Few questions

January 17, 2004

Only if the living entities (jIvAs) are considered eternally

different from the paramAtma, this world can be established as real.

Otherwise if the living entities are part of the Lord, then why are

they on the earth at all? Also if you say that your goal is to "go

back" to GOlOka, when and why did you come away from there? Also you

say Goloka is Krishna himself(so called Absolute nature). But you

also say jIvas are part of Him. So what you are saying is that you

are merging into him, aren't you? Also if Krishna and Krishna loka

are real and all are Krishna Himself, then this material world must

be either false or Krishna Himself. But you say Krishna is is "above

material nature". Therefore one concludes by your own logic that this

world is false, for if it weren't false, why would the living

entities want to "rise above the nature" and become transcendental

(you say continually that that jIvas are part of Krishna). If the

material nature is not intrinsic with a particular jIvA, (as you

say), then one can ask that modes must be false or Krishna. Therefore

your saying that this world is false is straightaway contradicted by

this , isn't it?

Ok, you may say this world is so called "temporary" and part of

Krishna. But you say Krishna is above the material world and you

(jIvA)can also become "above nature"(transcends or whatever). Isn't

this contradictory? Doesn't this amount to ridiculousness?How is this

world part of Krishna (His energy and He and His energies are all

same as per the famous "Absolute theory" of yours).

Also in many places one finds in your books that one has to "fight

this illusory energy". Now, illusory means that which does not exist,

or mAyA. So this world is false for you. This being the case why do

you even bother engage in devotion or sankIrtana as ,according to

you, once you are "firmly established in Brahman", you are above the

material nature and you are Brahman. (whatever that means. But as is

well known, establishing oneself in Brahman means Brahman and

JIvA "merging" as on, as per Shankara's siddhAnta). So you are

practically Krishna Himself as per your own argument that to be

a "bonafide guru" you have to be in such a state.

So to summarise,

1. This material nature is false since it must either be false or

Krishna Himself. But He is above nature.

2. JIvA Brahman are to be equated to be accepted as a "guru".

3. Going back to Krishna loka means merging into Him.

You say jIva-Brahma relation is achintya-bhedAbheda, that is,

inconceivably one yet different. Why is it inconceivable? Are you

saying so based on shruti? But, nowhere is this term used. Is it

based on inference or direct evidence? How can you say that you are

in any way (inconcivable or not) one with the Lord? You are finite,

while he is infinite. So we can say achintya really means "ignorance".

Let me make it clear that I am not representing any "school" here. If

you have any answers do respond directly to me with point to point

answers. I do not want to purposely hurt anyone belonging to ISKCON

or whatever other organisation. But I am raising these questions so

that they may be clarified by anyone who can. These are logical flaws

present in your teachings.

Thanks,

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare

Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare

February 8, 2004

achintya, "smartie_625" <smartie_625>

wrote:

> Only if the living entities (jIvAs) are considered eternally

> different from the paramAtma, this world can be established as

real.

I'm not sure who has been telling you otherwise, but the reality of

the world is an obvious fact, and it does not require any separate

proof. If the world were not real, and one could therefore not trust

one's senses, then the same doubts of sense perception must be

applied when it is used to hear shaastra.

Such a philosophy is not very intelligent, for in the end one would

not be able to trust anything.

> Otherwise if the living entities are part of the Lord, then why are

> they on the earth at all?

This is a very trite conception of achintya bheda abheda, if that is

what you are trying to question. In this philosophy, jiivas are

considered to one of the energies of the Lord. Hence the Giitaa:

apareyam itas tv anyaa.m prakR^iti.m viddhi me paraam |

jiivabhuutaa.m mahaabaaho yayeda.m dhaaryate jagat || giitaa 7.5 ||

The phrase "prakR^iti.m viddhi me paraam" indicates that this paraa

prakriti is something that, although of His nature, is nevertheless

different from Krishna, yet superior to the inferior energy which

makes up the material elements described previously.

The term "part and parcel" is used by Prabhupada to describe this

relationship of the jiivas to Bhagavaan in oneness and difference.

The jiivas are distinct entities, but are made of the same "stuff" as

the Lord's energy.

Thus, there is no problem at all with the jiivas being on Earth or

anywhere else.

Also if you say that your goal is to "go

> back" to GOlOka, when and why did you come away from there?

The concept implicit in this phrase is that the jiivas are

constitutionally servants of the Supreme Lord, and refusal to

acknowledge this means continued existence in the material world.

Hence we have:

ata eva shanaish chitta.m prasaktam asataa.m pathi |

bhaktiyogena tiivreNa viraktyaa cha nayed vasham || bhaa 3.27.5 ||

It is the duty of every conditioned soul to engage his polluted

consciousness, which is now attached to material enjoyment, in very

serious devotional service with detachment. Thus his mind and

consciousness will be under full control. (bhaagavata puraaNa 3.27.5)

The vedaanta-suutras state that the jiiva's karma is "anaadi," or

without beginning. Thus, no one can trace the beginning of bondage.

Within the framework of material time, such beginnings cannot be

deduced. However, the sense that nevertheless, one originally belongs

to the spiritual realm is also explained in shaastra:

sa tva.m vihaaya maa.m bandho gato graamyamatir mahiim |

vicharan padam adraakShiiH kayaachin nirmita.m striyaa || bhaa

4.28.55 ||

My dear friend, you are now My very same friend. Since you left Me,

you have become more and more materialistic, and not seeing Me, you

have been traveling in different forms throughout this material

world, which was created by some woman. (bhaagavata puraaNa 4.28.55)

The speaker of this verse is the Supreme Lord, speaking to a

bewildered jiiva.

Also you

> say Goloka is Krishna himself(so called Absolute nature). But you

> also say jIvas are part of Him. So what you are saying is that you

> are merging into him, aren't you?

No, you need to read a little bit deeper into the texts. There are

different levels of emphasis on the "nondifference." The point is

that both Goloka and the jiivas are of Krishna's energies, and thus

are not completely independent of Him. This is not the same thing as

saying that they all merge into Him at the end. Since when does being

contiguous with something imply eventual dissolution into that thing?

Your "logic" is based on assumptions that are themselves less than

obvious.

Also if Krishna and Krishna loka

> are real and all are Krishna Himself, then this material world must

> be either false or Krishna Himself.

No, your "logic" escapes me. Energy which makes material world is

real, but its manifestations are temporary, and for that reason are

sometimes considered unreal.

Of course, this energy, or aparaa-prakR^iti, is also continguous with

Krishna Himself, but He is nevertheless aloof from it. Hence in the

Giitaa:

na cha matsthaani bhuutaani pashya me yogam aishvaram |

bhuutabhR^in na cha bhuutastho mamaatmaa bhuutabhaavanaH || giitaa

9.5 ||

But you say Krishna is is "above

> material nature". Therefore one concludes by your own logic that

this

> world is false, for if it weren't false, why would the living

> entities want to "rise above the nature" and become transcendental

> (you say continually that that jIvas are part of Krishna). If the

> material nature is not intrinsic with a particular jIvA, (as you

> say), then one can ask that modes must be false or Krishna.

Therefore

> your saying that this world is false is straightaway contradicted

by

> this , isn't it?

The above makes absolutely no sense.

Krishna being transcendental to the influence of the material nature

does not make material nature false. On the contrary, to say one

thing is above another implies that the "another" must be real. The

statement "X > Y" makes no sense if both X and Y are not real.

The living entities should rise above the material energy because

bondage in material energy implies further birth, disease, old age,

an death. Such bondage is not conducive to true happiness. Bondage is

real, and the agent of that bondage (Krishna's aparaa-prakriti) is

also real. But the pains and pleasures produced by that bondage are

temporary. There is no problem here.

> Ok, you may say this world is so called "temporary" and part of

> Krishna. But you say Krishna is above the material world and you

> (jIvA)can also become "above nature"(transcends or whatever). Isn't

> this contradictory? Doesn't this amount to ridiculousness?How is

this

> world part of Krishna (His energy and He and His energies are all

> same as per the famous "Absolute theory" of yours).

It's really quite simple, if you wish to understand. Let me spell it

out for you.

