Guest guest Report post Posted March 16, 1999 Hare Krishna. I am looking for statements by the Sri Vaishnava acharyas regarding the origins of the jiva. I understand that Sri Vaishnavas consider that the living entity's bondage in maya is beginningless, and that they do not ever speak of a "fall" from Vaikuntha. I would definitely appreciate if learned netters could either post statements by SV acharyas (especially Ramanuja) in this regard, or email them to me. Please include the name of the source from which the quotes are taken and verse numbers if possible. Of special interest are statements which explicitly refute the idea of "falling" from Vaikuntha, if any such statements are there. thanks in advance, -- Krishna Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 16, 1999 Dear sri Krishna Susarla, This is one of the issues in which the book "our original position" published by ISCKON has quoted Sri Ramanujacharya and Probably Madhvacharya erroneously. According to all systems of vedanta (except the view held the ISCKON book "our original position"), jiva's bondage is eternal ie. beginningless. Jiva was bound eternally from beginningless time. theory of "falling from vaikunta" is not supported by any system of vedanta. "anadi mayaya suptaha yada jivo prabudhyate" - state ment from "gaudapada karika" which states that " when jiva awakens from the eternal beginningless slumbers of ignorance or maya" is taken as valid in all other systems of vedanta. In the 13th chapter for the verse - karanam guna sangosya sadasad yoni janmasu (bhagavadgita) the issue of eternal previous births is suggested. I am sure the Ramanuja bhasya gives details here. Further in sribhasya there are several passages to this effect. Currently, due to lack of time, it is difficult for me to go further. I have had discussions with ISCKON members regarding this at length. adiyen krishna kalale Krishna Susarla <krishna bhakti <bhakti Tuesday, March 16, 1999 5:42 PM Origins of the Jiiva >Hare Krishna. > >I am looking for statements by the Sri Vaishnava acharyas regarding the >origins of the jiva. I understand that Sri Vaishnavas consider that the >living entity's bondage in maya is beginningless, and that they do not ever >speak of a "fall" from Vaikuntha. > >I would definitely appreciate if learned netters could either post >statements by SV acharyas (especially Ramanuja) in this regard, or email >them to me. Please include the name of the source from which the quotes are >taken and verse numbers if possible. > >Of special interest are statements which explicitly refute the idea of >"falling" from Vaikuntha, if any such statements are there. > >thanks in advance, > >-- Krishna > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 16, 1999 In a message dated 99-03-16 23:35:02 EST, you write: << According to all systems of vedanta (except the view held the ISCKON book "our original position"), jiva's bondage is eternal ie. beginningless. Jiva was bound eternally from beginningless time. theory of "falling from vaikunta" is not supported by any system of vedanta. >> Here are some Nimbarka quotes which I think are similar to all other views: The context is an explanation of God's apparent partiality. Nimbarkacharya comments on Sutra 2.1.34: [if it be objected that this is not (possible), on account of the non-distinction of works, (we reply:) no, on account of beginningless, and this (this) fits in, and is observed also] in his Vedanta-parijata-saurabha: If it be objected that since the text '"The existent alone, my dear was this in the beginning"' (Chand 6.2.1) declares the 'non-distinction' of works prior to creation, the Supreme Being's dependence on the works does not fit in, --(we reply) "no", as works exist even then, the works done by the individual souls in previous births being eternal. And a prior creation "fits in", as a sudden subsequent creation is unreasonable. And this is "observed also" in the text: 'The creator fashioned the sun and the moon as he did before.' (RgV 10.190.3) and so on." Srinivasacharya, commenting on Nimbarka's says works may be good or bad, implying that works cannot refer to spiritual activity as was stated in "our original position": Vedanta-kaustaubha (VK):"Hence prior to creation there are no works as the cause of the diversities of objects to be created, on which Brahman might depend-- (We reply) "no". Why? "On account of beginningless" of all. That is works, good and bad, done by the souls in a previous creation, become the cause of diversities in a subsequent creation. "And" the continuity of creation "fits in" in accordance wit the maxin of 'the seed and the shoot', [Trans note: just as it is impossible to say whether the seed is earlier or the shoot, so it is impossible to say whether karmas are the earlier or the samsara. Hence they are to be taken as beginningless.] and in accordance with the above-mentioned difference between the manifest and the unmanifest effect, [see VK 2.1.17-18] as well as because a sudden subsequent creation without a prior creation is inexplicable, this last reason being indicated the particle "and" (in the sutra). ,,,, (Rg Ve 10.190.3) teaches the existence of a prior creation, the eternity of the flow of creation is established,,," Madhva gives the same explanation and says further that the differences in the karmas are secondary to the intrinsic nature (anadi-svarupayogyata): BNK Sharma says "The anaditva of samsara only means that the jivas must be anadi. But it does not explain why anadi jivas should differ to the extent of originating wide differences in their karmas--unless such differences are ingrained in them...the anaditva of samsara is an accepted doctrine and has already been accepted by the sutrakara in 1.3.30" Gerald Surya Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 17, 1999 Hare Krishna. >Dear sri Krishna Susarla, > >This is one of the issues in which the book "our original position" >published by ISCKON has quoted Sri Ramanujacharya and Probably Madhvacharya >erroneously. This was one of the points I was making in a discussion with an ISKCON devotee. I read part of OOP and remember it quoting Shrii Bhaashya. This later struck me as peculiar, because I was under the impression that Shrii Raamaanuja did not advocate any such thing as a fall from Vaikuntha. I wanted to point out for certain that Shrii Raamaanuja had been misunderstood, but since I don't have Shrii Bhaashya myself, I was hoping someone could supply me with the relevant quotes from it. >According to all systems of vedanta (except the view held the ISCKON book >"our original position"), jiva's bondage is eternal ie. beginningless. Jiva >was bound eternally from beginningless time. theory of "falling from >vaikunta" is not supported by any system of vedanta. "anadi mayaya suptaha >yada jivo prabudhyate" - state ment from "gaudapada karika" which states >that " when jiva awakens from the eternal beginningless slumbers of >ignorance or maya" is taken as valid in all other systems of vedanta. Actually, a similar argument is given in Govinda Bhaashya. Therein, the commentator states that the Lord is not partial because of the inequality of suffering and enjoyment among various living entities, because such inequality is due to their past karma. Then when an objection is mentioned saying that different karmas at any point imply that the living entities were created unequally, Baladeva answers that the karma is beginningless. >In the 13th chapter for the verse - karanam guna sangosya sadasad yoni >janmasu (bhagavadgita) the issue of eternal previous births is suggested. I >am sure the Ramanuja bhasya gives details here. Further in sribhasya there >are several passages to this effect. If someone could supply me with details from both bhaashyas, I would appreciate it. I have neither with me at this time, although I hope to acquire both on my trip to India this year. While we are on the topic, can anyone suggest a good translation of the Shrii Bhaashya? I am looking for something that has the original Sanskrit for both the suutras and the commentary, along with English translations of both. If necessary, I'm willing to get two volumes (i.e. one in English and the other in Sanskrit) to get this. If anyone can give specific publication info for such books (title, translator, publisher, year, ISBN, etc) I would very much appreciate it. >Currently, due to lack of time, it is difficult for me to go further. I >have had discussions with ISCKON members regarding this at length. It looks like it's my turn to do the same. :-) regards, -- K Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 18, 1999 Sri: Sri Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha Sri Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEVaka SrivaNN- SatakOpa Sri nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha namO nArAyaNA. Bhagavad rAmAnuja's words on this issue : 1. Sri BAshyam ( on 2.1.35). Here sUtrakArar (vyAsar) himself clearly establishes that karmA is beginingless for the (baddha) jIvAtmAs. Obviously, rAmAnujar is only following it. In other granthams viz. vEdAnta sArA and vEdAnta deepA, rAmanujar again advances arguments with pramAnams to establish this point. sUtrakArar again establishes in the last sUtra "anAvrutti: SabdAt anAvrutti: SabdAt" ( "No returning ; according to scriptures. No returning ; according to Scriptures " ), ie. those who have reached the abode of Brahman (ie. Sri VaikuNTham), _through the arcirAdi mArgA_ will never return (no more karmA; but may come with a suddha sattva thirumEni out of their will to perform some kainkaryam for Lord ). 2. Bhagavad gItA bAshyam ( on 2.50) : ".....anAdikAla sancitE anantE bandhahEtubhootE .. ( " He who is established .........relinquishes good and evil karmAs which have accumulated from time immemorial causing bondage endlessly ...". This issue of anAdi karmA is a very fundamental fact in vEdAntA. Fall down theory etc speculations are no where found in sAstrAs. Sri Gerald sUryA wrote : >Madhva gives the same explanation and says further that the differences in the >karmas are secondary to the intrinsic nature (anadi-svarupayogyata): BNK >Sharma says "The anaditva of samsara only means that the jivas must be anadi. >But it does not explain why anadi jivas should differ to the extent of >originating wide differences in their karmas--unless such differences are >ingrained in them... Our AchAryAs have clearly refuted ( based on pramAnams ) this theory of madhvAchAryar, regarding the differences between jIvAtmAs in their svaroopam itself. As stated above, the birth of this theory is more rooted in an yukti (logic) to answer the wide differences in karmAs. Anyway, the kartrutvA of jIvAtmA