act there can be no action of jiva (Govinda bhasya 2.3.31-40).”

      * You keep citing the same verses again and again. I cannot help but thinking, that your entire argument is based on a dishonest diversion as you wrote: “‘It does not explicitly says so, but…”. Then you started a series of rhetorical arguments, insisting over and over that you have proven there is choice. When the only thing you have done so far is admit your evidence does not ‘explicitly say so’. This is not debate- this is diversion, obfuscation, and trying to win by relentless verbosity. These are lies in our view. We do not believe you.*

      “So only if she chooses to do karma she will do karma. There can be no anadi karma without the personal choice of jiva to do karma and by this choice she simultaneously becomes Bhagavad vimukh.”

      * So- you start with a falsity. You admit it’s a falsity. Then you build your edifice, throw words around from the acharyas, offer inapplicable examples and conclude with a falsity. This is param asatyam. You are not fooling us. Only yourself. *

    • Malatimanjari Post author

      If you speak of choice and cause – spiritual or material does not matter – then how can that be anādi? Anādi means “no beginning.” Any choice and cause has a beginning and can therefore never be anādi. Śāstra does not make such claims.

    • Madan Gopal Das

      I gave two different quotes from Govinda bhasya. One was 2.3.26 where Bhagavad vimukhata is mentioned. Another one was 2.3.31-40 in which jiva’s free choice to act in one way or another is explained. If one studies them both, he can understand how choice of jiva is present in Bhagavad vimukhata.

    • Vraja Vinodini Post author

      It’s frustrating to read Madan Gopal dasa insist upon his conclusions. He thinks that the jiva is suspended in the tatastha shakti, where he can choose his destination. Choice implies that there must be a body, a mind, and to choose maya, you would have to have agency and exposure to maya. I don’t think that MGd has a clear conception of the jiva shakti, for one.

    • Željko Derušek

      Any choice contradicts definition of anadi-beginningless. Something which has no beginning is also causeless-“choice-less”

    • Madan Gopal Das

      Malati: In Brahma Samhita 5.1. it is stated that Krishna is anadir adi and sarva karana karanam. You can read in Sri Jiva Goswami’s tika to this verse that Krishna is the cause of Mahavishnu. Mahavishnu is anadi, still Krishna is his cause, spiritual cause. In material cause and effect there is a material time interval between them, but in spiritual cause there is not such material time interval, both are existing eternally together, simultaneously. In the case of Mahavishnu, he is dependent for his existence on Krishna. Same is with anadi maya and anadi jiva, Krishna is their spiritual cause.

    • Tanmay Krsna Das Post author

      “Malati: In Brahma Samhita 5.1. it is stated that Krishna is anadir adi and sarva karana karanam. You can read in Sri Jiva Goswami’s tika to this verse that Krishna is the cause of Mahavishnu. Mahavishnu is anadi, still Krishna is his cause, spiritual cause. In material cause and effect there is a material time interval between them, but in spiritual cause there is not such material time interval, both are existing eternally together, simultaneously.”

      * I looked up the commentary. I did not see anywhere in Sri Jiva Goswami’s tika where he says *in material cause and effect, there is a material time interval between them, but in spiritual cause, there is not such material time interval*. I also did not see where Sri Jiva writes that the jiva’s spiritual choice is the cause of its bondage.

      Otherwise, in explaining sarva karana karanam, Sri Jiva simply cites Sridhar swami. I reproduce the sanskrit and translation below:

      asyāṁśaḥ puruṣas tasyāṁśo māyā tasyā aṁśā guṇās teṣāṁ bhāgena paramāṇu-mātra-leśena viśvotpatty-ādayo bhavanti | taṁ tvā tvāṁ gatiṁ śaraṇaṁ gatāsmi ity eṣā – meaning: Maya is the aṁśā of the Purusa who is an aṁśā of Him (Krsna). The gunas are aṁśās of maya. By a portion of these gunas, that is, merely by a paramanu, this world comes into being. Next he concludes: yo nārāyaṇaḥ sa tavāṅgaṁ tvaṁ punar aṅgīty arthaḥ: Narayana is your anga (limb) and you are the angi (possessor of that limb).

      Sri Visvanatha, on the other hand, explicitly rejects the idea that there is a cause for the jiva being conjoined with prakrti. In his explanation of the word anādi in the Gita verse 13.10, he writes:
      paramātmānam uktvā kṣetra-jña-śabda-vācyaṁ jīvātmānaṁ vaktuṁ kutas tasya māyā-saṁsleṣaḥ, kadā tad-ārambho’bhūd ity apekṣāyām āha prakṛtiṁ māyāṁ puruṣaṁ jīvaṁ cobhāv apy anādī na vidyate ādi kāraṇaṁ yayos tathābhūtau viddhi anāder īśvarasya mama śaktitvāt | ..tayoḥ saṁśleṣo’pi anādir iti bhāvaḥ
      Translation: Having talked about Paramatma, to explain the jīva who is [also] indicated by the word kṣetra-jña, he [Krsna] answers two questions: why did the jīva become conjoined with māyā? When did this happen? Know both prakṛti (māyā) and puruṣa (jīva) to be anādi. [anādī means] they do not have an ādi, meaning [prior] kāraṇa or cause. This is because they are each a śakti of mine, the anādi īśvara. [In other words, I have no prior cause, and they are my śaktis, and so they also have no prior cause]… As such, their conjunction is also anādi [has no prior cause].

  11. Sandipa Krishna Dasa

    …….Hahaha…..hahaha…
    It’s an Anadi laugh……!!!

  12. Sibusiso Nkambule

    Govinda Bhasya 2.3.26 – “Knowledge in the jiva is eternal becuase of teachings in the scriptures, other than the statement that the atma is the seer”…..i think your issue is the part of the purport where it says : “This knowledge becomes covered by turning away from the Lord and it manifests by turning towards the Lord when aversion towards is destroyed”. Ok:
    1. By knowledge here they mean jnana svarupa not knowledge of bhakti or Krishna…basically awareness of oneself as atma.
    2. When they describe anadi concepts for conditioned souls in sastra they will describe it as happening in time yet its beginingless for our understanding since we sastra is meant for conditioned souls who are in a world of cause and effect hence you will find verses that say something like; The Lord desired to experience the bhava or Srimati Radharani so he became Lord Caitanya (this is described as if it happened “once upon a time”) . Yet lord Caitanya is eternal there was never a time when there was no Lord Caitanya..this applies to Vishnu tattva also e.g Mahavishnu is eternal (he is not created by Lord Krishna yet it will be described like that for our “cause and effect understanding”).
    3. You misinterpreted the verses in the Govinda Bhasya, they are not at all talking about choice and orgins of Jiva. The context with 2.3.31-40 is about agency in Jiva not choice or free will.
    4. Making choices in the material world is driven by past impressions (karma), not spiritual causes…to choose between rice and bread is simple a matter of gunas. If i am in the mode if goodness i choose nice turmeric milk in the afternoon before sleeping in raja guna i choose red bull energy drink LOL…its all under external potency. This agency does not imply independency. Everyone is “free” to do what they want but the government and laws are the causal agents

  13. Sibusiso Nkambule

    Really??? Rice and bread? “anadi” choice (hahaha) between rice and bread? Ok i choose rice ( is that the material world oops ? LOL). Quit the Govinda Bhasya citation its not relevant to such topics. You completely took it out of context. The only relevant verse is 4.4.42: anāvṛttiḥ śabdād anāvṛttiḥ śabdāt
    an – without; āvṛttiḥ – return; śabdāt – because of the scriptures.
    No return, because of the scriptures. No return, because of the scriptures. Read the purport and then you can state your case from there, otherwise all the other verses are not addressing your speculations.

  14. Malatimanjari Post author

    Comments are closed. In conclusion here is a link to a related article about anādi.

  • Satyanarayana Dasa

    Satyanarayana Dasa
  • Daily Bhakti Byte

    Some people say that Bhakti is already present in the jiva and then it just manifests by doing sadhana. In this Anuccheda (47), Sri Jiva Gosvami does not agree with this view. Bhakti is the intrinsic potency of Bhagavan and it is with Bhagavan and his devotees. The very reason jiva is covered by maya is because it does not have Bhakti. If jiva had Bhakti, it could not be covered by maya.

    — Babaji Satyanarayana Dasa
  • Videos with Bababji

  • Payment

  • Subscribe

  • Article Archive

  • Chronological Archive

© 2017 JIVA.ORG. All rights reserved.