Origins of the Jiiva

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

I am looking for statements by the Sri Vaishnava acharyas regarding the

origins of the jiva. I understand that Sri Vaishnavas consider that the

living entity's bondage in maya is beginningless, and that they do not ever

speak of a "fall" from Vaikuntha.

 

I would definitely appreciate if learned netters could either post

statements by SV acharyas (especially Ramanuja) in this regard, or email

them to me. Please include the name of the source from which the quotes are

taken and verse numbers if possible.

 

Of special interest are statements which explicitly refute the idea of

"falling" from Vaikuntha, if any such statements are there.

 

thanks in advance,

 

-- Krishna

[Guest guest]

Dear sri Krishna Susarla,

 

This is one of the issues in which the book "our original position"

published by ISCKON has quoted Sri Ramanujacharya and Probably Madhvacharya

erroneously.

 

According to all systems of vedanta (except the view held the ISCKON book

"our original position"), jiva's bondage is eternal ie. beginningless. Jiva

was bound eternally from beginningless time. theory of "falling from

vaikunta" is not supported by any system of vedanta. "anadi mayaya suptaha

yada jivo prabudhyate" - state ment from "gaudapada karika" which states

that " when jiva awakens from the eternal beginningless slumbers of

ignorance or maya" is taken as valid in all other systems of vedanta.

 

In the 13th chapter for the verse - karanam guna sangosya sadasad yoni

janmasu (bhagavadgita) the issue of eternal previous births is suggested. I

am sure the Ramanuja bhasya gives details here. Further in sribhasya there

are several passages to this effect.

 

Currently, due to lack of time, it is difficult for me to go further. I

have had discussions with ISCKON members regarding this at length.

 

adiyen krishna kalale

 

Krishna Susarla <krishna

bhakti <bhakti

Tuesday, March 16, 1999 5:42 PM

Origins of the Jiiva

 

>Hare Krishna.

>

>I am looking for statements by the Sri Vaishnava acharyas regarding the

>origins of the jiva. I understand that Sri Vaishnavas consider that the

>living entity's bondage in maya is beginningless, and that they do not ever

>speak of a "fall" from Vaikuntha.

>

>I would definitely appreciate if learned netters could either post

>statements by SV acharyas (especially Ramanuja) in this regard, or email

>them to me. Please include the name of the source from which the quotes are

>taken and verse numbers if possible.

>

>Of special interest are statements which explicitly refute the idea of

>"falling" from Vaikuntha, if any such statements are there.

>

>thanks in advance,

>

>-- Krishna

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 99-03-16 23:35:02 EST, you write:

 

<<

According to all systems of vedanta (except the view held the ISCKON book

"our original position"), jiva's bondage is eternal ie. beginningless. Jiva

was bound eternally from beginningless time. theory of "falling from

vaikunta" is not supported by any system of vedanta. >>

 

Here are some Nimbarka quotes which I think are similar to all other views:

The context is an explanation of God's apparent partiality.

 

Nimbarkacharya comments on Sutra 2.1.34: [if it be objected that this is not

(possible), on account of the non-distinction of works, (we reply:) no, on

account of beginningless, and this (this) fits in, and is observed also] in

his Vedanta-parijata-saurabha: If it be objected that since the text '"The

existent alone, my dear was this in the beginning"' (Chand 6.2.1) declares

the 'non-distinction' of works prior to creation, the Supreme Being's

dependence on the works does not fit in, --(we reply) "no", as works exist

even then, the works done by the individual souls in previous births being

eternal. And a prior creation "fits in", as a sudden subsequent creation is

unreasonable. And this is "observed also" in the text: 'The creator fashioned

the sun and the moon as he did before.' (RgV 10.190.3) and so on."

