The Meaning Of Anadi Part Two
In the Paramätma-Sandarbha (47), Çréla Jéva Gosvämé writes:
tadevamananta eva jéväkhyäs taöasthäù çaktayaù. tatra täsäà vargadvayam. eko vargo'näditaù eva bhagavadunmukhaù, anyas tvanäditaù eva bhagavat-paräìmukhaù-svabhävatastadéya jïäna-bhävät tadéya-jïänäbhäväcca.
In this way the marginal energies called jévas are unlimited. They have two classes. One class is devoted to the Lord beginninglessly (anädi) and the other is not devoted to the Lord beginninglessly (anädi). This is because the former class of jévas naturally have knowledge of the Lord and the second class of jévas naturally do not have knowledge of the Lord.
Here it is explicit that the bondage of the living entity has no beginning or it is causeless, anädi. The word anädi has no other meaning here. Any other meaning will not make sense. Even the rendering "since time immemorial" does not fit here for one would have to apply the same meaning to nitya-mukta devotees as well, because anädi has been used to describe both nitya-baddha and nitya-mukta in the same Text. If the literal meaning of time immemorial is used then the anadi nitya-muktas would not be eternally liberated but would have been liberated since time immemorial, which implies that once, somewhere in the remote past, they were not liberated. That renders the word nitya-mukta worthless. The reconciliation is to accept that Çréla Prabhupada used "since time immemorial" in the sense that the nitya-baddhas are beginninglessly bound and the nitya-muktas are beginninglessly liberated. This conclusion stands shoulder to shoulder with all our predecessor äcäryas and the other Vaisnava sampradäyas as well.
Another important point is that the bound jévas are in ignorance of the Lord naturally, svabhävata. That means it was not given to them by somebody. Svabhäva means one's own nature or existence, something that is not acquired from anywhere. That further confirms that their ignorance has no beginning. On the other hand, the nitya-muktas have natural knowledge of the Lord, which also confirms that their existence in Vaikuëöha has no beginning.
Further, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé writes:
tatra prathamo'ntaraìgäçakti-viläsänugåhéto nitya-bhagavat-parikara-rüpo garuòädikaù yathoktaà pädmottarakhaëòe -- 'tripädvibhuterlokästu' ityädau bhagavat-sandarbhodähåte (78 Anuccheda), asya ca taöasthatvaà jévatva-prasiddheréçvaratvakoöävapraveçät. Aparastu tat-paräì-mukhatva-doñena labdha-chidrayä mäyayäparibhütaù-saàsäré. Yathoktaà Haàsa-guhya stave (Bhäg.6.4.25) sarvaà pumän veda guëänçca tajjïo, na veda sarvajïamanntam éde; ekädaçe ca (11.2.37) bhayaà dvitéyäbhiniveçataù syät.
Out of the two classes, the first is blessed by the manifestation of the internal potency and are the eternal associate of the Lord, such as Garuòa, as described in the Uttarakhaëòa of the Padma Puräëa, which was cited in Bhagavat Sandarbha (78). This energy of the Lord is marginal because of having the quality of jéva and not being able to be counted in the category of the Lord.
The second class of jévas are bound in the world because of being over-powered by Mäyä, who finds the defect of non devotion in the jéva, as stated in the Haàsa-guhya prayers (6.4.25), "The living entity can know everything including the modes of nature, but he does not know the all-knowing person." And in the Eleventh Canto (Bhäg.11.2.37):
bhayaà dvitéyäbhiniveçataù syäd
éçäd apetasya viparyayo 'småtiù
tan-mäyayäto budha äbhajet taà
bhaktyaikayeçaà guru-devatätmä
Fear arises when a living entity misidentifies himself as the material body because of absorption in the external, illusory energy of the Lord. When the living entity thus turns away from the Supreme Lord, he also forgets his own constitutional position as a servant of the Lord. This bewildering, fearful condition is effected by the potency for illusion, called mäyä. Therefore, an intelligent person should engage unflinchingly in the unalloyed devotional service of the Lord, under the guidance of a bona fide spiritual master, whom he should accept as his worshipable deity and as his very life and soul.
The important point to be noted here is that first type of jévas are the eternal associates of the Lord, nitya-bhagavat parikara-rüpa, such as Garuòa. That means they can never fall down into the material world. Otherwise the word nitya will be meaningless.
Some people say that the word anädi, (beginningless) simply means a long time. To support their argument they say that the words labdha-chidrayä, "one who finds fault with the jéva" indicate a sequence. The jéva first becomes a non devotee, and Mäyä seeing this defect in the jéva covers him. Therefore there is a beginning of this conditioning, but because this conditioning occured before his entry into the material world therefore it is called anädi. They say that this is supported by the verse cited from the Çrémad Bhägavatam (11.2.37).
This is not a well thought-out argument. There is no mäyä in Vaikuëöha, so how is it that the jéva becomes a nondevotee before coming under the clutch of mäyä? Not being a devotee and being in mäyä are two sides of the same coin, so there is no question of being a nondevotee without contacting mäyä. If someone argues that impersonalists in the brahmajyoti are nondevotees and they have no contact with mäyä, that argument is not applicable here because the nitya-muktas mentioned here are in Vaikuëöha proper.
Çréla Jéva Gosvämé clearly says that the nitya-mukta is under the blessings of the internal potency, antaraìga-çakti-viläsänugåhéta. And in Bhagavad-gétä, Kåñëa assures us that the devotees are under the protection of His divine energy, daivéà prakåtià äçritaù. Therefore, what will bring the nitya-mukta to the material world? Whatever may be the reason, it has to be more powerful than the internal potency to snatch the devotee away from her protection; but of all the potencies of the Lord, His internal potency is the most powerful. Thus there is nothing which can pull the jéva down. And, again, what will be the meaning of the word nitya in that case?
Moreover, if the "since time immemorial" meaning of anädi is applied to the anädi non devotee jévas then the same meaning must be applied to the other class of jévas who are anädi devotee jévas. That will mean the eternal associates of the Lord are not actually eternal but they are associates for long time. That means that they are not actually eternally liberated but were conditioned at one time and became devotees at a particular time. But why should Çréla Jéva Gosvämé use the word anädi in this sense. Sanskrit does not lack words for expressing these alternative meanings and Çréla Jéva Gosvämé was one of the greatest scholar this earth has seen. He even wrote a book on Sanskrit grammar. He surely knew the value of precise usage, because Rupa and Sanatana Gosvami's engaged him as the editor of their books. He did not lack knowledge of alternative words to express his intention, but he chose anädi, because it is the precise word to convey his intention. If he has to convey conditioned for a long time or liberated for long time he could have used cira-baddha instead of anädi. .
If someone insists on the meaning of anädi as beginningless when used for the devotee jévas in Vaikuëöha and its meaning as "since time immemorial" in a literal sense for the conditioned souls, then he has to give some reasoning for the word being applied in two different ways in the same sentence. Otherwise it has the defect of ardha-kukkuöé-nyäya, the logic of half a hen.
Srila Jiva Gosvami supports his statement that the first class of jévas are under the blessings of the Lord's internal potency and are His eternal associates by referring to verses from the Padma Purana. These are the same two verses he cited in Bhagavat Sandarbha (78), while explaining that the Lord's associates are not material and that they are within the essential nature of the Lord, svarüpabhüta.
In Text 75,76, and 77 of Bhagavat Sandarbha, he described that the Lord's associates have transcendental bodies, that they are just like the Lord in qualities and they are beyond the influence of time. Then in Text 78 he quotes four verses (Padma Puräëa, Uttarakhaëòa 228.1.4) to further show the characteristics of Vaikuëöha residents:
tripädvibhuter lokästu asaìkhyäù parikérttitäù
çuddha-sattva-mayä sarve brahmänanda-sukhähvayäù
sarve nityä nirvikärä heya-räga-vivarjjitäù
sarve hiraëmayäù çuddhäù koöi-süryya-sama-prabhäù
sarve vedamayä divyäù käma-krodhädi-varjitäù
näräyaëa-padämbhoja-bhaktyeka-rasa-sevinaù
nirantaraà sämagäna-paripürëa-sukhaà-çritäù
sarve païcopaniñat-svarüpä veda-varccasaù
There are unlimited living beings in the tripädavibhüti, the spiritual sky. They are all çuddha-sattva in nature and are called brahmänanda-sukha. They are all pure, golden, eternal, immutable, devoid of the lower modes, and brilliant like millions of suns. They are all divine, full of Vedic knowledge, free from qualities of lust and greed. They only taste the nectar of unalloyed devotional service unto the lotus feet of Lord Näräyaëa. They are always filled with the bliss of the sweet chanting of the Sämaveda and are effulgent with the Vedic knowledge and are the personification of the fivefold worship of the Lord.
These verses lucidly explain the nature of the eternal associates of the Lord. They have no contact with mäyä, they are full of bliss and knowledge and are fully absorbed in the service of the Lord. It will be offensive to think that they will abandon the wonderful taste of pure devotional service to enjoy the rotten material world.
The meaning of the words tat-paräìmukhatva doñeëa labdha-chidrayä mäyayä paribhütaù (Paramätma Sandarbha, Text 47, cited above) is that the jéva is covered by mäyä who sees the defect of non devotion in the jéva. It is important to understand that there is no sequence intended here. Just as it is said that jévas spring from the Lord, but the jéva and Lord both are aja, unborn, nitya, eternal. How can the jéva spring from the Lord, because that would imply that jévas did not exist once upon a time? The point is that they co-exist as energy and the energetic.
Similarly the non devotion of the jéva and Mäyä's covering him is all simultaneous. When expressed in words it appears there is a sequence of events. That is the limitation of language in trying to express a reality that in fact has no relation of cause and effect. Sequence is a limitation of language, because words must be spoken or written in some sequence. Thus language has the influence of material time, which has the divisions of past, present and future. As a result language causes concurrent events to appear linear. This was explained in the second chapter, citing Bhaktivinoda Öhäkura.
In logic, beginningless objects cannot have a relation of cause and effect, they must co-exist. "But," someone argues, "what about the Lord, isn't He the source of everything including the eternal entities, janmädy asya yataù?" The meaning of the Lord being source of everything is that everything rests on Him and is dependent on Him, but He is svarät. For example, we say that Lord Balaräma is the first expansion of Kåñëa, does it mean that Balaräma did not exist at one time? No one will accept that. It is the same with the jéva-çakti of the Lord. This is transcendental to mundane logic hence inconceivable to the mundane mind, but we accept it because the sastra says it is so.
When we say the Lord is the source of everything it is not meant in a cause/effect sense; it is only to show that Lord Kåñëa is the only svarät being and everyone else is dependent. The cause and effect relation or sequence is given for two reasons. Language obliges us to speak sequentially--it also makes it easier for us to understand. In this regard Çréla Prabhupäda writes in the Introduction to Caitanya-caritämåta:
Rädhä and Kåñëa are one, and when Kåñëa desires to enjoy pleasure, He manifests Himself as Rädhäräné. The spiritual exchange of love between Rädhä and Kåñëa is the actual display of the internal pleasure potency of Kåñëa. Although we speak of "when" Kåñëa desires, just when He did desire we cannot say. We only speak in this way because in conditional life we take it that everything has a happening; however, in the absolute or spiritual life there is neither beginning nor end. Yet in order to understand that Rädhä and Kåñëa are one and that They also become divided, the question "when?" automatically comes to mind. When Kåñëa desired to enjoy His pleasure potency, He manifested Himself in the seperate form of Rädhäräëé, and when He wanted to understand Himself through the agency of Rädhä, He united with Rädhäräëé, and that unification is called Lord Caitanya.
Similarly there is no sequence intended by Çréla Jéva Gosvämé when he is explaining the conditioned state of the jéva. He is only explaining the reason for his conditioning. That reason itself is beginningless. In the same way the bhayaà dvitéyäbhiniveçataù verse is not explaining a sequence of conditioning, although that is how it appears from the translation. The meaning of the sentence constructed from just the word meaning is: "For one who has turned away (apetasya) from the Supreme Lord (éçät) fear (bhayam) will arise (syät) because of absorption (abhiniveçataù) in something seeming to be other than the Lord (dvitéya)." The turning away is anädi as Çréla Jéva Gosvämé stated above, therefore the fear is also anädi. The verse simply states that the cause of fear is one's non devotion and absorption in matter. No sequence is intended. All these "reasons" co-exist without any beginning. There is no other way of saying it. We say sunlight comes from the sun, but actually they co-exist.
In this verse the ktvä suffix is not used in the words Éçädapetasya or dvétéyäbhiniveçataù. If the ktvä suffix was used it would have implied a sequence of events, but the tasil suffix has been used on both of these words to indicate a cause-effect relation, but not a sequence.
One may argue that in any cause-effect relation one must assume a sequence, because cause precedes effect. In terms of our ordinary experience this is a fact, but when we speak of beginningless events, logically they must be concurrent; and therefore no cause-effect relationship can exists between beginningless events. They simply are. Out of these beginningless events some can end--karma, for example--and some do not--the existence of the Lord's energies and His nitya-parsada, His eternal associates.
