Sonic Yogi

i am sure you know the story behind why baladeva vidyabushana composed a commentary of vedanta sutra. the opposing parties did not consider gaudiya vaisnavism as a part of bona-fide sampradaya, due to not having commentary of vedanta sutra. baladeva took up the challenge.

Good point, but that still doesn't change the fact that Mahaprabhu put all emphasis on Srimad Bhagavatam.

Whenever someone came to see Mahaprabhu for guidance, Svarupa Damodar would tell them all to study the Bhagavatam under the guidance of a person Bhagavat.

Baladeva took up that task as an effort to support the authenticity of the Gaudiya sampradaya, yet that still did not make Vedanta-sutra the recommended reading for students of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

It was for the Vedantists, for their benefit.

It was not for the devotees.

The Vaishnavas already had the commentary and explanation of Vedanta-sutra by Vyasadeva in the form of Srimad Bhagavatam.

Baladeva Vidyabusana commented on Vedanta-sutra but that still is not near as important for devotees as Srimad Bhagavatam.

.

Certainly. And you could be looking at cyber-porn and sleeping with prostitutes for all I know. But what does this have to do with what Vyasa wrote in the Vedanta-sutras?

It has to do with the fact that you must have a guru in disciplic succession to explain what Vyasadeva wrote.

You can't just barge willy nilly into the Vedanta-sutras without a guru and claim to know what Vyasadeva meant in the Vedanta-sutras.

You need an acharya to explain them to you.

Who is your guru in succession from Vyasadeva that has explained the Vedanta-sutra to you?

Do you think that knowing Sanskrit alone is qualification for knowing the meaning of Vedanta-sutras?

The flaw in the first post of this topic presumes that there is no past or future in the spiritual world but that there is a "present" time.

If people would just read the books of Srila Prabhupada they would also find that Srila Prabhupada says there is no past, PRESENT or future in the spiritual world.

So, the answer of Hari Sauri is flawed in that he is working off the premise that there is only "PRESENT" time in the spiritual world when in fact there is not PRESENT time in the absolute because time has no effect in the spiritual world.

The spiritual world is divided by the different lilas of the Lord, not by time.

So, there is no past lila, present lila or future lila because all the lilas are going on eternally.

So, obviously, Hari Sauri is also confused as he operates on the notion that there is a "PRESENT" time in the spiritual world when in fact there is NOT.

There is no material time there.

There is no PRESENT time either.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

There is no past lila, present lila or future lila in the spiritual world.

They all exist simultaneously eternally.

That is why the conception of time does not exist in the spiritual world.

But what does this have to do with what Vyasa wrote in the Vedanta-sutras?

So, there is no guru between you and Vyasadeva that has explained to you the meaning of the Sutras?

Did Mahaprabhu and his chief disciples teach everyone to study Vedanta-sutra?

........ width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

Jim Croce - Time in a Bottle.....

If I could save Time in a bottle

The first thing that I'd like to do

Is to save every day

'Til Eternity passes away

Just to spend them with you

If I could make days last forever

If words could make wishes come true

I'd save every day like a treasure and then,

Again, I would spend them with you

CHORUS:

But there never seems to be enough time

To do the things you want to do

Once you find them

I've looked around enough to know

That you're the one I want to go

Through time with

If I had a box just for wishes

And dreams that had never come true

The box would be empty

Except for the memory

Of how they were answered by you

So, in other words, you are going to ignore what the Vedanta-sutra says, right?

 

I am going to ignore what you say it says because I don't blindly accept as absolute truth things that anonymous people on forums are posting.

You could be chewing on a sausage and washing it down with whiskey as far as I know.

Why should I accept your claim to know the meaning of Brahma-sutra?

Do you always expect people on forums to blindly accept everything you post anonymously in an arrogant attitude?

As I said before, if the jiva didn't falldown to the material world from the brahmajyoti he certainly fell down once he got here, so either way, the jiva fell down.

Consciousness was pure in the beginning.

I already quoted that evidence from the Bhagavat.

When the jiva came into prakriti he was originally pure and then he fell into the karmic cycle upon entering the material energy.

I was a "fallvadi" for several years.

I of course was an ISKCON devotee for several years and partook of the myth.

My thinking underwent some changes as I studied more and also got some association with devotees outside ISKCON.

I am far from a finished professor.

I try to keep learning and growing.

I know the myth is an old ISKCON myth.

But, I don't believe it anymore.

Look at Sarva's ideas, he almost exclusively quotes from letters and conversations, not the books.

Srila Prabhupada never authorized the gathering together of all his personal letters to disciples into a central depository to be used as a resource for establishing the Gaudiya siddhanta.

Letters were many times fashioned according to the level of the disciple.

The letters should never have been gathered together into a book and distributed to the whole movement like shastra.

I don't think Srila Prabhupada would have approved of doing that.

Anytime we find a contradiction between the letters and the books, I think it would be only right to give preference to the books.

I stopped reading the letters years ago.

I don't even bother to read any of them anymore.

I think it can lead to some misunderstanding as we see evident with these internet discussions of siddhanta.

Maybe Srila Prabhupada's books themselves, if deeply studied, challenge the "ISKCON myths." Look at Sarva's ideas, he almost exclusively quotes from letters and conversations, not the books.

I read the books a lot and I find that both angles are presented in different places.

There is something for both parties in the books.

Either party can find some support for their theory.

I think Srila Prabhupada wanted something for all classes of men in the books.

He attempted to nurture both classes of believer.

That confuses some readers.

Some readers just see it all as a lot of crazy contradiction and they go elsewhere for siddhanta.

I just see it as Srila Prabhupada trying to foster the faith in everyone no matter which way of thinking they intuitively think about the issues.

It can be a little exasperating, but we have to try and see the good will behind everything Srila Prabhupada taught.

As far as the "fall theory" advocated by Srila Prabhupada, I have learned not to take everything he says as literal fact because in fact I think such theories are metaphorical fables fabricated for the consumption of the passengers on board Kali yuga Airlines.

In the books of Srila Prabhupada "anadi" always means "beginningless" when it refers to the Lord, but it always means "since time immemorial" when it refers to the conditioned living entities.

Prabhupada apparentely felt he needed to slightly modify the siddhanta and soften some of the rhetoric of the Vedic shastra.

So, I don't take everything Prabhupada said literally.

There is evidence that he in fact used metaphor, fables and tales in his preaching to us lowly western people.

That's fine, but I think in time that approach has become somewhat of a burden on ISKCON as other Gaudiya sects come out and challenge some of the ISKCON myths.

Not all jivas are impregnated into matter. Some are in the brahmajyoti in a latent stage and most are serving Bhagavan in the Vaikuntha planets. Why?

Sometimes it is told by desire, sometimes misuse of minute free will and sometimes by chance. But one thing for sure is that the souls who are adverse to Krsna's service are the ones who are impregnated into prakrti.

This condition is called patita in sanskrit and translated into fallen in English. One name of Krsna is Patita Pavana, friend of the fallen. He is not known as 'friend of the impregnated into apara-prakrti.' Words are chosen to convey ideas, not so that we get hung up on words. Why become the anti-Sarva? IOW the opposite reflection. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Like I said in my last post.

I don't believe living entities fall into the material world.

They are impregnated into prakriti by a power beyond them.

They fall down after they get here.

They don't fall down to get here.

Otherwise, as has been established there would be no meaning to the Vedic concept of karma being "anadi".

'Fall' is only a word used to convey a thought. Such is true of all words. Sonic seeks to use words to shock, almost as a polar opposite to Sarva's use of words as a repetitive blitzkrieg. The truth is always in the middle, which is just as abstract as the notion of tatastha. We all yearn for absolute harmony not total discord.

The shastra says quite definitively that the living entities are impregnated into prakriti.

To me that does not convey any concept of any being falling down but of living beings being conceived as are the words of Srila Prabhupada "living entities are conceived" by Lord Siva in the womb of Durga.

I don't consider that living entities fall down to the material energy, but they fall down after they get here.

A Vedabase search produces these as the only occasions where "tatastha" appears in the books of Srila Prabhupada.

taṭasthā — the marginal potency; CC Madhya 6.160

taṭastha-lakṣaṇa — marginal characteristics; CC Madhya 18.126

taṭasthā — marginal; CC Madhya 20.108-109

taṭastha-lakṣaṇa — the marginal characteristics; CC Madhya 20.356

taṭastha-lakṣaṇa — the marginal symptoms; CC Madhya 20.357

taṭastha-lakṣaṇa — marginal characteristics; CC Madhya 20.362

taṭastha-lakṣaṇe — marginal symptoms; CC Madhya 22.106

taṭastha-lakṣaṇa — the marginal symptom; CC Madhya 22.151

taṭastha — marginal; CC Madhya 23.6

Lord Siva impregnates Durga with us the little jivas.

We don't fall here. We are impregnated into matter by Lord Siva.

Siva is our daddy.

CC Madhya 20.273 purport:

The word svāńga-viśeṣābhāsa-rūpe, indicating the form by which the Lord begets living entities in the material world, is explained herein. He is Lord Śiva. In the Brahma-saḿhitā it is stated that Lord Śiva, who is another form of Mahā-Viṣṇu, is like yogurt. Yogurt is nothing but milk, yet it is not milk. Similarly, Lord Śiva is considered the father of this universe, and material nature is considered the mother. The father and mother are known as Lord Śiva and goddess Durgā. Together, Lord Śiva's genitals and the vagina of goddess Durgā are worshiped as the śiva-lińga. This is the origin of the material creation. Thus Lord Śiva's position is between that of the living entity and that of the Supreme Lord. In other words, Lord Śiva is neither the Supreme Personality of Godhead nor a living entity. He is the form through which the Supreme Lord works to beget living entities within this material world. As yogurt is prepared when milk is mixed with a culture, the form of Lord Śiva expands when the Supreme Personality of Godhead is in touch with material nature. The impregnation of material nature by the father, Lord Śiva, is wonderful because at one time innumerable living entities are conceived. Bhāgo jīvaḥ sa vijñeyaḥ sa cānantyāya kalpate (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.9). These living entities are very, very small:

 

keśāgra-śata-bhāgasya śatāḿśa-sadṛśātmakaḥ

 

jīvaḥ sūkṣma-svarūpo 'yaḿ sańkhyātīto hi cit-kaṇaḥ

 

[Cc. Madya 19.140]

 

"If we divide the tip of a hair into a hundred parts and then take one of these parts and divide it again into a hundred parts, that very fine division is the size of but one of the numberless living entities. They are all cit-kaṇa, particles of spirit, not matter."

In fact, the Gaudiya texts do say that the living entity has been involved in this karma in terms of "anadi".

In places regarding anadi referring to the Supreme Lord, it always means "beginningless" as in absolute beginningless.

When anadi is used in terms of the living entity being involved in material existence Srila Prabhupada translates it as "since time immemorial".

So, is this a case of Srila Prabhupada trying soften the siddhanta for better ease of reception by his western audience, or does "anadi" not always mean absolute beginningless?

Here again, we might have some evidence that Srila Prabhupada indeed softened the tone of the shastric conclusions to make things more understandable for the audience that he was trying to reach.

But, then again, if he did not foresee that future teachers might come along and say that "anadi" always means absolute beginningless, he was setting his books and ISKCON up for criticism and the situation of being dated and outdated.

Does anadi always mean absolute beginningless?

If so, did Srila Prabhupada modify the siddhanta thinking that western people should hear a softened version of the truth as given in the Vedic texts?

I am certainly open to that possibility and see evidence in how ISKCON has failed so many followers of Srila Prabhupada and come to be a splinter in the side of the Gaudiya culture.

Here are all the references to "anadi" that can be found in the Bhagavad-gita, Srimad Bhagavatam and Sri Caitanya Caritamrita.

anādi — without beginning; BG 11.19

anādi — beginningless; BG 13.13

anādī — without beginning; BG 13.20

anādi-nidhanam — without beginning and end; SB 1.8.28

anādi — without any beginning; SB 2.6.40-41

anādi — without beginning; SB 2.10.34

anādi-mān — the subtle body (existing since time immemorial); SB 4.29.70

anādi-saṃsāra-anubhavasya — of the perception of the beginningless process of transmigration; SB 5.14.1

anādi — from immemorial; SB 5.25.8

anādi — from time immemorial; SB 5.26.3

anādi — existing since time immemorial; SB 6.5.11

anādi — from time immemorial; SB 8.24.46

anādi — beginningless; SB 10.77.32

anādi — without beginning; SB 11.3.8

anādi — without beginning; SB 11.16.1

anādi — without beginning; SB 11.22.10

anādi — without beginning; SB 12.4.15-19

anādi-anta-vatā — without beginning or end; SB 12.4.37

anādi — who has no beginning; SB 12.6.2

anādi — from time immemorial; SB 12.10.41

anādi — beginningless; SB 12.11.29

anādi — without beginning; SB 12.11.50

anādi — from time immemorial; CC Madhya 20.117

So , the readers can study them for themselves and make their own conclusion.

No, the argument by Vyasa is that God is not partial because the living entities' karmas are beginningless.

 

There is a lot of crass speculation in your post, and rather than me explaining to you why Vyasa (who is supposedly in your "parampara") is right, it might be better for you to actually read the sutras and understand the flow of the arguments. Otherwise, you will just continue to repeat assertions that are just blatantly incorrect.

Well, Vyasadeva gave Srimad Bhagavatam as the commentary on Vedanta Sutra because the codes of the sutras are easily speculated upon and misconstrued.

So, I am not concerned really with the Brahma-sutra.

I take my spiritual understanding from Srimad Bhagavatam as it has been rendered into my language by the guru that I have accepted.

In that Srimad Bhagavatam I am not finding the conclusion that karma is beginningless but is so old and predates the universe that it cannot be traced to a specific date and is therefore called beginningless because it predates even the universe.

But, as far as absolute beginningless is concerned I am not finding it in the Bhagavatam as explained by my guru and therefore am not going to accept it just because of some unsubstantiated claims you are making on the forum.

You have really failed to prove your claims.

You just make assertions and expect everyone to just accept your anonymous conclusions blindly.

In fact, here is how we are taught by our guru, despite what you might claim about anything in the Brahma-sutra

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 20.117

 

kṛṣṇa bhuli' sei jīva anādi-bahirmukha

 

ataeva māyā tāre deya saḿsāra-duḥkha

 

SYNONYMS

 

kṛṣṇa bhuli' — forgetting Kṛṣṇa; sei jīva — that living entity; anādi — from time immemorial; bahir-mukha — attracted by the external feature; ataeva — therefore; māyā — illusory energy; tāre — to him; deya — gives; saḿsāra-duḥkha — miseries of material existence.

 

TRANSLATION

 

"Forgetting Kṛṣṇa, the living entity has been attracted by the external feature from time immemorial. Therefore the illusory energy [māyā] gives him all kinds of misery in his material existence.

 

PURPORT

 

When the living entity forgets his constitutional position as an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, he is immediately entrapped by the illusory, external energy. The living entity is originally part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa and is therefore the superior energy of Kṛṣṇa. He is endowed with inconceivable minute energy that works inconceivably within the body. However, the living entity, forgetting his position, is situated in material energy. The living entity is called the marginal energy because by nature he is spiritual but by forgetfulness he is situated in the material energy. Thus he has the power to live either in the material energy or in the spiritual energy, and for this reason he is called marginal energy. Being in the marginal position, he is sometimes attracted by the external, illusory energy, and this is the beginning of his material life. When he enters the material energy, he is subjected to the threefold time measurement — past, present and future. Past, present and future belong only to the material world; they do not exist in the spiritual world. The living entity is eternal, and he existed before the creation of this material world. Unfortunately he has forgotten his relationship with Kṛṣṇa. The living entity's forgetfulness is described herein as anādi, which indicates that it has existed since time immemorial. One should understand that due to his desire to enjoy himself in competition with Kṛṣṇa, the living entity comes into material existence.

So, we are taught that karma exists since "time immemorial".

That is not exactly the same as "beginningless" as far as I am concerned.

im⋅me⋅mo⋅ri⋅al

   /ˌɪməˈmɔriəl, -ˈmoʊr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [im-uh-mawr-ee-uhl, -mohr-]

–adjective

extending back beyond memory, record, or knowledge: from time immemorial.

Liberation includes merging into the brahmajyoti. So, to say nitya-siddha does not necessarily imply anything more than impersonal liberation into brahman.

Nitya-siddha does not strictly means one of the higher active devotional rasa with Krishna.

CC Adi 3.18

To attain sāyujya, or merging into the Brahman effulgence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the aspiration of the impersonalists. A devotee never cares for sāyujya liberation.

Sayujya mukti is in fact the "nitya-siddha" platform from where jivas come down into maya.

That is not the accusation.

 

The accusation by the purva-pakshin is that God is partial and cruel because people start off unequal/with different karmas. And Vyasa answers the accusation by stating that the karmas are beginningless, hence there is no question of God being cruel since there is no question of the living entities "starting off" unequal.

I thought the argument was that God is not partial because everyone starts off with no karma?

Who is saying that God is unfair because everybody starts off with different karma?

God is fair because everyone starts material existence with NO karma and free will to pursue their own karma according to their desire.

If everybody starts off with karma, as you say karma has no beginning, then that itself is not fair because the jiva doesn't get a fair chance but has to exist in beginningless karma.

If karma is beginningless, then God is very cruel because he didn't give the jiva a fair chance to accept devotional service before he had to accept karma.

So, the beginningless karma theory means that God is cruel and not willing to give the jivas a chance before they are dispatched to Maya.