Material energy is part of Krishna, but by itself it is not the same

as Krishna. It is part of the reality of His existence that He has

one energy (his aparaa-prakR^iti) which is used to create the

material universes. It is not "part" of Him in the sense that a

puzzle piece is part of a puzzle. A better analogy would be that of

sunrays to the Sun itself. It is part of the Sun's nature to emit

radiation, and one cannot logically speak of one concept without the

other. So, too, is it the Lord's intrinsic nature to have manifold

energies emanating from Him (one of which creates the material

worlds).

udgiitametatparama.m tu brahma tasmi.nstraya.m supratiShTaakShara.m

cha |

atraantara.m brahmavido viditvaa liinaa brahmaNi tatparaa yonimuktaaH

|| SU 1.7 ||

This highest Brahman, however, has been extolled thus: There is a

triad (of the three energies) in it - oneself, the foundation, and

the imperishable. When those who know Brahman have come to know the

distinction between them, they become absorbed in and totally intent

on Brahman and are freed from the womb. (shvetaashvatara upaniShad

1.7)

maayaa.m tu prakR^iti.m vidyaanmaayina.m tu baheshvaram |

tasyaavayavabhuutaistu vyaapta.m sarvamida.m jagat || SU 4.10 ||

One should recognize the illusory power as primal matter, and the

illusionist as the great Lord. This whole living world is thus

pervaded by things that are parts of Him. (shvetaasvatara upaniShad

4.10)

etat sarvvaamida.m vishva.m jagadetachcharaacharam |

parabrahmasvaruupasya viShNoH shaktisamanvitam || VP 6.7.60 ||

All this universal world, this world of moving and stationary beings,

is pervaded by the energy of Vishnu, who is of the nature of the

supreme Brahman. (viShNu puraaNa 6.7.60)

viShNushaktiH paraa proktaa kShetraj~naakhyaa tathaaparaa |

avidyaakarmasa.mj~naanyaa tR^itiiyaa shaktir iShyate || VP 6.7.61 ||

This energy is supreme, or, when it is that of conscious embodied

spirit, it is secondary. Ignorance, or that which is denominated from

works, is a third energy. (viShNu puraaNa 6.7.61)

Material energy is eternal, but its manifestations are temporary.

Hence, the world is sometimes described as "illusory" to emphasize

that the one's pains and pleasures in it are not eternal.

> Also in many places one finds in your books that one has to "fight

> this illusory energy". Now, illusory means that which does not

exist,

> or mAyA. So this world is false for you.

No, that is merely your own speculation. Bhagavad-giitaa chapter 7

states that the material elements are of the Lord's aparaa-prakR^iti.

Thus, they are real.

You cannot learn Sanaatana-dharma by reading Amar Chitra Katha comic

books and referring to popular Hindu websites and famililal

sentiments. You need to actually look at how these concepts are

discussed in shaastra.

This being the case why do

> you even bother engage in devotion or sankIrtana

Because world is real, bondage is real, and bhakti-yoga (of which

sankiirtana is the recommended form for this age) is the means by

which to get out of it.

Your objection actually highlights one of the main problems with

Shankara's siddhaanta. Since world is not real, why do anything? Even

ones efforts, ones pious and impious activites, are all illusion. So

what difference does it make if one leads a righteous life or a

sinful life?

as ,according to

> you, once you are "firmly established in Brahman", you are above

the

> material nature and you are Brahman.

According to the bhagavad-giitaa, one who has attained Brahman

nevertheless goes on serving the Lord in devotion:

brahmabhuutaH prasannaatmaa na shochati na kaan^kshati |

samaH sarveShu bhuuteShu madbhakti.m labhate paraam || giitaa 18.54 ||

Thus, the activities of bhakti do not stop even when one has attained

the Brahman platform. This of course, is consistent with the view

that the jiivas are constitutionally servants of Hari. Thus, devotion

continues both at the stage of saadhana and on the stage of

liberation.

(whatever that means. But as is

> well known, establishing oneself in Brahman means Brahman and

> JIvA "merging" as on, as per Shankara's siddhAnta).

Well a certain Shankarite here named Ram would disagree with you.

However, that is immaterial. If someone says that the jiiva loses its

individuality and becomes Brahman, then he is wrong. Period.

Shaastras say no such thing --- see giitaa 18.54 which says quite the

opposite.

So you are

> practically Krishna Himself as per your own argument that to be

> a "bonafide guru" you have to be in such a state.

This is not our argument. We do not argue that being fixed in Brahman

means becoming Brahman. You yourself just said that this was

Shankara's argument, not ours.

You should think about what you say, before you say it. It makes no

sense to hold us to views which we do not agree with.

> So to summarise,

> 1. This material nature is false since it must either be false or

> Krishna Himself. But He is above nature.

No, that is spurious reasoning. The sunlight is not the sun itself,

but an emanation from the Sun. In the same way, the material nature

is different and yet contiguous with Krishna.

Shaastras have already been quoting establishing the material energy

as real, and yet nondifferent from the Lord. And yet the Lord is

again aloof from it. This is Achintya Bheda Abheda.

> 2. JIvA Brahman are to be equated to be accepted as a "guru".

No, that is your own argument. Gaudiiya Vaishnavas do not hold that

the liberated jiiva is exactly the same as Brahman.

> 3. Going back to Krishna loka means merging into Him.

No, that is merely your own opinion. Giitaa 18.54 says that attaining

Krishna means attaining his supreme devotion, which logically means

continued distinction.

> You say jIva-Brahma relation is achintya-bhedAbheda, that is,

> inconceivably one yet different. Why is it inconceivable?

See chapter 7 and chapter 9 of bhagavad-giitaa, as an example. The

Lord states that the material energy is pervaded and maintained by

Him, yet in spite of this He is aloof from it. These are

contradictory points of view, but we must accept both positions

because they are stated in shaastra.

He states that the material elements are of His aparaa-prakR^iti. Yet

again, He pervades His own aparaa-prakR^iti as the Supersoul. And

again, He is aloof from it.

Are you

> saying so based on shruti?

We have quoted several shaastras to establish our position.

You have quoted absolutely nothing to establish yours.

The ball is in your court now. Please quote from shaastra yourself,

the original Sanskrit + chapter/verse numbers to establish your

position.

But, nowhere is this term used. Is it

> based on inference or direct evidence? How can you say that you are

> in any way (inconcivable or not) one with the Lord?

It's based on a straightforward reading of statements in shaastra

wherein the Lord says He is the world, yet not of it, etc.

You are finite,

> while he is infinite. So we can say achintya really

means "ignorance".

If I was convinced for one moment that you were trying to approach

this subject dispassionately, I might actually take your arguments

more seriously. However, based on your recent posting attempts, it

seems clear me that your whole raison d'etre is to cut us down rather

than understand the message of the shaastras.

Why this is so is unclear. Perhaps you went to an ISKCON center,

armed with the knowledge of Hinduism which Mommy gave you, only to be

soundly defeated in front of everyone. Or perhaps you like to eat

chicken, and it offends you that Gaudiiya Vaishnavas in the West are

preaching the idea of vegetarianism. Or perhaps you are a closet

Buddhist with a bone to pick. Or, maybe you are a former ISKCON

member who really have some legitimate, personal grievance with

someone in that organization.

However, whatever the case may be, anger and resentment are not a

very good basis upon which to embark on a journey to understand the

Absolute Truth. Naturally, it follows that if one's questioning is

guided by a need to destroy, then one will not understand the truth

when it is delivered to him on a silver platter.

> Let me make it clear that I am not representing any "school" here.

That much is obvious, as there is a stunning lack of clarity in your

thinking.

If

> you have any answers do respond directly to me with point to point

> answers.

This has already been done, but publicly on this list, so everyone

can see your "arguments" first-hand. My feeling is that if your views

or doubts cannot stand up to polite scrutiny, then there is no reason

for you to try and promote them so aggressively.

I am also of the opinion that it is quite cowardly to state some

objections in a public forum, and request that all responses be done

privately. You have started this - now either conceed publicly that

you are in error, or defend your point of view with evidence and like

a gentleman.

Please note, that throwing temper tantrums, personal attacks, or

making unfounded accusations of misinterpretation/mistranslation are

not considered worthy of posting to this list. You must now respond

on a point-by-point basis by quoting shaastra. If you think I have

mistranslated or misinterpreted something, then parse the Sanskrit

yourself and show the correct interpretation.

Otherwise, you should go somewhere else where logic and evidence are

eschewed in favor of fanaticism. This is not a forum for people who

just want to pick fights.

I do not want to purposely hurt anyone belonging to ISKCON

> or whatever other organisation.

I doubt that very much.

In your first posting to Achintya, you referred to "Achintyatva"

as "ignorance." In your second posting to Achintya, you inquired

about the IQ level of this forum's participants because Sumeet quoted

a statement from the Gaarga-samhitaa which you did not like. You also

used various other adjectives to in that posting

like "ridiculous,ignorant,stupid," etc. etc. to describe our

views.

Needless to say, I rejected this second posting. I probably should

have rejected the first posting, as even here I am seeing a hint of

this underlying anger of yours.

If you can't behave like a gentleman, you need to go somewhere else.

This forum is based on a brahminical ideal. You are welcome to

challenge and doubt, but you must remain polite *and* base your views

on primary sources. If I allow one individual to be rude, as I

inadvertently did here, then responses will invariably be heavy-

handed, as will the counter-responses, and then the counter-counter-

responses, etc.