 

Srinivasacharya, commenting on Nimbarka's says works may be good or bad,

implying that works cannot refer to spiritual activity as was stated in "our

original position":

Vedanta-kaustaubha (VK):"Hence prior to creation there are no works as the

cause of the diversities of objects to be created, on which Brahman might

depend-- (We reply) "no". Why? "On account of beginningless" of all. That is

works, good and bad, done by the souls in a previous creation, become the

cause of diversities in a subsequent creation. "And" the continuity of

creation "fits in" in accordance wit the maxin of 'the seed and the shoot',

[Trans note: just as it is impossible to say whether the seed is earlier or

the shoot, so it is impossible to say whether karmas are the earlier or the

samsara. Hence they are to be taken as beginningless.] and in accordance with

the above-mentioned difference between the manifest and the unmanifest effect,

[see VK 2.1.17-18] as well as because a sudden subsequent creation without a

prior creation is inexplicable, this last reason being indicated the particle

"and" (in the sutra). ,,,, (Rg Ve 10.190.3) teaches the existence of a prior

creation, the eternity of the flow of creation is established,,,"

 

Madhva gives the same explanation and says further that the differences in the

karmas are secondary to the intrinsic nature (anadi-svarupayogyata): BNK

Sharma says "The anaditva of samsara only means that the jivas must be anadi.

But it does not explain why anadi jivas should differ to the extent of

originating wide differences in their karmas--unless such differences are

ingrained in them...the anaditva of samsara is an accepted doctrine and has

already been accepted by the sutrakara in 1.3.30"

 

 

Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

>Dear sri Krishna Susarla,

>

>This is one of the issues in which the book "our original position"

>published by ISCKON has quoted Sri Ramanujacharya and Probably Madhvacharya

>erroneously.

 

 

This was one of the points I was making in a discussion with an ISKCON

devotee. I read part of OOP and remember it quoting Shrii Bhaashya. This

later struck me as peculiar, because I was under the impression that Shrii

Raamaanuja did not advocate any such thing as a fall from Vaikuntha. I

wanted to point out for certain that Shrii Raamaanuja had been

misunderstood, but since I don't have Shrii Bhaashya myself, I was hoping

someone could supply me with the relevant quotes from it.

>According to all systems of vedanta (except the view held the ISCKON book

>"our original position"), jiva's bondage is eternal ie. beginningless.

Jiva

>was bound eternally from beginningless time. theory of "falling from

>vaikunta" is not supported by any system of vedanta. "anadi mayaya suptaha

>yada jivo prabudhyate" - state ment from "gaudapada karika" which states

>that " when jiva awakens from the eternal beginningless slumbers of

>ignorance or maya" is taken as valid in all other systems of vedanta.

 

 

Actually, a similar argument is given in Govinda Bhaashya. Therein, the

commentator states that the Lord is not partial because of the inequality of

suffering and enjoyment among various living entities, because such

inequality is due to their past karma. Then when an objection is mentioned

saying that different karmas at any point imply that the living entities

were created unequally, Baladeva answers that the karma is beginningless.

>In the 13th chapter for the verse - karanam guna sangosya sadasad yoni

>janmasu (bhagavadgita) the issue of eternal previous births is suggested.

I

>am sure the Ramanuja bhasya gives details here. Further in sribhasya there

>are several passages to this effect.

 

 

If someone could supply me with details from both bhaashyas, I would

appreciate it. I have neither with me at this time, although I hope to

acquire both on my trip to India this year.

 

While we are on the topic, can anyone suggest a good translation of the

Shrii Bhaashya? I am looking for something that has the original Sanskrit

for both the suutras and the commentary, along with English translations of

both. If necessary, I'm willing to get two volumes (i.e. one in English and

the other in Sanskrit) to get this. If anyone can give specific publication

info for such books (title, translator, publisher, year, ISBN, etc) I would

very much appreciate it.

>Currently, due to lack of time, it is difficult for me to go further. I

>have had discussions with ISCKON members regarding this at length.

 

 

It looks like it's my turn to do the same. :-)

 

regards,

 

-- K

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Sri Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

Sri Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEVaka SrivaNN-

SatakOpa Sri nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 

namO nArAyaNA.

 

Bhagavad rAmAnuja's words on this issue :

 

1. Sri BAshyam ( on 2.1.35). Here sUtrakArar (vyAsar) himself clearly

establishes that karmA is beginingless for the (baddha) jIvAtmAs.

Obviously, rAmAnujar is only following it. In other granthams viz.

vEdAnta sArA and vEdAnta deepA, rAmanujar again advances

arguments with pramAnams to establish this point.

 

sUtrakArar again establishes in the last sUtra "anAvrutti: SabdAt

anAvrutti: SabdAt" ( "No returning ; according to scriptures.

No returning ; according to Scriptures " ), ie. those who have

reached the abode of Brahman (ie. Sri VaikuNTham),

_through the arcirAdi mArgA_ will never return (no more

karmA; but may come with a suddha sattva thirumEni out of

their will to perform some kainkaryam for Lord ).

 

2. Bhagavad gItA bAshyam ( on 2.50) : ".....anAdikAla sancitE anantE

bandhahEtubhootE .. ( " He who is established .........relinquishes

good and evil karmAs which have accumulated from time

immemorial causing bondage endlessly ...".

 

This issue of anAdi karmA is a very fundamental fact in vEdAntA.

Fall down theory etc speculations are no where found in sAstrAs.

 

Sri Gerald sUryA wrote :

>Madhva gives the same explanation and says further that the differences in the

>karmas are secondary to the intrinsic nature (anadi-svarupayogyata): BNK

>Sharma says "The anaditva of samsara only means that the jivas must be anadi.

>But it does not explain why anadi jivas should differ to the extent of

>originating wide differences in their karmas--unless such differences are

>ingrained in them...

 

Our AchAryAs have clearly refuted ( based on pramAnams ) this theory of

madhvAchAryar, regarding the differences between jIvAtmAs in their

svaroopam itself. As stated above, the birth of this theory is more rooted

in an yukti (logic) to answer the wide differences in karmAs. Anyway,

the kartrutvA of jIvAtmA is there with the (limited) freewill given to it

from beginingless time => these great differences in karmAs is not a

bewildering one so as to accept some new theory. The pramAnams

are towards the fact that the svaroopam of all jIvAtmAs are intrinsically

same ; there are no differences in the svaroopam.

 

Dwatins gets into the problem of accepting "AnandatAratamya" (

differences in the bliss ) for jIvAtmAs which have attained mOksham,

because of their theory about differences in jIvAtmA (ie. presence of

male jIvAtmA, female jIvAtmA etc categories).

 

This reminds adiyEn of the debate between Srimad Injimettu

Azhagiyasingar (42nd pattam) and Sri SathyAnanda theertar, the

madhva matAdhipati of Udipi mutt. This debate was held in front of the

ranganAchchiyAr sannidhi at Srirangam. Many vidvAns representing

dwaita were present. Injimettu Azhagiyasingar won the debate and

firmly established that the theory of "AnandatAratamya" is not

supported by sAstrAs. Sri SathyAnanda theerthar himself accepted

the defeat and out of his own will, gave it in writing also. This was

infact published in the news paper of those times.

 

Again, recently, the current Srimad Azhagiyasingar followed the

footsteps of His preceptor and established this fact in the "MAlolan

Vidwat Sathas" , wherein the vidvAns representing advaita

and dvaita too were present.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

ananthapadmanAbha dAsan

krishNArpaNam

[Guest guest]

> sUtrakArar again establishes in the last sUtra "anAvrutti: SabdAt

> anAvrutti: SabdAt" ( "No returning ; according to scriptures.

> No returning ; according to Scriptures " ), ie. those who have

> reached the abode of Brahman (ie. Sri VaikuNTham),

> _through the arcirAdi mArgA_ will never return (no more

> karmA; but may come with a suddha sattva thirumEni out of

> their will to perform some kainkaryam for Lord ).

 

 

However, doesn't the "never return" argument imply by its very wording only

the condition of those who came into bondage and then attained liberation

(you don't "return" to something unless you have been there at least once)?

A very common argument I hear is that this is not applicable to the jiiva

who is in Vaikuntha and has not (yet) "fallen."

> 2. Bhagavad gItA bAshyam ( on 2.50) : ".....anAdikAla sancitE anantE

> bandhahEtubhootE .. ( " He who is established .........relinquishes

> good and evil karmAs which have accumulated from time

> immemorial causing bondage endlessly ...".

>

> This issue of anAdi karmA is a very fundamental fact in vEdAntA.

> Fall down theory etc speculations are no where found in sAstrAs.

 

 

Does Raamaanuja ever explicitly deal with / refute the possibility that the

"anaadi karmaa" mentioned in shaastra could be figurative (in other words,

the idea that anaadi isn't literal, but simply means that it happened so

long it cannot be understood)?

 

> Sri Gerald sUryA wrote :

>

>>Madhva gives the same explanation and says further that the differences in

the

>>karmas are secondary to the intrinsic nature (anadi-svarupayogyata): BNK

>>Sharma says "The anaditva of samsara only means that the jivas must be

anadi.

>>But it does not explain why anadi jivas should differ to the extent of

>>originating wide differences in their karmas--unless such differences are

>>ingrained in them...

 

Unless I misunderstood, BNK Sharma seems to be differing from the

Vedaanta-suutra's author. I thought the *point* of why there are differences

in their karmas is because their karma is beginningless. In other words, one

cannot say that their karma originated at any time, and therefore one cannot

say that they were created with unequal propensities towards action (which

would then lead to the unacceptable postulate that God is partial or cruel).

 

Hare Krishna,

 

 

-- K

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimate Sri Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

Sri Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrivaNN -

SatakOpa Sri nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 

Dear Sri Krishna,

namO nArAyaNA

 

Krishna Susarla wrote:

> > sUtrakArar again establishes in the last sUtra "anAvrutti: SabdAt

> > anAvrutti: SabdAt" ( "No returning ; according to scriptures.

> > No returning ; according to Scriptures " ), ie. those who have

> > reached the abode of Brahman (ie. Sri VaikuNTham),

> > _through the arcirAdi mArgA_ will never return (no more

> > karmA; but may come with a suddha sattva thirumEni out of

> > their will to perform some kainkaryam for Lord ).

>

> However, doesn't the "never return" argument imply by its very wording only

> the condition of those who came into bondage and then attained liberation

> (you don't "return" to something unless you have been there at least once)?

> A very common argument I hear is that this is not applicable to the jiiva

> who is in Vaikuntha and has not (yet) "fallen."

 

The jIvAtmAs who are in Sri VaikuNTha and have not had any

association with karmA (ie. who have not yet "fallen" ) are "nitya

sUrIs". It is a most rediculous speculation to think that these

"nitya sUrIs" (eg: GarudA, anantA ) will one day get the bondage

due to karmA. First of all, by very definition, "nitya sUrIs" implies

that from beginingless time, they are in Sri VaikuNTham, and will

be there for eternity as well. adiyEn feels that whomsoever argues

with you that "nitya sUrIs" may "fall" (what a terminology !!) commit

a great bhAgavatha apachAram. Anyway, sAstrAs doesn't support

their speculations.

 

It is to be noted that sAstrAs are only to guide the baddha jIvATmAs.

The ultimate goal (purushArtam) is to reach Sri VaikuNTham and

get involved in BrahmAnubhava and perform eternal services to

the Divya Dampati. This as you know is the mOksham. Brahma

sUtrA starts with the Brahma jignyAsA, and discusses the way(s) to

attain mOksha and finally tells that those who have attained mOksham

never returns. So, these are the guidelines for us and is not relevant

for either nitya sUrIs OR muktAs , since they already have full

knowledge of all these things and also have attained what needs to

be attained.

>

> > 2. Bhagavad gItA bAshyam ( on 2.50) : ".....anAdikAla sancitE anantE

> > bandhahEtubhootE .. ( " He who is established .........relinquishes

> > good and evil karmAs which have accumulated from time

> > immemorial causing bondage endlessly ...".

> >

> > This issue of anAdi karmA is a very fundamental fact in vEdAntA.

> > Fall down theory etc speculations are no where found in sAstrAs.

>

> Does Raamaanuja ever explicitly deal with / refute the possibility that the

> "anaadi karmaa" mentioned in shaastra could be figurative (in other words,

> the idea that anaadi isn't literal, but simply means that it happened so

> long it cannot be understood)?

 

First of all, this is the very point refuted by sUtrakArar in 2.1.35 and

rAmAnujar also advances various arguments to assert it. If "anAdi" is

a figurative one, then it means that some "beginning" was there for the

association of karmA. But, sUtrA 2.1.35 says

" na karmAvibhAgAditi cenna, anAditvAdupapadyate cApyupalabhyate ca"

ie. ( If it be said , there are no karmA, because of non-difference < at the

time of praLaya>; we say "Not so, on account of beginingless" ; this is

reasonable and is also so observed ).

 

In vEdAnta sArA, Bhagavad rAmAnuja comments :

 

pUrvapaksha : Oneness is apprehended in the scriptural text, "Existence

(Sat) alone, My dear, was in the beginning; One only " ( ChAnd Up 6.2.1).

At that time, the individual selves were not extant. Hence, the karmA do

not attach themselves to the individual selves.

 

SiddhAntam/ SamAdAnam : It is not so; as the individual selves have not

a beginning, the stream of their deeds also have not a beginning. This is

reasonable.

The individual selves have not a beginning; yet the scriptural text that

states the non-difference, only establishes the non-distinction due to the

absence of name and form. The text is this 'Verily at that time, this

world was undifferentiated. It became differentiated just by name and form"

( Bruh Up 1.4.7). The view said above is in harmony with the text.

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

 

So, bhagavad rAmAnuja is very clear in this issue < jIvAtmA is anAdi

and (baddha jIvAtmA's) karmA is also anAdi >.

 

As a side note, it is to be understood that at the time of praLayA,

"only Brahman exists" doesn't imply that jIvAtmAs and achEtanAs

vanish. Since both chit and achit are "inseparable attributes" of Brahman,

there is no contradiction. For example, if one says that only a Lotus flower

is there, this doesn't mean that "redness" (an attribute of the flower)

is not present. This is because, "redness" is an "inseparable attribute"

of that flower. sAstrAs clearly say that both chit and achit are eternal

and doesn't have destruction. So, it is rediculous to think that they

would suddenly vanish.

 

During praLayA, Brahman (Sat) is "sookshma chit-achit visishta"

(ie. One having sookshma chit and achit as attribute) because both

chit and achit are present in the "sookshma" state. After creation also,

only Brahman exists. But now, Brahman is "sthUla chit-achit visishta".

The change is for the chit and achit which now have obtained name

and form by the will of Brahman. Also, the svaroopam of Brahman

didn't undergo any change in this process of creation. Now, its

easy to understand how Brahman is even the "material cause" of the

universe < "sookshma chit-achit visishta" Brahman has transformed

into "sthUla chit-achit visishta" Brahman. Basic material for creation

is the same Brahman >.

 

In vEdAnta DeepA, for this sUtra 2.1.35, again Bhagavad rAmAnuja

raises the pUrvapaksham ( ie. No karmA is available during the

beginning of a creation) and gives the answer " JeevA and karmA

are both anAdi. If the above theory of the result of karmA is not

accepted, it leads to the absurdity that jeevA enjoys or suffers at the

very beginning of creation for no reason. It may also be that jeevA is

deprived of the result (good or bad) of his karmA ".

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

 

So, bhagavad rAmAnuja is very clear in this issue. Hope that this is

what you wanted to know.

 

note: vEdAnta sArA's english translation by Sri M.B.Narasimha AyyangAr,

is available at AdayAr Library and Research Centre. This has the

original sanskrit text also.

 

vEdAnta DeepA's english translation by Sri K.Bashyam ( disciple

of Uttamor swAmi) can be obtained from adiyEn's father

Sri K.G.Krishnan 11 Hasthigiri St, W.Mambalam, Chennai 600 033.

tel: 483 4676. Please also contact adiyEn someone wishes to get a

copy. thanks.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

ananthapadmanAbha dAsan

krishNArpaNam