Guest guest Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 In achintya, Gaurasundara das <gaurasundara_108> wrote: > You have forgotten that we cannot understand sastra with our own minds.> This does not sound logical. Why can't sastra be directly comprehensible? "I said that this is NOT proof of the soul's originally being in the spiritual world. This is the WRONG interpretation. " [emphasis mine] > >> 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 such conditions as deep sleep and even prenatally, one has a temporary awareness of the Lord. So there is nothing surprising about an awareness of the Lord during mahapralaya. HKS > 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. HKS >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? The souls are merely physically and even mentally inactive. However, there is a slight awareness of the Lord. This apparently occurs in deep sleep. HKS >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? HKS >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? HKS >...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. The fall from Maha-Vishnu is much more similar to an experience jivas have than is the fall from Vaikuntha. Prior to birth, the soul prays to the Lord promising to become His devotee after birth. However, after trauma of birth, one is unable to recall those feelings towards the Lord. Therefore, I don't think Srila Prabhupada's interpretation is more literal than Jiva's. Jiva's is at least as literal as Srila Prabhupada's. HKS > >> My position simply is that the shaastras endorse both positions, > contradictory though they seem. << Regarding the fall concept, the shastras only assert that the jiva is always actively engaged in the Lord's service in Vaikuntha from the perspective of vastutaH (substantiality), and is beginninglessly fallen in maya only from the perspective of pratItiH (belief). This is clear from SB 11.11.1-3 and Jiva's and Vamsidhara's comments thereof: vastuto nitya-mukto 'pi pratIto 'nAdi-baddha iti yugapad ubhayatvam ghaTata ity arthaH "Although the living being is eternally liberated in substance, according to belief the soul is bound without beginning. Simultaneously both take place. This is the meaning." But neither canto 4 nor any other sastra indicate a chronological perfection followed by imperfection. This narrative of the fall is merely a descriptive simplification of what is occurring on these two levels of reality. "For our better understanding, we need to be aware of one simplification, that takes place-- quite naturally--in the telling of the narrative of fall and redemption. This is the representation of all the events in the story as though they take place on a single temporal continuum." Ravindrasvarupa dasa, On Concieving the Inconcievable (http://rsdml.com/essay.asp) Now what of Srila Prabhupada's interpretation of SB 4.28.54? "The original home of the living entity and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the spiritual world. (SB 4.28.54 purport) The word "okaH" [used in the verse] simply means refuge or asylum (Monier-Williams) which is provided by MahaVishnu during mahapralaya. This is translated as "original home" by Srila Prabhupada. In the sense of the chronology of a particular universe this translation is okay. In the sense of the spiritual world, however, this is strictly speaking incorrect. Srila Prabhupada, however, takes advantage of the word "okaH" to explain a higher concept (one's ontological origin in Vaikuntha) than that actually discussed by the verse (one's shelter within Maha Vishnu). This is not surprising as Srila Prabhupada often opportunistically uses verses in the karma-yoga section of the Gita to elaborate on Bhakti-yoga. This is natural since suddha-bhakti is the ultimate conclusion of the Bhagavad-gita. See for example his opportunistic and compassionate interpretation of BG 6.30 in relation to Bhagavan Sri Krishna, when the verse is really only referring to the Supersoul realization of a dhyana-yogi.) Therefore, Srila Prabhupada's use of the SB 4.28 passage is similar to his own compassionate style evident in the Gita As It Is, and it should not be used against basic literal facts of beginningless bondage. ys Gerald Surya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote: > In achintya, Gaurasundara das > <gaurasundara_108> wrote: > > > You have forgotten that we cannot understand sastra with our own > minds.> > > This does not sound logical. Why can't sastra be directly > comprehensible? I think he was just saying that to avoid having to personally deal with the Sanskrit text. Of course, I read the text as well as Srila Prabhupada's commentary on it. He did neither. Most likely he had to get a friend to look up the commentaries of Jiiva Gosvaamii and Vishvanaatha Chakravartii when I pressed him to do so. > > >> 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 such conditions as deep sleep and even prenatally, one has a temporary > awareness of the Lord. So there is nothing surprising about an > awareness of the Lord during mahapralaya. But keep in mind what the verse literally says: api smarasi chaatmaanam avij~naatasakha.m sakhe | bhaa 4.28.53 | ....which literally asks of him if he can remember his "friend." This presupposes friendship, relationship, etc. Thus one would not be inclined to think that a rudimentary awareness in dormancy was being referred to here. You might have a point if you argued that "avij~naatasakham" was figurative. He is a friend, but there was no friendship. But realize that Srila Prabhupada does not interpret in that way - his exact translation: "can't you remember that in the past you had a very intimate friend?" Certainly one cannot take the position that Srila Prabhupada's translation refers to rememberance of a position of rudimentary awareness in deep sleep. > HKS > >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? > > The souls are merely physically and even mentally inactive. However, > there is a slight awareness of the Lord. This apparently occurs > in deep sleep. "Slight awareness" is