The Soul's Fall... The Final Word

[Guest guest]

Gerald Surya wrote:

 

>

> Actually the analogy works better in reverse: It is very easy to show that

> Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Baladeva and their secondary commentators show

> that the phrase anadikarma in Vedanta refers to literally beginningless

> material activity as applied to every individual soul.

 

Perhaps it might be so, I have to admit not to be so familiar

with the commentaries on Vedanta of other Acaryas. But then,

why don't you discuss and refer the the works of those acaryas instead,

and not Srila Prabhupada's? If you study Srila Prabhupada's books,

you find no explicit information telling us that there had been

no prior spiritual experience of ours since the very existence of the

soul. But there is quite some information on the opposite case.

 

 

 

> OOP tries to

> interpret it to refer to spiritual activity prior to the fall to bring it

> in line with the fall theory. It is this novel interpretive way that

> greatly resembles rtvikvada.

 

Some supporters of exclusive "no-fall-from" theory, when faced to

the undoubtedly clear statements from Srila Prabhupada that give the

information on "begginninglessly conditioned" souls' prior spiritual

activities, give a kind of explanation: "Srila Prabhupada deliberately

misinformed us all, knowing that we were not ready to accept the truth".

Now, an another version seems to be appearing: "A novel interpretative

way that greatly resembles rtvikvada".

 

 

This is your(anybody's) big problem as soon as you become an exclusive

protagonist of "no-fall" theory -- Srila Prabhupada. You got to go

around him somehow or other. Either by giving some "explanation" on

why he was telling us something that isn't true, or to assume some of

"OED" methods when reading his books: you first read the verse,

then the Translation (word-by-word optional), then the Bhaktivedanta

Purport, and then -- the Oxford English Dictionary.

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/26/99 2:47:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Mahanidhi (AT) bbt (DOT) se

writes:

 

<< This is your(anybody's) big problem as soon as you become an exclusive

protagonist of "no-fall" theory -- Srila Prabhupada. You got to go

around him somehow or other. >>

 

I think Ravindra svarupa Prabhu gives a good resolution: in pure

material-linear time, we have been conditioned since "time without limit" or

in other words literally eternally. But if we step out of material time, we

can speak of eternal ongoing events as discrete points or acts (as in

"Krishna expanded as Balarama"). Then we can say that the soul fell. But

speaking in ordinary time, the soul (his conditioned aspect) has always been

here eternally, and his svarupa is always there eternally.

 

This is *very* different from the OOP explanation, that the soul (at material

time A) dropped from there, and after some duration of material time will go

back (at material time B). This OOP explanation tries to squeeze both truths

of fall and no fall onto a linear time scale, leading to a figurative

understanding of beginningless-anadi.

 

Vijay's explanation of beginningless is similar to Ravindra svarupa's but not

to OOP's. So if Vijay is giving an explanation of the word beginningless

that is both consistent with one by a good standing SP disciple ("from time

without limit"), as well as consistent with Vedanta, what is the problem in

it?

 

(I concede I am again referring to a source other than SP's books for an

explanation, which was your original criticism.)

 

Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

>

> Vijay's explanation of beginningless is similar to Ravindra svarupa's but

> not to OOP's. So if Vijay is giving an explanation of the word

> beginningless that is both consistent with one by a good standing SP

> disciple ("from time without limit"), as well as consistent with Vedanta,

> what is the problem in it?

>

 

 

You are avoiding the issue. You are simply going on turning around

some "henceforward". Just as I thought.

 

 

Already in the purport to the third verse of Srimad-bhagavatam

(SB 1.1.3), Srila Prabhupada gives us the explanation of various

rasas in this material world as the perverted reflection of the

rasas in the Spiritual World. He says "In the material existence,

the rasa is experienced in the perverted form, which is temporary."

He is saying this after giving us one very important and very relevant

information:

 

"But as far as the spirit souls are concerned, they are one

qualitatively with the with the Supreme Lord. Therefore ***the

rasas were originally exchanged*** between the spiritual living

being and the spiritual whole, the Supreme Personality of Godhead".

 

Now you tell us that "rasas were NEVER exchanged with the SPG",

that there were NO previous spiritual experience of the (temporary

conditioned) living entity. And then ask "What's the problem with

such explanation?" And, on top of it, tell us how we got NO

reason to "assume" something else than your conclusion is offering.

 

 

 

> (I concede I am again referring to a source other than SP's books for an

> explanation, which was your original criticism.)

 

That is not the point. I am not criticizing "referring to a source

other than SP's books".

 

The point is that you got to leave Srila Prabhupada and his books

in order to establish "no-previous-spiritual-experience". But then

you come back to the same books in order to implement such conclusion

(derived form some another sources) into SP's books. So, if you

ignore SP's books on the first place, then at least it would be fair

to keep ignoring them all way along.

 

Your "referring to a source other than SP's books" is simply

the indication that you got just nothing in SP's books that will

clearly tell us how we had never had any experience of some

spiritual activity prior to our conditioning.

 

 

 

 

 

- mnd

 

PS.

Does Ravindra Svarup prabhu actually supports the "no-previous-

spiritual-experience" conclusion? If not, then it would not be

fair to push him into your and Vijay's "swimming pool". RS prabhu

apparently interprets "begginningless" as literal in term of

*material-linear* vision of time. Not the *absolute* vision of

time that would cover the entire existence of the soul, but only

his temporal period of material conditioning (when he imitates

the Lord, trying to enjoy his perverted rasas). See any difference?

..

[Guest guest]

Previously, when I was participating in this discussion, I quoted a

Vedaanta-Suutra along with Baladeva Vidyabhuushana's commentary which

established that the living entity's material activity was beginningless. I

made it a point to quote Baladeva's commentary and the context to explain why

this beginninglessness (is that even a word?) had to be taken as literal.

 

Despite all the trouble I took to type out the entire commentary, I never

received a satisfactory answer as to how one could have beginningless karma

and yet have fallen from Vaikuntha. All I got were a lot of accusations of

being "insincere,speculator,mayavadi," etc. I think the most that was

ever said about the evidence I provided was that it had to have been a Gaudiya

Math translation, and thus was unacceptable. In fact, it was not a Gaudiya

Math translation, and I pointed this out too, but I believe I never received a

response to that either.

 

Similarly, I don't think I ever saw a very good response to the point brought

up much earlier (and from Srila Prabhupada's Bhaagavatam purport, also) that

except for Jaya and Vijaya, no one falls from Vaikuntha. Again, a lot of what

I am seeing fits the same pattern - the person who brings up the inconvenient

facts gets derided as "mayavadi,speculator," etc.

 

This makes me wonder what the point is of even having this debate on this

forum. A sign of true intellect is that one feels obliged to provide answers

to difficult questions, or at least to admit when he has no answers. There

doesn't seem to be much point in arguing with people who feel that the

correctness of their conclusions is predestined. So far as ISKCON is

concerned, the only forum in which I have seen any desire to debate things

like this rationally is VAST. May I suggest that all interested parties who

actually want to talk about this transfer the discussion there? Of course, by

"interested parties" I am referring to those who are prepared to discuss facts

rather than perform character assasinations of their opponents.

 

regards,

 

Krishna

[Guest guest]

Previously, when I was participating in this discussion, I quoted a

Vedaanta-Suutra along with Baladeva Vidyabhuushana's commentary which

established that the living entity's material activity was beginningless. I

made it a point to quote Baladeva's commentary and the context to explain why

this beginninglessness (is that even a word?) had to be taken as literal.

 

Despite all the trouble I took to type out the entire commentary, I never

received a satisfactory answer as to how one could have beginningless karma

and yet have fallen from Vaikuntha. All I got were a lot of accusations of

being "insincere,speculator,mayavadi," etc. I think the most that was

ever said about the evidence I provided was that it had to have been a Gaudiya

Math translation, and thus was unacceptable. In fact, it was not a Gaudiya

Math translation, and I pointed this out too, but I believe I never received a

response to that either.

