Reader Sridhar requested a translation of Śrī Jīva Goswami’s Sarva-samvādinī commentary on svābhāvika bheda-abheda-vāda, along with a translation of the late Śrī Ānanda Gopāla Vedānta-tirtha’s commentary on the Sarva-samvādinī. I present the translations below.

Before this section, Śrī Jīva Goswami has refuted aupcārika bheda-abheda-vāda. Now he refutes svābhāvika bheda-abheda-vāda.

Śrī Jīva writes:

११३।।”स्वाभाविक-भेदाभेदवादेSपि – ब्रह्मणः स्वत एव जीवभावाभ्युपगमाद्गुणवद्दोषाश्च स्वाभाविका भवेयुरिति निर्द्दोष-ब्रह्म-तादात्म्योपदेशो विरुद्ध एव।

Even in the case of svābhāvika bheda-abheda-vāda, because Brahman itself admits jīva-bhāva, the faults and good qualities [of the jīva] would become svābhāvika (natural) in Brahman. The [scriptural] teachings of tādātmya [of the jīva] with the faultless Brahman are opposed [to this].

Brahman is called ‘faultless’ in the scriptures. If Brahman is faultless, then the faults of the jīva cannot be natural or svābhāvika to it.

Śrī Ānanda Gopāla Vedānta-tirtha’s commentary is as follows:

स्वाभाविक-भेदाभेदवादं तु (श्रीनिम्बार्काचार्यस्य), तद् वादस्चेत्थम्-

On the other hand, svābhāvika bheda-abheda-vada (of Śrī Nimbārka) goes like this:

अंशो नाना व्यपदेशादन्यथाचापि दासकितवादित्वमधीयत एके’ (ब्र सू २/३/४२) (वे पा सौ) अंशांशिभावाज् जीव परमात्मनोर्भेदाभेदौ दर्शयति -’अंशः’ परमात्मनो जीवोंSशः ’ज्ञाज्ञौ द्वावजावीशा नीशौ’ इत्यादि भेदव्यपदेशात् ’तत्वमसि’ इत्यादि अभेदव्यपदेशाच्च।

[the jīva is] an aṁśa, because śruti uses the term ‘nānā’, i.e. ‘different’ [for the jīva and Paramātmā], and because it is also states differently (i.e. the term ‘non-different’ is also used for the jīva and Paramātmā); some others read [that Paramātmā alone is] a servant, a cheat and so on (2.3.42 Ve. Su.)

[The sūtra] demonstrates bheda and abheda between the jīva and Paramātmā because of their being aṁśa and aṁśi respectively. [The word] aṁśa [in the sūtra] means the jīva, who is the aṁśa of Paramātmā. Bheda is indicated (व्यपदेश) in śruti in statements like “the knower and the ignorant are both unborn, one is capable and the other is incapable” and abheda is indicated in statements like ‘tat tvam asi’.

Śrī Nimbārka’s argument of bheda-abheda can be supported by Vedānta sūtra 2.3.42 which teaches both bheda and abheda. I checked Śrī Śankara’s commentary, and he teaches the same principle that this sūtra teaches bheda and abheda. Bheda is taught by the word nānā which indicates that the jīva is distinct from Paramātmā. Abheda is taught by the word ‘anyathā’.

(वे कौ) किमयं जीवो ब्रह्मणो भिन्नः उताभिन्नः आहोस्वित् ब्रह्मणोंशेSतो भिन्नाभिन्नः? इतिसंशये – राज्ञः सकाशात् पुरुष इव परमात्मनः सकाशाज्जीवो भिन्नोSस्तु, अभेदवाक्यानां गौणत्वादज्ञसर्वज्ञयोरभेदासंभवाच्च। अथवा अभिन्न एवास्तु भेदश्रुतीनां गौणत्वात्। भेदाभेदयोरन्योSन्यविरुद्धत्वादभेदश्रुतीनां भेदश्रुतीनां वा अवश्यं गौणत्वमंगीकर्त्तव्यम् इति प्राप्तेSभिधीयते – नायं जीवः श्रीपुरुषोत्तमादत्यन्तभिन्नः नाप्यत्यन्ताभिन्नः किन्तु परमात्मनोंSशः ’अंशोह्येष परस्य’ इति श्रुतेः। अंशो हि शक्तिरुपो ग्राह्य ’परास्य शक्तिः’ ’जीवोSल्पशक्तिरस्वतन्त्रः’ इति श्रुतेः।

Does this jīva have bheda with Brahman or abheda with it, or is it that because of being an aṁśa of Brahman, it has both bheda and abheda? In response to this doubt- like an ordinary person compared to a king, let the jīva have bheda from Paramātmā, because the abheda vākyas are secondary, and because there cannot be abheda between the ignorant and the all-knowing. Or let there be abheda only, because the bheda śrutis are secondary. Because bheda and abheda are virodhis of (i.e. cannot co-exist with) each other, either the bheda śrutis or the abheda śrutis must necessarily be considered secondary. To this, it is stated: this jīva does not have complete bheda with Śrī Puruṣottama, and does not have complete abheda; rather, it is an aṁśa of Paramātmā. This is stated in śruti: [the jīva is] an aṁśa of this supreme”. The aṁśa is accepted as a śakti in the śruti: “the jīva is a limited śakti and not independent’.

Strictly speaking, the word ‘bhinna’ and ‘abhinna’ is the quality of having ‘bheda’ and ‘abheda’, and so the English translation ‘different’ and ‘non-different’ would have been appropriate. I translated these words as ‘having bheda’ and ‘having abheda’, which makes for awkward reading. As the whole discussion is about bheda and abheda, I wanted to leave them untranslated. Also, I am not sure what the letters Ve. Kau. at the beginning of the paragraph refer to here (but reader Sridhar clarified it in his comment below).

उभयविधवाक्यानां तुल्यबलत्वात् जीव परमात्मनोः स्वाभाविकौ भेदाभेदौ भवत इत्यर्थः इति संक्षेपः। एतदेव परिहरति- स्वाभाविक भेदाभेदवादेS पि ब्रह्मणः स्वत एव जीवभावाभ्युपगमात्, अत्र निर्दोष ब्रह्मतादात्म्योपदेशे जीवगत दोषा गुणाश्च ब्रह्मणि स्वाभाविका भवेयुरिति। तस्मात् स्वाभाविकभेदाभेदवादः शास्त्रविरुद्ध इति।

Briefly, the sense is that because both vākyas have equal strength [i.e. bheda and abheda vākyas indicated by the words नाना and अन्यथा in the sūtra], there is svābhāvika bheda and abheda between the jīva and Paramātmā. Śrī Jīva Goswami refutes precisely this view:

Even in the case of svābhāvika bheda-abheda-vāda, because Brahman itself admits jīva-bhāva, in the context of the scriptural teachings of tādātmya [of the jīva] with the faultless Brahman, the faults and good qualities of the jīva would become svābhāvika (natural) in Brahman. Therefore, svābhāvika bheda-abheda-vāda is opposed to scripture.

This critique is also present in Maharajji’s reply to a question on this topic which is quoted in Śrī Guru Darśanam:

“Similarly, when you say bhedābheda, then it is like Nṛsimha – one part is like a lion and the other is like a human being. Reality is not divided into two. Therefore it is qualified by the word svābhāvika or natural. But by calling it natural, the problem of the limitations of māyā being reflected in the Absolute is unavoidable.”