Based on what I now know of you, I do not anticipate that you will

respond to this in a civilized manner, and so I am not expecting to

approve any response by you. However, if you want to prove me wrong,

politely, and with evidence, I will be happy to approve your posting

and continue the discussion with you on this forum.

yours,

- K

February 11, 2004

[MODERATOR NOTE: This message has been substantially edited for irrelevant

material. However, I thought the following excerpt would be relevant to those

interested:]

"smartie_625" <smartie_625 wrote:

I cannot provide you with any evidence as I am very poor in sanskrit.

[MODERATOR NOTE: The lesson here is that those who live in glass houses should

not throw stones. Another lesson is never to accept someone's criticisms at face

value - more often than not, they will fold if you call their bluff. -K]

April 2, 2004

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

> The vedaanta-suutras state that the jiiva's karma is "anaadi," or

> without beginning. Thus, no one can trace the beginning of

bondage.

> Within the framework of material time, such beginnings cannot be

> deduced. However, the sense that nevertheless, one originally

belongs

> to the spiritual realm is also explained in shaastra:

>

> sa tva.m vihaaya maa.m bandho gato graamyamatir mahiim |

> vicharan padam adraakShiiH kayaachin nirmita.m striyaa || bhaa

> 4.28.55 ||

>

> My dear friend, you are now My very same friend. Since you left

Me,

> you have become more and more materialistic, and not seeing Me,

you

> have been traveling in different forms throughout this material

> world, which was created by some woman. (bhaagavata puraaNa

4.28.55)

>

> The speaker of this verse is the Supreme Lord, speaking to a

> bewildered jiiva.

>

What is there to clarify? I said that this is not proof of the

soul's originally being in the spiritual world. This is the wrong

interpretation. The Gaudiya commentators have noted that this simply

relates to the state of "mergnce" in Mahavishnu, not being

originally in the spiritual world. Therefore the bondage of the jiva

is certainly 'anadi,' there would be no sense to the term otherwise.

Haribol, Gaura.

April 3, 2004

achintya, "gaurasundara_108"

<gaurasundara_108> wrote:

> What is there to clarify? I said that this is not proof of the

> soul's originally being in the spiritual world.

A one line hit-and-run answer with no specifics is not enough to

start a discussion. Hence I requested you to resubmit your posting

with an explanation. Now that I know where you are coming from, it is

possible to respond, though you still have not quoted the evidence

supporting your position.

The idea of "falldown" from the spiritual world is based on a very

straightforward reading of the Sanskrit in these verses. For example:

api smarasi caatmaanam avij~naatasakha.m sakhe |

hitvaa maa.m padam anvichchhan bhaumabhogarato gataH || bhaa 4.28.53

||

Note how the Lord asks if Vaidarbhi cannot remember Him. Furthermore

look at the word hitvaa -- "having given up." This is something that

had occurred in the past.

Then again in SB 4.28.55 the Lord says "Since you left me" (vihaaya

maam). The meaning could not be more straightforward.

This is the wrong

> interpretation. The Gaudiya commentators have noted that this

simply

> relates to the state of "mergnce" in Mahavishnu, not being

> originally in the spiritual world.

Which Gaudiiya commentators say that? Please quote the exact source

with Sanskrit. There should be no doubt on this point based on

hearsay.

For the record, Srila Prabhupada does explain the concept of falldown

based on these verses.

"The original home of the living entity and the Supreme Personality

of Godhead is the spiritual world. In the spiritual world both the

Lord and the living entities live together very peacefully. Since the

living entity remains engaged in the service of the Lord, they both

share a blissful life in the spiritual world. However, when the

living entity wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the material

world. " (SB 4.28.54 purport)

"When the living entity falls down, he goes into the material world,

which was created by the external energy of the Lord." (SB 4.28.55

purport)

Explaining the "Leaving me" and "remembering me" as a reference to

being merged in the body of Mahaa-Vishnu after pralaya is an

interesting position. But looking at the Sanskrit, one would not be

inclined to think that this is the meaning, since in that state, the

living entities have no body and no relationship with Vishnu -- thus,

there is nothing to remember about Him at that point.

Therefore the bondage of the jiva

> is certainly 'anadi,' there would be no sense to the term otherwise.

I'm well aware of the anaadi-karma suutra, having read vedaanta-

suutra (have you?). My position simply is that the shaastras endorse

both positions, contradictory though they seem.

Please at this time, quote the "Gaudiiya commentators" on these

verses who say that the spiritual position left by the living

entities and forgotten by them is their state of mergence with Mahaa-

Vishnu, "not being originally in the spirutal world."

thanks,

K

April 4, 2004

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

The idea of "falldown" from the spiritual world is based on a very

straightforward reading of the Sanskrit in these verses. For example:

api smarasi caatmaanam avij~naatasakha.m sakhe |

hitvaa maa.m padam anvichchhan bhaumabhogarato gataH || bhaa 4.28.53

||

Note how the Lord asks if Vaidarbhi cannot remember Him. Furthermore

look at the word hitvaa -- "having given up." This is something that

had occurred in the past.

Then again in SB 4.28.55 the Lord says "Since you left me" (vihaaya

maam). The meaning could not be more straightforward

===================================================================

just curious, besides iskcon, does any other gaudiya camp or any

other vaisnava sampradaya accept the "fall from

vaikuntha"/jivas 'origin' from vaikuntha?

i think in christian philosophy the 'fall from kingdom of god' idea

is accepted

letter to unknown 4-12-1970

prabhupada: The living entities within this material world are

supposed to be rebellious conditioned souls who disregarded the

order of the Supreme Lord, and they lost their spiritual kingdom. It

is something like Milton's idea of ``Paradise Lost.''

April 4, 2004

achintya, "dhani" <dhannyganesh> wrote:

> just curious, besides iskcon, does any other gaudiya camp or any

> other vaisnava sampradaya accept the "fall from

> vaikuntha"/jivas 'origin' from vaikuntha?

Probably not. Are we going to be bothered by popular opinion? Most

Vaishnava camps also do not believe it is appropriate to give

Westerners the sacred thread, that brahminical birth is necessary to

have brahminical status, and various other things which are not

acceptable to us.

> i think in christian philosophy the 'fall from kingdom of god' idea

> is accepted

I also guard against non-Vedic influences on our perceptions of

truth. I'm happy to believe in the "no beginning to karma"/"no fall

from Vaikuntha" position. The former is clearly supported by Vedaanta-

suutra. But the latter is not supported by the Bhaagavatam. Hence, we

have two seemingly contradictory positions. The "no fall from

Vaikuntha" position is based on a logical inference from "no

beginning of karma" position which is held by Vedaanta-suutra. So

most Vaishnavas will probably follow that line of thinking, Gaudiiyas

included.

April 4, 2004

<just curious, besides iskcon, does any other gaudiya camp or any

<other vaisnava sampradaya accept the "fall from

<vaikuntha"/jivas 'origin' from vaikuntha?

oh yes,

I'll give you a few from various sources

Drutakarma prabhu compiled a huge file. We can send if you like.

**Having forgotten Krishna, the conditioned living entity is suffering the

misdirection and perversion of his own so-called intelligence. The living

entities are fragmental parts of the supreme shelter, Krishna, but have

fallen from Krishna's kingdom of spiritual pastimes (Srimad Bhagavatam

11.2.38.purport by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura)

**'The eternal pastimes that svayam-rupa Krishna performs with His

'attracted' associates in Vraja are meant for removing the misfortune

of the living entities, so to engage in service other than the worship

of Krishna is most unbecoming . Therefore, understanding yourselves

as 'attracted' in your relationship with the Lord, you should try

to awaken your constitutional propensities.'

purport

Attracted living entities have no propensity other

than the worship of that Krishna.

The moment the attracted souls are distracted , they glance

towards maya from Vaikuntha. At that time the universe is

created and material enjoyment overcomes the constitutional

duties of the living entities belonging to the marginal

potency of the Lord and makes them averse to Krishna.

(Caitanya Bhagavata ch. 13, t 84 p. of Srila Bhaktisidhanta Sarasvati)

**Dislocated stars like us shooting from the ever-glowing infinite

fountainhead of the Transcendence. The shooting stars are again retracted by

the same fountainhead through the power of instructions and bliss.... this

will carry them back to their original position to be dovetailed with the

Absolute.

We are expelled Adams and Eves from paradise

(from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami's 'harmonist')

**...the precise form of the soul's constitutional form was in fact

previously known and existed in perfection.(Vedanta sara of Ramanujacarya)

**the soul's pure qualities are shrunk or contracted in material existence

and then expanded upon liberation.(Sri Bhasya of Ramanujacarya).