Hence the real intention of such verses is to convey that although conditioning of the jiva is anädi, it has an end. And the process to bring it to an end is given in the second half of 11.2.37, budha äbhajet taà bhaktyaikyeçam guru devatätmä, "Therefore, an intelligent person should engage unflinchingly in the unalloyed devotional service of the Lord under the guidance of a bonafide spiritual master, whom he should accept as his worshipable diety and as his very life and soul."
The concept of anädi is difficult to grasp because we have no experience in everyday life of beginningless objects having no sequential cause/effect relation, but we do have the experience of temporary objects having such a cause-effect relation. Because of such experience the sastric statements are in a cause/effect manner. Just as it is said that Lord Kåñëa appeared as Lord Caitanya to taste the mood of Çrématé Rädhä. Does it mean that once upon a time there was no Lord Caitanya? Or when Lord Kåñëa appeared as Caitanya then there was no Kåñëa? Certainly not. They exist eternally, but to make us understand the purpose of their appearance such statements are made. Language, which is linear, puts constraints on us when we attempt to express ideas that are co-existent.
While commenting on 7.5.11 of Çrémad Bhägavatam, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé writes parä iti puàsäm bhayam dvitéyäbhiniveçataù syät ityädi-rétyänädita eva bhagavad-vimukhänäm jévänäm, "The living entities are not devoted to the Lord, which has no beginning, as is explained in verses such as bhayam dvétiyäbhiniveçataù." Here he confirms the meaning of bhayam dvétiyäbhiniveçataù verse as describing the beginningless state of material conditioning. This is also the meaning of the verse 7.5.11 on which he is commenting.
In Préti Sandarbha (1) Çréla Jéva Gosvämé again describes the bondage of the jéva as anädi, "because of ignorance of the Lord":
atha jévaçca tadéyo'pi tajjïäna-saàsargäbhäva-yuktatvena tan-mäyä-paräbhütaù sannätma-svarüpa-jïäna-lopän-mäyä-kalpitopädhyäveçäccanädi-saàsära-duùkhena sambadhyate iti paramätma-sandarbhädäveva nirüpitam asti.
Although the jéva is part of the Lord, he is devoid of the knowledge about Him and this deficiency has no beginning. Because of this he is covered by Mäyä. This being so, he is united with the beginningless material miseries because knowledge of his svarüpa is covered and he is absorbed into the upädhis created by mäyä. This was explained in the Paramätma Sandarbha.
Here Çréla Jéva Gosvämé uses the adjective anädi for the material miseries and saàsargäbhäva for the deficiency in knowledge. Saàsargabhäva is a philosophical term which is commonly used as an explanation of the word anädi in nyäya çästra. Lest anyone doubt the validity of nyäya, Çréla Prabhupäda has this to say about the nyäya prasthäna (Cc. Adi 7.106, purport):
As already explained, there are three prasthänas on the path of advancement in spiritual knowledge--namely, nyäya-prasthäna (Vedänta philosophy), çruti-prasthäna (the Upaniñads and Vedic mantras) and småti-prasthäna (the Bhagavad-gétä, Mahäbhärata, Puräëas, etc.). If one believes in the Vedic literatures, one must accept all the Vedic literatures recognized by the great äcäryas, but these Mäyävädé philosophers accept only the nyäya-prasthäna and çruti-prasthäna, rejecting the småti-prasthäna.
We must not reject any of the three prasthänas, or processes for understanding, or we will be in the same league as the Mäyävädé philosophers, who are condemned in this same purport as victims of half a hen logic.
Çréla Jéva Gosvämé has used the nyäya term saàsargäbhäva, which is commonly used as an equivalent for anädi. This is significant because in nyaya, as will be shown, the meaning of the term saàsargäbhäva is very precise. The implication is obvious: If we can understand saàsargäbhäva, then we have a clear and incontestible idea of the word anädi as Çréla Jéva Gosvämé intends it.
In nyäya çästra there are two types of abhäva, or non-existence, anyonyäbhäva and saàsargäbhäva. Anyonyäbhäva means that one object is different from another. A pen is not paper and vice versa. Saàsargäbhäva is of three types--pradhvaàsäbhäva, atyantäbhäva, and prägabhäva. Pradhvaàsäbhäva and atyantäbhäva cannot be the meaning of saàsargäbhäva in the present context. Pradhvaàsäbhäva means post non-existence. It refers to something that has a beginning, but no end. Before it is made a sweetball does not exists. When it is made it comes into existence. When somebody eats the sweetball it again becomes non-existent. This non-existence, called ananta in philosophy, has a beginning but no end. This meaning of samsargarabhava cannot be the equivalent of anadi because karma, which is anadi, has no beginning but has an end.
The second meaning of samsargabhava, atyantäbhäva, means eternal non-existence. The non-existence which neither has a beginning nor end is called atyantäbhäva. This is the definition of the word nitya, eternal. For example there is no mango tree in the ocean, there was never a time that one existed in past, nor one expects it to grow there in future. Therefore the non-existence of a mango tree in the ocean has no beginning and it will never come to an end. It is nitya.
The final meaning of samsargabhava, prägabhäva, means pre non-existence. It refers to the non-existence of an entity before it is created. For example, before one makes a sweet ball there was non existence of the sweet ball. Since when did this non-existence begin? The answer is anädi, it has no beginning. Before someone made the sweetball it never existed. This anadi state of non existence has no beginning; however its non-existence comes to an end when the sweetball is created. This is the technical definition of anädi in Vedic philosophy. Therefore Çréla Jéva Gosvämé has used the word saàsargärabhäva denoting pre non-existence in place of anädi. If anyone doubts the true meaning of anadi, his using samsargarabhava, Srila Jiva Gosvami has left no room for doubt.
The conclusion is that there are four types of activities or objects, nitya, anitya, anädi, and ananta. Nitya are those which have no beginning and no end, like Vaikuëöha planets or Lord Kåñëa; anitya are those which have a beginning and end, such as the body; anädi are those which have no beginning but have an end, such as the material conditioning of the jéva; and ananta are those which have a beginning but no end, such as the liberation of a jéva from the material world. The liberation of a conditioned soul has a beginning but it never comes to an end. The liberation of the nitya-muktas, on the other hand, has no beginning and no end. Hence they are nitya-muktas. When the jéva is called nitya-baddha it actually means anädi baddha, otherwise he could never be able to achieve liberation. Philosophers sometimes use the word nitya for anädi because people are more familiar with it.
A mathematical representation of these four types of entities will look like this:
The diagrams will go in this space.
All objects, qualities, and activities can be grouped into these four classes and this is how Vedic philosophers have used these words. Thus in Priti Sandarbha Srila Jiva Gosvami has used samsargarabhava in place of anadi to describe the deficiency in knowledge of the conditoned soul. In the Paramätma Sandarbha (47) Srila Jiva Gosvami has also used anädi for the same deficiency of knowledge. This means that the meaning of anädi for him is exactly saàsargabhäva. Then, in the Bhakti Sandarbha he writes that this was explained in Paramätma Sandarbha, which clearly indicates that saàsargäbhäva is precisely what he meant by using anädi in the Paramätma Sandarbha. Therefore, because the author himself has given the meaning, no other meaning should be taken for anädi.
From this it is clear that Çréla Jéva Gosvämé takes the meaning of the word anädi as beginningless and thus the conditioned jévas have been conditioned without any beginning. He has repeated the same in Bhakti Sandarbha (1):
paramätma-vaibhava gaëane ca tat-taösthaçakti-rüpäëäm cidekarasänämapy anädi-paratattva-jïäna-saàsargäbhäva-mäyä-tad-vaimukhya-labdha-cchidrayä tanmäyayävåtäsva-svarüpajïänänäà tayaive sattva-rajas-tamomaye jaòe prädhäne racitätma-bhävänäà jévänäà saàsäraduùkhaà ca jïäpitam.
Here he has again used the word saàsargäbhäva and anädi as an adjective for the ignorance and non devotion of the jéva.
From the above evidence it is clear that the term anädi is taken literally by Çréla Jéva Gosvämé. His equating it with the word saàsargäbhäva, leaves no doubt as to his intention. Though it is inconceivable one can only conclude on the basis of this evidence that the conditioned existence of the nitya-baddha jéva is beginningless and therefore such souls could not have been in Vaikuntha prior to their conditioned existence. Furthermore, Srila Prabhupada, coming in line from Srila Jiva Gosvami and having studied the Sat Sandarbhas, could not have had any other meaning in mind when he translated anadi. If in saying "since time immemorial" he did not mean a time beyond memory, because such a time did not exists, then said it as part of his preaching strategy.