Q: What is taṭasthā śakti?
A: The jīvas.
Q: Do jīvas have taṭasthā śakti?
A: That is like asking if the mind has a mind or color has color or taste has taste. The mind is the mind. Color is color. The jīvas are taṭasthā śakti.
Q: But then why is it called śakti?
A: Because it is one of three types of śaktis of Bhagavān.
Q: Is the jīva still taṭasthā śakti when it reaches Goloka as a siddha?
A: Yes.
Q: But the word ‘taṭasthā’ means ‘situated on the bank’, and the jīva is not on the ‘bank’ between māyā and Bhagavān anymore.
A: The jīva is a distinct śakti of Bhagavān. Its svarūpa is different from Bhagavān’s svarūpa. Bhagavān’s svarūpa is made of His svarūpa śakti or ‘internal’ śakti which is made of hlādinī, sandhinī and samvit.
The jīva is also not inert, i.e. non-conscious, like māyā.
So it does not belong to the category of Bhagavān. And it does not belong to the category of māyā. As such, it is put in a separate category. This is not going to change even if it goes to Goloka.
Q: But doesn’t it get a siddha deha in Goloka. Now it has Bhagavān’s svarūpa śakti.
A: It does, but it remains a jīva in its intrinsic nature or svarūpa. The siddha deha is external to it. Just as māyā cannot enter the jīva, Bhagavān’s svarūpa śakti does not enter it, except that the jīva now has an aham-ta of being a bhakta of Bhagavān.
Q: So the jīva remains unchanged in its svarūpa.
A: Yes. If it has Bhagavān’s svarūpa śakti inside of it (i.e. bhakti is inside of it), it has the same svarūpa as Him. Cakravarti-pāda writes that considering Bhagavān’s svarūpa to be the same as that of the jīva is an offense, and a cause of saṁsāra.
Q: But what if it is considered to be just a small spark of Bhagavān’s svarūpa śakti?
A: Big or small, the svarūpa is the same – i.e. essentially both Bhagavān and the jīva are made of the same substance. A gram of gold and a kilogram of gold have the same essential properties.
Further, if it has Bhagavān’s svarūpa śakti inside of it, why is it put in a third distinct category? Only two śaktis should exist.
Q: True, but the third category is needed for those jīvas who are in māyā.
A: False, because Sri Jiva writes this:
tad evam anantā eva jīvākhyās taṭasthāḥ śaktayaḥ | tatra tāsāṁ varga-dvayam
In this way, there are verily unlimited intermediary śaktis, called jīvas. They form two groups.
eko vargo’nādita eva bhagavad-unmukhaḥ, anyas tv anādita eva bhagavat-parāṅmukhaḥ,
One consists of those whose consciousness is turned toward Bhagavān (bhagavad-unmukha) without beginning; the other consists of those whose consciousness is turned away from Bhagavan (bhagavat-parāṅmukha) with no beginning.
atra prathamo’ntaraṅgā-śakti-vilāsānugṛhīto nitya-bhagavat-parikara-rūpo garuḍādikaḥ |
Jīvas of the first group are favored by the blessings of Bhagavān’s intrinsic śakti and are His eternal associates, such as Garuḍa,
Śrī Garuḍa is not in māyā. He is still a jīva, i.e. he is still taṭasthā śakti.
Summary
- An electron remains an electron whether it is in gold or in copper. The jīva remains a jīva, whether in Goloka or in the material world.
- It is an offense to think that the svarūpa of the jīva is the same as the svarūpa of Bhagavan. That is, it is an offense to think that the jīva has Bhagavān’s svarūpa śakti inside of it.
- This offense is the cause of saṁsāra.
Categories: bhāva, concepts, jīva-tattva
What is shakti ??
Something is shakti of bhagvAn so bhagvAn will be shaktimAn(visheshya) and shakti will be visheshaN. VesheshaNa and visheshya are different, so how bheda abheda works here ??
The material world is also Bhagavan due to being His sakti. This is abheda. It is not Bhagavan, because He is the saktiman, not sakti. This is bheda.
The material world is not a visesana of Bhagavan in that it is not His intrinsic nature. Sakti is a better descriptor for it.
In ShaktimAn the pratyaya is matup, in shakti there is no such pratyaya. Matup is always for possessor and shakti is possessed , so bheda is clearly there.