is there with the (limited) freewill given to it from beginingless time => these great differences in karmAs is not a bewildering one so as to accept some new theory. The pramAnams are towards the fact that the svaroopam of all jIvAtmAs are intrinsically same ; there are no differences in the svaroopam. Dwatins gets into the problem of accepting "AnandatAratamya" ( differences in the bliss ) for jIvAtmAs which have attained mOksham, because of their theory about differences in jIvAtmA (ie. presence of male jIvAtmA, female jIvAtmA etc categories). This reminds adiyEn of the debate between Srimad Injimettu Azhagiyasingar (42nd pattam) and Sri SathyAnanda theertar, the madhva matAdhipati of Udipi mutt. This debate was held in front of the ranganAchchiyAr sannidhi at Srirangam. Many vidvAns representing dwaita were present. Injimettu Azhagiyasingar won the debate and firmly established that the theory of "AnandatAratamya" is not supported by sAstrAs. Sri SathyAnanda theerthar himself accepted the defeat and out of his own will, gave it in writing also. This was infact published in the news paper of those times. Again, recently, the current Srimad Azhagiyasingar followed the footsteps of His preceptor and established this fact in the "MAlolan Vidwat Sathas" , wherein the vidvAns representing advaita and dvaita too were present. adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan ananthapadmanAbha dAsan krishNArpaNam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 1999 > sUtrakArar again establishes in the last sUtra "anAvrutti: SabdAt > anAvrutti: SabdAt" ( "No returning ; according to scriptures. > No returning ; according to Scriptures " ), ie. those who have > reached the abode of Brahman (ie. Sri VaikuNTham), > _through the arcirAdi mArgA_ will never return (no more > karmA; but may come with a suddha sattva thirumEni out of > their will to perform some kainkaryam for Lord ). However, doesn't the "never return" argument imply by its very wording only the condition of those who came into bondage and then attained liberation (you don't "return" to something unless you have been there at least once)? A very common argument I hear is that this is not applicable to the jiiva who is in Vaikuntha and has not (yet) "fallen." > 2. Bhagavad gItA bAshyam ( on 2.50) : ".....anAdikAla sancitE anantE > bandhahEtubhootE .. ( " He who is established .........relinquishes > good and evil karmAs which have accumulated from time > immemorial causing bondage endlessly ...". > > This issue of anAdi karmA is a very fundamental fact in vEdAntA. > Fall down theory etc speculations are no where found in sAstrAs. Does Raamaanuja ever explicitly deal with / refute the possibility that the "anaadi karmaa" mentioned in shaastra could be figurative (in other words, the idea that anaadi isn't literal, but simply means that it happened so long it cannot be understood)? > Sri Gerald sUryA wrote : > >>Madhva gives the same explanation and says further that the differences in the >>karmas are secondary to the intrinsic nature (anadi-svarupayogyata): BNK >>Sharma says "The anaditva of samsara only means that the jivas must be anadi. >>But it does not explain why anadi jivas should differ to the extent of >>originating wide differences in their karmas--unless such differences are >>ingrained in them... Unless I misunderstood, BNK Sharma seems to be differing from the Vedaanta-suutra's author. I thought the *point* of why there are differences in their karmas is because their karma is beginningless. In other words, one cannot say that their karma originated at any time, and therefore one cannot say that they were created with unequal propensities towards action (which would then lead to the unacceptable postulate that God is partial or cruel). Hare Krishna, -- K Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 1999 Sri: Srimate Sri Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha Sri Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrivaNN - SatakOpa Sri nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha Dear Sri Krishna, namO nArAyaNA Krishna Susarla wrote: > > sUtrakArar again establishes in the last sUtra "anAvrutti: SabdAt > > anAvrutti: SabdAt" ( "No returning ; according to scriptures. > > No returning ; according to Scriptures " ), ie. those who have > > reached the abode of Brahman (ie. Sri VaikuNTham), > > _through the arcirAdi mArgA_ will never return (no more > > karmA; but may come with a suddha sattva thirumEni out of > > their will to perform some kainkaryam for Lord ). > > However, doesn't the "never return" argument imply by its very wording only > the condition of those who came into bondage and then attained liberation > (you don't "return" to something unless you have been there at least once)? > A very common argument I hear is that this is not applicable to the jiiva > who is in Vaikuntha and has not (yet) "fallen." The jIvAtmAs who are in Sri VaikuNTha and have not had any association with karmA (ie. who have not yet "fallen" ) are "nitya sUrIs". It is a most rediculous speculation to think that these "nitya sUrIs" (eg: GarudA, anantA ) will one day get the bondage due to karmA. First of all, by very definition, "nitya sUrIs" implies that from beginingless time, they are in Sri VaikuNTham, and will be there for eternity as well. adiyEn feels that whomsoever argues with you that "nitya sUrIs" may "fall" (what a terminology !!) commit a great bhAgavatha apachAram. Anyway, sAstrAs doesn't support their speculations. It is to be noted that sAstrAs are only to guide the baddha jIvATmAs. The ultimate goal (purushArtam) is to reach Sri VaikuNTham and get involved in BrahmAnubhava and perform eternal services to the Divya Dampati. This as you know is the mOksham. Brahma sUtrA starts with the Brahma jignyAsA, and discusses the way(s) to attain mOksha and finally tells that those who have attained mOksham never returns. So, these are the guidelines for us and is not relevant for either nitya sUrIs OR muktAs , since they already have full knowledge of all these things and also have attained what needs to be attained. > > > 2. Bhagavad gItA bAshyam ( on 2.50) : ".....anAdikAla sancitE anantE > > bandhahEtubhootE .. ( " He who is established .........relinquishes > > good and evil karmAs which have accumulated from time > > immemorial causing bondage endlessly ...". > > > > This issue of anAdi karmA is a very fundamental fact in vEdAntA. > > Fall down theory etc speculations are no where found in sAstrAs. > > Does Raamaanuja ever explicitly deal with / refute the possibility that the > "anaadi karmaa" mentioned in shaastra could be figurative (in other words, > the idea that anaadi isn't literal, but simply means that it happened so > long it cannot be understood)? First of all, this is the very point refuted by sUtrakArar in 2.1.35 and rAmAnujar also advances various arguments to assert it. If "anAdi" is a figurative one, then it means that some "beginning" was there for the association of karmA. But, sUtrA 2.1.35 says " na karmAvibhAgAditi cenna, anAditvAdupapadyate cApyupalabhyate ca" ie. ( If it be said , there are no karmA, because of non-difference < at the time of praLaya>; we say "Not so, on account of beginingless" ; this is reasonable and is also so observed ). In vEdAnta sArA, Bhagavad rAmAnuja comments : pUrvapaksha : Oneness is apprehended in the scriptural text, "Existence (Sat) alone, My dear, was in the beginning; One only " ( ChAnd Up 6.2.1). At that time, the individual selves were not extant. Hence, the karmA do not attach themselves to the individual selves. SiddhAntam/ SamAdAnam : It is not so; as the individual selves have not a beginning, the stream of their deeds also have not a beginning. This is reasonable. The individual selves have not a beginning; yet the scriptural text that states the non-difference, only establishes the non-distinction due to the absence of name and form. The text is this 'Verily at that time, this world was undifferentiated. It became differentiated just by name and form" ( Bruh Up 1.4.7). The view said above is in harmony with the text. ----------------------------- So, bhagavad rAmAnuja is very clear in this issue < jIvAtmA is anAdi and (baddha jIvAtmA's) karmA is also anAdi >. As a side note, it is to be understood that at the time of praLayA, "only Brahman exists" doesn't imply that jIvAtmAs and achEtanAs vanish. Since both chit and achit are "inseparable attributes" of Brahman, there is no contradiction. For example, if one says that only a Lotus flower is there, this doesn't mean that "redness" (an attribute of the flower) is not present. This is because, "redness" is an "inseparable attribute" of that flower. sAstrAs clearly say that both chit and achit are eternal and doesn't have destruction. So, it is rediculous to think that they would suddenly vanish. During praLayA, Brahman (Sat) is "sookshma chit-achit visishta" (ie. One having sookshma chit and achit as attribute) because both chit and achit are present in the "sookshma" state. After creation also, only Brahman exists. But now, Brahman is "sthUla chit-achit visishta". The change is for the chit and achit which now have obtained name and form by the will of Brahman. Also, the svaroopam of Brahman didn't undergo any change in this process of creation. Now, its easy to understand how Brahman is even the "material cause" of the universe < "sookshma chit-achit visishta" Brahman has transformed into "sthUla chit-achit visishta" Brahman. Basic material for creation is the same Brahman >. In vEdAnta DeepA, for this sUtra 2.1.35, again Bhagavad rAmAnuja raises the pUrvapaksham ( ie. No karmA is available during the beginning of a creation) and gives the answer " JeevA and karmA are both anAdi. If the above theory of the result of karmA is not accepted, it leads to the absurdity that jeevA enjoys or suffers at the very beginning of creation for no reason. It may also be that jeevA is deprived of the result (good or bad) of his karmA ". ----------------- So, bhagavad rAmAnuja is very clear in this issue. Hope that this is what you wanted to know. note: vEdAnta sArA's english translation by Sri M.B.Narasimha AyyangAr, is available at AdayAr Library and Research Centre. This has the original sanskrit text also. vEdAnta DeepA's english translation by Sri K.Bashyam ( disciple of Uttamor swAmi) can be obtained from adiyEn's father Sri K.G.Krishnan 11 Hasthigiri St, W.Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. tel: 483 4676. Please also contact adiyEn someone wishes to get a copy. thanks. adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan ananthapadmanAbha dAsan krishNArpaNam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
