A perennial question is why people suffer in the material world. If God is benevolent, why does He not immediately relieve people of suffering? The suffering of people suggests that God is either cruel, or He is incapable of alleviating the suffering of others.
Śrī Jīva Goswami provides an original answer to this question in Anuccheda 93 of the Paramatma Sandarbha. His explanation has the following features to it:
- Bhagavān cannot experience material misery.
- To be moved to compassion by material misery, one must be able to empathize with the person who is suffering. This is not possible unless one has had an experience of misery.
- Bhagavān cannot empathize with material suffering and therefore His compassion is not aroused.
- Therefore He does not relieve people of their suffering.
We examine Śrī Jīva Goswami’s treatment of this subject below.
Experience of pain is necessary for empathy
Śrī Jīva Goswami begins by citing a verse from the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam:
yathā kaṇṭaka-viddhāṅgo jantor necchati tāṁ vyathām
jīva-sāmyaṁ gato liṅgair na tathāviddha-kaṇṭakaḥOne whose foot has been pricked by a thorn would not desire others to suffer such agony, having understood the sameness of all living beings [in regard to the experience of pain] through external signs, but not a person who has never been so pricked. SB 10.10.14
This is an important principle. If one can theoretically imagine that a person has had no experience whatsoever of any material misery, then that person would simply be unable to understand the concept of pain. Such a person would completely lack any empathy for another’s pain. If one has experienced suffering, then and only then, can one empathize with the suffering of others, and only then will one feel compassion for others.
A corollary of this principle is that all empathy and compassion for others is ultimately a type of selfish emotion. We read or hear of news of death through disease and accidents all the time in the news, but we don’t feel grief most of the time. However, if misfortune were to befall someone we know, then we would feel emotional and compassionate. This is because we identify with the person, owing to our relation with them, and we suffer because we identify with their suffering. Our compassion for them, ultimately, is purely about us, and not about their own suffering; we suffer through the suffering of others, and therefore want to take action to stop it.
Bhagavān has no experience of material suffering
Śrī Jīva writes in his commentary on the above verse that the misery which goes by the name of ‘happiness’ in the material world, and that which is commonly understood to be misery, both, can never be experienced by Bhagavān. This is because Bhagavān is ever situated in His own svarūpa śakti, which is composed of the bliss of His being. Just as an owl simply lacks the capacity to see the sun, and just as darkness can never co-exist with light, Bhagavān lacks the capacity to have any kind of material experience.
Being absorbed in His own abode with His own devotees, Bhagavān is unaware of material suffering. Does this mean that He is not omniscient? No, it is just that He is uninterested in the dealings of the material world by His very nature. The fact that darkness is absent from the sun, does not mean that the sun lacks the capacity to pervade the universe. Bhagavān is omnipotent- He is fully capable of relieving everyone’s misery in a moment- but because He has no direct contact with suffering, He is not moved to do so.
Bhagavān is compassionate to His devotees
But then what about the fact that Bhagavān is called the supremely compassionate person in various places in the scriptures? This is certainly true, but His compassion is bestowed only upon His devotees. How is His compassion triggered in this case? Surely He must have experience of misery.
This is not true because the devotees’s suffering is actually not suffering, but a transformation of Bhagavān’s svarūpa śakti, in which suffering is completely lacking. Just as happiness in the material world is actually just suffering, suffering in the spiritual world is actually just happiness. When Bhagavān feels the pleasure and pain of His devotees, He is only experiencing bliss and not material pain as we know it.
Śrī Jīva Goswami examines further objections to his thesis. There are instances where Bhagavān appears to have been moved to compassion for devotees like Gajendra who prayed to Him while in distress. Śrī Jīva explains that this was not compassion for Gajendra’s distress, but rather Bhagavān responded to his surrender, which is a limb of bhakti.
Implications for Śrī Caitanya’s pastimes
Śrī Caitanya mahāprabhu is popularly described as the most compassionate avatāra of Bhagavān who appeared to bestow compassion to all living beings. The fact, though, is that He was not compassionate because of material suffering. If He had been moved to compassion because of material suffering, He would have delivered everyone right away for all time. This obviously has not happened. Śrī Caitanya was not moved by the suffering of the world; He came only at the behest of His own devotee, Advaita ācārya.
Sometimes devotees are seen to be moved to compassion because of the suffering of others. This is not actually true of Śrī Caitanya’s immediate associates, who are of the same nature as Bhagavān, and are incapable of empathy.
Rather, it is the devotees who became perfected by sādhanā, alone, who are capable of compassion, because they have suffered in the material world, and have the capacity for empathy. Of course, material suffering cannot be truly solved without bhakti. Therefore, their compassion comes in the form of knowledge of bhakti, which solves the problem of suffering at its root.
Conclusion
If Bhagavān were able to empathize with material suffering, then He would be compassionate to the people in the material world and everyone would have stopped suffering because Bhagavān is fully capable of all action. Because He has no experience of suffering, however, He does not become compassionate. Bhagavān’s sphere of interaction is only with devotees, and His every action is for their sake alone. He has no interest in the dealings in the material world, and this has been the case since beginningless time.
Categories: Bhagavān
A small correction, it’s not Bhagavat Sandarbha but Paramātma Sandarbha’s Anuccheda 93
Oops, Thank you!
Quote from the article: “Bhagavān lacks the capacity to have any kind of material experience. Being absorbed in His own abode with His own devotees, Bhagavān is unaware of material suffering. Does this mean that He is not omniscient? No, it is just that He is uninterested in the dealings of the material world by His very nature.”
So, He knows everything (omniscience) but is… anaware of something. Strange logic.
The meaning of OMNISCIENCE:
1. Infinite knowledge; the quality or attribute of fully knowing all things: an attribute of God.
2. Hence Very wide or comprehensive knowledge; a knowledge of everything.
3. The quality or state of being omniscient; the quality of knowing everything; an attribute peculiar to God.
(The Century Dictionary)
By unaware, I mean He cannot suffer. Because matter is outside Him. God doesn’t have to obey logic. He is beyond it.
If He is beyond logic and doesn’t have to obey it, why not also being beyond the views and versions of Goudiya sampradaya, which is just one among many other sampradayas with their different views and versions of God?
This site presents the Gaudiya sampradaya’s teachings. God reveals Himself in different ways to others, and they are welcome to their views and beliefs. You are now beginning to waste my time.
Omniscience does not mean ‘to experience everything’ but to ‘know everything’. Otherwise God will have experienced all the nasty things in the material world, like robbing a bank or killing a child. There is nothing strange about it whatsoever. That, together with Sri Jiva’s logic that empathy requires experience, is sufficient to support Sri Jiva’s conclusions.
Before I thought there was nothing impossible or “nasty” for God. Is there in Bhakti teachings a scientific explanation of the limitations of God? The clear explanation that God has limitations, and how it is possible.
There is nothing impossible for Bhagavan
this is where the english language fails. The sanskrit terms bhoktṛtva and jñātṛtva are different. bhoktṛtva means experiencership. and jñātṛtva is knowership. Kṛṣṇa has sarvajñātṛtva= knowledge of everything, including material suffering, completely. But He only experiences the antaraṅga śakti, never the bahiraṅga. So this is the distinction being made here. The word omniscience is an english word–gotta look at the sanskrit and will avoid confusion.
Does Paramātmā have an experience that ātmā has?
No
Why then there is a word karṣayantaḥ in BG 17.5-6?
aśāstra-vihitaḿ ghoraḿ
tapyante ye tapo janāḥ
dambhāhańkāra-saḿyuktāḥ
kāma-rāga-balānvitāḥ
karṣayantaḥ śarīra-sthaḿ
bhūta-grāmam acetasaḥ
māḿ caivāntaḥ śarīra-sthaḿ
tān viddhy āsura-niścayān
And from the commentary by Sri Vishvanatha Chakravarthi:
“Endowed with these qualities, they starve or cause suffering (karṣayantaḥ) to all elements such as earth (bhuta gramam), to me (mam) and to my amsa the jiva, situated in their bodies. Know these people to be also situated on the level of asuras.”