**When that blisful spiritual consciousness (anadatmake) is pervertedly

(pratibimba) reflected in material consciousness, the individual soul

thinks, "I will not act for Your benefit (yusmad-arthatvam na bhavati). I

will act only for my benefit (asmad-arthatvam eva)." In this way, the

individual soul comes under the grip of materialistic false ego. Thus

influenced by false ego, the pure soul enters the material world (suddha

atma pakrty (matter)-avesah (entrance). Anuccheda 29, text 1 Sri Bhagavat

Sandarbha of Sri Jiva Gosvami

**ata evavidya-vimoksa-purvaka-svarupavasthiti-laksanayam muktau tal-linasya

tat- sadharmyapattir bhavati

purvaka: before, svarupa: own form, avasthiti: situation

When he becomes free from ignorance and situated in his original

constitutional position, the soul is said to be liberated. Anuccheda 37,

text 19

**sva-svarupa-vismrty (when the living entitry) forgets his own servitorship

to the lord (he falls down here to the material world).Anuccheda 103, text 6

**(13)

cid-dhama-bhaskara krsna, tanra jyotirgata

ananta citkana jiba tisthe avirata

Krsna is the shining sun of this all-cognizant spiritual abode, and

within His effulgence dwell innumerable fine particles of pure cognizance

called jiva.

(14)

sei jiba prema-dharmi, krsna-gata-prana

sada krsnakrstha, bhakti-sudha kore' pana

These jiva souls are by very nature full of pure ecstatic love and

are all the dearly beloved of Lord Krsna. Always being attracted by Krsna,

they continuously drink the ambrosial nectar of devotion.

(15)

nana-bhava-misrita piya dasya-rasa

krsner ananta-gune sada thake basa

Enjoying a mixture of various moods in the mellow of servitude, the

jivas eternally remain subjugated and controlled by Krsna;s unlimited

virtuous qualities.

(16)

krsna mata, krsna pita, krsna sahka, pati

ei sab bhinna-bhava krsna kore rati

They also love Krsna in all the different moods of being related to

Him as a mother, father, friend, or husband.

(17)

krsna se purusa ek nitya brndabane

jiba-gana nari-brnda, rame krsna sane

Eternally in Vrndavana Krsna is the only male (purusa), and all the

jivas there enjoy pastimes in His company in the role of females (prakrti).

(18)

sei to' ananda-lila ja'r nai anta

ataeva krsna-lila akhanda ananta

There is no end to all of these blissful pastimes; therefore Krsna's

pastimes are known for being undisputedly supreme and unlimited.

(19)

je-sab jiber 'bhoga-banca upajilo

purusa bhavete ta'ra jade paravesilo

All the souls, in whom the desire to enjoy separately awakens, have

to enter into the material world under the false conception of being a male

(a purusa).

(20)

maya-karya jada maya--nitya-sakti-chaya

krsna-dasi sei satya, kara-kartri maya

Illusory material activities as well as maya herself are both the

shadow reflections of the eternal potency. In reality, maya is the eternal

maidservant of Krsna, but her job is to be in charge of operating the

prison-house of the material world.

(21)

sei maya adarser samasta bisesa

loiya gathilo bisva jahe purna klesa

This illusory energy maya, has created the material universe exactly

like an imitation model of the real spiritual variegatedness, but with the

added feature of being full of various miseries.

(22)

jiba jadi hoilena krsna-bahimukha

mayadevi tabe ta'r jachilena sukha

If by chance a living entity becomes averse to the Supreme Lord

Krsna, then Mayadevi's duty is to voluntarily offer her temptations of

material happiness.

(23)

maya-sukhe matta jiba sri-krsna bhulilo

sei se avidya-base asmita janmilo

Intoxicated by maya's illusory happiness, the living entity then

forgets Krsna. Under the influence of such ignorance, false egoistic

selfishness arises.

(29)

bhramite bhramite jadi sadhu-sanga hoy

punaraya gupta nitya-dharmer udoy

Thus wandering and wandering, if by chance the poor soul gets the

association of the devotees of the Lord, then her eternal nature, which has

been for so long covered over, will once again become aroused.

(30)

sadhu-sange krsna-katha hoy alocana

purva-bhava udi' kate mayar bandhan

By discussing topics concerning Krsna in the association of

devotees, and thus awakening her previous mentality of servitude to Krsna,

all bondage to maya's illusion become severed.

(31)

krsna-prati jiba jabe korena iksana

bidya-rupa maya kore' bandhana chedana

When the conditioned soul thus looks towards Krsna, then by such an

act, then this very same maya, in the form of transcendental knowledge,

severs all of her material bonds.

(32)

mayika jagate bidya nitya-brndabana

jiber sadhana-janya kore' bibhavana

The seat of this transcendental knowledge is present within this

very universe as the eternal Vrndavana-dhama in India. Lord Krsna expands

His abode and pastimes at this Vrndavana just to facilitate the conditioned

souls' practice of devotional service.

(33)

sei brndabane jiba bhavavistha ho'ye

nitya seva labha kore' caitanya-asraye

When she comes into contact with this Vrndavana, the living entity

becomes overwhelmed and lost in emotional ecstasy. Remaining under the

shelter of Lord Caitanya, she attain s eternal service.

(34)

prakatita lila, ar goloka-bilasa

ek tattva, bhinna noy, dvividha prakasa

The Lord's pastimes of appearing in this world, as well as His

pastimes in Goloka, are one in the same truth. Being ;non-different, they

are simply two types of manifestations of the same pastimes.

(35)

nitya-lila nitya-dasa-ganer niloy

e prakata-lila baddha-jiber asroy

The eternal pastimes in Goloka are the abode of all the eternally

liberated servitors, whereas the manifest pastimes in the material world are

the refuge for all of the bound-up conditioned living entities.

(36)

ataeva brndabana jiber avasa

asar samsare nitya-tattver prakasa

Therefore Vrndavana is the living entities original eternal home,

manifesting its own eternally true nature within the dead material world.

SRI SRI KALYAN KALPA-TARU (THE DESIRE - TREE OF AUSPICIOUSNESS) by SRILA

SACCIDANANDA BHAKTIVINODA THAKURA

April 4, 2004

achintya, "Gauranga Premananda (das) BCS

(Amsterdam - NL)" <Gauranga.Premananda.BCS@p...> wrote:

> **the soul's pure qualities are shrunk or contracted in material

existence

> and then expanded upon liberation.(Sri Bhasya of Ramanujacarya).

FYI, and this is a point of contention I have with the authors of

_Our Original Position_, but none of the other Vaishnava

sampradaayas, Raamaanuja included, accept a "fall from Vaikuntha"

position or speak of it in anyway. Rather, they all follow the

literal position of accepting the anaadi-karma position discussed in

Vedaanta-suutra.

As an aside, citations like the above have no value, because no

coordinates (suutra numbers, etc) have been given to cross examine

the evidence, and furthermore the original Sanskrit has not been

given (Raamaanuja never wrote in English after all). Even assuming it

to be a faithful translation, there is nothing about the above quote

which speaks of falldown.

> **When that blisful spiritual consciousness (anadatmake) is

pervertedly

> (pratibimba) reflected in material consciousness, the individual

soul

> thinks, "I will not act for Your benefit (yusmad-arthatvam na

bhavati). I

> will act only for my benefit (asmad-arthatvam eva)." In this way,

the

> individual soul comes under the grip of materialistic false ego.

Thus

> influenced by false ego, the pure soul enters the material world

(suddha

> atma pakrty (matter)-avesah (entrance). Anuccheda 29, text 1 Sri

Bhagavat

> Sandarbha of Sri Jiva Gosvami

I'm also not sure I find evidence of the above type to be very

conclusive. When discussing spiritual matters, it is often the case

that aachaaryas use language which implies a temporal succession --

usually just to get across the point of cause and effect rather than

to literally imply one-after-the-other occurences within the span of

material time. It is just like saying, "from Krishna, Balaraama

expands." Oh, so Balaraama is not eternal? Like that, one has to be

careful not to overinterpret things, lest one end up endorsing an

illogical or unfaithful theory.

K

April 6, 2004

>> The idea of "falldown" from the spiritual world is based on a very

straightforward reading of the Sanskrit in these verses. For example: api

smarasi caatmaanam avij~naatasakha.m sakhe | hitvaa maa.m padam anvichchhan

bhaumabhogarato gataH || bhaa 4.28.53 || Note how the Lord asks if Vaidarbhi

cannot remember Him. Furthermore look at the word hitvaa -- "having given up."

This is something that had occurred in the past. Then again in SB 4.28.55 the

Lord says "Since you left me" (vihaaya maam). The meaning could not be more

straightforward. <

consulted with in the "past."

In Verse 54 Bhagavan proceeds to speak of two swans who lived together in the

Manasa-lake. Who do you think these two are? They are evidently the Jiva and

the Antaryami [dvA suparNA sayujA sakhAyA, etc., Mundaka U. 3.1.3]. And then in

Verse 55 (as you quote) there is mention of "leaving Me" in order to enjoy the

material world and undergo several (countless?) births as a result. Seems

pretty "straightforward" to me what the story is getting at. There is no

mention of "falldown from the spiritual world" in this story. It seems that you

are reading too much into the verses. >This is the wrong > interpretation. The

Gaudiya commentators have noted that this simply > relates to the state of

"mergnce" in Mahavishnu, not being > originally in the spiritual world. Which

Gaudiiya commentators say that? For the record, Srila Prabhupada does

explain the concept

of falldown based on these verses. Explaining the "Leaving me" and

"remembering me" as a reference to being merged in the body of Mahaa-Vishnu

after pralaya is an interesting position. But looking at the Sanskrit, one

would not be inclined to think that this is the meaning, since in that state,

the living entities have no body and no relationship with Vishnu -- thus, there

is nothing to remember about Him at that point. <

dissolution." - Tika, Verse 54 For a further description of being merged in

Mahavishnu, for some reason the commentary of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati

Thakura to certain verses of Brahma-samhita sticks in my mind, but I do not

have that text at present. Oh yes I just found it; Brahma-samhita 20.

And then if one wants to make a case out of the usage of the term 'svasthaH' in

verse 64, here is the commentary of Srila Jiva Gosvami: svasthaH

prAdhAnikAveza rahitaH san tad vyabhicAreNa pUrvam IzvarAkhya haMsa

bahirmukhatayA naSTAM tirohitAM smRtiM jAnAsi api kiM sakhAyaM mAm iti api

smarasi cAtmAnam avijJAta sakham ityatra pUrvoktaM sakhyAnusandhAnam punar Apa

iti. atra punaH zabdena smRti zabdena tad vismRter nAzAdi khaNDanaM vivakSitam

*kintu anAdyAvRtasyApi* sakhyasya svAbhAvikatvAd *anAditvam* ityeva kRta hAnya

kRtAbhyAgama prasaGgAt“Being svasthah means ‘being free from the possession of

material nature” tad vyabhicarena means ‘not devoted to the swan called

isvara’. Because of this the memory was lost - nastam. punar apa means

‘regained the consciousness of friends’ as was stated in words such as janasi

kim sakhayam mam (4.28.52). Here the use of the words ‘punah’ and smrtih are

used to indicate the disappearance or destruction of

forgetfulness. But that forgetfulness *is certainly beginningless* although the

friendship, *which is also covered without beginning,* is natural.”>> My

position simply is that the shaastras endorse both positions, contradictory

though they seem. <

--

Gour Govinda Katha - gourgovindakatha/Do you ?

Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

April 6, 2004

krishna susarla wrote:

>one has to be

>careful not to overinterpret things, lest one end up endorsing an

>illogical or unfaithful theory.

so what is your logical or faithful theory

could you please give sastric references

and you didn't comment on the other clear quotes:

**Having forgotten Krishna, the conditioned living entity is suffering the

misdirection and perversion of his own so-called intelligence. The living

entities are fragmental parts of the supreme shelter, Krishna, but have

fallen from Krishna's kingdom of spiritual pastimes (Srimad Bhagavatam

11,2,38,

purport by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura

**'The eternal pastimes that svayam-rupa Krishna performs with His

'attracted' associates in Vraja are meant for removing the misfortune

of the living entities, so to engage in service other than the worship

of Krishna is most unbecoming . Therefore, understanding yourselves

as 'attracted' in your relationship with the Lord, you should try

to awaken your constitutional propensities.'

purport

Attracted living entities have no propensity other

than the worship of that Krishna.

The moment the attracted souls are distracted , they glance

towards maya from Vaikuntha. At that time the universe is

created and material enjoyment overcomes the constitutional

duties of the living entities belonging to the marginal

potency of the Lord and makes them averse to Krishna.

(Caitanya Bhagavata ch. 13, t 84 p. of Srila Bhaktisidhanta Sarasvati)

**Dislocated stars like us shooting from the ever-glowing infinite

fountainhead of the Transcendence. The shooting stars are again retracted by

the same fountainhead through the power of instructions and bliss.... this

will carry them back to their original position to be dovetailed with the

Absolute.

We are expelled Adams and Eves from paradise

(from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami's 'harmonist')

(13)

cid-dhama-bhaskara krsna, tanra jyotirgata

ananta citkana jiba tisthe avirata

Krsna is the shining sun of this all-cognizant spiritual abode, and

within His effulgence dwell innumerable fine particles of pure cognizance

called jiva.

(14)

sei jiba prema-dharmi, krsna-gata-prana

sada krsnakrstha, bhakti-sudha kore' pana

These jiva souls are by very nature full of pure ecstatic love and

are all the dearly beloved of Lord Krsna. Always being attracted by Krsna,

they continuously drink the ambrosial nectar of devotion.

(15)

nana-bhava-misrita piya dasya-rasa

krsner ananta-gune sada thake basa

Enjoying a mixture of various moods in the mellow of servitude, the

jivas eternally remain subjugated and controlled by Krsna;s unlimited

virtuous qualities.

(16)

krsna mata, krsna pita, krsna sahka, pati

ei sab bhinna-bhava krsna kore rati

They also love Krsna in all the different moods of being related to

Him as a mother, father, friend, or husband.

(17)

krsna se purusa ek nitya brndabane

jiba-gana nari-brnda, rame krsna sane

Eternally in Vrndavana Krsna is the only male (purusa), and all the

jivas there enjoy pastimes in His company in the role of females (prakrti).

(18)

sei to' ananda-lila ja'r nai anta

ataeva krsna-lila akhanda ananta

There is no end to all of these blissful pastimes; therefore Krsna's

pastimes are known for being undisputedly supreme and unlimited.

(19)

je-sab jiber 'bhoga-banca upajilo

purusa bhavete ta'ra jade paravesilo

All the souls, in whom the desire to enjoy separately awakens, have

to enter into the material world under the false conception of being a male

(a purusa).

(20)

maya-karya jada maya--nitya-sakti-chaya

krsna-dasi sei satya, kara-kartri maya

Illusory material activities as well as maya herself are both the

shadow reflections of the eternal potency. In reality, maya is the eternal

maidservant of Krsna, but her job is to be in charge of operating the

prison-house of the material world.

(21)

sei maya adarser samasta bisesa

loiya gathilo bisva jahe purna klesa

This illusory energy maya, has created the material universe exactly

like an imitation model of the real spiritual variegatedness, but with the

added feature of being full of various miseries.

(22)

jiba jadi hoilena krsna-bahimukha

mayadevi tabe ta'r jachilena sukha

If by chance a living entity becomes averse to the Supreme Lord

Krsna, then Mayadevi's duty is to voluntarily offer her temptations of

material happiness.

(23)

maya-sukhe matta jiba sri-krsna bhulilo

sei se avidya-base asmita janmilo

Intoxicated by maya's illusory happiness, the living entity then

forgets Krsna. Under the influence of such ignorance, false egoistic

selfishness arises.

(29)

bhramite bhramite jadi sadhu-sanga hoy

punaraya gupta nitya-dharmer udoy

Thus wandering and wandering, if by chance the poor soul gets the

association of the devotees of the Lord, then her eternal nature, which has

been for so long covered over, will once again become aroused.

(30)

sadhu-sange krsna-katha hoy alocana

purva-bhava udi' kate mayar bandhan

By discussing topics concerning Krsna in the association of

devotees, and thus awakening her previous mentality of servitude to Krsna,

all bondage to maya's illusion become severed.

(31)

krsna-prati jiba jabe korena iksana

bidya-rupa maya kore' bandhana chedana

When the conditioned soul thus looks towards Krsna, then by such an

act, then this very same maya, in the form of transcendental knowledge,

severs all of her material bonds.

(32)

mayika jagate bidya nitya-brndabana

jiber sadhana-janya kore' bibhavana

The seat of this transcendental knowledge is present within this

very universe as the eternal Vrndavana-dhama in India. Lord Krsna expands

His abode and pastimes at this Vrndavana just to facilitate the conditioned

souls' practice of devotional service.

(33)

sei brndabane jiba bhavavistha ho'ye

nitya seva labha kore' caitanya-asraye

When she comes into contact with this Vrndavana, the living entity

becomes overwhelmed and lost in emotional ecstasy. Remaining under the

shelter of Lord Caitanya, she attain s eternal service.

(34)

prakatita lila, ar goloka-bilasa

ek tattva, bhinna noy, dvividha prakasa

The Lord's pastimes of appearing in this world, as well as His

pastimes in Goloka, are one in the same truth. Being ;non-different, they

are simply two types of manifestations of the same pastimes.

