Gaudiya concept of sAyujya-mukti (was Re: Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas...)

[Agrahya das]

Mani Varadarajan wrote:
>
> > In article <5ca8eq$h...@boursy.news.erols.com>, Agr...@hgsoft.com says...
> > >
> > Thus sAyujya-mukti is unacceptable to us because there is no
> > >true dvaita or duality and thus no opportunity to have relationships with
> > the
> > >Lord in devotional service.
> >
>
> I am not sure why sAyujya has acquired a negative connotation
> in the Caitanya school of Vaishnavism.

While some would disagree with me, I think "unacceptable" does not imply
"negative". Obviously our conceptions of sAyujya are different. Even
the concept where oneness is qualified and represents a type of ultimate
closeness with the Lord, would not be considered desirable from the
Gaudiya standpoint, where the active exchange of bhakti-rasa with Sri
Krishna is considered the ultimate goal above mukti or liberation.

Rather than a critique or judgement of other schools I believe it is
simply an expression of a different emphasis and understanding.

> In the Visishtadvaita
> philosophy of Ramanuja, the state of liberation involves both
> difference and unity. The individual self retains its sense
> of I-consciousness as distinct from God. At the same time,
> it is fully conscious of the fact that it is inseparably linked
> metaphysically and emotionally to the Divine Absolute.
> This infinite bliss of God-consciousness naturally overflows
> into divine service.

And a very similar concept of difference and unity, by means of the
Lord's achintya-shakti, is fundamental to achintya-bhedAbheda-tattva.
More on this below...

> This is by definition sAyujya. Restated, in Visishtadvaita
> sAyujya means a realization and blossoming of the jiva's inherent,
> eternal and intimate relationship with the paramAtma. He is
> "yoked" to us, as we are to Him, and this is why it is called
> sAyujya. This yoking naturally requires an appreciation of
> the difference between the individual and Him. However, there
> is also the realization that there is complete equality in the
> bliss we experience and the bliss He experiences, in our
> consciousness, and in His consciousness. The Upanishads are
> explicit on this. This is why we say sAyujya, this
> ``unity of enjoyment'', is the culmination of bhakti.

In Gaudiya doctrine, the unity in bhakti more emphasizes the achievement
of svarupa as the expression of one's dormant relationship with Krishna
in one of several rasas or moods of loving exchange. Kaivalya or
sAyujya is considered undesirable because there is no means by which to
exchange rasa in that state. Obviously this is a very different
understanding of sAyujya. sAyujya is mapped by Gaudiya Vaishnava
acharyas to that type of emancipation granted to demons slain by the
Lord (S.B. 10.87, nibhRta- marun-mano 'ksha-dRDha-yoga-yujo hRdi yan).

But also, I cannot claim to speak authoritatively on the Gaudiya
tradition. I have neither studied Srila Jiva Goswami's
Bhagavata-sandarbha nor Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana's works, in both of
which these matters are dealt with more thoroughly. A shocking
revelation, to be sure, but remember that in our tradition study of the
Bhagavatam along with the Gita is considered sufficient (yet we have the
statement by Lord Shiva: ahaM vedmi zuko vetti / vyAso vetti na vetti vA
/ bhaktyA bhAgavataM grAhyaM / na buddhyA na cha tIkayA).

My point in this thread has been to try to establish that there _ARE_
valid differences between acharyas and that there is not only one true
understanding amongst the various Vaishnava schools, with all others
considered false. Since beginning discussions of this nature here well
over a year ago I believe the tables have turned to "what is it the
various traditions have in common?" I still maintain that there is far
more in common than is admitted. However, I speak from a position
largely ignorant of the details of other sampradAyas.

Your explanation of sAyujya from the Visishtadvaita standpoint makes far
better sense than any previous understanding I had of that tradition.
Again, I believe the issue here is that what is referred to as sAyujya
is different in the Gaudiya and Sri traditions. It was not and is not
my intention to pass any type of judgement on other Vaishnava
traditions. However, I've found these discussion have made me
considerably less ignorant of other traditions while causing me to
examine Gaudiya Vedanta more deeply.

Regards,
Agrahya das

> Mani
>

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.18b alpha 1/30/97
Send message with 'help' (no quotes) in body, to s...@pobox.com
(Please remove this signature from follow-ups to avoid posting rejection)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----