Vol.:(0123456789) Sophia https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-024-01009-x 1 3 Divine Relations: Jīva Gosvāmin and Thomas Aquinas on Acintya and Mystery Jonathan Edelmann 1 Accepted: 9 February 2024 © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2024 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 mys- tery 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 refect Jīva’s use of the word acintya. This compara- tive study makes the case for similar approaches in Hindu and Christian scholas- ticism in regard to the use of reason to address the relational problem of simulta- neous oneness and diference. Keywords Jīva Gosvāmin · Thomas Aquinas · Acintya · Mystery · Nonduality · Unity · Trinity · Relation · Diference · Nondiference Introduction The object of this article is arguments by Jīva Gosvāmin (c. 1517–1608 AD) and Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274 AD) that God is both one and three. They want to account for the relations between God and his aspects in a way that does not deny the reality of the aspects, but also does not collapse into polythe- ism or sacrifice the oneness of God. Thus, I explore the views of Jīva and Aqui- nas on the issue of divine relations, or the ways in which individual aspects connect with the whole. I seek to accomplish two goals here. The frst is to argue that we should add the word mystery (which is from the Latin mysterium and the Greek mustērion) * Jonathan Edelmann jonathanedelmann@uf.edu 1 Department of Religion, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA