Abstract
I argue that Jīva Gosvāmin’s (c. 1517–1608 ad) concept of acintya and Thomas Aquinas’s (1225–1274 ad) concept of mystery are similar. To make this case, I examine how each of them characterizes the nature of unity and plurality within the being of God, which is the issue of relations within a single object. I examine contemporary translations of acintya as it is used by Jīva, and I argue that mystery is a best translation because it addresses the ontological and epistemological senses of the word. I examine contemporary accounts of mystery as it is used by Aquinas, arguing that they reflect Jīva’s use of the word acintya. This comparative study makes the case for similar approaches in Hindu and Christian scholasticism in regard to the use of reason to address the relational problem of simultaneous oneness and difference.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Unless otherwise stated, all translations of Sanskrit are my own.
Viśvanātha was a leading Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava thinker and interpreter of Jīva who wrote prolifically, including but not limited to a complete commentary on the Bhāgavata Purāṇa in which he detailed many of Jīva’s ideas and developed his own views. An extensive analysis of Viśvanātha’s dates and literary production is in Burton (2000: 2.1). For recent discussion of his aesthetics, see Buchta (2022); his psychology, see Chilcott (2015); and views on karma in the Bhagavad Gītā, see Theodor (2020: Chapter 6).
I thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out that oneness and difference does not necessarily lead to a contradiction.
This is a quotation from the Summa Theologicæ of Thomas Aquinas, ST 1.Q.40.A1.C, or the first part, question 40, article 1, reply to objection C. My translations are based on, and I follow the citation method of Aquinas Online (www.aquinas.cc). For discussion of this particular passage, cf. Thom, 2012: p. 131.
From Aquinas’s Expositio super librum Boethii De Trinitate, 3.4, quoted in Davies (1992a: p. 189).
References
Primary
Jīva Gosvāmin. (1981). Tattvasandarbha and Sarvasaṃvādinī of Jīva Gosvāmin. Edited by Haridāsaśāstrī. Vṛndāvana, Jilā Mathurā, Uttara Pradeśa: Srigadadhara Gaura Hari Press.
Jīva Gosvāmin. (2014). Bhagavat Sandarbha of Jīva Gosvāmin. Translated by S. N. Dasa. Vrindavan, India: Jiva Institute of Vaishnava Studies.
Jīva Gosvāmin. (2015). Tattva Sandarbha of Jīva Gosvāmin. Translated by S. N. Dasa. Althusried, Germany: Jiva Institute of Vaishnava Studies.
Jīva Gosvāmin. (2016). Paramātmasandarbha of Jīva Gosvāmin. Translated by S. N. Dasa. Vrindavan, India: Jiva Institute of Vaishnava Studies.
Kṛṣṇadāsa. (1999). Caitanya Caritāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja: A translation and commentary. Translated by Edward C. Dimock and Tony Kevin Stewart. Dept. of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University Press.
Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī. (Ed.). (1965). Śrīmad Bhāgavata Mahāpurāṇam. Contains Śrīdhara Svāmin’s Bhāvārthadīpikā, Śrī Vaṃśīdhara’s Bhāvārthadīpikāprakāśa, Śrī Rādhāramaṇadāsa Gosāmin’s Dīpinī, Śrīmad Vīrarāghava’s Bhāgavatacandrikā, Śrīmad Vijayadhvajatīrtha’s Padaratnāvalī, Śrīmad Jīva Gosvāmin’s Kramasaṃdarbha, Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravartin’s Sārārthadarśinī, Śrīmad Śukadeva’s Siddhāntapradīpa, Śrīmad Vallabhācarya’s Subodhinī, Śrī Puruṣottamacaraṇa Gosvāmin’s Subodhinīprakāśaḥ, Śrī Giridharalāla’s Bālaprabodhinī. Śrībhāgavata Vidyāpīṭha.
Śaṅkara. (2000). In Shastri, J. L. (Ed.), Brahmasūtra-Śāṅkarabhāṣyam: With the commentaries: Bhāṣyaratnaprabhā of Govindānanda, Bhāmatī of Vācaspatimiśra, Nyāyanirṇaya of Ānandagiri. Banarsidass.
Secondary
Borelli, J. (1978). Vijñānabhikṣu and the re-assertion of difference-in-identity Vedānta. Philosophy East and West, 28(4), 425–437.
Buchta, D. (2022). Fear and devotion in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Rasa theory. Journa of Dharma Studies., 5, 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42240-022-00120-x
Burton, A. (2000). Temples, texts and taxes: The Bhagavad Gītā and the politico-religious identity of the Caitanya Sect, an archival and textual investigation into the text and times of the Sārārtha-varṣiṇī commentary on the Bhagavad Gītā by Viśvanātha Cakravarti. Ph.D. Thesis. Australian National University.
Chilcott, T. (2015). Directly perceiving Kṛṣṇa: Accounting for perceptual experiences of deities within the framework of naturalism. Religion, 45/4, 532–52. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2015.1009863
Davies, B. (1992a). Aquinas’s Summa Theologiæ: Critical essays. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Davies, B. (1992b). The thought of Thomas Aquinas. Clarendon Press.
DimockJr, E. C. (1963). Doctrine and practice among the Vaiṣṇavas of Bengal. History of Religions, 3(1), 106–127.
Dimock, E.C. Jr. (1989). Līlā. History of Religions, 29(2), 159–173.
Dimock, E. C. (1991). On “Māyā”. The Journal of Religion, 71(4), 523–537.
Graheli, A. (2007). Narration and comprehension of paradox in Gauḍīya literature. Rivista Di Studi Sudasiatici, 2(1), 181–208.
Henninger, M. G. (1987). Aquinas on the ontological status of relations. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 25(4), 491–515.
Holdrege, B. (2015). Bhakti and embodiment: Fashioning divine bodies and devotional bodies in Kṛṣṇa Bhakti. Routledge.
Lonergan, B. J. F. (1997). The Lonergan reader (M. D. Morelli & E. A. Morelli, Eds). University of Toronto Press.
Neuner, J., & Dupuis, J. (Eds.). (1983). The Christian faith in the doctrinal documents of the Catholic church. Alba House.
Okita, K. (2014). Hindu theology in early modern South Asia: The rise of devotionalism and the politics of genealogy. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford University Press.
Potter, K. H. (1970). Buddhist philosophy from 100 to 350 A.D. Motilal Banarsidass.
Rahner, K. (1978). Thomas Aquinas on the incomprehensibility of God. The Journal of Religion, 58, S107–S125.
Schweig, G. M. (2002). Humility and passion: A Caitanyite Vaishnava ethics of devotion. Journal of Religious Ethics, 30(3), 421–444.
Strong, J. (2009). Strong’s exhaustive concordance of the Bible. Updated and expanded version. Hendrickson Publishers.
Theodor, I. (2020). The Bhagavad-gītā: A critical introduction. Taylor & Francis.
Thom, P. (2012). The LOGIC of the Trinity: Augustine to Ockham: Augustine to Ockham. Fordham University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Edelmann, J. Divine Relations: Jīva Gosvāmin and Thomas Aquinas on Acintya and Mystery. SOPHIA (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-024-01009-x
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-024-01009-x