One which is dependent on something is the visheshan of that thing. Ghatatva is dependent on ghat so ghatatva is visheshan. Material world is always dependent on bhagvan and can’t exist without him is so a visheshan. Visheshan is always dependent
This the definition of the term ‘visesana’ that I am using:
kāryānvayitve sati kāryakāle vartamānatve sati vyāvartakatvam – That which is a part of the object, is always present when the object is present, and distinguishes the object from others.
What is your definition? Please provide the Sanskrit. Thanks.
Gaurav ji, I dont know what you are going on about. I said bheda is there. I also said that the sakti depends on the saktiman for its existence. Are you saying something that I havent already said?
In भगवत संदर्भ anuccheda 3, visheshan visheshya and vishisht is shown by Sri jiva goswami.
आनंदमात्रम् विशेष्यं, शक्तयो विशेषणानि, विशिष्टं च ब्रह्म इति आयातम्
Thus Shaktis are always visheshaN . visheshaN and visheshya can’t be same so there is actually bheda
If you are going to cite Sri Jiva, then you also have to cite his statements that support abheda. His theology is based on bheda and abheda, both. Not bheda alone.
I dont know what you are trying to prove or disprove. Sri Jiva does not follow visista-advaita theology. He has his own system- acintya bheda-abheda.
Fine, his theology is different but anuccheda 3 is closely vishisht advait theology.
The exact words are:
evaṁ cānanda-mātraṁ viśeṣyaṁ, samastāḥ śaktayo viśeṣaṇāni, viśiṣṭo bhagavān ity āyātam |
On the basis of anuccheda 3, will you be able to define shakti under your definition —
kāryānvayitve sati kāryakāle vartamānatve sati vyāvartakatvam
You did not answer my question. The definition I provided is of visesana, not of sakti.
Dont waste my time, otherwise I am going to ban you.
Correct , what u have defined is visheshan, anuchheda 3 puts shakti as visheshan. My question is how the definition of visheshan will work for shakti as it’s is visheshan of bhagvan.
Also I m not interested in wasting your time. Just a fruitful discussion. I am also from gaudiya school only but open minded
I already said this. The svarupa sakti is a visesana of the visesya, and the visista is Bhagavan. What is the problem?
You have still not answered my question: what is your definition of visesana? You write, “One which is dependent on something is the visheshan of that thing.” Where did you get this definition from? Or did you just make this up?
Fine , Sri jiva thelogy is different. But anuccheda 3 of bhagvat sandarbh is very close to , in fact it’s vishisht advait only
You cant take something out of context and ascribe a whole theology to Sri Jiva. That means you have not understood anything about his theology.
Some saktis can be counted as visesanas – for example, His svarupa sakti is a visesana. But the material world is not a visesana in the general sense of the word, (such as redness of a rose or ghatatva of a ghata), because then the material world’s defects come into Bhagavan. The Sri Vaisnavas get around that with aprthak siddhi. Sri Jiva’s theology is actinya bheda abheda.
You have to take the time to understand what is being said, before arguing for no reason. I have written articles myself on visesya and visesana on this site, as applied to Bhagavan.
When Shaktis are visheshan the material nature or prakriti is also visheshan ,how transformations in Shaktis is not going to affect shaktimAn??
Moreover aprithak siddhi is also cited by Sri baldeva in siddhAnta ratna in support of gaudiyas thinking for shakti and shaktimAn
Nice! So because aprthak siddha is cited by him somewhere, the Gaudiya theology is now not bheda-abheda, but Visista advaita! I already explained that prakriti is external to Bhagavan so transformation in it will not affect Bhagavan. This is why I am not calling it a visesana. I don’t think you are reading my replies. You are really wasting my time. So goodbye!
visheshan is भेदक, व्यावर्तक or
नियमेन यद् धार्यं/आधेयं/विधेयम् स तद्विशेषणं
Good.
TK Das ji could you explain those Sanskrit terms in the definition of visheShaNa as per the commentator?
Here is my understanding of it
visheshan is भेदक, व्यावर्तक or
भेदक means one that distinguishes
व्यावर्तक means one that separates
Visesana is भेदक or व्यावर्तक.
In the sentence,
नियमेन यद् धार्यं/आधेयं/विधेयम् स तद्विशेषणं
Here, the words धार्यं/आधेयं/विधेयम् are technical terms.
आधेय refers to that which is supported. It is supported by आधार. So for example, if you sit on a chair, you are the आधेय, the chair is आधार or अधिकरण. So that which is आधेय is the visesana of that which is the आधार.
धार्यं means that which is maintained/supported, विधेय means predicate (?; I assume this is what is meant here) which is a visesana of उद्देश्य which is subject.
So in the Sri Vaisnava worldview, everything is supported by or dependent on Bhagavan, as such everything is a visesana of Him. That is certainly one valid way of seeing it.
Sri Jiva Goswami doesnt see it that way. For him, the word visesana is not the best term; he prefers the word sakti. Even though he mentions the visesya-visesana terminology in the Sandarbhas, he has his own relation in mind which he mentions in the Sarva-samvadini and in various places in the Sandarbhas- acintya bheda abheda.
Now if someone wants to insist that Sri Jiva follows visista advaita, what can I say? I am not interested in such a debate.
If you go to an Advaitavadi, and start insisting that the Advaitin philosophy is actually Visista Advaita, what can be said? Other than it is vitanda.
Here is Sri Babaji’s commentary on Bhagavat Sandarbha, Anuccheda 3:
“In this regard it should be noted that, according to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, the energies of Bhagavān are not exactly related as qualities to the qualified. He uses the words viśiṣṭa , viśeṣaṇa and viśeṣya only to convey the idea that the energies belong to Bhagavān, and that Brahman is not an independent manifestation. Jīva argues that the real relationship between Bhagavān and His energies is that of inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference, or acintya-bheda-abheda . This will be further explained in Anuccheda 16. The import of the word viśeṣaṇa here is “energy” and not its usual sense of a qualifier. Śrī Rāmānujācārya taught Viṣiṣṭādvaitavāda, or qualified nonduality, in which he described the material world as an adjective ( viśeṣaṇa ) of Bhagavān. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī offers some refutations to this doctrine in his Sarva-saṁvādīnī and shows that the Acintya-bhedābheda-vāda ideology of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu offers a more thorough explanation of the relationship between the Supreme Lord and His energies.”
This is why every word in the Sandarbhas must be learned from the parampara and not be self study or, study with the help of other sampradayas.
So this definition would not be identical to the other(mentioned) definition of visheShaNa?:
kāryānvayitve sati kāryakāle vartamānatve sati vyāvartakatvam – That which is a part of the object, is always present when the object is present, and distinguishes the object from others.
Because for an upAdhi and upalakshana also there is an AdhAra?
Also another question:
If the relation between svarupa-shakti and Svarupa(Brahman) is acintyabhedābheda, then wouldn’t there be svagata bheda in the swarupa itself(due to presence of bheda along with abheda)?
That’s why it seems Rupa Goswami in Laghu Bhagavatamrita has used the term “aupacArika”(conventional) as an adjective for the bheda between Bhagavan and his body etc. in Laghu Bhagavatamrita and Sridhara swami also interprets viShNu purAana (1.9.44-45) regarding the relation of Lakshmi with the svarupa of Bhagavan(Bhagavat sandarbha Anuccheda 100 page-1022).
In Vedanta shyamantaka and later works also the term vishesha was introduced as a particular peculiarity of Acintya that is glossed as “bheda-abhAve bheda-pratinidhi” to account for no svagata bheda in Bhagavan’s svarupa despite unlimited variety in Bhagavan’s svarupa.
So should the bheda in acintyabhedābheda be understood as aupacArika bheda with regards to Bhagavan’s svarupa bhuta antaranga shakti?
Yes, correct.
It is not possible to say there is svagata bheda, because there is abheda. It is not possible to say there is abheda, because there is also bheda. They apply simultaneously so it is not possible to pin one thing down and argue for it.
I am not sure that the qualifier aupcarika is necessary. Both bheda and abheda exist. Sometimes to emphasize abheda, aupcarika might be used to qualify bheda.
Are Radha and Krsna one? Or two? They are both one and two. Depends on our vision.
Gaurav ji suggested that my denial of prakriti as visesana is a convenience. Not so. It is an upadhi by the definition of upadhi, and not a visesana. Not only that, it is explicitly called an upadhi of Paramatma in the scriptures.
I am not aware of a statement where prakriti is called a visesana of Bhagavan..
So we could atleast say that the bheda between Bhagavan’s svarupa and that of the Jivas and Maya is not the same as the bheda with his svarupa-shakti and antaranga dharmas/gunas(hence aupacArika in comparison to the previous two because they are of the same swarupa)
Regarding visheShaNa, there is a nyaya:
sa-visesane vidhi-nisedhau visesanam upa-sankramatah sati visesye badhe (Kalapa-paribhasa-sutra 2 )
Meaning- An injunction or prohibition is first applied to a qualified object, and if that is not possible, then it is to be applied to its quality or modifier.
The Sanskrit for ‘modifier’ here is visheShaNa. So I guess it means a modifier in general and encompasses the specific meanings of modifiers like visheShaNa, upadhi and upalakshana.
And not just the specific meaning of visheShaNa that you had provided in the beginning?
Hard to answer your question about visesana as I don’t know the context. If it is grammar, then it should include visesana, upadhi and upalaksana
Even if prakriti is considered visheShaNa through its identity as shakti(because shakti is intrinsic to Shaktiman), even then it’s apparent faults will persist in Maya’s own domain and will not touch Paramatma’s antaranga svarupa since they are not related by samavāya sambandha but by acintya bhedābheda. Also Kārana(Maya/Samashtiprakriti) is accepted by Ishvara, i.e. Karanodakashayi Vishnu(Sankarshana) as an upAdhi.
If you accept the definition of visesana as involving adhara-adheya, it becomes confusing to mix acintya bheda abheda in it. If you consider prakrti a visesana, then the sambandha with Bhagavan is adhara-adheya. You have to consider prakrti as sakti. Then acintya bheda abheda sambandha applies between Bhagavan and prakrti.
The definition I provided of visesana does not mention a sambandha. If you go by that definition, prakrti is not a visesana.
What is sambandha between shakti and shaktimAn ??? SamavAya, samyog, aprtithaksiddha, aashrayatA ??? What among these
None of these. First good question you asked today.
It is acintya bheda abheda.
Oh really ! At least you praised about something.
Abheda sambandh is understood as AshratyA sambandh , but how is bheda a sambandha ?? Then later will come achintya
It is its own type of sambandha.
When in bhagvat sandarbha anuccheda 3 , Sri jiva has said about visheshan visheshya vishisht then he is talking about sambandha only.
By achintya bheda abheda vishist will not become visheshan neither visheshya will become visishta
So who the hell cares? I don’t have time for this vitanda anymore.
I feel Paramatma sandarbha Anuccheda 64, 65, 66, 67 gives an idea of the specific sambandha between the cosmos and Paramatma and the reason for abheda. Of course there is the further explanation in Sarvasamvadini regarding the acintyabhedābheda proposition.
I have written about this on this site elsewhere. I think you requested it in the past.
But I don’t like it when the opponent simply wants to speak and not listen and understand. It just wastes my time and contributes to my blood pressure!
I found it-
https://bhaktitattva.com/2022/06/29/sri-jiva-goswami-coins-the-term-acintya-bheda-abheda/
Here is Anuccheda 67 which states that all things are Paramatma. This is something that our friend Gaurav did not like.
Therefore, Prahlāda prayed to Bhagavān Nṛsiṁha:
You are the air, fire, earth, sky, and water, the subtle elements ( tan-mātrās ), the vital force, the senses, the heart, pure consciousness, and grace as well. O Great One, You alone are all things, whether composed of the guṇas or devoid of such guṇas . There is nothing at all other than You, whether defined by thought or word. ( SB 7.9.48 ) 1
The word hṛdaya (heart) means “the internal sense” ( antar-indriya ), which consists of the mind, intellect, ego, and the unconscious. Cit means “the pure jīva ,” and grace ( anugraha ) means “the divine potency” that enables the turning of attention toward Bhagavān. What more can be said? Whether composed of the guṇas ( saguṇa ), and hence of the nature of māyā ( māyika ), or devoid of such guṇas ( viguṇa ), and thus free from māyā ( amāyika ), all things are You alone.
Anuccheda 68 describes the bheda between them despite Paramatma being the upadana karana. And Anuccheda 69 explains the difference in the vision of the perceivers.
Indeed. Here is how the world is different from Paramatma. This is Anuchheda 68:
Now, Bhagavān Kapila clarifies that Paramātmā is distinct from the creation generated out of the māyā potency [i.e., from the world], from māyā , and from the jīva :
Just as fire is distinct from the sparks and smoke [arising conditionally from] the burning kindling wood, of which it is the [fiery] source, and just as it is distinct even from the kindling wood itself, which is taken to be identical with it, so too the Self, the Seer, Bhagavān, known as Brahman, is distinct from the gross elements, the external senses, the internal senses, pradhāna , and [the self] who is called jīva . ( SB 3.28.40–41 ) 1
The meaning is as follows: The word ulmuka (a firebrand) means a handheld piece of burning kindling wood used to ignite a fire. The adjectival compound sva-sambhavāt (arisen from that to which it belongs) means that this burning kindling wood has fire itself as its own [fiery] source, which is to say that fire is its [unconditional] constituent cause ( sva-upādāna-kāraṇa ). As such, the kindling wood is [merely] the conditional cause ( upādhika-hetu ) of the sparks and smoke. So, just as 2 fire ( agni ), which is the constituent cause ( upādāna ) of sparks and smoke, is different from both of them, and just as it is also different from that very same firebrand ( ulmukāt ), 3 of which it is the constituent cause, [so too Bhagavān is different from the jīvas , from pradhāna , and from the material elements].
What is the nature of these three [substances from which the fire is being differentiated]? They are “taken to be identical with the fire,” since they appear to have the same essential nature as fire in that they give off heat, and even in smoke a portion of fire is directly present.
In the same way, Bhagavān, who is the constituent cause ( upādāna ) of all categories of being, is different from the living entity, called the jīva , which is compared to a spark [in the example]; and from pradhāna , which is the conditional effulgence of Bhagavān limited by primordial matter ( pradhāna ) and here compared to a firebrand; and from the material elements, etc., which are compared to the smoke.
This very Bhagavān is the Self ( ātmā ), namely Paramātmā, who is immanent in the above three entities by His personal portion ( svāṁśa ), and who is also sometimes called Brahman when manifesting Himself simply as unqualified consciousness to one eligible for such realization. This is because He is the Seer ( draṣṭā ), the witness of the beginning, middle, and end states of all the above.
As those completely devoid of discrimination call even smoke fire, although the smoke is different from the currently burning kindling wood ( ulmukāt ) and from its own source ( sva-sambhavāt ), fire, with which it is thought to be one in essence, the word dhūmāt [different from smoke] has consequently also been used. The fire that burns and illuminates the kindling wood ( ulmukāt ) is certainly separate from it, even though this wood exists prior to the fire. Similarly, the Seer who knows all things without limitation, and who is signified by the names Paramātmā, Bhagavān, and Brahman, is indeed different from the material elements, the external senses, the internal senses, and so on, for they consist of the extrinsic and intermediary potencies.
Yes. See Anuccheda 73 also.
Yes. I hope you could explain and clarify the relation between parts and whole as per these Anucchedas whenever you get time. A lot of Gaudiyas are confused due to neo Gaudiya preachers and then you have some other sampradaya people who confuse other non-learned Gaudiyas that the Acharyas have simply taken that smpradaya’s philsophy and nothing else.
The visheshya, visheshana and Vishishta terms are common and occur in the explanation of the Vishnupurana verse. The visheshana there occurs with regards to the svarupabhuta dharmas of Bhagavan(like the ShaDguNas)
Ok I will do this when I get time.
Also it is to be noted that Sri Jiva Goswami says in that part of the Bhagavat sandarbha says that though Bhagavan is Vishishta and seems to be a composite of his shaktis(visheShaNa) and his svarupa(AnandamAtra visheShya). He immediately says that Bhagavan is akhaNDa-tattva, meaning he is actually not indivisible though conventional difference between visheShya and visheShaNa has been made for explanation’s sake.
**divisible not indivisible
Yes, thank you
Also I wonder where in Siddhanta Ratna is apRthak-siddhi term used? Sri Baladeva does give alternative explanations of certain mantras and shlokas from Vishishtadvaitin POV, clarifying that it is the view of Vishishtadvaitins but I haven’t come across this term or him terming it as his own opinion. Please do share the exact chapter and verse number from Siddhantaratnam.
His response
पाद १__ aprithaksiddhavisheshaN
२४,४२ सिद्धांत रत्न
Regarding 1.24: Sri Baladeva is merely giving the opinion of Vishishtadvaitins(tridaNDis) that Bhagavan’s body, attributes are related to his svarupa by apRthaksiddhi despite being different from His svarupa. He gives the Gaudiya Siddhanta from verse 1.27
Regarding Verse 1.42, the discussion is about the nature of Bhakti and how it is one in nature with Bhagavan(being the sAra of his hladini and Samvit shaktis) though appearing as separate from Him. This is a beautiful discussion and mirrors Sri Jīva’s discussion about Bhakti in Bhagavat Sandarbha.
Sridhar ji, I have often wondered where in shastra, the word ‘aprthak siddhi’ comes? Do the Sri Vaishnavas offer any shastra pramana for it?
In contrast, the word acintya comes in many places, including Mahabharata – acintya khalu ye bhavah na tan tarken sadhayet (Bhisma parva 5.12), and also SB 3.33.3 : atmesaro’tarkya sahasrasakti (SB 3.3.33), and in the Visnu purana (1.19.67-68) where sakti is stated beyond speech and mind, which is acintya.
And in the scriptures, reality is described with both bheda and abheda in many places. Sri Jiva Goswami does not accept Visista Advaita, nor Madhva’s dvaita, nor any other system. He is categorical – He only accepts acintya bheda-abheda.
It is mystifying to me that people are out to prove he accepts Visista-Advaita. A real head scratcher.
Here is his categorical rejection of other systems, and acceptance of acintya bheda-abheda:
tatra bādara-paurāṇika-śaivānāṁ mate bhedābhedau, bhāskara-mate ca | māyāvādināṁ tatra bhedāṁśo vyāvahārika eva prātītiko vā | gautama-kaṇāda-jaimini-kapila-patañjali-mate tu bheda eva | śrī-rāmānuja-madhvācārya-mate cety api sārvatrikī prasiddhiḥ | sva-mate tv acintya-bhedābhedāv evācintya-śaktimayatvād iti |
Also Kaivalya Upanishad(21):
apani-pado ‘ham acintya-saktih
As regards, Aprthak siddhi, Sri Ramanuja seems to have coined this term drawing from shrutis like “yasya prithvi shariram” which he treats as gataka Shruti which resolved the contradiction between bheda and abheda shrutis.
That is not direct evidence. I am skeptical of this aprthak siddhi.
Here’s another one- śaktayaḥ sarva-bhāvānām acintya-jñāna-gocarāḥ
yato’to brahmaṇas tās tu sargādyā bhāva-śaktayaḥ
bhavanti tapasāṁ śreṣṭha pāvakasya yathoṣṇatā
Bhagavat Sandarbha Anuccheda 16 is instructive in this regard.
I think what people dont get about acintya bheda abheda is that it is a sambandha of its own type. It cannot be explained by some other type of sambandha – like adhara-adheya etc. Bheda and abheda both apply simultaneously, and this is acintya, that means known only through shastra. If you try to impose bheda alone, as our friend Gaurav wants to do, abheda becomes rejected. And vice versa.
This is how reality is according to the scriptures.
In my view Acintya bhedabheda is not “simultaneous inconceivable difference and identity” but actually:
“simultaneous inconceivable(but shAstragamya) difference due to inability to prove absolute identity and identity due to inability to prove absolute difference between the swarupa and it’s shaktis”
It is cited by Babaji at the end of his commentary to Anuccheda 35. It is also cited by Sri Baladeva in Govinda bhashya to justify why faults/defects of prakriti donot imply faults in Brahman despite Maya being shakti of Brahman. The shaktis remain tat-tat sthāniya.
What is cited?
सविशेषणे हि विधि निषेधौ विशेषणमुपसंक्रामत: सति विशेष्ये बाधे
….this statement
Ok
Since it’s used for both shakti(by Baladeva) and upadhi(by Babaji in Anuccheda 35 to Paramatma sandarbha), it must be for all modifiers
I just checked and it is indeed interesting to see this nyaya. The word ‘visesana’ carries at least two meanings as we have seen in this thread. I assume this principle applies to the meaning provided by Gaurav. But for me, the argument that something is upadhi and not visesana is more powerful because a) prakrti is explicitly mentioned in the scriptures as being an upadhi, and b) prakrti is external to Bhagavan, and not a part of His svarupa. Different logic can be used to support the same conclusion.
Lastly could you please quote some statements from shastra that talk of prakriti being an upAdhi of Paramatma? That would be helpful. Thanks.
Indeed. Here is one from Anuccheda 5 of the Bhagavat Sandarbha:
virāḍ hiraṇya-garbhaś ca kāraṇaṁ cety upādhayaḥ
īśasya yat tribhir hīnaḥ turīyaṁ tat padaṁ viduḥ
Virāṭ , hiṛaṇyagarbha and kāraṇa are the three limiting adjuncts ( upādhis ) of God in His capacity as the Supreme Immanent, but He who is free from these is called Turīya, the fourth dimension, or in other words, the Supreme Transcendence.
Sri Babaji writes in his commentary:
“Virāṭ is the gross upādhi , hiraṇyagarbha the subtle upādhi , and kāraṇa is māyā (the causal upādhi ). These three restrictions apply only to the Puruṣa manifestations, which are known as Kṣīrodakaśāyī, Garbhodakaśāyī and Kāraṇodakaśāyī Viṣṇus, respectively. But Bhagavān, replete with six opulences, is beyond these three upādhis .”
Here, the word upadhi can be understood as: kāryānanvayitve sati kāryakāle vartamānatve sati vyāvartakatvam – That which is not part of the object, is always present when the object is present, and distinguishes the object from others.
There are numerous verses that exclude maya from Bhagavan’s (hence Paramatma’s) svarupa. So the upadhis can never condition Paramatma, which is why Sri Jiva calls these upadhis as merely figurative (see Anuccheda 1.3 of Paramatma Sandarbha). And in Annucheda 80 of Paramatma Sandarbha:
“A doubt is raised: If there is no transformation [in the form of the universe] without Paramātmā, then how can Paramātmā, having the limiting adjunct [of the universe] be established as free from all such adjuncts ( nirupādhi )? ”
The response is,
“There is no plurality ( nānātva ) at all of the Absolute Truth ( satyasya ), namely, Paramātmā. If one thinks of Him as diverse, then he is devoid of authentic knowing ( avidvān ), because His plurality, characterized by being with or without adjuncts ( upādhis ), is like the distinction between the space enclosed within a pot ( ghaṭa-ākāśa ) and all-pervading space ( mahā-ākāśa ), between the light in one’s courtyard and that pervading the world, and between the air ( vāyu ) outside and inside the body.”
About the yasya prthva sariram etc., consider Anuchheda 58 where he even cites Sri Ramanujacarya:
“In this way, the universe was described as a form of Bhagavān in these verses ( bhagavato rūpam , SB 3.26.52 , Anuccheda 56), which would seemingly imply, as previously established, that the world is to be considered non-material [like Him]. To refute such an argument, Śrī Śuka said:
These two forms of Bhagavān, which I have described to you, are a creation of māyā , so the wise ( vipaścitaḥ ) accept neither of them [as suitable for worship]. ( SB 2.10.35 ).
The pronoun amunī means these two ( amū ), that is, what I have described to you as the individual and collective bodies, called gross and subtle, synonymous with Virāṭ and Hiraṇyagarbha, which constitute the universe and are superimposed onto Bhagavān ( bhagavaty āropite ) for the sake of worship. The wise do not accept these two, that is, they do not worship them as the Reality. As what then [do the wise consider them]? Only as external loci of Bhagavān’s presence. This is stated in Viṣṇu Purāṇa :
All this that is seen is Your coagulated form, You who are conscious by nature. Due to mistaken understanding, the non- yogīs see You in the form of the universe. ( VP 1.4.39 )
This verse should be understood as follows: “They consider this coagulated universe to be Your form due to mistaken understanding.”
There is also a Śruti to this effect: “That which people worship is not Bhagavān” ( Kena 1.4 ). Śrī Rāmānujācārya’s comment on this is, “The universe that living beings worship is not Brahman.”
Everyone is forced to accept bheda and abheda, because that is the nature of reality – they may not call it that, but it is how it is. In places, the world is called His body, in other places, it is denied to be His body as you see above. The first verse of the Bhagavata itself contains this bheda and abheda. It starts by saying that this world has come from Him. Then it ends by saying that all maya is excluded from His own abode or dhama. Bheda and abheda all over the place.
Once you learn from the master, Sri Jiva Goswami himself, then you have to be blind not to see it!
Note that all this was for the sake of argument only. From Sri Jiva’s point of view, there are many saktis, there is one saktiman, and their sambandha is acintya bheda abheda. Here acintya means ‘forget your dry tarka, this is only known from sastra’. With acintya bheda-abheda, everything can be accommodated and reconciled. This is his genius.
Moreover in case of Gaudiyas, yasya prithvi shariram is a confirmation of Paramatma being the sole ‘aikya-buddhyālambana-rupa’ instead of solely apRthaksiddhi as shown in Anuccheda 65 of Paramatma sandarbha.