(35)

nitya-lila nitya-dasa-ganer niloy

e prakata-lila baddha-jiber asroy

The eternal pastimes in Goloka are the abode of all the eternally

liberated servitors, whereas the manifest pastimes in the material world are

the refuge for all of the bound-up conditioned living entities.

(36)

ataeva brndabana jiber avasa

asar samsare nitya-tattver prakasa

Therefore Vrndavana is the living entities original eternal home,

manifesting its own eternally true nature within the dead material world.

SRI SRI KALYAN KALPA-TARU (THE DESIRE - TREE OF AUSPICIOUSNESS) by SRILA

SACCIDANANDA BHAKTIVINODA THAKURA

and Srila Prabhupada is very clear:

** the soul somehow falls out of this blissful condition due to pride, much

like the Christian thesis that the devil fell out of heaven due to prideIwhy

the soul would be so silly, so foolish, so insane, as to do such a thing.

Prabhupada: That is his independence... They committed offenseIThat was

their fault...So we sometimes commit mistake. That is also misuse of

independence

Dr. John Mize: Are more souls falling all the time?

Prabhupada: Not all the time. But there is the tendency of fall down, not

for all, but because there is independence...Just like a government

constructing a city and constructs also prison house because the government

knows that somebody will be criminalIIf you make it one way only, that you

cannot become fall down, that is not independence. That is force. . (Conv

23/6/75)

The next question, about the living entities falling down in this material

world are not from the impersonal brahman. Existence in the impersonal

brahma is also within the category of non-Krsna consciousness. Those who are

in the brahman effulgence they are also in the fallen condition, so there is

no question of falling down from a fallen condition. When fall takes place,

it means falling down from the non-fallen condition.

The non-fallen condition is Krsna consciousness. So long one can maintain

pure Krsna consciousness he is not fallen down. As soon as he becomes out of

Krsna consciousness immediately he is fallen down(letter 13-06-'70).

** the kingdom of God where spiritual varieties are there. They are not

variety-less. Otherwise, the Lord would not have said that samstha. There is

a regular establishmentIWe are all belong to that establishment, but being

forgetful, we are now in this material world. Just like sometimes some of us

becomes crazy and he is, goes to the lunatic asylum, similarly, those who

become crazy, such spiritual identities, they are put into this lunatic

asylum. It is called material world. (lec BG 6.11-21)

** Guru-kripa: How is it that, if everything is free from envy, free from

bad material elements...

Prabhupada: Yes.

Guru-kripa: How is it that...

Prabhupada: That is independence. That is independence. In spite of all

these things, because you have got little independence, you can violate.

Sudamaa; It is very hard thing to understand.

Prabhupada: No, it is not difficult. It is not difficult.

Acyutananda: It is not difficult. They don't want to understand.

Prabhupada: Because you are part and parcel of God, God has got full

independence, but you have got little independence, proportionately, because

you are part and parcel...

Acyutananda: But in the Gétä, it says,"Once coming there, he never returns."

Prabhupada: But if he likes, he can return.

Acyutananda: He can return.

Prabhupada: That independence has to be accepted, little independence. We

can misuse that. Krsna-bahirmukha hana bhoga vancha kare. That misuse is the

cause of our falldown.

But in the Gita, it says, "Once coming there, he never returns."

Prabhupada: But if he likes, he can return.

Acyutananda: He can return.

Prabhupada: That independence has to be accepted, little independence. We

can misuse that. Krsna-bahirmukha hana bhoga vancha kare. That misuse is the

cause of our falldown.

Acyutananda: In Krsna book it says that there were some color fighting in

Dvaraka. They were throwing color. And some men became lusty seeing the

women. So is... Will that be the first part of their falldown, to be in

Vaikuntha and think of personal lust with Krsna's associates?

Prabhupada: Yes. (Conversation, Mayapur, February 19, 1976)

** Regarding your questions concerning the spirit souls falling into Maya's

influence, it is not that those who have developed a passive relationship

with Krsna are more likely to fall into nescient activities. Usually anyone

who has developed his relationship with Krsna does not fall down in any

circumstance, but because the independence is always there, the soul may

fall down from any position or any relationship by misusing his

independence. But his relationship with Krsna is never lost, simply it is

forgotten by the influence of Maya, so it may be regained or revived by the

process of hearing the Holy Name of Krsna and then the devotee engages

himself in the service of the Lord which is his original or constitutional

position. The relationship of the living entity with Krsna is eternal as

both Krsna and the living entity are eternal; the process is one of revival

only, nothing new. (70-02-27)

** First the attachment comes to enjoy sense gratification. Even with Krsna

desire for sense gratification is there. There is a dormant attitude for

forgetting Krsna and creating an atmosphere for enjoying independently. Just

like at the edge of the beach, sometimes the water covers, sometimes there

is dry sand, coming and going. Our position is like that, sometimes covered,

sometimes free, just like at the edge of the tide. As soon as we forget,

immediately the illusion is there. Just like as soon as we sleep, dream is

there... As soon as we try to become Lord, immediately we are covered by

Maya. Formerly we were with Krsna in His lila or sport (6.6.'72)

**"so long the spark is within the fire, it has got the same quality,

illumination and burning quality. But as soon as falls down-extinguished, no

more illumination, no more burning power. So our position is like that.

Although we are part and parcel of God, mamaiväàço jéva-bhütaù [bg. 15.7],

because we have cyuta, fallen down from our spiritual atmosphere... Just

like spiritual atmosphere, KåJëa's friends, cowherd boys, they're playing

with KåJëa. That is also playing. And here in this material world the boys

they also play football play. But these two plays are different. One is

spiritual and another is material... There are three chances. One chance is

the spark falls down on dry grass-then there is fire. As soon as the spark

falls down on the dry grass there is fire for some time. And when the spark

falls down on the ground, it is extinguished. And when the fire, spark,

falls down on the water, then it is not only extinguished; it becomes no

more inflammable. Very difficult to inflame. Similarly, when we fall down

from the fire, spiritual world, we associate with three qualities." (SP

lecture, SB 1.7.16, Vrndavana)

then krishna susarla wrote:

>The former is clearly supported by Vedaanta-

>suutra. But the latter is not supported by the Bhaagavatam. Hence, we

>have two seemingly contradictory positions.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta writes in "Sri Caitanya's teachings" that the

authority and position of Srimad Bhagavatam is above Vedanta-sutra

and it's bhasya's

hence: "fall from Vaikuntha"

April 6, 2004

Brhad Bhagavatamrta 2.6.358. Therefore, by continuously experiencing union and

separation, the prema of the Vrajavasis is forever increasing.360. For those

who are immersed in the flowing ocean of Srî Krsna’s enchanting sweetness and

who are maddened in the craving for the treasure of prema for Him, is there

anything in all of existence that would not be forgotten?366. The nature of

that Goloka is such that those who reside there never wish to leave it, even if

they cannot have Srî Krsna’s company there.368. In this way I resided there, and

having attained a result beyond even what I had desired for such a very long

time, I was always feeling divine jubilation. The nature ofvraja-prema is that

one is never fully satisfied, but rather the desire to taste it forever

increases.369. Therefore with any of my senses I am unable for even one moment

to leave the

supremely enchanting lotus feet of Srî Krsna, which are anointed with the

kumkuma from the breasts of the gopîs

Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

April 7, 2004

brhad bhagavatamrta 2.6.366:

tallokasya svabhAvo'yaM kRSNa saGgaM vinApi yat; bhavet tatraiva

tiSThAsA na cikIrSA ca kasyacit

tika of Sanatan:

na ca kasyacit kutrapi gamanadi karmanas cikirsa vidhaneccha

Baladeva in his Govinda Bhasya on VedAnta SUtra 4.4.22:

na ca sarvezvaraH zrI hariH svAdhina muktaM svalokAt-kadAcit

pAtyitumicchet mukto vA kadAcit taM jIhased iti zakyaM saGkitum.

"One cannot even imagine that the Supreme Lord Hari would ever

desire that the liberated souls fall down, nor would the liberated

souls ever desire to leave the Lord."

April 8, 2004

achintya, "Gauranga Premananda (das) BCS

(Amsterdam - NL)" <Gauranga.Premananda.BCS@p...> wrote:

>

> Srila Bhaktisiddhanta writes in "Sri Caitanya's teachings" that the

> authority and position of Srimad Bhagavatam is above Vedanta-sutra

> and it's bhasya's

> hence: "fall from Vaikuntha"

Could you provide the exact quote, please?

Jai Sri Krishna.

April 8, 2004

some realated articles on jiva issue:

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vishnu_mjs/jiva/jiva.h

tml

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vishnu_mjs/affection_u

nabridged/oag_a_5_preach.html

April 9, 2004

achintya, "Gauranga Premananda (das) BCS

(Amsterdam - NL)" <Gauranga.Premananda.BCS@p...> wrote:

> krishna susarla wrote:

> >one has to be

> >careful not to overinterpret things, lest one end up endorsing an

> >illogical or unfaithful theory.

>

> so what is your logical or faithful theory

> could you please give sastric references

I'm not sure what you are asking for here. All I was trying to point

out is that certain pieces of evidence should not be overinterpreted -

in particular, shaastric statments in the form of "When X, then Y"

when discussing matters outside the purview of material time.

Please note that I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your

overall thesis. I am only commenting on specific points of evidence

brought up by you.

> and you didn't comment on the other clear quotes:

Because in contrast to the quotes I previously questioned, I agree

with you that these other "quotes" are, as you have opined, quite

clear. Here it is again:

> **Having forgotten Krishna, the conditioned living entity is

suffering the

> misdirection and perversion of his own so-called intelligence. The

living

> entities are fragmental parts of the supreme shelter, Krishna, but

have

> fallen from Krishna's kingdom of spiritual pastimes (Srimad

Bhagavatam

> 11,2,38,

> purport by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura

Gaurasundara said that no one outside ISKCON accepted the fall down

theory. Clearly this is wrong. Gaudiiya Vaishnavas in Prabhupada's

line up to Bhaktivinod Thakura did accept it. Perhaps what he meant

to say is no one outside the Bhaktisiddhanta paramparaa accepted fall

theory.

By the way, as an aside, it would help if (1) publication info were

provided when quoting from sources others don't have access to, and

(2) the original language was quoted (didn't Bhaktisiddhanta write

his commentaries in Bengali?). Otherwise, from a scholarly point of

view, one might reasonably question whether or not you or whoever

provided this quote isn't translating according to his own bias. I'm

guessing you just took this from the BBT purport to SB... in which

case we ought to request such information from them.

> We are expelled Adams and Eves from paradise

> (from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami's 'harmonist')

Again, it would help if specifics were provided, i.e. Volume/issue

number, etc.

[deleted]

It was not necessary to repost all of the quotes again. As I

mentioned previously, I have no objection to the vast majority of

them.

> then krishna susarla wrote:

>

> >The former is clearly supported by Vedaanta-

> >suutra. But the latter is not supported by the Bhaagavatam. Hence,

we

> >have two seemingly contradictory positions.

>

> Srila Bhaktisiddhanta writes in "Sri Caitanya's teachings" that the

> authority and position of Srimad Bhagavatam is above Vedanta-sutra

> and it's bhasya's

> hence: "fall from Vaikuntha"

Two points:

1) You have not provided the specific quote, and again one might

reasonably ask whether or not you are paraphrasing in a way that is

favorable to your position. Note that it is not an accusation, just a

suggestion to be more explicit in your presentation.

2) The Bhaagavatam is a commentary on the Vedaanta-suutra. Regarding

it, the Garuda Puraana states: "artho 'yam brahmasuutraaNaa.mThis

is the essence of the brahma-suutras." The quote is well known in

Gaudiiya Vaishnava circles and is quoted in Anuchchheda 21.1 of Shrii

Tattva-sandarbha of Shriila Jiiva Gosvaamii. The point I'm trying to

make is, when one is considered a commentary of the other, it doesn't

make sense to say that the commentary is "higher" than the commented,

especially if the point is to ignore what is in the original (the

Vyaasa-suutras).

On the other hand, what Srila Bhaktisiddhanta probably means

by "higher" (if indeed His Divine Grace used that word) is that the

Bhaagavatam is more relevant, and thus its study is preferred,

because it explains the philosophy of the Vedaanta-suutras in such a

way that even unqualified persons can benefit. Indeed, even aatma-

raamas relish it above all else! But that is not the same thing as

saying that the Vedaanta-suutra has no authority. Rather, the point

is that the Vedaanta and the Bhaagavatam must have one, harmonious

conclusion; preference of one to the point of disregarding the

authority of the other is simply arbitrary.

yours,

K

April 9, 2004

achintya, Gaurasundara das

<gaurasundara_108> wrote:

> You have forgotten that we cannot understand sastra with our own

minds.>

Well, I was simply reading the Sanskrit, something you are evidently

unable to do.

> We need to hear it through the lips of the sadhus in order to gain

access into the mysteries of the text.>

If you truly feel that way, then take a look also at Srila

Prabhupada's purports to those verses.

My understanding is not only based on a literal reading of those

verses, but also on Srila Prabhupada's commentary. Admittedly, I

don't have either Jiiva's or Vishvanaatha Chakravarti's commentaries

(which I hope to remedy soon). However, I am prepared to accept that

other commentators may have commented differently.

The point however, is that it was *you* who stated, and I quote:

"I said that this is NOT proof of the

soul's originally being in the spiritual world. This is the WRONG

interpretation. " [emphasis mine]

Note that it was *you* who suggested that a particular interpretation

was wrong. I only quoted this verse as evidence of the soul's

original position... which, if we are to follow your logic, should be

acceptable because some (if not most or all) saadhus have commented

similarly.

But now, in defense of the fact that you can't read the verses, you

appealed to the necessity of learning the meaning of the verses from

saadhus. Yet Srila Prabhupada's commentary on those verses does not

seem to count:

"The original home of the living entity and the Supreme Personality

of Godhead is the spiritual world. In the spiritual world both the

Lord and the living entities live together very peacefully. Since the

living entity remains engaged in the service of the Lord, they both

share a blissful life in the spiritual world. However, when the

living entity wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the material

world. " (SB 4.28.54 purport)

"When the living entity falls down, he goes into the material world,

which was created by the external energy of the Lord." (SB 4.28.55

purport)

So, if that's the wrong interpretation because some Gaudiiya

commentators have given a different interpretation, then is Srila

Prabhupada wrong because he is not a saadhu? Or, do you get to

arbitrate which saadhus are to be followed? Or is it that you did not

mean what you said when you requested us to learn from a saadhu? Or

did you mean certain saadhus only, but not others? Please clarify.

> I'll discuss more on this later, but first read the previous verses

of this metaphorical story before quoting verses out of context. In

Verse 52, Bhagavan talks of a "friend" whom the jiva consulted with

in the "past."

> In Verse 54 Bhagavan proceeds to speak of two swans who lived

together in the Manasa-lake. Who do you think these two are? They are

evidently the Jiva and the Antaryami [dvA suparNA sayujA sakhAyA,

etc., Mundaka U. 3.1.3]. And then in Verse 55 (as you quote) there is

mention of "leaving Me" in order to enjoy the material world and

undergo several (countless?) births as a result.

>

> Seems pretty "straightforward" to me what the story is getting at.

There is no mention of "falldown from the spiritual world" in this

story. It seems that you are reading too much into the verses.

>

No, now it is you who are reading out of context. No doubt Vaidarbhi

and the Brahmin represent the conditioned living entity and the

Supersoul, respectively. But there is no question of the conditioned

living entity "leaving" the company of the Supersoul expansion of the

Lord, who always accompanies the living entity everywhere. Such a

thing is never spoken of anywhere. It would make no sense to suggest

that the story describes the jiiva leaving the Paramaatmaa. On the

other hand, given that the Paramaatmaa is Himself the Supreme Lord,

suggesting that the story describes the devotee leaving the company

of the Supreme Lord makes perfect sense. Even you, alluding to

Vishvanaatha, take the "leaving" to refer to the jiiva leaving the

body of Mahaa-Vishnu. So, the two swans analogy is no more consistent

with Vishvanaatha than with Bhaktivedanta, if you want to split hairs

over it.

Note that I am not objecting to Vishvanaatha's commentary -- just

pointing out the logical reasons why Srila Prabhupada (whom you

consider to be wrong) wrote what he did.

> >This is the wrong

> > interpretation. The Gaudiya commentators have noted that this

> simply

> > relates to the state of "mergnce" in Mahavishnu, not being

> > originally in the spiritual world.

>

> Which Gaudiiya commentators say that? <<

>

> Jiva Gosvami and Visvanatha Cakravartipada.

> >> For the record, Srila Prabhupada does explain the concept of

> falldown based on these verses. <<

>

> It does not follow from Jiva Gosvami's and Visvanatha

Cakravartipada's commentaries.

Ok, you've provided their comments - fair enough. I will therefore

conceed that Srila Prabhupada seems to comment differently from

Vishvanaatha and Jiiva, based on the excerpts you have provided. But

I still am not clear as to why you say Srila Prabhupada's

interpretation is wrong. That they comment differently does not

bother me.

> >> Explaining the "Leaving me" and "remembering me" as a reference

to

> being merged in the body of Mahaa-Vishnu after pralaya is an

interesting

> position. But looking at the Sanskrit, one would not be inclined to

> think that this is the meaning, since in that state, the living

entities

> have no body and no relationship with Vishnu -- thus, there is

nothing

> to remember about Him at that point. <<

>

> In Bhagavata 4.28.52 it is mentioned that the jiva was with

Bhagavan, but according to Visvanatha Cakravartipada in his 'Sarartha-

darsini' commentary the jiva only merged with Mahavishnu during the

universal (complete) dissolution:

>

> mayy eva militva - "Being merged in Me (Mahavisnu) you experienced

happiness by My association." sahasram parivatsaran mahapralayo yavad

ityartha "Until the end of the great dissolution." - Tika, Verse 54

>

I think you or whoever provided you with the quote transliterated the

above incorrectly. But anyway, if you want to arbitrate right and

wrong, I will point out again that there is no relationship with

Vishnu in that state, and thus nothing to remember.

> For a further description of being merged in Mahavishnu, for some

reason the commentary of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura to

certain verses of Brahma-samhita sticks in my mind, but I do not have

that text at present.

>

> Oh yes I just found it; Brahma-samhita 20.

yojayitvaa tu taany eva pravivesha svaya.m guhaam |

guhaa.m praviShTe tasmi.ms tu jiivaatmaa pratibudhyate || BrS 5.20 ||

The verse says that the jiivas were reawakened from their merger with

Mahaa-Vishnu. If they were dormant, where is the question of

remembering Him? They experienced great happiness in a dormant state

being merged with Him, then they woke up?

In his commentary, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati writes, "Those jiivas

that were merged in Hari at the end of the life of Brahmaa in the

great cataclysm during the preceding great age of the universe,

reappeared in this world in accordance with their former fruitive

desires."

Gaura, this does not sound like a description of living entities who

have awakened to their real spiritual position, and who have regained

their lost memory of the Supersoul.

> And then if one wants to make a case out of the usage of the

term 'svasthaH' in verse 64, here is the commentary of Srila Jiva

Gosvami:

>

> svasthaH prAdhAnikAveza rahitaH san tad vyabhicAreNa pUrvam

IzvarAkhya

> haMsa bahirmukhatayA naSTAM tirohitAM smRtiM jAnAsi api kiM

sakhAyaM

> mAm iti api smarasi cAtmAnam avijJAta sakham ityatra pUrvoktaM

> sakhyAnusandhAnam punar Apa iti. atra punaH zabdena smRti zabdena

tad vismRter

> nAzAdi khaNDanaM vivakSitam *kintu anAdyAvRtasyApi* sakhyasya

> svAbhAvikatvAd *anAditvam* ityeva kRta hAnya kRtAbhyAgama prasaGgAt

>

> "Being svasthah means `being free from the possession of material

nature" tad vyabhicarena means `not devoted to the swan called

isvara'. Because of this the memory was lost - nastam. punar apa

means `regained the consciousness of friends' as was stated in words

such as janasi kim sakhayam mam (4.28.52). Here the use of the

words `punah' and smrtih are used to indicate the disappearance or

destruction of forgetfulness. But that forgetfulness *is certainly

beginningless* although the friendship, *which is also covered

without beginning,* is natural."

>

I'm just trying to understand your/Jiva Gosvami's position here --

the consciousness of friendship with the Supersoul/Mahaa-Vishnu was

lost, yet it was also eternally forgotten? He never had it, but yet

he regained it?

Here is the verse in full:

eva.m sa maanaso ha.mso ha.msena pratibodhitaH |

svasthas tadvyabhichaareNa naShTaam aapa punaH smR^itim || bhaa

4.28.64 ||

In the first half of the verse, the analogy of two swans living in

the heart is very clear, and Srila Prabhupada, who himself promotes

the fall theory, comments accordingly. Yet the second half of the

verse goes even further "sva-sthas tad-vyabhichaareNa naShTaam aapa

punaH smR^itim" -- He gains what he lost again, real memory. What is

that which he gains, which he formerly lost? If it is only memory of

his relationship with the Supersoul, then why, when he formerly had

that memory, was he merged in the body of Mahaa-Vishnu after pralaya?

If all he gains is that same knowledge, then so what? He remembers

Vishnu, but still gets helplessly annihilated with each cosmic

devastation?

Anyway, if Srila Jiva Gosvami has written this, then we're obligated

to accept it as Gaudiiya Vaishnava cannon. All I wish to point out is

that if you are going to arbitrate some interpretations as "right"

and others as "wrong," realize that Srila Prabhupada's has the

benefit of being more literal. It takes more intepretation to believe

that the "fall" is from the body of Mahaa-Vishnu, from which one

enjoyed a relationship with Him though dormant, and despite which one

is helplessly tossed again into the material world, losing a

consciousness of friendship which he never had, the forgetfulness

being eternal.

> >> My position simply is that the shaastras endorse both positions,

> contradictory though they seem. <<

>

> Well alright, my position is that the Gaudiya commentators (namely

Jiva Gosvami and Visvanatha Cakravartipada) do not endorse the "fall"

theory in those verses of SB.

>

I can accept this. But I don't accept that Srila Prabhupada's

comments on those verses are "wrong," as you so boldly indicated

earlier. But then maybe this is your way of retracting your initial

objection.

April 10, 2004

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

"given that the Paramaatmaa is Himself the Supreme Lord, suggesting

that the story describes the devotee leaving the company of the

Supreme Lord makes perfect sense"

-----

maha visnu also is 'the Supreme Lord'

----------------

"given that the Paramaatmaa is Himself the Supreme Lord, suggesting

that the story describes the devotee leaving the company of the

Supreme Lord makes perfect sense"

--------

http://vedabase.net/sb/4/28/55

saH — that swan; tvam — yourself; vihAya — leaving; mAm

— Me;

bandho — O friend; gataH — went; grAmya — material; matiH

— whose

consciousness; mahIm — to earth; vicaran — traveling; padam

—

position; adrAksIH — you saw; kayAcit — by someone; nirmitam

—

manufactured; striyA — by a woman

---

in this story, an 'indirect' 'instruction for self realization',

note 'matiH', as i understand it, jivas consciousness left antaryami

----------

"My understanding is not only based on a literal reading of those

verses, but also on Srila Prabhupada's commentary...........realize

that Srila Prabhupada's has the benefit of being more literal"

----

sastra sangati & siddhanta gives the proper meaning of verses, its

more important than being literl. (not saying those interpretations

are literal as you claim) also keep in mind prabhupad & bvt say

things in favor of 'anti fall' position 2, i dont know about bst

----------------

this might be in line with visvanaths commentary to 4.28.52, i dont

know:

http://vedabase.net/sb/2/10/6

nirodho 'syAnuzayanam

AtmanaH saha zaktibhiH

muktir hitvAnyathA rUpaM

sva-rUpeNa vyavasthitiH

The merging of the living entity, along with his conditional living

tendency, with the mystic lying down of the mahA-viSNu is called the

winding up of the cosmic manifestation. Liberation is the permanent

situation of the form of the living entity after he gives up the

changeable gross and subtle material bodies

----------------

"commentary of Srila Jiva Gosvami: .....that forgetfulness *is

certainly beginningless* "

----

see also bhagavat 11.11.4 & 11.22.10 (im 2 lazy to cpy pst &

transliterate the

diacritics :-P)

April 10, 2004

http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/24/183

mat-sevayA pratItaM te

sAlokyAdi-catuSTayam

necchanti sevayA pUrNAH

kuto 'nyat kAla-viplutam

"'My devotees, having fulfilled their desires by serving Me, do not

accept the four kinds of salvation that are easily earned by such

service. >>Why then should they accept any pleasures that are lost

in the course of time?'<<

PURPORT

This is a quotation from zrImad-bhAgavatam (9.4.67)

http://vedabase.net/sb/11/14/14

na pArameSThyaM na mahendra-dhiSNyaM

na sArvabhaumaM na rasAdhipatyam

na yoga-siddhIr apunar-bhavaM vA

mayy arpitAtmecchati mad vinAnyat

One who has fixed his consciousness on Me desires neither the

position or abode of Lord brahmA or Lord indra, nor an empire on

the earth, nor sovereignty in the lower planetary systems, nor the

eightfold perfection of yoga, nor liberation from birth and death.

Such a person >>desires Me alone<<

http://vedabase.net/sb/11/14/16

nirapekSaM muniM zAntaM

nirvairaM sama-darzanam

anuvrajAmy ahaM nityaM

pUyeyety aGghri-reNubhiH

With the dust of My devotees' lotus feet I desire to purify the

material worlds, which are situated within Me. Thus, I always follow

the footsteps of My pure devotees, who are >>free from all personal

desire<<, rapt in thought of My pastimes, peaceful, without any

feelings of enmity, and of equal disposition everywhere

Sign In

Few questions

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest