Given the popularity of Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism these days, there is much use of the term ‘acintya bheda-abheda’. I am not sure if the popular descriptions of this term are accurate. I therefore decided to collect the precise language that Śrī Jīva uses to justify the use of acintya bheda-abheda below along with my translations.
The term ‘acintya bheda abheda’ is explicitly mentioned by Śrī Jīva Goswami in his Sarva-samvādinī commentary on the Paramātmā Sandarbha.
apare tu, tarkāpratiṣṭhānāt [ve.sū. 2.1.11] iti nyāyena bhede’py abhede’pi nirmaryāda-doṣa-santati-darśanena bhinnatayā cintayitum aśakyatvād abhedaṁ sādhayantas tadvad abhinnatayāpi cintayitum aśakyatvād bhedam api sādhayanto’cintya-bhedābheda-vādaṁ svīkurvanti |
Others accept acintya bhedābheda vāda on the basis of tarkāpratiṣṭhānāt. They recognize that accepting bheda or abheda, each, gives rise to the fault of being devoid of conformity with śruti. [They accept acintya bhedābheda vāda realizing the futility of] seeking abheda because of the impossibility of conceiving bheda, [and] similarly seeking bheda because of the impossibility of conceiving abheda.
This mirrors Śrīdhar swami’s commentary that Śrī Jīva Goswami has cited in the Bhagavat Sandarbha Anuccheda 16.2:
yad vā, acintyā bhinnābhinnatvādi-vikalpaiś cintayitum aśakyāḥ, kevalam arthāpatti-jñāna-gocarāḥ santi
Alternatively, the meaning of acintyā is that the śakti of objects cannot be thought of in terms of oneness with (abhinnatva i.e. abheda), or difference from (bhinnatva i.e. bheda), them, but understood only by presumption ( arthāpatti ).
We see the same language in the following passage in in his Sarva-samvādinī commentary on the Bhagavad Sandarbha, where we see an additional important concept:
tasmāt svarūpād abhinnatvena cintayitum aśakyatvād bhedaḥ | bhinnatvena cintayitum aśakyatvād abhedaś ca pratīyate iti śakti-śaktimator bhedābhedāv evāṅgīkṛtau | tau cācintyau iti ||
Therefore, because it is impossible to think of the śakti as being non-different from the svarūpa, bheda is apparent. And. because it is impossible to think of the śakti as different from the svarūpa, abheda is apparent. As such, bheda and abheda alone must be accepted between the śakti and the śaktimān. And this bheda and abheda is acintya (known through śāstra alone).
The main thing to take away is as follows.
In the term ‘acintya bheda abheda’ –
bheda is the denial of abheda,
abheda is the denial of bheda,
– between śaktimān and śakti.
The word ‘acintya’ indicates that all this is known only from śāstra.
Summary
In the term, ‘acintya bheda-abheda-vāda’:
1. the word ‘bheda’ is a denial of ‘abheda’ between śaktimān and śakti.
2. the word ‘abheda’ is a denial of ‘bheda’ between śaktimān and śakti.
3. These denials ensure that statements of śruti that propound bheda are not rejected, and statements of śruti that propound abheda are also not rejected.
4. Point 3 implies the word ‘acintya’, meaning denial of bheda and the denial of abheda is known only from śāstra.
I think that one difference between acintya bheda-abheda and svabhavika bheda-abheda may be as follows:
In Svabhavika bheda-abheda, I assume both bheda and abheda are accepted. This leads to the criticism that bheda and abheda cannot exist in the same locus.
In acintya bheda abheda, bheda and abheda are each denied. This may avoid the defect of bheda and abheda in the same locus.
The denial brings to my mind the Advaitin denial of ‘jada’ and ‘duhkha’ in Brahman. They dont say what it is, they say what it is not.
Another pramana that can be added is Ahirbudhnya samhita(3.2-3)(of Pancharatra):
शक्तयः सर्वभावानामचिन्त्या अपृथक्स्थिता।
स्वरूपे नैव दृश्यन्ते दृश्यन्ते कार्यतस्तु ताः ॥
सूक्ष्मावस्था हि सा तेषां सर्वभावानुगामिनी ।
इदंतया विधातुं सा न निषेद्धुं च शक्यते ॥
Could you translate this? It seems to convey a similar instruction as Vishnu Purana verse.
The saktis of all objects are acintyA, not situated separately. They are not seen in the svarupa, but seen from their effects.
That sakti is the subtle state of all objects, and follows all objects. She cannot be designated in this [specific] way, nor can she be denied.
Radhe Radhe
What does सामान्याधिकरण mean and how is it understood in Gaudiya philosophy vis-a-vis the Shankara and Ramanuja philosophies? Is Samanyadhikarana acceptable to Sri Jiva with respect to Shaktis and Shaktiman?
DhanyavādaH
It means referring to the same vastu or object. tat-tvam asi – tat and tvam both refer to Brahman.
We dont have samanyadhikarana alone, as that would be only abheda. We have neither abheda nor bheda. If you say samanyadhikarana, then sruti statements of bheda will become rejected and vice versa
Thank you.
In Sarvasamvadini(to Bhagavat sandarbha) regarding discussion of sadeva somyedam agra asit and ekameva advitiyam, this was said:
“evaṁ jagad-upādānatvādi-vākyaṁ jagaj-jīva-tādātmya-vākyaṁ ca | atra nirviśeṣatve—sad eva somyedaṁ [chā.u. 6.2.1] ity upakrama-virodhaḥ | tad-avirodhas tu sad-idamor iva tayos tādātmyenaiva sāmānādhikaraṇād bhavati | tathā ca, sa-viśeṣatve eva sāmānādhikaraṇam | tathāgre paramātma-sandarbhākhye tṛtīya-sandarbhe vakṣyāmaḥ |
sad evedam ity upakrama-virodhād eva ca nirupādhivat pratīyamāne, ekam evādvitīyaṁ brahma [chā.u. 6.2.2] ity atrāpi nedaṁ-śabda-vācyasyābhāvaṁ bodhayati | kiṁ tarhi idaṁ-śabda-vācyasyāpi tac-chaktitvam eva bodhayati | tatraikam ity anena jagad-upādānasya brahmaṇaḥ ekatvam eva, na tu paramāṇuvad bāhulyam |”
It seems to say that there is samanadhikaranya between “sat”(Brahman) and idam(jagat-jiva) only by tādātmya. And in the second paragraph, “idam” shabda is declared to be His Shakti.
Is this a different application of samanadhikaranya?
Samanadhikaranya simply means that different words denote the same thing. Now, the Advaitins state that when tat and tvam are equated, this means nirvesasa Brahman is equated, because the two words denote the same thing. But there is disagreement here. Sri Ramanuja states that words denote attributes, and attributes are equated in a sentence to denote that the object possessing those attributes is one.
I provide a quick translation of what you posted (can be improved but I dont have the time for it) —
In the same manner, the vakya stating [Brahman as the] world’s upadana karana, and the tadatmya of the jagat and jiva with Brahman [convey that Brahman is savivesa – with attributes]. If these statements are considered to indicate nirvisesa Brahman, then there is a contradiction of the opening statement, ‘sad eva somyedam’. In contrast, Avirodha, or non-contradiction is by tadatmya [non-distinction that tolerates distinction] between the words ‘sat’ and ‘idam’, and this occurs because of samanadhikarana [i.e. because they are equated in the statement sad eva idam..]. Furthermore, samanadhikaranam is [done] only when Brahman is sa-visesa. This will be stated in the commentary to Paramatma Sandarbha.
Given that [in the nirvisesa intepretation], the opening statement ‘sad eva idam’ is opposed, even the words “ekam eva advitiyam Brahma’ in which [Brahman] appears to be as if without upadhis, do not indicate an absence of the entities of which the word ‘idam’ is a referrent. What do they indicate then? They make it known that the referents of the word ‘idam’ are also His sakti only. The word ‘ekam’ indicates that Brahman, the upadana cause of the world, is one only, and not many like the paramanus.