merely conjecture on your part, based on inference from the vedaanta descriptions of susupti. But even given that, the other objections given above still stand. Specifically, the living entity and his master were related as "friends" before. That's kind of a stretch to say it only refers to a rudimentary awareness of the Lord as that of a child to its mother while in utero. > The fall from Maha-Vishnu is much more similar to an experience jivas > have than is the fall from Vaikuntha. Pardon me for pointing this out, but are you not in effect saying, "the jiivas have no experience of falling from Vaikuntha, because the jiivas have never fallen from Vaikuntha?" Prior to birth, the soul prays > to the Lord promising to become His devotee after birth. However, after > trauma of birth, one is unable to recall those feelings towards the Lord. Yes this is described in the Bhaagavatam, but the analogy is flawed. The position of the child in utero is not at all comparable to the position of the jiiva absorbed in Mahaa-Vishnu. The child in utero is praying for release due to his extreme suffering. On the other hand, the living entity absorbed in Mahaa-Vishnu is dormant, not really suffering or actively doing anything. The child in utero is actively engaged in Krishna-consciousness, albeit Krishna-consciousness motivated by material distress. There is no comparable sentiment in the dormant state of being merged in Mahaa-Vishnu. So, there is really no a priori state of Krishna-consciousness to be remembered and reacquired for the one in bondage after "fall" from merger with Mahaa-Vishnu's body. Of course, if you have explicit shaastric proof to the contrary, then correct me by all means. Otherwise, I must insist that the living entities merged in Mahaa-Vishnu are basically asleep; theirs is not a position that is to be remembered for those seeking ultimate release. An additional problem with the Mahaa-Vishnu interpretation is SB 4.28.64. This verse states that by turning to the Supersoul, one can regain that which was lost. Now, what is that which was lost? If it was merely merger with Mahaa-Vishnu, then so what? One could get that anyway if one stays in the material world until the next pralaya. See bhagavad-giitaa chapter 8. Keep in mind also that Srila Prabhupada translates this section as, "This means he regains his original Krsna consciousness, which was lost because of his material attraction." Even if we are to disagree with the interpretation, let us at least be clear on what Srila Prabhupada has *clearly* said here. Make no mistake - he is clearly a proponent of ideas of "fall from spiritual world" and "original Krishna-consciousness" being "forgotten" and then "regained." > Therefore, I don't think Srila Prabhupada's interpretation is more literal > than Jiva's. Jiva's is at least as literal as Srila Prabhupada's. As I mentioned before, each interpretation has its strengths. It was not my intention to point out any fault in Jiiva's intepretation. Jiiva's seems more in keeping with the Vedaanta while Srila Prabhupada's seems more consistent with the Bhaagavatam itself. Of course, it's also possible that these two interpretations are two sides of the same coin, and that there is no point in seeing any difference between them! I only wanted to point out the strengths of Srila Prabhupada's comments to pre-empt another round of criticisms from the self-professed arbiters of Gaudiiya Vaishnava orthodoxy (many of whom are not themselves initiated into any "orthodox" Gaudiiya tradition based on their own definitions of it). > HKS > > >> My position simply is that the shaastras endorse both positions, > > contradictory though they seem. << > > Regarding the fall concept, the shastras only assert that the jiva is always > actively engaged in the Lord's service in Vaikuntha from the perspective of > vastutaH (substantiality), and is beginninglessly fallen in maya only from > the perspective of pratItiH (belief). This is clear from SB 11.11.1- 3 and Jiva's > and Vamsidhara's comments thereof: > > vastuto nitya-mukto 'pi pratIto 'nAdi-baddha iti yugapad ubhayatvam ghaTata ity arthaH > > "Although the living being is eternally liberated in substance, according to belief the soul is bound without beginning. Simultaneously both take place. This is the meaning." > > But neither canto 4 nor any other sastra indicate a chronological perfection followed by imperfection. This narrative of the fall is merely a descriptive simplification of what is occurring on these two levels of reality. > I don't have a problem with this. As I originally surmised, the "fall" takes place outside the purview of material time. Thus, each explanation is correct based on its frame of reference. But you should realize that the anaadi-karma concept cannot be true from the standpoint of vastutaH, for in that case it would make no sense. Thus anaadi-karma is only true from the standpoint of pratiitaH. After all, if one is always liberated in truth, then he has no karma. Now this leaves you with the task of deciding where the "fall" fits into all of this. For if it is not true from the standpoint of vastuta, because one is always liberated, then it can only be true from the standpoint of pratiita. But anaadi-karma can also only be true from the standpoitn of pratiita. So, how to reconcile fall with anaadi-karma within the frame of reference of pratiita? Is it that one's belief in his bondage is beginningless, thereafter leading to the positing of being in beginningless bondage? Or, is it that one falls into the belief of his bondage, and then once doing so, his bondage in that frame of reference is beginningless? If you understand the distinction between the two, you also understand why I am asking the question. > Now what of Srila Prabhupada's interpretation of SB 4.28.54? > > "The original home of the living entity and the Supreme Personality > of Godhead is the spiritual world. (SB 4.28.54 purport) > > The word "okaH" [used in the verse] simply means refuge or asylum (Monier-Williams) > which is provided > by MahaVishnu during mahapralaya. "oka" (nominative singular okaH) means home, asylum, refuge, etc. The part about "provided by MahaaVishnu" is merely your own (Jiiva Gosvami's?) addition. This is translated as "original home" > by Srila Prabhupada. Which is actually more conservative a translation in this case. In the sense of the chronology of a particular universe > this translation is okay. In the sense of the spiritual world, however, this > is strictly speaking incorrect. I disagree. I would argue that Srila Prabhupada's interpretation is more from the perspective of the spiritual world, while the "Mahaa- Vishnu" interpretation is more from the perspective of material chronology. This is obvious since fall from and reabsorption into Mahaa-Vishnu are cyclical events taking place within the sphere of material time. Beginningless karma cannot be true from a frame of reference in which we are always assumed to be liberated. It is only true in a frame of reference in which bondage, however illusory, is a given. On the other hand, if by "fall" Srila Prabhupada refers to the departure from substance into the belief of bondage, then it is perfectly valid according to the perspective of being Krishna- conscious by nature. Srila Prabhupada, however, takes advantage > of the word "okaH" to explain a higher concept (one's ontological origin in Vaikuntha) > than that actually discussed by the verse (one's shelter within Maha Vishnu). Gerald, it's only fair to point out that "Mahaa-Vishnu,pralaya," etc are not mentioned anywhere in those verses - this is an interpretation also. > This is not surprising as Srila Prabhupada often opportunistically uses verses in the karma-yoga section of the Gita to elaborate on Bhakti-yoga. This is natural since suddha-bhakti is the ultimate conclusion of the Bhagavad-gita. See for example his opportunistic and compassionate interpretation of BG 6.30 in relation to Bhagavan Sri Krishna, when the verse is really only referring to the Supersoul realization of a > dhyana-yogi.) No, I agree with Prabhupada there and disagree with you. His comments in those sections are perfectly in keeping with the literal intent of the Giitaa. There is nothing opportunistic about his comments there, but perhaps we can start a new thread on that if you are interested -- feel free to start it yourself and I'll join in. > Therefore, Srila Prabhupada's use of the SB 4.28 passage is similar to his own > compassionate style evident in the Gita As It Is, and it should not be used > against basic literal facts of beginningless bondage. I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you suggesting that he has fudged the meaning of those verses out of compassion for the living entities who would read his comments? Why would he do that? I don't need to be told I was previously in Vaikuntha if it was never true. Maybe you can clarify what you mean by this. I apologize in advance if I misunderstood anything you took the time to write. yours, K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2004 Report Share Posted April 24, 2004 achintya, "krishna_susarla" <krishna_susarla@h...> wrote: > Most likely > he had to get a friend to look up the commentaries of Jiiva Gosvaamii and Vishvanaatha Chakravartii when I pressed him to do so. These quotes and others are correctly quoted in Satyanarayan's Leaves Book on the jiva-fall issue. (I have verified this from the 4th canto Bhagavatam (Sastry edition). > > In such conditions as deep sleep and even prenatally, one has a > temporary awareness of the Lord. So there is nothing surprising about an awareness of the Lord during mahapralaya. > But keep in mind what the verse literally says: > api smarasi chaatmaanam avij~naatasakha.m sakhe | bhaa 4.28.53 | > ...which literally asks of him if he can remember his "friend." This > presupposes friendship, relationship, etc. Thus one would not be > inclined to think that a rudimentary awareness in dormancy was being > referred to here. The word friend need not indicate one's lila with Bhagavan in Vaikuntha. It is more appropriate to understand it as the relationship between Supersoul and the jiva as is indicated by the Upanisad/Rg Veda verse "dva suparna..." about the two friendly birds which Sridhara Swami cites in the commentary to 4.28.51. > But realize that Srila Prabhupada does not interpret in that way - > his exact translation: "can't you remember that in the past you had a > very intimate friend?" > > Certainly one cannot take the position that Srila Prabhupada's > translation refers to rememberance of a position of rudimentary > awareness in deep sleep. > It can if "very intimate friend" is understood in light of the dva suparna verse. > > "Slight awareness" is merely conjecture on your part, based on > inference from the vedaanta descriptions of susupti. The word militva in the 4th canto passage refers to association, not merely a state of sleepiness. > > Pardon me for pointing this out, but are you not in effect > saying, "the jiivas have no experience of falling from Vaikuntha, > because the jiivas have never fallen from Vaikuntha?" No, I am just saying that the states of awareness in (1) mahapralaya, (2) in susupti, and (3) in utero are more similar to each other because they are limited in contradistinction to the fully blossomed consciousness in perfection in Vaikuntha. The point of my analogy is that a limited awareness is temporarily present in these states, along with a general inactivity and sleepiness to the greater surroundings. No other points of similarity were attempted to be drawn. > There is no comparable sentiment in > the dormant state of being merged in Mahaa-Vishnu. So, there is > really no a priori state of Krishna-consciousness to be remembered > and reacquired for the one in bondage after "fall" from merger with > Mahaa-Vishnu's body. This is your assumption. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's use of the word "dormant" in the translation of Bs20 only refers to inactivity and is not found in the Sanskrit. > > Keep in mind also that Srila Prabhupada translates this section > as, "This means he regains his original Krsna consciousness, which > was lost because of his material attraction." Even if we are to > disagree with the interpretation, let us at least be clear on what > Srila Prabhupada has *clearly* said here. Make no mistake - he is > clearly a proponent of ideas of "fall from spiritual world" > and "original Krishna-consciousness" being "forgotten" and > then "regained." Srila Prabhupada certainly discusses these verses in terms of the "fall" narrative. However, I would propose that this is similar to his style of emphasizing bhakti in the karma-yoga section of the Gita. > As I mentioned before, each interpretation has its strengths. It was > not my intention to point out any fault in Jiiva's intepretation. > Jiiva's seems more in keeping with the Vedaanta while Srila > Prabhupada's seems more consistent with the Bhaagavatam itself. Srila Prabhupada's is in keeping with a different section of the Bhagavatam (11.11.3) but not neccessarily with the specific verses being discussed. I only wanted to point out the strengths of > Srila Prabhupada's comments to pre-empt another round of criticisms > from the self-professed arbiters of Gaudiiya Vaishnava orthodoxy > (many of whom are not themselves initiated into any "orthodox" > Gaudiiya tradition based on their own definitions of it). I appreciate this but an interpretation technically has to be consistent with the local context. Srila Prabhupada's is consistent with the Bhagavatam as a whole but not with the specific verses under discussion. > > Now this leaves you with the task of deciding where the "fall" fits > into all of this. For if it is not true from the standpoint of > vastuta, because one is always liberated, then it can only be true > from the standpoint of pratiita. But anaadi-karma can also only be > true from the standpoitn of pratiita. So, how to reconcile fall with > anaadi-karma within the frame of reference of pratiita? > > Is it that one's belief in his bondage is beginningless, thereafter > leading to the positing of being in beginningless bondage? Or, is it > that one falls into the belief of his bondage, and then once doing > so, his bondage in that frame of reference is beginningless? If you > understand the distinction between the two, you also understand why I > am asking the question. The fall is certainly on the level of pratItaH, however it is not a momentary event. The concept of fall as a momentary act is incorrect. According to Ravindra svarupa, "For example we habitually characterize our entry into time as though it were itself a temporal occasion, a dateable event. However, as we have seen, "once" we become conditioned, we have always been conditioned. Similarly, we think of our rebellion against God as a distant, aboriginal event, one that took place long ago and far away, in *that* world. In truth, that single act of rebellion is perpetual; that very same aboriginal event is taking place right now. We have only to look into our hearts to confirm this." (http://www.rsdml.com/essay.asp ) I think the answer is that both existences (here and there) are parallel having existed eternally. > > "oka" (nominative singular okaH) means home, asylum, refuge, etc. The > part about "provided by MahaaVishnu" is merely your own (Jiiva > Gosvami's?) addition. No, the verse itself says "agre" which is used here and elsewhere in the Bhagavatam to indicate the beginning of the universe, not a primeval state of KC. Mahapralaya is logically understood from the word "agre". There is minimal interpretation here. (See the similar earlier usages of this word specifically SB 1.2.30, 1.10.2, 2.9.33, 3.5.23, 3.7.21, 3.10.13.) > > I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you suggesting that he has > fudged the meaning of those verses out of compassion for the living > entities who would read his comments? I wouldn't use the word "fudge", but maybe "extrapolate" just as he does from Paramatma (clearly indicated in 6.29) to Bhagavan in his purport to BG 6.30. ys Gerald Surya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2004 Report Share Posted April 24, 2004 Hare Krsna prabhus. Please accept my humble obeisance. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. You wrote: >Srila Prabhupada's use of the SB 4.28 passage is similar to his own >compassionate style evident in the Gita As It Is, and it should not be used >against basic literal facts of beginningless bondage. Why are some souls in beginningless bondage, made to suffer. They deserve this? And others are eternally and increasingly enjoying. ys: Gauranga Premananda das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2004 Report Share Posted April 25, 2004 achintya, "Gauranga Premananda (das) BCS (Amsterdam - NL)" <Gauranga.Premananda.BCS@p...> wrote: > Why are some souls in beginningless bondage, made to suffer. They deserve this? And others are eternally and increasingly enjoying. > -------- Not directly answering the question but... -------- jaiva dharma chap. 10- The Supreme Personality of Godhead, the protector of the universe, and His assistant Lord Shiva are both all-knowing and the givers of all good. They are never cruel or unjust. Their actions have a deep purpose the small individual souls have no power to understand. Therefore They should not be criticised. Because they are not intelligent enough to understand the purpose of the Lord, people may criticise Him, saying "It is not good for the Supreme Lord to act in this way. He should have acted in that way." Intelligent people never talk like that. Why was the impersonalist philosophy needed then to control the demonic people? Only the all-powerful Lord knows. Why is there a need to create the various life-forms and then destroy them at the end? We have not the power to know. >> These are the pastimes of the Lord. << Persons who are devoted to the Lord feels bliss to hear of His pastimes. They are not eager to say the Lord acted wrongly or to question the virtue of the Lord's actions ------------------- "Why are some souls in beginningless bondage, made to suffer. They deserve this?" ------ material suffering and other things of duality are experiences of the ego ------ http://bhagavatam.net SB 1.7.6: The material miseries of the living entity, which are superfluous to him, can be directly mitigated by the linking process of devotional service. But the mass of people do not know this, and therefore the learned Vyasadeva compiled this Vedic literature, which is in relation to the Supreme Truth SB 11.28.15: Lamentation, elation, fear, anger, greed, confusion and hankering, as well as birth and death, are experiences of the false ego and not of the pure soul SB 11.28.36: Whatever apparent duality is perceived in the self is simply the confusion of the mind. Indeed, such supposed duality has no basis to rest upon apart from one's own soul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2004 Report Share Posted April 28, 2004 Dear Prabhus. Please accept my humble obeisance. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. On > Why are some souls in beginningless bondage, made to suffer. They deserve this? And others are eternally and increasingly enjoying. > Dhani wrote: >Why is there a need to create the various life-forms and then >destroy them at the end? We have not the power to know. >> These are >the pastimes of the Lord. The Lord's pastimes of preaching the impersonalist philosophy and creating and destroying life forms is to rectify a wrong choice and activity of the souls. So, the souls themselves choose to be nity-baddha or nitya mukta? But choosing at some time means he must know the 2 options otherwise the soul can't make a good choice and it is Krsna's choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2004 Report Share Posted April 29, 2004 achintya, "krishna_susarla" <krishna_susarla@h...> wrote: An additional problem with the Mahaa-Vishnu interpretation is SB 4.28.64. This verse states that by turning to the Supersoul, one can regain that which was lost. Now, what is that which was lost? If it was merely merger with Mahaa-Vishnu, then so what? One could get that anyway if one stays in the material world until the next pralaya. See bhagavad-giitaa chapter 8. What is lost is mentioned in verse as "sva-stha" which is explained by Srila Jiva Gosvami and Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti and others as "prAdhAnikA vesha rahitaH". This literally indicates the superior residence that was forsaken, which in the context of the verses of this chapter indicate the position with Maha Vishnu. This is apparently a better condition, although temporary. ys Gerald Surya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2004 Report Share Posted May 15, 2004 achintya, "suryajee" <Mrgerald@a...> wrote: > The word friend need not indicate one's lila with Bhagavan in > Vaikuntha. It is more appropriate to understand it as the > relationship between Supersoul and the jiva as > is indicated by the Upanisad/Rg Veda verse "dva suparna..." about > the two friendly birds which Sridhara Swami cites in the commentary > to 4.28.51. Since the exact Sanskrit is "dvaa suparNaa sayujaa sakhaayaa," I will conceed that it is equally appropriate to interpret in that way. I don't agree with "more appropriate," based on context. Another point to bring up is this. We do not know that the rememberance spoken of is *only* in regards to one's relationship with the Supersoul and not of one's relationship with Bhagavaan in Vaikuntha. Realize that "attaining Brahman,remembering the Supersoul,attaining Vaikuntha" are generally considered synonymous as far as most other Vaishnavas are concerned. While gaudiiyas distinguish between them, it is not obvious to me that shaastras do also in all cases. More on this later. > > But realize that Srila Prabhupada does not interpret in that way - > > his exact translation: "can't you remember that in the past you > had a > very intimate friend?" > > > > Certainly one cannot take the position that Srila Prabhupada's > > translation refers to rememberance of a position of rudimentary > > awareness in deep sleep. > > > It can if "very intimate friend" is understood in light of the dva > suparna verse. > No, here we are discussing how Srila Prabhupada is interpreting these verses. Take a look at his purport to SB 4.28.53: "The natural position of the living entity is to serve the Lord in a transcendental loving attitude. When the living entity wants to become Krsna Himself or imitate Krsna, HE FALLS DOWN INTO THE MATERIAL WORLD. Since Kròsònòa is the supreme father, His affection for the living entity is eternal. When the living entity falls down into the material world, the Supreme Lord, through His svamsa expansion (Paramatma), keeps company with the living entity. In this way the living entity may some day return home, back to Godhead." [emphasis mine] We can can discuss later your position on Srila Prabhupada's words and their meaning. For now, you must admit that Srila Prabhupada has explicitly mentioned a "falling downINTO the material world." Whether it is right or wrong is another thing. But he clearly said it. Hence, one must conclude that as far as Srila Prabhupada is concerned, rememberance of Supersoul vs. remberance of being associated with the Lord outside of the material world is basically synonymous. > > "Slight awareness" is merely conjecture on your part, based on > > inference from the vedaanta descriptions of susupti. > > The word militva in the 4th canto passage refers to association, not > merely a state of sleepiness. I probably lost track, but which passage are you talking about? My point was simply that when merged into the body of mahaa-viShnu, there is not "relationship" to speak of. Remember that this is not liberation - this is attained by living entities who are still in the material world at the time of pralaya. > No, I am just saying that the states of awareness in (1) > mahapralaya, (2) in susupti, and (3) in utero are more similar to > each other because they are limited in contradistinction to the > fully blossomed consciousness in perfection in Vaikuntha. > The point of my analogy is that a limited awareness is temporarily > present in these states, along with a general inactivity and > sleepiness to the greater surroundings. No other points of > similarity were attempted to be drawn. We have a description in the bhaagavatam of the state of awareness in utero. Clearly the living entity, if we are to believe shaastra, has very clear awareness of his helpless position and of the position of the Supreme Lord. However, unless I missed it, there is no evidence that that this type of awareness is present after mahaa-pralaya while merged in mahaa- viShNu. > > There is no comparable sentiment in > > the dormant state of being merged in Mahaa-Vishnu. So, there is > > really no a priori state of Krishna-consciousness to be remembered > > and reacquired for the one in bondage after "fall" from merger > with > > Mahaa-Vishnu's body. > > > This is your assumption. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's use of the > word "dormant" in the > translation of Bs20 only refers to inactivity and is not found in > the Sanskrit. Then it is still Srila Bhaktisiddhaanta's opinion vs. yours. Where is your evidence that the living entitiy merged in mahaa-viShNu is active and/or retains any awareness that is more than "dormant?" If Bhaktisiddhanta is wrong, then you should show explicit proof. On this point at least, I don't think I've seen anything yet. It is clearly Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's position, based on how he translated BrS 5.20, that the living entity merged in mahaa-viShNu is dormant. > Srila Prabhupada certainly discusses these verses in terms of > the "fall" narrative. > However, I would propose that this is similar to his style of > emphasizing bhakti in > the karma-yoga section of the Gita. Let me see if I can take that to its logical conclusion(s). Bhakti is actually not being discussed in the karma-yoga sections, so Srila Prabhupada's mention of it is an artificial imposition. Similarly, he mention of "fall from Vaikuntha" in these Bhaagavatam verses is also an artificial imposition. Bhakti is mentioned in the karma-yoga sections, in a latent or indirect way. Thus, a devotee like Srila Prabhupada who knows the innermost conclusions of the giitaa has brought them out in his commentary. In that way, the "fall from Vaikuntha" sense is also latent or indirectly understood from these bhaagavatam verses, and Srila Prabhupada has appropriately brought them out. Which of the above is your position? > > As I mentioned before, each interpretation has its strengths. It > was > > not my intention to point out any fault in Jiiva's intepretation. > > Jiiva's seems more in keeping with the Vedaanta while Srila > > Prabhupada's seems more consistent with the Bhaagavatam itself. > > Srila Prabhupada's is in keeping with a different section of the > Bhagavatam (11.11.3) > but not neccessarily with the specific verses being discussed. Sorry, but I still disagree. You are obviously in favor of the paramaatmaa interpretation, and that is where you are coming from. This however still requires that we believe that the "rememberance" refers to one's relationship with paramaatmaa and simultaneously one's mergence with mahaa-viShNu. It is not consistent. Consider for the moment: we are all in material world since beginningless time. At some point before we were at least "Supersoul conscious," in spite of being in material world. Then we forgot the Supersoul. In that case, why speak of "mergence" with Mahaa-Vishnu as the state to be remembered, when being in that state is possible even for those who are not Krishna-conscious (or "Paramaatmaa-conscious"). This is why I question why "remembering the Supersoul" cannot be taken as synonymous with "remembering Bhagavaan." Because already the aachaaryas take "remembering the Supersoul" as being synonymous with "remembering Mahaa-Vishnu." > I appreciate this but an interpretation technically has to be > consistent with the local context. > Srila Prabhupada's is consistent with the Bhagavatam as a whole but > not with the specific verses under discussion. As far as I can see, Srila Prabhupada's interpretation is no less consistent than the ones offered by his predecessors. I am still not clear on why it is okay to postulate that remembering Supersoul = remembering Mahaa-Vishnu but remembering Supersoul =/= remembering Bhagavaan in Vaikuntha. > The fall is certainly on the level of pratItaH, however it is not a > momentary event. > The concept of fall as a momentary act is incorrect. According to > Ravindra svarupa, > > "For example we habitually characterize our entry into time as > though it were > itself a temporal occasion, a dateable event. However, as we have > seen, > "once" we become conditioned, we have always been conditioned. > Similarly, > we think of our rebellion against God as a distant, aboriginal event, > one that took place long ago and far away, in *that* world. In > truth, that > single act of rebellion is perpetual; that very same aboriginal > event is taking place > right now. We have only to look into our hearts to confirm this." > (http://www.rsdml.com/essay.asp ) > > I think the answer is that both existences (here and there) are > parallel having existed eternally. So then what of "anaadi-karma?" This too must be on the level of pratiitaH only for it to be consistent. Indeed, only if anaadi-karma is true in that frame of reference only does Srila Prabhupada's "Fall theory" become consistent with the vedaanta position of anaadi-karma. Srila Prabhupada, in speaking of "fall from Vaikuntha" is still speaking of fall in a literal sense. One has fallen from his conception that he is constitutionally a resident of Vaikuntha. But in the material realm, this "fall" is not a dated event. Spiritual and material existences being "parallel" might not be the most appropriate description, since there is no concept of time in the spiritual world. I tend to think of them as perpendicular - once in the material world, one's bondage is beginningless. But once back in Vaikuntha (or back in the consciousness of always having been in Vaikuntha.... semantics really), it is as if he never left. > > "oka" (nominative singular okaH) means home, asylum, refuge, etc. > The > > part about "provided by MahaaVishnu" is merely your own (Jiiva > > Gosvami's?) addition. > > > No, the verse itself says "agre" which is used here and elsewhere in > the Bhagavatam > to indicate the beginning of the universe, not a primeval state of > KC. Mahapralaya is logically understood from the word "agre". There > is minimal interpretation here. (See the similar earlier usages of > this word specifically SB 1.2.30, 1.10.2, 2.9.33, 3.5.23, 3.7.21, > 3.10.13.) Which verse are you talking about? I thought we were talking about SB 4.28.54. Here is that verse: ha.msaavaha.m cha tva.m chaarya sakhaayau maanasaayanau | abhuutaam antaraa vaukaH sahasraparivatsaraan || Now, let us see what makes more sense as an interpretation for "okaH" in the context of a conversation between the compassionate Supersoul and the deluded and the suffering living entity who is crying after losing her beloved husband: #1: "My dear gentle friend, both you and I are exactly like two swans. We live together in the same heart, which is just like the Maanasa Lake. Although we have been living together for many thousands of years, we are still far away from our original home, Vaikuntha,(that place in which no one suffers and from which no one falls.)" #2: "My dear gentle friend, both you and I are exactly like two swans. We live together in the same heart, which is just like the Maanasa Lake. Although we have been living together for many thousands of years, we are still far away from merger into Mahaa- Vishnu, (into whom all living entities go anyway regardless of whether or not they get moksha, and from which living entities again fall into the material world)." What makes more sense to you, coming from a Lord who is hinting at a permanent goal from which one never again has to come to this world and suffer? > > I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you suggesting that he has > > fudged the meaning of those verses out of compassion for the > living > > entities who would read his comments? > > > > I wouldn't use the word "fudge", but maybe "extrapolate" just as he > does > from Paramatma (clearly indicated in 6.29) to Bhagavan in his > purport to BG 6.30. "Extrapolate" in my opinion is misguided. I have reread those first 10 chapters togther with the accompanying notes by Bhurijan. I am more convinced now, after nitpicking analysis of the words, that "bhakti-yoga" is very much the subject of the "karma-yoga" and other chapters, and that not to bring it out would be incorrect. If you wish, we can start a new thread on that, and I will be happy to argue this point with specific references to the properties of the "karma yoga,jnaana-yoga" etc which are mentioned. Bottom line: Srila Prabhupada's purports are right on, and not understanding that in my opinion does reflect a serious misunderstanding of the giitaa (or at least the gaudiiya interpretation of it). yours, k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2004 Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 > achintya, "krishna_susarla" > <krishna_susarla@h...> wrote: > > Since the exact Sanskrit is "dvaa suparNaa sayujaa sakhaayaa," I > will > conceed that it is equally appropriate to interpret in that > way. I > don't agree with "more appropriate," based on context.> There are several contextual indicators in the SB 4.28.51-62 verses pointing to Paramatma in His localized and universal forms rather than to Bhagavan in Vaikuntha. 1. The friendship with Supersoul is mentioned initially in verse 51 as sakha and Srila Prabhupada confirms this: "In His Paramatma feature, Krishna is the old friend of everyone." This meaning continues through verses 52, 53, 54, as well as in 55 (bandho), 57 and 59 (prabho), and 62 (bhoh). The continuity of this meaning in reference to the Supersoul manifestations of the Lord is clear. According to CC Madhya 21.39, all three Purusas are called Supersouls ("Maha VIshnu, Padmanabha, and Ksirodakasayi Visnu are the Supersouls of all subtle and gross existences.") . The oneness of these Purusa-avataras is also explicitly indicated by the BG 5.29 verse quoted by Srila Prabhupada in his purport to 53. (According to Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana, sarva-loka-mahesvaram refers to the Lord of Brahma, Rudra, etc. which is Garbhodakasayi Visnu and suhrdam sarva-bhutanam refers to Ksirodakasayi Visnu who is the individually localized Paramatma). In text 64, the separation from "tad" is discussed, which in this passage is Paramatma. Interstingly, the analogy of the Supersouls (specifically the second and third manifestations) as a swan is also mentioned in the Svetasvatara Upanisad 6.15 (http://sanatan.intnet.mu/upanishads/svetasvatara.htm) 2. Another example is the word "agre" in verse 52. In the context of Paramatma this indicates "before the beginning of the universe." Mahapralaya is logically understood from the word "agre". (See the similar earlier usages of this word specifically SB 1.2.30, 1.10.2, 2.9.33, 3.5.23, 3.7.21, 3.10.13.) There is no such logical connection between "agre" and a hypothetically ancient pratItiH state of Krishna consciousness, what to speak of any examples in the Bhagavatam. 3. In the purport to 53, Srila Prabhupada uses verse BG 7.27 regarding birth into the delusion of duality as an explanation of the fall. This verse which mentions the word sarga can be interpreted as referring to one's individual birth (sva-utpatti, according to Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana) or the time of the creation of the universe (jagat-srsty-arambha-kale according to Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura). There is no precedence for taking the word sarga to refer to the time of the original birth upon falling. He is clearly utilizing this verse to help illustrate another point. This is similarly the case in this 4th canto passage. > We can can discuss later your position on Srila Prabhupada's words > and their meaning. For now, you must admit that Srila Prabhupada > has > explicitly mentioned a "falling down" "INTO the material world." I agree. > Whether it is right or wrong is another thing. But he clearly > said it. I agree. I also agree that Srila Prabhupada is right according to the 11th canto specifically. > Hence, one must conclude that as far as Srila Prabhupada is > concerned, rememberance of Supersoul vs. remberance of being > associated with the Lord outside of the material world is > basically > synonymous. These are two distinct points and Srila Prabhupada has made no specific identification. > > > "Slight awareness" is merely conjecture on your part, based on > > > inference from the vedaanta descriptions of susupti.> > > > The word militva in the 4th canto passage refers to association, > not merely a state of sleepiness.> > I probably lost track, but which passage are you talking about? My > point was simply that when merged into the body of mahaa-viShnu, > there is not "relationship" to speak of. Remember that this is not > liberation - this is attained by living entities who are still in > the > material world at the time of pralaya.> …… > However, unless I missed it, there is no evidence that that this > type > of awareness is present after mahaa-pralaya while merged in mahaa-> viShNu. The word militva (meeting) is used by Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura under verse 52 to describe the interaction of Vaidarbhi and the brahmana prior to the creation, so there is no impersonal or stuporous state of merging that exists at that time. > > > This is your assumption. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's use of the > > word "dormant" in the> > translation of Bs20 only refers to inactivity and is not found in> > the Sanskrit. > > Then it is still Srila Bhaktisiddhaanta's opinion vs. yours. No, this is just semantics. The soul is physically inactive (hence dormant), yet he is personally in touch with Paramatma (hence the word militva or meeting). > > Srila Prabhupada certainly discusses these verses in terms of > > the "fall" narrative. > > However, I would propose that this is similar to his style of > > emphasizing bhakti in > > the karma-yoga section of the Gita. > > Let me see if I can take that to its logical conclusion(s). > > Bhakti is actually not being discussed in the karma-yoga sections, so > Srila Prabhupada's mention of it is an artificial imposition. > Similarly, he mention of "fall from Vaikuntha" in these Bhaagavatam > verses is also an artificial imposition. > Bhakti is mentioned in the karma-yoga sections, in a latent or > indirect way. Thus, a devotee like Srila Prabhupada who knows the > innermost conclusions of the giitaa has brought them out in his > commentary. In that way, the "fall from Vaikuntha" sense is also > latent or indirectly understood from these bhaagavatam verses, and > Srila Prabhupada has appropriately brought them out. Such a latent meaning should be logically and contextually supportable. Although many verses about karma-yoga apply to bhakti-yoga (especially since karma-yoga can't really exist without the invisible support of bhakti), the verses refer to karma-yoga. Similarly, where is there any context-based evidence of the fall theory in the 4th canto? > This however still requires that we believe that the "rememberance" > refers to one's relationship with paramaatmaa and simultaneously > one's mergence with mahaa-viShNu. It is not consistent. >… > This is why I question why "remembering the Supersoul" cannot be > taken as synonymous with "remembering Bhagavaan." Because already the > aachaaryas take "remembering the Supersoul" as being synonymous > with "remembering Mahaa-Vishnu." The three Purusa-avataras who are the Supersouls of the mahat-tattva, the universe and the individual souls respectively, can be referred to as Paramatma. This is not the same as Bhagavan. > > I think the answer is that both existences (here and there) are > > parallel having existed eternally. > > So then what of "anaadi-karma?" This too must be on the level of > pratiitaH only for it to be consistent. Indeed, only if anaadi- karma > is true in that frame of reference only does Srila Prabhupada's "Fall > theory" become consistent with the vedaanta position of anaadi- karma. > Srila Prabhupada, in speaking of "fall from Vaikuntha" is still > speaking of fall in a literal sense. One has fallen from his > conception that he is constitutionally a resident of Vaikuntha. But > in the material realm, this "fall" is not a dated event. I agree with you. > Spiritual and material existences being "parallel" might not be the > most appropriate description, since there is no concept of time in > the spiritual world. I tend to think of them as perpendicular - once > in the material world, one's bondage is beginningless. But once back > in Vaikuntha (or back in the consciousness of always having been in > Vaikuntha.... semantics really), it is as if he never left. Yes. > Now, let us see what makes more sense as an interpretation > for "okaH" > …. > What makes more sense to you, coming from a Lord who is hinting at a > permanent goal from which one never again has to come to this world > and suffer? How is what makes more sense to me a criteria for interpretation? Srila Jiva Gosvami and Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti and others (under verse 62) refer to the original position (sva-stha) as simply "prAdhAnikA vesha rahitaH" or "the superior residence that was forsaken." The Bhagavatam never once uses the word okaH to describe Vaikuntha. (http://vedabase.net/sanskrit/o/okah). In reference to the conditioned souls, SB 3.20.16 uses the word okaH to refer to Brahma's lotus as the resting place of all souls. Construing Vaikuntha as the referent of okaH (verse 54) or svastha (verse 62) definitely provides illumination on the nature of reality (by Srila Prabhupada's mercy), but not necessarily upon the 4th canto passage. Ys Gerald Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.