FW: Re : Our Original Position

 

Krishna Kalale [sMTP:kkalale1]

Wednesday, September 29, 1999 6:14 PM

'hrid'

Re : Our Original Position

 

Dear Sri Hridayananda Goswami,

 

Let me introduce me as a humble vaishnava who is very interested and had

the blessing to go through some classical philosophical and sanskrit

education in India for about 12 years and after that a good contemplation

period of about 19 more years here in the US which of course includes about

10 trips to India during which I did continue my education back under my

gurus.

 

This letter is in regards to the book "our original position". We had a

brief conversation on the email about this earlier. I would like to resume

the conversation, since I finished reading the book.

 

Here are my observations :

 

Let me state at the very outset the conclusions arrived in the book "our

original position" is not in agreement with Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana's

views. The reason for this conclusion is as follows :

 

Decisions regarding philosophical issues are best addressed in the Vedanta

sutras since, Srila Vyasa has taken a clear well considered stance based on

vedas and puranas in this work.

 

In the sutra IV -4-22 from page 770 of Vedanta sutras of sri Baladeva

vidya bhusana translated to english by Rai Bahadur Srisha Chandra Vasu

states :

 

There is no return to samsara for the mukta because of word of god; yes

there is no return, because of the word of God.

 

Incidentally this is the last sutra of the sutras.

 

The commentary on this :

 

he who has reached Lord by devotion to Him, never comes back to Samsara.

 

.......... there is a quote here form brihadaranyaka, chandogya , gita,

bhagavata :

 

ye daragaraputraptan prananan viththam imam param

hitva mam saranam yatah katham tans tyaktum utsahe

dhoutatma purusha prishna pada mulam na munchati

mukta sarva pariklesah pantha sva sharanam yatha

 

those who leaving aside wives, sons, houses, lives and riches sought

shelter in me, how can I allow myslef to desert them?

A clean souled man never leavs the feet of Sri Krishna, just as a traveller

who has reached his home after undergoing all sorts of trouble, does not

leave it

Thus one one hand the Lord has equal interest in holding on to his devotees

and the they on the other hand have equally strong love to hold on to him.

 

To some up, the promises of Lord are ever true and hence they will not

return to embodiment after reaching Him.

 

This conclusion is not a question for logical arguments, it is a matter

learnt through the scriptures alone and must so be believed, whose sole

authorities are scriptures.

 

WITH THIS, I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO RETURN FROM MOKSHA...AND

THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE FOR THE CONTRARY

 

This is doubly supported by an earlier sutra in the Brahman sutras :

********************

 

Sutra II-1-35 states : refer to page 268 of Sri Baladeva Vidya Bhusana's

Govinda Bhasya translation by Srisha Chandra Vasu

primafacie view :

objection to vedantic view of karma :

 

The theory of karma cannot explain the inequality and cruelty seen in this

universe, because when the creation first started there was no distinction

of souls and consequently of karmas - this is the objection

 

Conclusion of sutras :

 

This objection is not valid because " there is no beginning of creation"

 

Commentary :

 

An objector may say that your theory of karma only pushes the difficulty

one step back. no doubt it explains to some extene the inequalities and

sufferings of jivas in their present live. They may be the results of acts

done in the past life. but since in the beginning of creation, there were

no jivas, nor were their acts, they must have been created with

inequalities, in order to act differently. If they had been created all

equal, there is no reason to hold that their acts would have been

different. The sriti also says that sat onlyl existed without a second -

ch UP. This shows that when the creation started that there was no karmas

or jivas, distinquishable from brahman. TO this objection, raised:

 

the answer from the vedantic siddhanta or conclusion is :

 

jivas and karmas are beginningless, just like Brahman. Thus there is no

fault in the argument. In pralaya the karmas are not destroyed. The next

kalpa is conditioned by those karmas.

 

if you state that karma-begginingless theory is tainted, with the fault of

regresses in infinitum, we say that it is not so because we find authority

for it in reason also. The explanation is given in the book.. I will not

go into details to write down the whole thing.

 

 

IN CONCLUSION,

 

Please let me know what you feel regarding these statements of Srila

Baladeva Vidya Bhusana. I find it rather convincing because it is the same

view of all other philosophers - Sri Ramanuja, Sri MAdhva etc. ANy

vedantic scholar who knows prasthana traya - ie. gita, upanisads, sutras

will agree with this absolute beginningless theory. I certainly know of no

vedantic system which disagrees.