The commentary from Sri Visvanatha is below:
bhūtānāṁ pṛthivyādīnāṁ grāmaṁ samūhaṁ karśayantaḥ kṛśī-kurvanto māṁ ca mad-aṁśa-bhūtaṁ jīvaṁ ca duḥkhayantaḥ
Here- Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti is glossing māṁ ca as mad-aṁśa-bhūtaṁ jīvaṁ ca. i.e. causing misery to the jīva, who is my aṁśa.
If we examine Sridhar Swami, Madhusudana Saraswati, or Sri Baladeva’ translations, they mention that they displease antaryami, paramatma, because of transgressing His order, thereby insulting Him.
Meaning to any verse has to be given with eka-vakyata in mind- that shastra elsewhere should not become contradicted- otherwise incorrect translations are the result. There are hundreds of statements that Bhagavan is pure Ananda and that suffering cannot reach Him.
Isn’t kleshaghni described by Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti in Madhurya Kadambini a sign of God’s compassion? – If you suffer take to devotional service, and kleshas will go away.
No it isn’t
Then what about this ,I was bit confused..
Nindasi yajna-vidher ahaha shruti-jatam
Sadaya-hrdaya darsita-pasu-ghatham
Keshava dhruta-buddha-sarira jaya jagadisa hare 9
Victory to Keshava, the lord of Universe,
Who assumed the form of Buddha,
Who found fault with fire sacrifices,
In which poor animals were sacrificed,
As prescribed in the Vedas due to his compassionate heart(Dasavatara stotra of Sri Jayadeva Goswami)
Seems like confusing,if you can clarify
Krsna is compassionate but He is not moved to compassion because someone suffers materially. He is compassionate toward his devotees – obviously responding to their Bhakti and not to their suffering. Now poets can see Him in different ways according to their own vision and praise Him as compassionate like Sri Jayadev does due to their bhava. Doesn’t mean it is tattva. The tattva is in the article above. So we have to interpret any other statement that does not match with Sri Jiva’s statement.
“Now poets can see Him in different ways according to their own vision and praise Him as compassionate like Sri Jayadev does due to their bhava. Doesn’t mean it is tattva. The tattva is in the article above. So we have to interpret any other statement that does not match with Sri Jiva’s statement.”
Can you cite few such examples where bhava does not match with tattva..In such cases how to know which is tattva and which is not?
Tattva is known from the Sandarbhas that are written to teach tattva. There are many examples. Sanatana Goswami’s brhad bhagavatamrta is one. The bhagavatam is another. Sri Suka himself says that some of the stories he told in bhagavata are not literally true from tattva point of view.
Thank you for that! I have to go through them..
The sandarbhas must be learned from a teacher who has learned them from his or her teacher in parampara. Not by reading them on one’s own- then one is bound to misunderstand or misinterpret them
Ya sure😅,that’s a must,but now a days it is very rare to find such persons
I was inquisitive about this thing that whether Haridas sastri Maharaj learned sandarbhas from his spiritual master who in turn learned from his spiritual master without any break till Sri jiva Goswami?
Thank you
I know he learned from his guru. Beyond that, I cannot say. No reason to doubt it, as the diksha parampara is well defined.
Scholarship and traditional learning is a hallmark of his parivaar.
I think in those days there was no question about authenticity. It is the modern times that the problem began. Modern gurus do not have proper training in nyaya, Sanskrit, purva mimamsa, etc
Since we came to the point that we have to learn sandarbhas from parampara,I began to ponder over it because now a days there are many translations on sandarbhas and their comments with different views
on some issues even among the gaudiyas.There starts the confusion and search for what is the unbroken chain of learning from Sri Jiva goswami.
Yeah so do the research on whether these translators actually learned the Sandarbhas from their guru who learned it from their guru.
This was the reason,I was posed you the above question on Gadhar parivar
Thank you
Actually I just checked with Babaji. We know that Maharajji’s guru also learned from his guru in the traditional way. So that makes it four generations.
Yes,I don’t have any options for now I have to accept Babaji maharaj..
I don’t know,I don’t see my present comments here..
Ya,I don’t know about other translators,but I can understand that I don’t need to doubt Gadadhar parivar’s authenticity.
How to understand the difference between spiritual pain and material pain ,it does not get easy to understand for me that Lord Ram experienced the pain due to seperation of sita Devi and similarly Lord Krishna feared by the stick of Yasodha mayi,it is true that maya can not touch his svarupa but seems not conceivable what is the nature of pain or suffering lord is experiencing..pls explain on this..
Bhagavan is experiencing love for His bhaktas in both examples above. Love is a substance of which we have no experience. So it is not possible to understand it. It has to be experienced for which there is sadhana
But,is it possible that bliss and pain,,,can be simultaneously present in that nature of love?,in other words can contradictory things simultaneously exist in his nature without material tinge.. because both of them must be different from material pain and pleasure respectively..Atleast for theoritical understanding?
The word pain that we understand is because we have experienced it to be a certain thing. But the word ‘pain’ as used for Krsna is something entirely different. How can we understand what it means then? We can only understand by comparison to what we know.
All pain and pleasure we experience is a selfish emotion. Not so with love. In love there is no selfishness at all. So pain and happiness are basically happiness only.
And also in upadrsamrtsa Srila Rupa Goswami says dadati pratigrhnati etc are symptoms of love which is applicable even in this material world,so then how we can say that we didn’t experience love?
Good question. They are symptoms but what is the definition of love? Does our dadati or pratigrhnati match that definition?
Love is a function of Krsna’s svarupa sakti, which we do not have. Unless we have become siddhas. So our dadati and pratighrnati is not love. If we are sadhakas, we are practicing. We have not achieved the goal yet.
So,do you mean to say as a sadhaka our dadati pratigrhnati is still a selfish emotion?But we don’t see Rupa Goswami has said like this..he just defined priti but with love or selfish emotion there is no explanation right?
Are bhaiya ji, Rupa Goswami has not defined priti, he is just explaining what people who have priti for Bhagavan do. The reverse doesn’t follow- whoever does these things has priti. Otherwise billion people on the globe do this- they give, they accept, they speak secrets yo each other, they feed and eat- do they all have priti?
Yes as a sadhaka our dadati pratighrnati is a selfish emotion. Although we may think it is not.
Okk, symptoms are present in both material world and prema..now it makes
sense.Sorry I misunderstood the verse.Thank you
In this article I find that Krishna responded not to Gajendra’s stress but to Gajendra’s surrender, one of the limbs of bhakti. So, is it accurate to say that as soon as I, while still living in the material world, surrender to a spiritual master, such is the surrender which is the very beginning of my calling the attention of the Lord? Is it that if I never surrender to a spiritual master, I will never be able to call the attention of the Lord, in order to be admitted in His spiritual kingdom? Is it that then and only then the Lord will make the necessary arrangements to free me from my material conditioning in such a way that I could be admitted in the His spiritual kingdom and never coming back to this material suffering world? Or is it that The Lord will not act, at all and all the missionary action, related to freeing me from all of my suffering will be enacted exclusively by my guru? Please??
There are too many distinct ideas and questions here. Can you ask me one short and simple question? Then I can answer more effectively.
Related to your most wonderful article I do have several questions. I will number them in order to make it easier for you to respond. QUESTION Nº 1: Who is taking me out of the suffering material world? God or Guru? Please??
There is only one independent reality, Bhagavan. The guru is not independent of Bhagavan. It would be correct to say that Bhagavan takes you out of suffering, and He acts through the guru.
But, for Bhagavan to take me out of suffering, by acting through the guru, what is it that I need to do? Do I need to choose a guru and surrender to him? Is it that if I do not surrender to a guru, Bhagavan will never take me out of suffering? Is it that to choose a guru and surrender to him is indispensable, in this context? Please??
Yes, without a guru, there is no liberation. What you need to do is to be honest. Do not deceive yourself, and do not deceive others. Then Bhagavan will provide a genuine guru.
Honest in what way? Not deceiving myself in what way? Not deceiving others in what specific way? I do need, at least, one practical example, for my day-to-day life, as a devotee. Are you referring to sincerity and non-duplicity, like avoiding giving the right hand to God and the left to Satan? Like avoiding the mixing of spiritual practice with the fulfillment of material desires? Please??
From the Vedic dictionary what nomenclature can be designated for the love of material world which also has dadati pratigrhnati
It is called priti. The word has different meanings depending on context
So besides being that spiritual priti svarupa sakti of Lord, is there any theoritical difference between material and spiritual priti
Yes. They are like proton and electron. Opposites.
In spiritual priti, you only care about the other’s benefit. In material priti, you care about yourself.
Other theoritical difference I supposed to ask
Where can I get more details about priti and in material world we also see father/mother cares for his child,then how can we say that in material priti we care about ourselves
Why does a father care for a child? Because the child is his. He does not care so much about another person’s child. This is what I mean by selfishness. He has put himself in the child- he ultimately cares for himself..
Thank you
Read the yoga of dejection to understand more by Babaji. I also have some articles on this site.
Ya,I have gone through your articles,Is Yoga of dejection available online?
Not to my knowledge. You will have to buy it from Jiva Institute website.
Regarding the statements:
“He is uninterested in the dealings of the material world by His very nature.”
“He has no interest in the dealings in the material world, and this has been the case since beginningless time.”
Then how to understand the verse which I remembered today:
yada yada hi dharmasya glanir bhavati bharata abhyuthanam adharmasya tadatmanam srijami aham?
And the second verse comes to mind:
paritranaya sadhunam vinashaya ca dushkritam dharma samsthapanarthaya sambhavami yuge yuge.
So who is ‘sadhu’? A devotee. He does that to make life easier for devotees. He has no interest in the material world.
Sir, in Ramanuja Sampradaya I’ve received the following comment on the conclusion to this article:
– I went through your conclusion. It goes contrary to Srimad Ramayanam: व्यसनेषु मनुष्याणां भृशं भवति दुःखितः।।2.2.40।। Suppose you approach a king with your plight, entire village is looted and upon hearing the king is just cool and smiling. Is it good? If we imagine Bhagwan to be such, we are bringing dosha into Bhagwan.
Our acharyas have discussed in great detail in the rahasyaarth granthas that bhagwat kripa is ahaituki. A jeevatma is so trapped in the cycle of karma vasana ruchi and prakriti sambandha that it can only go down and down if Bhagwat kripa doesn’t act. The act of surrender, or bhakti, or prema doesn’t go to the merit of jeevatma, but it’s a result of the efforts of Bhagwan through millions of births. It’s you think that you have surrendered to bhagwan with your own merit and due to that surrender Bhagwan will give moksha, its AHANKARA.
The views in article are heavily refuted in Eedu vyakhyanams of purvacharyas.
The feeling of compassion is not a dosha. It’s a guna. He is aatmaaraam, ever-satisfied and happy. That’s true. But remember Ramayana, one of the greatest guna of Bhagwan:
व्यसनेषु मनुष्याणां भृशं भवति दुःखितः ॥
उत्सवेषु च सर्वेषु पितेव परितुष्यति ।
Ramanuja has praised this Kaarunya gunam of bhagwan. Sita says in Sundarkandam that the greatest gunam of Bhagwan is this only 5.38.41.
Much detailed discussion is present in our rahasya granthas. I won’t go into those details here.
– Does Bhagawan’s Kaarunya gunam extend also to the ordinary baddha jivas bereft of bhakti?
– Can anyone become a bhakta without karuna of Bhagwan? One is able to develop bhakti or gyana of his sheshatvam is only a result of Bhagwad kaarunyam. Bhagwad krishi kaarya through millions of birth. He slowly purified them, transformed them.
There are stories in shaatras like a person accidentally eating Bhagwat Prasadam and getting good satvik body in next birth. One person was running behind a cow to beat him, in that way he encircled the temple. Bhagwad took it as pradakshinam and gave him a good vaishnava family birth.
Thus, Bhagwan himself is the upaayam. We just need to accept him. That acceptance or prapatti or desire to achieve moksha is also a result of bhagwad kataksham only.
These are not convincing arguments. I am not sure they understand Sri Jiva Goswami’s position properly.