 

Similarly, I don't think I ever saw a very good response to the point brought

up much earlier (and from Srila Prabhupada's Bhaagavatam purport, also) that

except for Jaya and Vijaya, no one falls from Vaikuntha. Again, a lot of what

I am seeing fits the same pattern - the person who brings up the inconvenient

facts gets derided as "mayavadi,speculator," etc.

 

This makes me wonder what the point is of even having this debate on this

forum. A sign of true intellect is that one feels obliged to provide answers

to difficult questions, or at least to admit when he has no answers. There

doesn't seem to be much point in arguing with people who feel that the

correctness of their conclusions is predestined. So far as ISKCON is

concerned, the only forum in which I have seen any desire to debate things

like this rationally is VAST. May I suggest that all interested parties who

actually want to talk about this transfer the discussion there? Of course, by

"interested parties" I am referring to those who are prepared to discuss facts

rather than perform character assasinations of their opponents.

 

regards,

 

Krishna

[Guest guest]

>

 

 

Yes ,Krishna Susurla, VAST is the most suitable place for you. You will

certainly fit in there perfectly. The problem is, arrogant, over intelligent

people like you only disrupt the lives of sincere devotees who are never

interested in the type of mood you repeatedly present when someone tries to

discuss philosophy around you. The same thing happened on BTG Digest

newsletter. You and your other cerebral friends would lie in ambush for

anyone to say anything that was contrary to your teeny conceptions, and do you

best to ridicule them and force them offline, with your arrogance and

intellectual snobishness. A devotee is always warned about the disruptive

influence of association with logitians and argumentative persons like

yourself. You may not like my words, but I for one will not be sorry if you do

not want to continue here because your total lack or humility and mode of

association is most undesirable.

Your attempts at trying to minimize Srila Prabhupada might find fertile

grounds there on VAST, since that type of offensive speculation is welcome

there. Remembering you all too well, Mahananda dasa

[Guest guest]

>

 

 

Yes ,Krishna Susurla, VAST is the most suitable place for you. You will

certainly fit in there perfectly. The problem is, arrogant, over intelligent

people like you only disrupt the lives of sincere devotees who are never

interested in the type of mood you repeatedly present when someone tries to

discuss philosophy around you. The same thing happened on BTG Digest

newsletter. You and your other cerebral friends would lie in ambush for

anyone to say anything that was contrary to your teeny conceptions, and do you

best to ridicule them and force them offline, with your arrogance and

intellectual snobishness. A devotee is always warned about the disruptive

influence of association with logitians and argumentative persons like

yourself. You may not like my words, but I for one will not be sorry if you do

not want to continue here because your total lack or humility and mode of

association is most undesirable.

Your attempts at trying to minimize Srila Prabhupada might find fertile

grounds there on VAST, since that type of offensive speculation is welcome

there. Remembering you all too well, Mahananda dasa

[Guest guest]

>

> Despite all the trouble I took to type out the entire commentary, I never

> received a satisfactory answer as to how one could have beginningless

> karma and yet have fallen from Vaikuntha.

 

I doubt that one will ever receive some "satisfactory answer" on

the logical questions that got to satisfy our intellectual hunger

with the answers on something incomprehensible to the very

intellect.

 

In other words, once you are really able to grasp the literal

meaning of "beginningless", which is something unlimited, with

your limited intellect, then ask such rhetoric questions that

the answers on will be satisfying your intellect. What you are

trying is to intellectually master the understanding of Kala, the

eternal Time.

 

I could very easily ask a dozen of similar "questions" right on

the spot, that none will be able to give me a "satisfactory answer".

 

 

 

>

> Similarly, I don't think I ever saw a very good response to the point

> brought up much earlier (and from Srila Prabhupada's Bhaagavatam purport,

> also) that except for Jaya and Vijaya, no one falls from Vaikuntha. Again,

> a lot of what I am seeing fits the same pattern - the person who brings up

> the inconvenient facts gets derided as "mayavadi,speculator," etc.

 

That person who "brings up the inconvenient facts" accuses others

for speculation if they "assume" something else than what his

exclusive reasoning is. At the moment he calls someone else a

"speculator", that moment he gets it straight back.

Have you followed closely the exchanges here? I doubt.

 

What is that "inconvinient fact" exactly, Krsna Susarla prabhu?

According to Vijay, the soul "from this world" had never experienced

any spiritual activity prior to this conditioned state. According

to Srila Prabhupada (there are clear statements, ask me if you are

really interested), he DID have experience of it. This is to be found

through out Srila Prabhupada's books and his preaching.

 

 

>

> This makes me wonder what the point is of even having this debate on this

> forum. A sign of true intellect is that one feels obliged to provide

> answers to difficult questions, or at least to admit when he has no

> answers. There doesn't seem to be much point in arguing with people who

> feel that the correctness of their conclusions is predestined.

 

I have concluded the same upon facing Vijay's exclusivness regarding

how we all got to read Srila Prabhupada's purports - "we got no reason

to assume other way" than what he, Vijay, tells us.

 

 

I am asking:

 

Since we find how Srila Prabhupada tells us repeatedly that we were

experiencing the spiritual relationship with Krsna, why not to belive

him on that? On the other hand, Prabhupada never gave any explicit

statement that we never had relationship with Krsna, but some will

still claim that's what Prabhupada means through out his purports, even

ig he clearly states sotherwise. That's all.

 

Personally, I am not interesting in "debate" on jiva's fall,

otherwise, at the moment. Not here, nor else. Yes, why not have

it there where everybody is on that same intellectual wave. I have

seen a looot of such debte. Good as an intellectual gymnastic,

though. Otherwise pretty meaningless. No need to "drop" from "there"

to "here" to pursue it. Endlessly.

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

>

> Despite all the trouble I took to type out the entire commentary, I never

> received a satisfactory answer as to how one could have beginningless

> karma and yet have fallen from Vaikuntha.

 

I doubt that one will ever receive some "satisfactory answer" on

the logical questions that got to satisfy our intellectual hunger

with the answers on something incomprehensible to the very

intellect.

 

In other words, once you are really able to grasp the literal

meaning of "beginningless", which is something unlimited, with

your limited intellect, then ask such rhetoric questions that

the answers on will be satisfying your intellect. What you are

trying is to intellectually master the understanding of Kala, the

eternal Time.

 

I could very easily ask a dozen of similar "questions" right on

the spot, that none will be able to give me a "satisfactory answer".

 

 

 

>

> Similarly, I don't think I ever saw a very good response to the point

> brought up much earlier (and from Srila Prabhupada's Bhaagavatam purport,

> also) that except for Jaya and Vijaya, no one falls from Vaikuntha. Again,

> a lot of what I am seeing fits the same pattern - the person who brings up

> the inconvenient facts gets derided as "mayavadi,speculator," etc.

 

That person who "brings up the inconvenient facts" accuses others

for speculation if they "assume" something else than what his

exclusive reasoning is. At the moment he calls someone else a

"speculator", that moment he gets it straight back.

Have you followed closely the exchanges here? I doubt.

 

What is that "inconvinient fact" exactly, Krsna Susarla prabhu?

According to Vijay, the soul "from this world" had never experienced

any spiritual activity prior to this conditioned state. According

to Srila Prabhupada (there are clear statements, ask me if you are

really interested), he DID have experience of it. This is to be found

through out Srila Prabhupada's books and his preaching.

 

 

>

> This makes me wonder what the point is of even having this debate on this

> forum. A sign of true intellect is that one feels obliged to provide

> answers to difficult questions, or at least to admit when he has no

> answers. There doesn't seem to be much point in arguing with people who

> feel that the correctness of their conclusions is predestined.

 

I have concluded the same upon facing Vijay's exclusivness regarding

how we all got to read Srila Prabhupada's purports - "we got no reason

to assume other way" than what he, Vijay, tells us.

 

 

I am asking:

 

Since we find how Srila Prabhupada tells us repeatedly that we were

experiencing the spiritual relationship with Krsna, why not to belive

him on that? On the other hand, Prabhupada never gave any explicit

statement that we never had relationship with Krsna, but some will

still claim that's what Prabhupada means through out his purports, even

ig he clearly states sotherwise. That's all.

 

Personally, I am not interesting in "debate" on jiva's fall,

otherwise, at the moment. Not here, nor else. Yes, why not have

it there where everybody is on that same intellectual wave. I have

seen a looot of such debte. Good as an intellectual gymnastic,

though. Otherwise pretty meaningless. No need to "drop" from "there"

to "here" to pursue it. Endlessly.

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/7/99 5:59:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Mahanidhi (AT) bbt (DOT) se

writes:

 

<<

I am asking:

 

Since we find how Srila Prabhupada tells us repeatedly that we were

experiencing the spiritual relationship with Krsna, why not to belive

him on that?

 

One strong reason is this: Every single Indian spiritual leader clearly says

the opposite: Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka sampradaya, even Shankara and his

followers, and even the atheistic Jains! I would guess the Buddhists too, in

their own way. Furthermore the Vedantists (including ours Baladeva) have

specifically explained it rationally based on the Vedanta sutras. There is

no controversy on this. Therefore to say that Srila Prabhupada taught

fall-vada is to indicate he does not know Vedanta, thus making his name a big

farce. However, the idea of a temporal sequence of perfection, fall,

liberation is a useful way to think about the concept of the jiva's origin

and constitutional position. Ravindra svarupa explains this last point in

his BTG essay (at http://www.rsdtm.com).

 

 

G erald Suryla

 

On the other hand, Prabhupada never gave any explicit

statement that we never had relationship with Krsna, but some will

still claim that's what Prabhupada means through out his purports, even

ig he clearly states sotherwise. That's all.

>>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/7/99 5:59:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Mahanidhi (AT) bbt (DOT) se

writes:

 

<<

I am asking:

 

Since we find how Srila Prabhupada tells us repeatedly that we were

experiencing the spiritual relationship with Krsna, why not to belive

him on that?

 

One strong reason is this: Every single Indian spiritual leader clearly says

the opposite: Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka sampradaya, even Shankara and his

followers, and even the atheistic Jains! I would guess the Buddhists too, in

their own way. Furthermore the Vedantists (including ours Baladeva) have

specifically explained it rationally based on the Vedanta sutras. There is

no controversy on this. Therefore to say that Srila Prabhupada taught

fall-vada is to indicate he does not know Vedanta, thus making his name a big

farce. However, the idea of a temporal sequence of perfection, fall,

liberation is a useful way to think about the concept of the jiva's origin

and constitutional position. Ravindra svarupa explains this last point in

his BTG essay (at http://www.rsdtm.com).

 

 

G erald Suryla

 

On the other hand, Prabhupada never gave any explicit

statement that we never had relationship with Krsna, but some will

still claim that's what Prabhupada means through out his purports, even

ig he clearly states sotherwise. That's all.

>>

[Guest guest]

At 13:01 -0800 8/7/99, WWW: Mahananda (Dasa) ACBSP (Alachua FL - USA) wrote:

>

>The problem is, arrogant, over intelligent

>people like you only disrupt the lives of sincere devotees who are never

>interested in the type of mood you repeatedly present when someone tries to

>discuss philosophy around you.

 

Whoa! If you have to write such nasty statements to a devotee, would you

please confine them to private letters, *not* in a public conference, so

the rest of us don't have to stumble across them?

 

Thank you.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

At 13:01 -0800 8/7/99, WWW: Mahananda (Dasa) ACBSP (Alachua FL - USA) wrote:

>

>The problem is, arrogant, over intelligent

>people like you only disrupt the lives of sincere devotees who are never

>interested in the type of mood you repeatedly present when someone tries to

>discuss philosophy around you.

 

Whoa! If you have to write such nasty statements to a devotee, would you

please confine them to private letters, *not* in a public conference, so

the rest of us don't have to stumble across them?

 

Thank you.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> Whoa! If you have to write such nasty statements to a devotee, would you

> please confine them to private letters, *not* in a public conference, so

> the rest of us don't have to stumble across them?

>

> Thank you.

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

>

>

 

Well I wasn't trying to be nasty. I actually held back what I really wanted to

say, and just tried to be matter of fact as to what I think of his arrogance

and total lack of humility in his dealings with devotees. He is a grown boy

and can speak for himself. You sent your e mail to me with your suggestion

that I should have sent my note to him by e mail, but then you also posted it

publicly. So, as they say, example is better than precept. What do you think?

 

Then on second thought, maybe my post was nasty. Or at least facetious,

considering my sarcasm about VAST. I've gotten better about this, having once

been hell on the keyboard when it came to sarcasm. I uses to go to bed so

tickled with myself for what I thought was a piece of award-winning sarcasm,

gloating over my imagined foe's discomfort. But I gradually gave up this

literary art form for the better example of compassion and humility. But what

can I say? I had a relapse. Just seeing my chance at taking a bite out of

Krsna Susurla was too much to resist. But still, I think he and Vijaya are

doing a great disservice to Srila Prabhupada's humble followers by their

stubborn insistence on propounding their creative interpretations that just

cause discord and confusion. There is no place in the association of

submissive devotees for hardened logicians who are hell-bent on propagating

their own philosophy based on their logic, and nothing more. There is a trend

towards taking a liberal attitude and tolerance towards such intrusions, but

somewhere we have to draw the line and speak up against these philosophers who

are interested in proving their logical arguments rather than giving up

speculation and being submissive to the realized souls.affectionately

Mahananda dasa

[Guest guest]

> Whoa! If you have to write such nasty statements to a devotee, would you

> please confine them to private letters, *not* in a public conference, so

> the rest of us don't have to stumble across them?

>

> Thank you.

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

>

>

 

Well I wasn't trying to be nasty. I actually held back what I really wanted to

say, and just tried to be matter of fact as to what I think of his arrogance

and total lack of humility in his dealings with devotees. He is a grown boy

and can speak for himself. You sent your e mail to me with your suggestion

that I should have sent my note to him by e mail, but then you also posted it

publicly. So, as they say, example is better than precept. What do you think?

 

Then on second thought, maybe my post was nasty. Or at least facetious,

considering my sarcasm about VAST. I've gotten better about this, having once

been hell on the keyboard when it came to sarcasm. I uses to go to bed so

tickled with myself for what I thought was a piece of award-winning sarcasm,

gloating over my imagined foe's discomfort. But I gradually gave up this

literary art form for the better example of compassion and humility. But what

can I say? I had a relapse. Just seeing my chance at taking a bite out of

Krsna Susurla was too much to resist. But still, I think he and Vijaya are

doing a great disservice to Srila Prabhupada's humble followers by their

stubborn insistence on propounding their creative interpretations that just

cause discord and confusion. There is no place in the association of

submissive devotees for hardened logicians who are hell-bent on propagating

their own philosophy based on their logic, and nothing more. There is a trend

towards taking a liberal attitude and tolerance towards such intrusions, but

somewhere we have to draw the line and speak up against these philosophers who

are interested in proving their logical arguments rather than giving up

speculation and being submissive to the realized souls.affectionately

Mahananda dasa

[Guest guest]

At 19:42 -0800 8/8/99, WWW: Mahananda (Dasa) ACBSP (Alachua FL - USA) wrote:

>

>You sent your e mail to me with your suggestion

>that I should have sent my note to him by e mail, but then you also posted it

>publicly. So, as they say, example is better than precept. What do you think?

 

Well, if you perceived my text as being mean-spirited, I would certainly

agree with you. It would have been hypocritical for me to post an equally

nasty letter back to you in public.

 

However, if you did not perceive my text to be nasty or mean-spirited I

don't understand why there would be any reason for my suggestion not to

write nasty public letters to be made in private.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

At 19:42 -0800 8/8/99, WWW: Mahananda (Dasa) ACBSP (Alachua FL - USA) wrote:

>

>You sent your e mail to me with your suggestion

>that I should have sent my note to him by e mail, but then you also posted it

>publicly. So, as they say, example is better than precept. What do you think?

 

Well, if you perceived my text as being mean-spirited, I would certainly

agree with you. It would have been hypocritical for me to post an equally

nasty letter back to you in public.

 

However, if you did not perceive my text to be nasty or mean-spirited I

don't understand why there would be any reason for my suggestion not to

write nasty public letters to be made in private.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi