Guruvani
-
Posts
5,105 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Gallery
Events
Store
Posts posted by Guruvani
-
-
The topic starter surely has a right to challenge the teachings of the previous acaryas of being diffuse, but will it help on the path of bhakti?
Will it help bhakti to think that all the conditioned souls in the material world were at one time associates and playmates of Krishna who got expelled from Goloka and sentenced to eternal damnation?
Such a claim is nothing less than blasphemy and a direct assault on the integrity of Lord Krishna and his eternal associates.
The fall from Vaikuntha fairytale is WORSE than Mayavada.
It won't help bhakti or spreading Krishna consciousness.
It is a useless theory.
-
theory is such a waste of time ...... better to chant .....
at least in theory...........
-
Time....
tick, tick, tick.....
Time....
tick, tick, tick...
Time................
it's time.............
time for Vigraha to end his dreamervadi rant on the internet and go on with his life doing something else that would be useful.
-
Srila Sridhar Maharaj: From 'brahma' conception, the different installments follow. In brahma realisation, there is a 'mass' of consciousness: 'all-consciousness'. Then, the nest step will come: the consciousness is of individual character – with deeper vision, individuality is added to consciousness. There is consciousness plus individuality.
But, the sleepervadis say that this is impersonal mayavada.
You are saying that there was a time when we were ONE with Krishna.
Actually, is this the fact?
Was our original "form" the shared form of Krishna?
Was there a situation where we were actually integrated into the person and form of Krishna without being a "separated part-and-parcel".
What does "separated" mean"
Think about it..............
Seperated means that at one point we were NOT seperate.
Our original form was the form of Krishna or Vishnu (not different).
We were not the whole Krishna, just one photon of energy that came out from within the unlimited depths of the heart of Krishna.
I call this philosophy "Krishnavada".
Our original form was the the form of the Godhead.
We were not the whole form, just one itty-bitty photon within the form.
Still, our original form was Krishna.
Should I present a "Prabhupada said" to prove it?
OK.
Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 5.14 purport,
Beyond the manifested and unmanifested existence of material nature (vyaktāvyakta) is the sanātana nature, which is called the paravyoma, or the spiritual sky. Since that nature is spiritual in quality, there are no qualitative differences there: everything there is spiritual, everything is good, and everything possesses the spiritual form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself. -
I don't think Srila Prabhupada said anything that wasn't said before by his Guru, and his Guru's Guru, and his Guru's Guru's Guru…
I don't think he did either.
But, I do think he more-or-less encouraged the fall-from-goloka fairytale because he was fearful that without the fall-from-vaikuntha fable to fall back on that the brahmajyoti origins of the jiva as described in shastra would get misused, abused and exploited by persons with an impersonal tendency.
The "vigraha phenomena" did not happen out of the blue.
This sleepervadi concept is being supported and advocated on the basis of things Srila Prabhupada actually said.
Granted, these people have taken extreme liberties with the words of Srila Prabhupada and extrapolated a bogus conclusion, but the fact is that there is a little fuel for their outragious theory in the words of Srila Prabhupada, especially in his letters more so than in the books.
We don't find the same level of pablum preaching in the books as we see in the old letters of Srila Prabhupada to some young western students.
But, this "sleepervadi - dreamervadi" theory is being contrived on the basis of the words of Srila Prabhupada even though he did not explicitly want his words to be taken to such extremes that the "vigraha phenomena" would occur and the paroksha method of preaching by fable would get out of control and fuel the creation of an asinine theory we call "sleepervada".
I don't accuse Srila Prabhupada of preaching sleepervada.
What I do say is that his approach to preaching lended some support to the creation of this sleepervada-dreamervada fairytale that is surely a false representation of the Gaudiya siddhanta on the origins of the soul.
-
For many of us on the outside, any attempt at trying to fix ISKCON is like beating a dead horse.
When the horse is dead it does no good to whip him anymore.
It's time for a new horse to be born.
The old horse is dead.
-
Thing is that you can't lump in all the, "Prabhupada said" quotes, but have to look at each individually. But since you already wrote, "I lump in all the Prabhupada said quoters", how to get a right conclusion?
As long as what "Prabhupada said" can be verifed with shastra then it is fine.
If they build a new Gaudiya siddhanta off of what "Prabhupada said" that cannot be verified in shastra then that fairytale cannot be accepted as genuine Gaudiya siddhanta.
Srila Prabhupada obviously had some disciples that he didn't think capable of understanding the deeper aspects of siddhanta.
So, he offered them a remedial fairytale version to keep them going till they were capable of reading the books and understanding things more scientifically from shastra.
-
The introduction of the Bhagavad-Gita as it is tells us
Srila Prabhupada - “Everyone has a particular relationship with the Lord, and that relationship is evoked by the perfection of devotional service. But in the present status of our life, we have not only forgotten the Supreme Lord, but we have forgotten our eternal relationship with the Lord. Every living being, out of many, many billions and trillions of living beings, has a particular relationship with the Lord eternally. That is called svarupa. By the process of devotional service, one can revive that svarupa, and that stage is called svarupa-siddhi--perfection of one's constitutional position”
The "Prabhupada said" cult only works on other similar persons from the "Prabhupada said" cult.
For the rest of us we aren't convinced just because "Prabhupada said".
Prabhupada said things as part of a preaching strategy that were more myth than fact.
So, we don't blindly accept the fairytale as fact.
It was a preaching device Srila Prabhupada thought was useful for introducing Krishna consciousness to the western world.
Well, times have changed and Gaudiya Vaishnavism is spread all over the world and ISKCON is not the only Gaudiya Vaishnava sect in the western world now.
Now, it is time to get beyond the fairytales so ISKCON and the followers of Srila Prabhupada don't look stupid in the eyes of the international Gaudiya Vaishnava community who know shastra and know the fairytale is a myth.
-
It is only because of the absence of the time factor that there is no disappearance of ones 'svarupa' in Goloka, therefore it is always there serving Krishna regardless. Eventually when one one’s 'dreaming imaginary self or the nitya-baddha consciousness is dissipated, and one has returned to their full spiritual potential and awareness of their nitya-siddha-svarupa body serving Krishna. Once one has returned one realizes themself as the endless nitya-siddha-svarupa-rasa body, ones so called fall down will be as if it never happened. "Never happened" because there is no past tense as we know it in Goloka.
<!-- edit note -->
Another fairytale myth that there is no time in the spiritual world.
There is time in the spiritual world.
Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.11.38avyākṛtasyānantasya
hy anāder jagad-ātmanaḥ
SYNONYMS
kālaḥ — eternal time; ayam — this (as measured by Brahmā's duration of life); dvi-parārdha-ākhyaḥ — measured by the two halves of Brahmā's life; nimeṣaḥ — less than a second; upacaryate — is so measured; avyākṛtasya — of one who is unchanged; anantasya — of the unlimited; hi — certainly; anādeḥ — of the beginningless; jagat-ātmanaḥ — of the soul of the universe.
TRANSLATION
The duration of the two parts of Brahmā's life, as above mentioned, is calculated to be equal to one nimeṣa [less than a second] for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is unchanging and unlimited and is the cause of all causes of the universe.
Purport (excerpt):
In the spiritual world there is undoubtedly time, but it has no control over activities. Time is unlimited, and the spiritual world is also unlimited, since everything there exists on the absolute plane.
So, your fairytale can't hold up on the fairytale that there is no time in the spiritual world because that fairytale is also another ISKCON myth.
-
You can't establish conclusive siddhanta on "Prabhupada said".
If you can't prove your theory with shastra then you have nothing but a fairytale for people who can't understand Krishna consciousness by reading the books.
"Prabhupada said" some things that aren't shastric Gaudiya siddhanta.
That was just a fable or fairytale he told to nurture the along the derelicts from the 60's that were joining the movement.
You can't prove your case with "Prabhupada said".
That is not the Gaudiya process.
It must be shown with shastric evidence.
If you can't do that then all you have is a fairytale.
-
Gawd man you are really stuck in some deep mental rut.
Don't change the subject.
This topic is not about me.
This topic is about the fanatic neophyte cult of "Prabhupada said" who believe anything they hear even if it can't supported with shastra.
-
So we yak aboutr raga and bhava, yak about prema being rudimentary. In the mean time, we gotta go to the store soon because we are all out of cigarettes, and I gotta call aunt mary soon to find out what her kids want for christmas. And I cant miss that show about Katrina being an inside job.
so, if we all just stop such talk and talk only about Jesus is that what we should be doing?
-
So why did you quote me and then answer that quote with some statement that doesn't in anyway relate to my post?
So, then is Srila Prabhupada accountable to shastra or is he above and beyond shastra and all the predecessor sadhus?
What did he teach about that?
I want to see in shastra where it says liberated devotees from Goloka CAN fall down.
-
Murwillumbah, Australia: April 28, 2005 [Part 1]
(The second class in the lecture series on Raya Ramananda Samvad)
Tridandisvami Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja :
The stayi-bhava (permanent transcendental emotion or relationship) discussed herein is of the manjaris, and it is called bhava-ullasa-rati. It is not directly in relation to Sri Krsna. The manjaris have more inclination towards Srimati Radhika.
So, even though Krishna-prema is innately in the heart of the conditioned jiva, can we then say that Radha-dasyam is automatically there as well?
Generic love of Krishna in shanta-rasa is there in a dormant condition of the nitya-baddha jivas, but can we extrapolate therefrom that Radha-dasyam and madhurya-rasa are automatically there in the heart of every conditioned soul?
These higher things are acquired by association with devotees from that class.
Does anybody have a verse to show that?
Surely somebody can find something?
-
Mahaprabhu and Kaviraja Goswami did not give the "nitya-siddha krsna prema" verse in Caitanya Caritamrta for us to proclaim that we are nitya-siddha and see ourselves as equal to Krsna's eternal associates. Never-the-less the verse gives deep insight into Reality. I find it amazing that hardly anyone will respond to these points.
What gives?
I have some thoughts on the subject.
Madhya 22.107 -nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema 'sādhya' kabhu naya
śravaṇādi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya
Pure love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally established in the hearts of the living entities. It is not something to be gained from another source. When the heart is purified by hearing and chanting, this love naturally awakens.
This verse must be understood properly.
It is easy to take this verse and extrapolate a false conclusion.
This verse actually substantiates the conclusion that the conditioned living entities originate on the platform of santa-rasa as described in this statement of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur.
"Brahmana and Vaisnava" entitled Harijana-khanda:
"Before acquiring material designations, the living entity is supremely pure. EVEN THOUGH HE IS NOT ENGAGED IN SERVING THE SUPREME LORD , he remains situated in the neutral position of santa-rasa due to his marginal nature. Though the living entity born from the marginal potency does not at that time exhibit a taste for serving the Lord due to a LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF SELF REALIZATION, his direct propensity of serving the Supreme Lord nevertheless remains within him in a dormant state."How have I come to that conclusion one might ask?
First, we must understand the progressive levels of love of Godhead which can be divided into nine varieties, beginning with attraction and extending up to ecstatic love and finally up to the topmost ecstatic love [mahābhāva].
The first stage or the first level of love of Godhead is known as prema.
Prema is the innate natural love that every soul has for the soul of his own soul - the Supersoul (Paramatma).
Everyone loves his own soul.
Everyone naturally loves the soul of his own soul - the Supersoul, even if they don't know him as such.
Mahaprabhu explained to Sanatan Goswami that this prema (nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema) is the most fundamental and elementary form of love of Godhead that can be realized by the shanta-bhaktas in shanta-rasa.
Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 24.32śānta-bhaktera rati bāḍe 'prema'-paryanta
dāsya-bhaktera rati haya 'rāga'-daśā-anta
SYNONYMS
śānta-bhaktera — of devotees on the platform of neutrality; rati — attraction; bāḍe — increases; prema-paryanta — up to love of Godhead; dāsya-bhaktera — of devotees on the platform of servitude; rati — attraction; haya — increases; rāga-daśā-anta — up to the point of spontaneous attachment.
TRANSLATION
"The attraction to Kṛṣṇa of devotees on the platform of neutrality increases up to love of Godhead [prema], and the attraction of devotees on the platform of servitorship increases to spontaneous attachment [rāga].
Beyond prema is the first advanced platform of love of Godhead - raga.
Then comes anuraga, bhava and ultimately mahabhava.
So, Mahaprabhu doesn't say that raga, anuraga or bhava is already in the heart of the conditioned living entity.
He says that "prema" is already in the heart of the living entity and it can be awakened.
As shown in the verse above, this prema that Mahaprabhu says is in the heart of every living entity is simply the most basic and elementary platform of love of Godhead and that shanta-bhaktas can attain UP TO that level of love of Godhead.
When love of Godhead surpasses the level of prema it is called "raga".
Then after that comes "anuraga", "bhava" and ultimately "mahabhava".
So, really, Mahaprabhu again confirms in his teachings that the original constitutional position of the conditioned living entities is shanta-rasa where the most basic level of love of Godhead - prema can be realized in the perfection of shanta-rasa.
However, the higher levels of love of Godhead - pure love of Godhead without adulteration must be acquired from beyond ourselves.
It comes from Krishna.
Srila Prabhupada explains in this purport:
Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 4.68hlādinīra sāra 'prema', prema-sāra 'bhāva'
bhāvera parama-kāṣṭhā, nāma — 'mahā-bhāva'
SYNONYMS
hlādinīra — of the pleasure potency; sāra — the essence; prema — love for God; prema-sāra — the essence of such love; bhāva — emotion; bhāvera — of emotion; parama-kāṣṭhā — the highest limit; nāma — named;
TRANSLATION
The essence of the hlādinī potency is love of God, the essence of love of God is emotion [bhāva], and the ultimate development of emotion is mahābhāva.
PURPORT
The product of the hlādinī-śakti is love of Godhead, which has two divisions — namely, pure love of Godhead and adulterated love of Godhead. Only when the hlādinī-śakti emanates from Śrī Kṛṣṇa and is bestowed upon the living being to attract Him does the living being become a pure lover of God. But when the same hlādinī-śakti is adulterated by the external, material energy and emanates from the living being, it does not attract Kṛṣṇa; on the contrary, the living being becomes attracted by the glamor of the material energy. At that time instead of becoming mad with love of Godhead, the living being becomes mad after material sense enjoyment, and because of his association with the qualitative modes of material nature, he is captivated by its interactions of distressful, unhappy feelings.
So, unadultered love of Godhead must be bestowed upon the living entity as an emanation from Sri Krishna.
It is not said to be innately in the soul.
Apparently, the prema that is innately in the heart of the conditioned soul is a form of adulterated prema because pure prema must emanate from Lord Krishna and become bestowed upon the loving devotee of Krishna.
When this prema emanates from the living entity it is adulterated and directed at the material illusion.
When prema emanates from Lord Krishna and is bestowed upon the living entity than THAT PREMA is pure and makes the devotee into a pure lover of Krishna.
-
One has to wonder how such a question could be asked in the first place.
Was it really Srila Prabhupada's intention and ambition to be raised up and over all the predecessor acharyas and be regarded as an independent authority above shastra and sadhu?
I don't think so.
I don't think Srila Prabhupada would at all be pleased with the "Prabhupada said" cult that proposes to elevate Srila Prabhupada up and over all the shastra and the predecessor acharyas.
I think Srila Prabhupada would be very much against such a thing.
-
how about this one, guruvani. How come srila bhaktivinode states clearly that Lord Jesus Christ is a vaisnava when no previous acarya said such a thing?
Maybe he was having a bad day?
-
Is this true? I don't know. But in reading Bhaktivinode Thakur one thing I have picked up was his desire to see everyone question to the limits the previous acaryas teachings
I don't know what Bhaktivinoda Thakur you are talking about but it must be the one you have created in your imagination.
That surely doesn't not describe the real Bhaktivinoda Thakur.
Bhaktivinoda Thakur was different only in terms of the audience he was attempting to reach.
Bhaktivinoda Thakur started writing and preaching to English speaking people and oriented his approach to that population.
Other than that, it would be foolish to say that he questioned the predecessor acharyas or altered the siddhanta.
Even if he did, all it would have secured for him in the future would be a place in the Gaudiya Hall of Shame for all time to come.
I don't believe for a nanosecond that Bhaktivinoda questioned, challenged or deviated from the previous acharyas.
Anyone who says he did is simply living in a fantasy.
-
We have seen this phenomena in ISKCON for the last 40 years.
It is the "Prabhupada said" approach to preaching Krishna consciousness.
In some ways some people have elevated Srila Prabhupada up and over all the previous acharyas, the shastra and the sadhus.
Srila Prabhupada has become an authority unto himself without the need of support in shastra or the sadhus.
If "Prabhupada said" then that is beyond and above anything in the shastra and anything ever written by the previous acharyas.
The question this topic wants to explore is if the "Prabhupada said" phenomena is going to hold up in the 21st century as the independent and absolute authority that neophyte ISKCON people have ascribed to it for the last 40 years?
Or, must the time come when everything "Prabhupada said" must be exactly verifiable with shastra before it can be accepted as anything more than preaching tactics aimed at the dull-headed hippies who were joining ISKCON back in the mid-sixties and into the seventies?
Is the age of "Prabhupada said" over as Gaudiya Vaishnavism spreads far and wide beyond ISKCON and the party-politics of a small sect of Hare Krishna people?
-
<center>samskara</center>
saṃskāra-kālaḥ — at the proper time indicated for Vedic reformatory performances; SB 7.14.26
saṃskāra — reformation; SB 10.13.53
saṃskāra-ādi-matām — who possess such purification and so forth; SB 10.23.43-44
saṃskāra — execution of ritual purification; SB 11.21.14
saṃskāra — of the remnants; SB 12.13.2
saṃskāra — purification; CC Adi 12.12
saṃskāra — reformatory process; CC Madhya 6.76
saṃskāra kariyā — cleansing; CC Madhya 11.181
saṃskāra kariyā — after cleansing; CC Madhya 15.79
saṃskāra karāila — had clipped and cleaned; CC Madhya 15.85
saṃskāra kari' — trimming; CC Madhya 15.87
saṃskāra-yugala — by both previous and current purificatory methods; CC Madhya 23.95-98
saṃskāra — cleansing; CC Madhya 24.333
saṃskāra kari' — cleansing; CC Antya 3.37
saṃskāra kariyā — cleansing and repairing; CC Antya 13.70
saṃskāra — cleaning; CC Antya 18.103
pūrva-saṃskāra-saṃskṛtaḥ — under the impulse of previous impressions; Bs 5.23
-
Without taking a side in this most futile of debates I find it usefull to make this point. You people that pretend to know the inner meaning of Srila Prabhupada's intent and twist his words to mean the exact opposite of what he clearly says are the worst of the worst. I don't agree with everything Srila Prabhupada taught on certain subjects, like the moon for example , but I simply say I disagree I don't try to make it sound like he really believes what I believe but had to say something else for some reason.
You guys are in spirit much worse than the editors at the BBT that rewrote his books. God forbid you ever got your little paws on them for you would mangle them beyond all recognition.
If you disagree with Srila Prabhupada simply man up and be honest enough to say so and stand on your own and let the chips fall where they may. Quit trying to hide behind his dhoti while disagreeing with what he taught.
Then apply that criticism to the entire previous Gaudiya sampradaya before ISKCON, because before ISKCON the fall-from-goloka fairytale did not exist in the Gaudiya sampradaya and is clearly refuted by Srila Saraswati Thakur as well.
You say "you guys" , but the you guys that you really are referring to is all of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas in history except some neophytes in ISKCON and on this forum.
-
Bhagavd Gita As It Is 15.7 Purport,
"The following information is there in the Madhyandinayana-sruti: sa va esa brahma-nistha idam sariram martyam atisrjya brahmabhisampadya brahmana pasyati brahmana srnoti brahmanaivedam sarvam anubhavati. It is stated here that when a living entity gives up this material embodiment and enters into the spiritual world, , and in his spiritual body he can see the Supreme Personality of Godhead face to face. He can hear and speak to Him face to face, and he can understand the Supreme Personality as He is. In smrti also it is understood that in the spiritual planets everyone lives in bodies featured like the Supreme Personality of Godhead's. As far as bodily construction is concerned, there is no difference between the part and parcel living entities and the expansions of visnu-murti. In other words, at liberation the living entity gets a spiritual body by the grace of the Supreme Personality of Godhead...
That fragmental portion, when liberated from the bodily entanglement, revives its original spiritual body in the spiritual sky in a spiritual planet and enjoys association with the Supreme Lord. It is, however, understood here that the living entity, being the fragmental part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, is qualitatively one, just as the parts and parcels of gold are also gold."
Look at this statement:
"It is stated here that when a living entity gives up this material embodiment and enters into the spiritual world, he revives his spiritual body, and in his spiritual body he can see the Supreme Personality of Godhead face to face."
Here again we see the limitations of the English language that Srila Prabhupada is working in. If you enter into a place, you, by definition, must be in a different place to begin with. Yet how can you revive something that you don't already have? Therefore Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has told that these things are inconcievable and simultaneously one and different. Srila Prabhupada is looking at this from different angles of vision, but he will never conclude that the nitya-siddha bhaktas actually fall down even if they always have free will. The idea that we already have a "swaupa body" in Goloka and are just dreaming that we are in material existence won't work to bridge the gap between the two opposite ideas, i.e., enter and revive. It is a concept that is dualistic, not taking into consideration the opposite angle of vision which accomodates the special postion of the nitya-siddha servitors of the Lord who are as much or more the object of devotion of the Rupanuga Vaisnavas. On the other hand as noted by Sripad Visnu Maharaja, the Fall Theorist's strategy is to simple ignore opposing statements in Srila Prabhupada's books as if they don't exist.
"The nitya-siddha devotees never fall down to the region of the material atmosphere even though they sometimes come into the material plane to execute the mission of the Lord." (Bhag. 3.3.26, purp.)
What is interesting in the quote above by Srila Prabhupada:
Bhagavd Gita As It Is 15.7 Purport......
He basically says two different things in the same paragraph.
However, it would take someone who knows Sanskrit to decipher which rendering is accurate to the original.
In one sentence Srila Prabhupada says:
he revives his spiritual bodyand then a few sentences later says:
at liberation the living entity gets a spiritual bodyThere is most definitely a difference between reviving a thing and getting a thing.
These statements in the same paragraph have two different meanings.
It appears to me that Srila Prabhupada is trying to appease both the fairytale lovers and the shastrically oriented devotees at the same time in the same purport.
Ultimately, I would want to see a rendering by an unbiased Sanskrit expert to know which meaning is really most true to the Vedic verse from the Sruti that Srila Prabhupada quoted and gave two different renderings of.
Nobody can ever convince me that "revives" and "gets" mean the same thing because they certainly do not.
-
You guys need to read everything that has been posted on the topics related to this issue.
There is much, much evidence to disprove the fall-from-goloka theory and it has been presented several times already in the proper topics.
We are not going to go over it again and again every time somebody jumps in the middle of a discussion ignoring everything that has already been presented on the topic.
Obviously, some of you have not bothered to read evidence from the other side of the argument but are just jumping in the middle of something after the discussion has already been dealt with in depth on previous topics.
-
there is nothing to revive in brahmajyoti. There is no consciousness, either. Consciousness necessitates form, rupa. We are full of form, there is no form in brahmajyoti.
The buddhist is lying while saying that a boddhisattwa feels compassion while in brahmajyoti, because there is no feeling, no existance. Existance necessitates rupa, and svarupa is our original form.
When creation takes place again, sparks from the brahmajyoti get form, and have a chance as long as they dont get stuck in non-existential brahmajyoti again. This is why hedonism is preferrable to a sane person over mayavada and buddhist atheism.. Better to be in hell with form that in a place where one has no existance. This is why the vaisnava considers such liberation as suicide, because there is no self, therefore, no love, no happuiness, no name, no form, no pastimes. Black or white light is of no consequence, live at the point of atomic reaction or live in a black hole, no life. No attraction.
Sorry, you are wrong, guruvani, not because I say you are wrong, but because you are.
mahak
Then I guess you take issue with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur who says that originally the jiva is in shanta-rasa without any service to Krishna?
In the second chapter of his book "Brahmana and Vaisnava" entitled Harijana-khanda , Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura states:
"Before acquiring material designations, the living entity is supremely pure. EVEN THOUGH HE IS NOT ENGAGED IN SERVING THE SUPREME LORD , he remains situated in the neutral position of santa-rasa due to his marginal nature. Though the living entity born from the marginal potency does not at that time exhibit a taste for serving the Lord due to a LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF SELF REALIZATION, his direct propensity of serving the Supreme Lord nevertheless remains within him in a dormant state.So, it is not me that you differ with.
It is the Gaudiya Siddhanta and ALL the predecessor acharyas none of whom ever stated that we were originally with Krishna but fell down.
That fairytale came along with ISKCON.
It never existed before the hippies in ISKCON invented it.
Fall theory is worse than Mayavada says Narasingha Maharaja
in Spiritual Discussions
Posted