 

With regards to "fall of jaya vijaya", it is usually explained by

vedantins as :

 

If the sages cursed Jaya Vijaya, it is obvious that the place where they

were = vaikunta is not the real vaikunta, it is known as karyavaikunta a

place in the material world, this is an extension of the real vaikunta

within this physical world, visible only to the highly evolved souls. In

real vaikunta there is no chance for curse and there can be no causes for

some one to cause that curse since every one is beyond trigunas which cause

mistakes or anger.

 

similarly all other ideas have to be resolved otherwise without going

against the dictates of vedanta sutras which are very clear even according

to the bhasyas of Sri Chaitanya Sampradaya.

 

thanks.

 

I would like to hear your comments.

 

Your humble servant,

 

Krishna Prasad

 

HRID [sMTP:hrid]

Sunday, October 03, 1999 11:10 AM

kkalale1

Cc: 'hrid'

Re : Our Original Position

 

Dear Sri Krishna Prasada,

Thank you for your letter.

>WITH THIS, I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO RETURN FROM MOKSHA...AND

>THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE FOR THE CONTRARY

 

This was not our point. The scriptures talk about souls that

are ALREADY fallen in the material world, and state that once they

become free from such conditioning, they don't return. This does not

refer to those who are coming down to the material world. Thus your

point does not address the specific topic.

>The theory of karma cannot explain the inequality and cruelty seen in this

>universe, because when the creation first started there was no distinction

>of souls and consequently of karmas - this is the objection

>

>the answer from the vedantic siddhanta or conclusion is :

>

>jivas and karmas are beginningless, just like Brahman.

>if you state that karma-begginingless theory is tainted, with the fault of

>regresses in infinitum, we say that it is not so because we find authority

>for it in reason also. The explanation is given in the book.. I will not

>go into details to write down the whole thing.

>

>Please let me know what you feel regarding these statements of Srila

>Baladeva Vidya Bhusana.

 

Baladeva states that the argument of infinite regress is

answered "in the book", but since you did not cite that answer, how

can I evaluate it?

 

>With regards to "fall of jaya vijaya", it is usually explained by

>vedantins as :

By all Vedantins, or some of them? Does Sridhara Swami, the

authorized Bhagavatam commentator, explain it that way?

 

With best wishes,

Hridayananda das Goswami

 

Krishna Kalale [sMTP:kkalale1]

Tuesday, October 05, 1999 3:00 AM

'HRID'

RE: Re : Our Original Position

 

 

 

 

HRID [sMTP:hrid]

Sunday, October 03, 1999 11:10 AM

kkalale1

Cc: 'hrid'

Re : Our Original Position

 

Dear Sri Krishna Prasada,

Thank you for your letter.

>WITH THIS, I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO RETURN FROM MOKSHA...AND

>THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE FOR THE CONTRARY

 

This was not our point. The scriptures talk about souls that

are ALREADY fallen in the material world, and state that once they

become free from such conditioning, they don't return. This does not

refer to those who are coming down to the material world. Thus your

point does not address the specific topic.

[Krishna Kalale]

 

Dear Sri Hridayananda Goswami,

 

*******

 

I would like to know who are meant by "those who are comin down to the

material world"? whoever they may be, they are definitely not coming due

to karma or even their choice. It is purely because to serve sriKrishna or

due to Sri Krishna's orders to be carried out in this world. Even if they

come like that, they are not bound by karma; Hence it is not a big issue.

The problem is clearly if you state that "in general, jivas were with Sri

Krishna and they fell down from that state, then it does not agree with

the position of Sri Baladeva Vidya Bhusana. Those who are beyond karma are

not addressed by a "sadhana ( or practical) " scripture such as Vedanta

Sutras.

 

Jaya Vijaya did not fall due to their choice, it was due their wrong

karmas of stopping the sages. Such karmas cannot be done in vaikunta

which, by definition is completely rid of all sins. sins of no kind can

exist in vaikunta.

>The theory of karma cannot explain the inequality and cruelty seen in this

>universe, because when the creation first started there was no distinction

>of souls and consequently of karmas - this is the objection

>

>the answer from the vedantic siddhanta or conclusion is :

>

>jivas and karmas are beginningless, just like Brahman.

>if you state that karma-begginingless theory is tainted, with the fault

of

>regresses in infinitum, we say that it is not so because we find authority

>for it in reason also. The explanation is given in the book.. I will not

>go into details to write down the whole thing.

>

>Please let me know what you feel regarding these statements of Srila

>Baladeva Vidya Bhusana.

 

Baladeva states that the argument of infinite regress is

answered "in the book", but since you did not cite that answer, how

can I evaluate it?

[Krishna Kalale]

 

******

 

I was under the impression that you do have the book The Vedanta Sutras by

Sri- Baladeva Vidya bhusana, ( I guess I remember having seen the same Sri

Baladeva Vidyabhusana's sutras quoted in your book) translated to english

by Srisha Chandra Vasu. I guess you may not have this book. ( this book is

published by Munshiram Manoharlal das, Delhi)

 

I will quote what he has written. (p. 270) :

 

" If you say that karmas being beginningless, the theory is tainted

with the fault of regressus in infinitum, we say it is not so, because we

find authority for it in reason also. The well known case of the seed and

the trree is in oint. Is the seed first or the three? notit is any

objection that God being bound to create according to the karmas of the

souls, loses His independence.The lord certainly is independent, but He is

not capricious and whimsical. Had He created the world with perfect

disregard t the karmas of the Jivas, He might have proved His omnipotence

to some minds, but to the majority, His act would have appeared capricious

and cruel. In fact, the autorities clearly show that the substance and

karma and time are equally co-eternal with the Lord, and He creates the

universe, with a full regard to all these three. It is not only the karma

that conditions the universe, but the substance (or the matter stuff), and

time are also important factors in creation. Of course, these three are

subordinate to Isvara but He never discregards their existence in His act

of creation. The Lord is not partial or cruel, or wanting in omnipotence.

In fact, the theory of karma and the beginninglessness of creation

reconcile all the difficulties. You cannot say that this theory is open to

the same objection of theory of specific creation. You cannot say it is

the falling of the smugglers unwittingly into the hands of the

tax-collectors :

 

Note : Certain merchants, in order to avoid the customs duties, went by a

round about way, to avoid the customs house. In the dark night, they

missed their way, and after wandering for some time, they took shelter in a

roadside house. In the morning, it was found that the house they took

shelter, was the customs house which the traders were trying to avoid.

Thus they had not only to pay the tax, but punished also for trying to

cheat the customs. This maxim is called "morning in the customs house"

 

Our theory is not open to this objection of "morning in the customs house".

In order to avoid the imputation of cruelty and inequality to the Lord, we

have explained eternity of creation, and you cannot say that since the Lord

is not bound to regard the karmas, because He is independent, His creating

a world full of misery, simply to punish the souls for their karmas, bring

you back to the same difficulty, which you were trying to avoid The Lord,

being perfectly independent, certainly could have created a world full of

joy, and with complete disregard to karma of jivas. But then His actions,

instead of being regulated by any law, would have been lawless, and it

would not be a creditable attribute of the lord. Therefore, His creation

of world with erfect regard to the karm of the jivas, and to time and

substance, does not detract from his omnipotence. But it rather shows

forth His gerat wisdom and compassion. Though He can act against all the

laws of matter, spirit and karma, yet He is not soing so, and His making

the jivas act in accordance with the tendencies generated by their

beginningless karma, is a matter of HIs glory, and not an instance of His

partiality. " - finish quote

 

>With regards to "fall of jaya vijaya", it is usually explained by

>vedantins as :

By all Vedantins, or some of them? Does Sridhara Swami, the

authorized Bhagavatam commentator, explain it that way?

[Krishna Kalale]

 

I am surprised by another unique characteristic of sri chaitanya

sampradaya. Srila Jiva Goswami states in the Krama Sandarbha that his

commentary was intended to elucidate the commentary of Sridhara, where it

was felt that it was somewhat difficult to understand. (In other words,

Sridharaswami's commentary is taken to be authentic. There is no doubt

that Sridharaswami's commentary is excellent, However, Sridharaswami is a

staunch follower of Sri Sankara's advaita philosophy. He (Sridhara) says

that he wrote his commentary, Bhavartha dipika by name in strict adherence

to the old tradition and followed the footsteps of Chitsukhacharya

(another famous advaitin).

 

On the otherhand, It is well known that in Srila Prabhupada's works,

mayavadins / advaitins are criticized in many places, This seems a little

odd.

 

Coming to the point of the episode of jaya vijaya, it is clear that

Sridhara swamy's views are no different from the classic advaitic position.

ie. Vaikunta is taken to be within the realm of maya, since saguna

brahman is also subject to maya. Obviously, vaikunta mentioned in

bhagavatam where jaya vijaya were cursed, is not the real higher vaikuntam

where there is no question of curse of mistakes, even though vaikunta is

within the realm of maya and the abode of saguna brahman. In advaita Lord

Krishna with all is infinite excellent auspicious qualities is taken as

saguna brahman and definitely classified as pure. Hence the abode vaikunta

is also taken to be perfect in this relative world. from there, there is

no return; hence jaya vijaya were in a different lower vaikunta planet.

According to advaita, nirguna brahman is the real reality and different

from the vaikunta which is within maya since there is still duality there.

 

**********

 

by the way, the idea that our original position is to be with Krishna is

to be understood differently. Not that we were with Godhead earlier and we

fell down from that place. It is to be perceived differently:

 

souls intrinsically are pure and their real purpose is to be serving Lord

Srikrishna eternally. They are mixed up in matter by association. Even if

they are associated here in matter, their intrinsic nature is to be pure

and a servant of lord. it is like how oil and water dont mix, even here

jiva is pure but his knowledge is polluted by association of matter which

deludes that jiva. We need to come to the pure state of unmixed oil. In

that sense, it is ok to state that we need to go back to Godhead.

however, this should not be misconstrued that we were with God once and

then we fell to this to matter leaving that original state and we need to

go back to that state from here. Another analogy given in the shastras is

: souls are diamonds dirtied by association with matter. You dont need to

purify the diamonds. If you wash the external dirt off, the diamonds are

restored their original position which is purity and eternal service to sri

krishna. The diamonds themselves dont need to be purified.

 

With best wishes,

Hridayananda das Goswami

[Krishna Kalale]

Yours humble servant Krishna Prasad

 

haribol.

 

HRID [sMTP:hrid]

Thursday, October 07, 1999 9:33 AM

kkalale1

Cc: 'HRID'

RE: Re : Our Original Position

 

Dear Krishna Prasada,

Thank you for your letter. Here are my comments.

>I would like to know who are meant by "those who are comin down to the

>material world"? whoever they may be, they are definitely not coming due

>to karma or even their choice. It is purely because to serve sriKrishna or

>due to Sri Krishna's orders to be carried out in this world.

 

Isn't this begging the question. You are simply affirming the

very point under debate.

I am somewhat bewildered by the long quote you gave from

Baladeva, since this point repeatedly states the same thing I have

stated: that the Lord creates the world with perfect regard to karma.

>There is no doubt

>that Sridharaswami's commentary is excellent, However, Sridharaswami is a

>staunch follower of Sri Sankara's advaita philosophy.

 

Neither Vaishnavs, nor academic scholars, believe this. Lord

Caitanya took sannyas from a Mayavad sampradaya, but He is hardly a

Mayavad.

 

 

With best wishes,

Hridayananda das Goswami

 

Krishna Kalale [sMTP:kkalale1]

Thursday, October 28, 1999 8:47 AM

'HRID'

RE: Re : Our Original Position

 

 

 

 

HRID [sMTP:hrid]

Thursday, October 07, 1999 9:33 AM

kkalale1

Cc: 'HRID'

RE: Re : Our Original Position

 

Dear Krishna Prasada,

Thank you for your letter. Here are my comments.

>I would like to know who are meant by "those who are comin down to the

>material world"? whoever they may be, they are definitely not coming due

>to karma or even their choice. It is purely because to serve sriKrishna

or

>due to Sri Krishna's orders to be carried out in this world.

 

Isn't this begging the question. You are simply affirming the

very point under debate.

[Krishna Kalale]

 

Dear Sri Hridayananda Goswami,

 

This is not begging the question. There is no return from moksha in

general. In your book you have indicated letters from Srila Prabhupada or

whatever is understood by the followers of Srila Prabhupada stating that :

in Moksha state a jiva has freedom to choose whether he wants to stay

there with krishna or return. Such an issue does not arise. In moksha

there is no ajnana or ignorance. hence such a choice will never result in

one returning from Lord Krishna to this world. Your long assessment of

term "anadi" basically leaves the reader with the impression that all souls

were with Krishna before and they slipped and fell down to this world due

to some reason. This is not as per the shastras. souls were always bound in

matter from beginningless time that means that from time negative infinity.

This is exactly what your book does not agree with. Hence I wrote this

email.

 

Note: A swamy from GBC discussed with me the issue of nitya muktas.

nityamuktas are the only souls who were always with krishna and they can

come here only on some mission of service to the lord. This concept of

nityamuktas is accepted also by sri- vaishnava philosphy. The set of

nityamuktas are totally different from the rest of the souls. The question

of "fall from vaikunta" applies in this context not to nityamuktas but

ordinary souls.

 

sri Hridayananda goswami wrote:

 

I am somewhat bewildered by the long quote you gave from

Baladeva, since this point repeatedly states the same thing I have

stated: that the Lord creates the world with perfect regard to karma.

[Krishna Kalale]

 

The long quote I gave was since you requested that you could not evaluate

the situation without that long quote, since you did not have that book

(probably). [Krishna Kalale] Further, the statements in the book "our

original position" : page 26 :

 

" both statements argue the same point : although the soul appears to

acquire or take on a spiritual form at the time of liberation, this form or

constitutional position already existed previously in fullness "

 

This statement should not be understood that we were with Lord Krishna in

the beginning and then we fell down to material bondage. This only states

that the svarupa of jiva is never affected in bondage but it retains it

original state in moksha. There is a subtle difference here. this should

be understood as : There was no time when this soul was not bound in the

past, but when this soul attains moksa it retains it original svarupa. but

what has happened to its original svarupa now? it is just as it is in the

original state but knowledge (dharma bhuta jnana) is contracted (ie. like a

lamp contained in side a big pot, the luminosity is contracted by avidya /

karma. Once the pot is broken (avidya / karma destroyed) the lamp shines

forth in its original luminosity which existed. in this analogy the lamp

never was affected, only the coverings were affected during bondage and

release. That means that the original luminosity or in other words the

nature of jiva which includes attributes such as : being eternally

subservient to Lord Krishna, and to be a spiritual spark of Lord Krishna

etc. remains the same eternally through the stages of rebirths and moksha).

Only when the pot is broken or when ajnana is destroyed the jiva becomes

sarvajna or all knowing and understands his true position that he is always

an eternal servant of the lord. "

 

Please note: that in a book it is not very appropriate to state " Sri

chaitanya Mahaprabhu echoed the words of His devotee, Sripada

Ramanujacharya, ....." page-26. Sri Ramanujacharya came 300 years earlier

to this world than Sri chaitanya mahaprabhu. Of course from the

perspective of a chaitanya sampradaya follower, this statement is fine

since Sri mahaprabhu is identical to Lord Krishna. However, in a general

book such statements raise questions in the reader's mind. [Krishna

Kalale] In otherwords such statements can be made more truthfully to

history.

 

>There is no doubt

>that Sridharaswami's commentary is excellent, However, Sridharaswami is

a

>staunch follower of Sri Sankara's advaita philosophy.

 

Neither Vaishnavs, nor academic scholars, believe this. Lord

Caitanya took sannyas from a Mayavad sampradaya, but He is hardly a

Mayavad.

 

[Krishna Kalale]

 

You may be mistaking what I said. I never indicated that Sri Chaitanya

belongs to advaita sampradaya. All I said is that Sridharaswami belongs to

advaita sampradaya clearly. by the way my statement was taken straight out

of the actual translation of Bhagavata purana's commentary - Bhavartha

dipika of Sri Sridharaswamy. It is well known among all vaishnavas and all

scholars that Sridharaswami wrote an advaitic commentary to Bhagavata

puranam. In fact, when I asked the GBC swamy of ISKON he also expressed

surprise that "strangely sri mahaprabhu has authorized that commentary but

philosophically Sri chaitanya sampradaya is obviously different from

mayavada philosophy". This was quite known to me and I just expressed that

same surprise in my earlier mail.

 

With best wishes,

Hridayananda das Goswami

[Krishna Kalale]

with best wishes

your servant,

 

Krishna kalale

 

Krishna Kalale [sMTP:kkalale1]

Thursday, October 28, 1999 6:32 PM

'HRID'

RE: Re : Our Original Position

 

 

Dear Sri Hridayananda Das Goswami,

 

thanks for your reply. Yes we cannot resolve this issue. It only pains me

that in that book - " our original position" , "Sri Ramanuja Sampradaya"

and Madhva sampradaya have been misrepresented. As an ISKCON swamiji, it

is acceptable for you to express views on Srila Prabhupada's idealogies,

which are explained as clearly . But to quote other or rather forcibly

drag other systems of vaishnavite vedantic thought to fit the views as

given in the book and mis-represent them is not appropriate.

 

I guess my views will make no difference. Hence, I would wish you good

luck.

 

Your servant,

 

Krishna Kalale

 

HRID [sMTP:hrid]

Thursday, October 28, 1999 10:31 AM

kkalale1

Cc: 'HRID'

RE: Re : Our Original Position

 

Dear Krishna Kale,

With all due respect, I think that we disagree on fundamental

issues that we shall not resolve in this discussion. I think there is

little chance that we will convince each other.

With best wishes,

Hridayananda das Goswami