Our original position

[Guest guest]

Dear Prabhus,

Humble obeisances. Jaya Srila Prabhupada.

 

This is my first post here, and so by way of introduction: From

Hyderabad, India. Going through grad school in the US. I've been

trying to practice Krishna-consciousness for a couple of years now.

 

I have a rather neophyte question, and I'm not sure if this has been

discussed on a previous thread here. Does ISKCON currently have any

definitive doctrinal position on the question of the jiva's original

position? There was some back-n-forth on this question, and 2 books

I came across were "In Vaikuntha even the leaves do not fall",

and "Our Original Position". I'm told by some Gaudiyas outside

ISKCON that the "traditionalist" view differs from the

ISKCON/Gaudiya Math view on this question. But as far as I can tell

from a reading of Srila Prabhupada in a broader context (including

answering specific queries on this point), it seems that he was

NEVER dogmatic about this point as a matter of doctrine. Could

members here help me understand what -- if any -- controversy there

is about this point?

 

Thanks in advance. Hare Krishna.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "webasura" <rind_19> wrote:

 

> I have a rather neophyte question, and I'm not sure if this has

been

> discussed on a previous thread here. Does ISKCON currently have

any

> definitive doctrinal position on the question of the jiva's

original

> position?

 

As you are aware, the ISKCON GBC position appears to be the position

taken by the authors of _Our Original Position_. According to this

book, there was a fall down from the spiritual world, and the karma

of the living entities began at a specific time.

 

I'm told by some Gaudiyas outside

> ISKCON that the "traditionalist" view differs from the

> ISKCON/Gaudiya Math view on this question.

 

In fact, even the Gaudiya Math disagrees with ISKCON on this one.

ISKCON is the only organization to the best of my knowledge which

officially adopts the "finite karma/fall-from-Vaikuntha" view

discussed in _Our Original Position_. Even then, I know devotees

within ISKCON who do not agree with this position.

 

But as far as I can tell

> from a reading of Srila Prabhupada in a broader context (including

> answering specific queries on this point), it seems that he was

> NEVER dogmatic about this point as a matter of doctrine. Could

> members here help me understand what -- if any -- controversy

there

> is about this point?

 

Historically, the controversy started when Satyanarayana dasa and

Kundali dasa co-wrote the book _In Vaikuntha Not Even the Leaves

Fall_. I have not reviewed this book or its arguments, but most

likely the "No Fall" position gained momentum because of an aphorism

in the Vedaanta-suutra which states that the living entity's karmas

are beginningless. I don't have the my books with me at the moment,

so I can only mention the Vedaanta logic from memory. Briefly, it is

something like this:

 

1) Puurva-pakshin wonders how all the living entities could be

unequal (having different statuses in life, different proportions of

suffering, etc). He is concerned that such inequality indicates that

God is partial and cruel for meting out more suffering to some

jiivas.

 

2) Vedaantin argues that the differences in enjoymnent or suffering

are due to the jiivas' karmas. Therefore, it is not that God is

partial and cruel, but rather the jiivas are enjoying or suffering

whatever is their due result from their actions.

 

3) Puurva-pakshin counter-argues that if jiivas are enjoying or

suffering due to their karmas, and are thus unequal in that regard,

then they must have started off with unequal karmas (the logic being

that if everyone started off at the same spiritual position with the

same amount of karma, then they would not be differentiated by

performing different activities and enjoying/suffering differently).

The puurva-pakshin thus argues that God is still partial and cruel,

for he created the living entities with unequal karmas to begin with.

 

4) Vedaantin argues that it is not so. God is not partial and cruel,

because the karmas of the living entities are beginningless. Thus,

He did not start them off with different karmas, and their

inequality now cannot be traced back to some primeval inequality.

Thus, God is not partial and cruel.

 

Since karma refers to material action, proponents of "No Fall" take

the position that beginningless karma means beginningless bondage,

which seems like a fairly conservative deduction. Hence, there was

never a time when jiivas were in Vaikuntha.

 

In response to this, Hridayananda dasa Gosvami wrote _Our Original

Position_. This book is tacticly accepted by ISKCON's leaders, but

the arguments within are rather unsettling. HDG tries to argue

(unconvincingly) that the karmas of the living entities are

spiritual and material. Thus, by proposing an unconventional

definition of "karma," he argues that karma is beginningless, and

yet we fell from Vaikuntha. I also remember him trying to interpret

Madhva and Raamaanuja's commentaries in a very forced way to support

this position, a fact which made members of the Sri Vaishnava

community unhappy (see bhakti-

list/message/8345 if you have a subscription to the Bhakti list for

this discussion).

 

The main problem with HDG's thesis is that it puts a very forced

meaning on the relevant suutras and on the Govinda-bhaashya.

Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana is the Gaudiiya Vaishnava Vedaanta

commentator, and he did not see fit to interpret the relevant

suutras in way that was compatible with "fall vaada." In fact, he

did not say anything at all about "Fall" or "No Fall." The only

thing that is clear from Baladeva is that he agrees with Vyaasa: the

karmas of the living entities are beginningless. It is obvious from

context that these karmas are material activity, not spiritual

activity. HDG's thesis that the beginningless karma can be either

spiritual or material does not make sense within the context of the

suutras, which hold that these karmas are the cause of enjoyment or

suffering. Spiritual "karma" does not cause enjoyment or suffering,

a fact which I pointed out to HDG when I discussed this issue with

him on the VAST mailing list several years ago.

 

Srila Prabhupada's own position on this seems to be somewhat

equivocal. Although there are many places where he speaks

of "fall,fall from spiritual world," and even I believe "fall

from Vaikuntha," there is nevertheless his Bhaagavatam purport in

which he states that "other than Jaya and Vijaya, no one falls from

Vaikuntha." (paraphrase) Furthermore, Srila Prabhupada refers to the

jiivas' bondage as being "from time immemorial," which is unclear.

Is he referring to a finite time that simply cannot be estimated, or

to a time that cannot be estimated because there was no beginning?

It is not immediately clear to me one way or another, but "fall

vaada" proponents are quick to seize upon these statements as

definitive endorsement of their conclusion.

 

By all means, feel free to review the relevant texts in order to

gain a fuller appreciation for the arguments. Don't just take my

word for it. In truth, I don't think this is an important issue from

the standpoint of our spiritual upliftment. However, I do think it

is important in the sense that we must be faithful to our

puurvaachaaryas and what they have instructed. Thus, I am less

concerned abotu "Fall" and "No Fall" and more concerned that the

anaadi-karma suutras be understood properly. Baladeva's stand that

material activity is beginningless should be adhered to by Gaudiiyas

because that point at least is very clear.

 

yours,

 

K

 

p.s. sorry for lack of specific references - if there is any follow

up on this thread I should have more time then to look up some of

the specifics for your review.

[Guest guest]

Dear Prabhu:

PAMHO AGTSP

 

"Our Original Position" is the definitive doctrinal position of ISKCON regarding

jiva's original position, and was writed in response to "In Vaikuntha even the

leaves do not fall", "Our original Position" never received a response from

autors of "In Vaikuntha even the leaves do not fall", so, we can conclude they

has been surrounded at sastric evidence.

 

ys

Narendra dasa

[Guest guest]

Pranams

 

 

** "Then the soul leaves the material body and goes to the effulgent Supreme

 

Personality of Godhead. The soul then regains his original spiritual form

 

and in that form he enjoys many pastimes, eating and playing with the

 

Supreme Personality of Godhead." (Chandogya Upanisad 8.12.3)

 

 

 

** When the soul is released from Maya's prison, at the moment he is at once

 

liberated. , when he is thus situated in his original form, the soul

 

begins to perform an endless series of spiritual activities.

 

(Jaiva Dharma by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, ch.17)

 

 

ARd

 

 

 

for Good

Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Pranams

 

As per jaya and vijaya who had fallen down from vaikunta , sri vaishnavas say

that they are from viakuntam in the material world.

 

Please refer :

 

http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/mar2001/0166.html

 

One thing i note is if one clearly understands what the term *anaadi* implies

then there would never be a question possible as to *when/how* jiva falls down.

 

If anaadi when/how never arises.

 

Also as moderator said i havent heard of any other mutt which proposes such fall

down theory.

 

THanx

 

 

 

for Good

Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

Isn't sva-tattva bhrama an anartha to be given up in the anartha nivrtti stage?

 

dasa

Narasimhan

 

krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote:

In truth, I don't think this is an important issue from

the standpoint of our spiritual upliftment. However, I do think it

is important in the sense that we must be faithful to our

puurvaachaaryas and what they have instructed. Thus, I am less

concerned about "Fall" and "No Fall" and more concerned that the

anaadi-karma suutras be understood properly.

 

 

for Good

Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.