Guest guest Posted November 23, 2001 Report Share Posted November 23, 2001 Haribol! The discussions here on Achintya seem to have boosted up a bit. Please forgive me for not participating in discussions recently, as I have been prey to various personl problems. It seems that this issue of the fall/no-fall of the jiva has come up yet again. I would like to describe my own history with this matter. Please correct me if I may be wrong on any point. I first heard of this contentious issue early on as 1998, but rejected it as it was way to early for my "newly Krishna Conscious" mind to take in, as well as certain factors regarding it's consuming technicality. I am also in possesion of the GBC-endorsed book, "Our Original Position," but I have never made an effort to read it due to it's high technicality. It seems somehow strange (perhaps Krishna's plan?) that I have been slowly acquainting myself with this issue quite reently, having picked up the OOP book several times, and now it seems that we are having a full-fledged dicussion on this matter! What little I did read about it gave me the impression that there were two major factions: 1- Those that said that the jiva soul fell down from the spiritual world and from a personal relationship with Krishna due to it's own desires (free will) to similarly enjoy just as Krishna does. 2- The other party states that souls do not fall from the spiritual world at all and that our apparent state is just like that of a dream. There also seems to be various forms of confusion as to WHERE EXACTLY the jivas originated, the Spiritual World or the Brahman effulgence. There is one urgent point I wish to make that worries me. Recently we have been asked to view websites that are of a Gaudiya Math outlook. Though I personally have no problem with Gaudiya Math philosophy, I believe that my siksa guru is none other than His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the master at whose feet all other masters sit. I look at the philosophy of any other non-ISKCON authority through Srila Prabhupada's books. I believe that this view is in complete agreement with ISKCON/GBC laws and thus I am perfectly within my rights. It is also significant to note that Srila Prabhupada preached the fall theory, while other non-ISKCON authorities such as Gaudiya Matha preach the no-fall theory. That said, let me try to provide some quotes that may clarify Srila Prabhupada's views on the matter. Even though Srila Prabhupada extensively preached he fall theory, certain places in his books show that he also preached the no-fall theory. I hope to show that the former is the main siddhanta that Prabhupada taught and which ISKCON devotees should follow. The Absolute Truth is personal. The jivas are part of that Absolute Truth, and they are also all personal. They have fallen from a personal relationship with the Supreme Lord in the spiritual world. It's simple logic. "These spirit souls and all spirit souls are coming from Vaikuntha, but in these material worlds, they are taking various grades of bodies". - Letter, July 9, 1970. Prabhupada could have easily said that the souls were coming from the brahmajyoti, but he specifically says that they are coming from the spiritual planets, which are called the Vaikuntha planets. "... if he is properly guided, then he is very easily sent back to home, back to Godhead wherefrom originally he fell down." - Letter, January 20, 1971 If you go back to some place, then you were once there. This is basic logic. Also, the adverb originally is used in this statement. "... we have also come down from Vaikuntha some millions and millions of years ago. Anadi karama-phale. Anadi means before the creation... The real desire is how to go to home, back to Godhead." - Lecture on Bhagavad-gita, London, August 6, 1973 The Sanskrit word anadi is explained concisely in these sentences. Misapplication of this word is one of the sources of controversy stirred up by the no-fall philosophers. That the living entity came from the spiritual planets of Vaikuntha and is meant to go back there is once again clearly established. "... we may fall down from Vaikuntha at any moment... so even in the Vaikuntha, if I desire that 'Why shall I serve Krsna? Why not become Krsna?' I immediately fall down." - Lecture in Honolulu, July 4, 1974 Now the doubt may be raised that Vaikuntha is bathed in the transcendental light of the brahmajyoti, so maybe the Vaikuntha being spoken of here is in reference (obliquely) to that light, rather than the planets and personal relationships there. Notice, in this quote, that the motivations for coming to the material are explained rather graphically. The mystique that Vaikuntha may be referring to the light is smashed in the next reference. "He is fallen already from Vaikuntha planet. He is fallen in this material world, and he is again trying to make progress." - Bhagavatam lecture in Los Angeles, June 15, 1972. The purport is self-evident. "As soon as we try to become Lord, immediately we are covered by Maya. Formerly, we were with Krsna in His lila or sport, but this covering of Maya may be of very, very, very, very long duration. . . "... Unless one develops full devotional service to Krsna, he goes up only to brahma-sayujya but falls down. After millions and millions of years of keeping oneself away from the lila of the Lord, when one comes to Krsna consciousness, this period becomes insignificant, just like dreaming. Because he falls down from brahma-sayujya, he thinks that may be his origin, but he does not remember that before that even he was with Krsna". - Australian conversation transcribed in BBT Report Nectar of the Month, January, 1982. If you're in the brahmajyoti, you're not with Krsna in His sporting pastimes. The brahmajyoti may be a secondary origination for many or even most of us, on the presumption (verified in this statement) that many of us have attained that stage of liberation at some time during our conditional sojourn. So, on that basis, we may be inclined to that as our origination. However, our ultimate origination "before that even" was in a personal relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This Australian conversation really covers the essence of the whole controversy and settles it conclusively--for those who actually have faith in the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, i.e., the philosophy of the Absolute Truth. DISCIPLE: If Krsna did not want us to come, why are we here? PRABHUPADA: Yes. You forced Krsna to allow you to come... This is the position. You have to take sanction. That is a fact. But when you persist, God sanctions. And you come and enjoy. - Bhagavad-gita lecture in Melbourne, June 27, 1974 Actually, the living entity is never the controller at any time during his eternal existence. In reality, he controls nothing. Even in his rebellion against the Lord, the Lord has to create a place where the jiva can come and completely forget his actual identity. If God did not allow you to forget Him, you would be unable to forget him on your own. The living entity requires the Lord's sanction even in the matter of leaving the spiritual world and the jiva's personal relationship with the Personality of Godhead. "Existence in the impersonal brahma is also within the category of non-Krsna consciousness. Those who are in the brahman effulgence, they are also in the fallen condition. So there is no question of falling down from a fallen condition". - Letter, June 13, 1970. The purport is self-evident. "When the pure soul wants to give up the Lord's service to enjoy the material world, Krsna certainly gives him a chance to enter the material world". - Introduction to Srimad Bhagavatam (5.14) There's no service in the brahmajyoti. That's one of the reasons the brahmajyoti exists: so part and parcels who develop maximum aversion to devotional service have somewhere to go and exist. "He should be restored to his pure identity, in which he engages his senses in the service of the proprietor of the senses." - Purport to Srimad Bhagavatam, 4.24.61. "Therefore, the whole process of God consciousness is meant to rectify the conditional activities of the senses and to re-engage them in the direct service of the Lord". -Purport to Srimad Bhagavatam, 2.9.39. Re-engage? How can you be re-engaged in "direct service" of the Lord if you've originally come from the brahmajyoti or some other place that does not facilitate direct, personal engagement in devotional service? Acyutananda: So what made the soul take birth in the first place? Prabhupada: In the first place? Acyutananda: What is the first birth? What is the cause of the first birth. Prabhupada: Yes. That is stated in the Prema-vivarta: krsna-bahirmukha hana bhoga vancha kare/nikata-stha maya tare japatiya dhare. As soon as... We are eternal servant of Krsna. As soon as we want to become master, that is the beginning of our first birth in the material world. We have got independence. Because, Krsna says, mamaivamso jiva bhutah—we are part and parcel of Krsna—so Krsna has got full independence, but we are minute; therefore we have got minute independence. Our business is to serve Krsna, but as soon as we give up this idea, we want to become master. That is the beginning of our material birth. (Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 5.5.2--Hyderabad, April 11, 1975) Perhaps we may like to know of the statements of some of our previous Acharyas on this matter: However, because of contact with matter, the imprisoned soul loses the memory of his original spiritual form in Vaikuntha... material rasas are perverted reflections of the soul's original spiritual rasas. - Srila Bhaktivinoda Takura, Prema-pradipa, p. 83 It is the jivas who are the attendants in His Sports. They become attached to matter, having deviated from their own essential nature as the result of their desire for enjoyment. But when again the soul... gains true wisdom of the transcendental region of God...he begins to get back his pure essential nature... - Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada, Sri Caitanya's Teachings, p. 323. Then, being bewildered and covered, he is fallen from advaya-vaikuntha. - Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada, Vivritti commentary on Srimad Bhagavatam, 11.2.48 Of course this is an increasingly deep topic that requires much further explanation from devotees much more advanced than I, I hope that I have provided some thoughts to stimulate the discussion. Of course, the main problem with the no-fall theory is that it is covert Mayavada due to it's contention that we originated in the brahmajyoti. This theory then logically concludes that the jivatma comes from an impersonal origin, when that is clearly against what Srila Prabhupada said: "Because he falls down from brahma-sayujya, he thinks that may be his origin, but he does not remember that before that even he was with Krsna". In service of Gaura-Nitai, Sanjay ===== "Radha-Krishna prana mora jugala-kisora, jivane marane gati aro nahi mora." "The divine couple, Sri Radha and Krsna, are my life and soul. In life or death I have no other refuge but Them." -- Srila Narottama Dasa Thakura GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities./ps/info1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2001 Report Share Posted November 23, 2001 Hare Krishna! Jaya Prabhupada! achintya, Sanjay Dadlani <dark_knight_9> wrote: > What little I did read about it gave me the impression > that there were two major factions: > > 1- Those that said that the jiva soul fell down from > the spiritual world and from a personal relationship > with Krishna due to it's own desires (free will) to > similarly enjoy just as Krishna does. > 2- The other party states that souls do not fall from > the spiritual world at all and that our apparent state > is just like that of a dream. No, this is not exactly correct. There are actually several different versions of the no-fall point of view, of which #2 is only one (and not even a very mainstream one at that). The main no-fall vaadi's position is that the jiivas did not "fall" from the spiritual world, period. This is, I believe, the position of the authors of _In Vaikuntha, Not Even the Leaves Fall_ (I don't know personally, since I never read it, but have only heard second hand). The no-fall position is inferred from the following Vedaanta-suutras: vaiShamyanairghriNyena na saapej~natvaat tathaa hi darshayati || 2.1.34 || vaiShamya - inequality; narighriNyena - cruelty; na - not; saapekShatvaat - because the creation depends upon the karma of creatures, because of having regard to karma; tathaa - so; hi - because; darshayati - the scripture declares. There exist no partiality and cruelty in the Lord, because the pleasure and pain, suffered by beings, has regard to their karmas, and so also the scriptures declare. (vedaanta-suutra 2.1.34) na karmaavibhaagaaditi chennaanaaditvaat || 2.1.35 || na - not; karma - actions, acts of the jiivas; avibhaagaat - because of non-distinction; iti - thus; chet - if; na - not; anaaditvaat - because of beginninglessness. (The theory of karma) cannot (explain the inequality and cruelty seen in this universe, because when the creation first started) there was no distinction (of souls and consequently) of karmas. This (objection however) is not valid, because there is no beginning of creation. (vedaanta-suutra 2.1.35) 2.1.35 is the clincher. It asserts unequivocally that the karma of the jiivas is beginningless, thus rendering the objection of God's partiality useless. Since living entities only have karma in the material world, the implication seems to be that the living entities have been in material world without beginning. > There also seems to be various forms of confusion as > to WHERE EXACTLY the jivas originated, the Spiritual > World or the Brahman effulgence. .... as well as confusion as to what "originated" means in this context, since jiivas are eternally existing (see BG 2.12). > There is one urgent point I wish to make that worries > me. Recently we have been asked to view websites that > are of a Gaudiya Math outlook. Though I personally > have no problem with Gaudiya Math philosophy, I > believe that my siksa guru is none other than His > Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the > master at whose feet all other masters sit. I look at > the philosophy of any other non-ISKCON authority > through Srila Prabhupada's books. I believe that this > view is in complete agreement with ISKCON/GBC laws and > thus I am perfectly within my rights. Though I generally do as well, not all Gaudiiya Vaishnavas use the same lens to view everything. That's why we have shaastras to settle most disagreements objectively. > It is also significant to note that Srila Prabhupada > preached the fall theory, while other non-ISKCON > authorities such as Gaudiya Matha preach the no-fall > theory. Almost all non-ISKCON Vaishnavas with whom I have corresponded have indicated that they do *not* accept a *fall* theory of any kind, based on their perception that such a theory would contradict vedaanta-suutra 2.1.35 above. In that sense, their position is more literal. The Gaudiiya Math would therefore seem to be in agreement with at least the Sri Vaishnava and Maadhva schools, whose positions I have at least a passing familiarity with. Even > though Srila Prabhupada extensively preached he fall > theory, certain places in his books show that he also > preached the no-fall theory. I hope to show that the > former is the main siddhanta that Prabhupada taught > and which ISKCON devotees should follow. Now stop here for a moment. I have a problem with this sort of logic: "Srila Prabhupada preached fall theory and anyone who is not accepting fall theory is not following Srila Prabhupada. And wherever Srila Prabhupada preached no-fall theory, we can somehow assume that really fall-vaada is his actual position." It is not right, in my mind, to arbitrarily assume that either one or the other is Srila Prabhupada's position, and then proceed to ignore the evidence which substantiates the opposite viewpoint. Why not develop an understanding that synthesizes both teachings? Otherwise, how is it any different from the no-fall vaadi claiming that the no-fall references are literal, and that the fall references are just quaint mythology for our temporary understanding? > The Absolute Truth is personal. The jivas are part of > that Absolute Truth, and they are also all personal. > They have fallen from a personal relationship with the > Supreme Lord in the spiritual world. It's simple > logic. But ultimately, logic is not the standard by which we measure truth - it is the testimony of shaastra. The main problem with the evidence you provide is that almost all of it is from personal correspondence or room conversations - these forms of instruction are often directed to specific groups of individuals at specific levels of understanding. I have a problem with abstracting quotes from them, almost invariably out of context, and presenting them as if they are shruti. For example, using the same kinds of material (letters and room conversations), I can easily show that Srila Prabhupada allowed his disciples to divorce, and to open leather businesses. That would not, however, be a true representation of Srila Prabhupada's views on these issues. Rather, those are specific instructions directed towards specific individuals with specific problems/issues which Prabhupada was attempting to manage. It would be far more revealing, I think, to see what Srila Prabhupada has written in his Bhaktivedanta purports. For example, what does he say in the Bhaagavatam verses describing the fall of Jaya and Vijaya? Or the verses describing the allegorical story of Vaidarbhi? That evidence strikes me as more germane to the discussion at hand. > "... we have also come down from Vaikuntha some > millions and millions of years ago. Anadi > karama-phale. Anadi means before the creation... The > real desire is how to go to home, back to Godhead." - > Lecture on Bhagavad-gita, London, August 6, 1973 > > The Sanskrit word anadi is explained concisely in > these sentences. Misapplication of this word is one of > the sources of controversy stirred up by the no-fall > philosophers. That the living entity came from the > spiritual planets of Vaikuntha and is meant to go back > there is once again clearly established. Sorry, no. The no-fall philosophers actually have it right in this case. They are interpreting "anaadi" in the context of VS 2.1.34-35 (I don't personally see how anaadi can be interpreted differently there). But that is not to say that Srila Prabhupada's explanation of "anaadi" is any less correct -- far from it. Why can't both be correct? We have to remember that we are discussing something that ostensbily happened outside the purview of material time. > Of course, the main problem with the no-fall theory is > that it is covert Mayavada due to it's contention that > we originated in the brahmajyoti. This theory then > logically concludes that the jivatma comes from an > impersonal origin, when that is clearly against what > Srila Prabhupada said: "Because he falls down from > brahma-sayujya, he thinks that may be his origin, but > he does not remember that before that even he was with > Krsna". That is not a problem with the no-fall theory, because the mainstream no-fall proponents make no such contention. Their position, as best as I have understood it, is that there is no fall, period. Karma is beginningless. This is also the understanding of most Vedaantist schools, or at least of the Maadhva and Raamaanuja sampradaayas. There is nothing "maayaavaada" about it. regards, -K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2001 Report Share Posted November 29, 2001 achintya, "Hari Krishna Susarla" <krishna@a...> wrote: > Hare Krishna! Jaya Prabhupada! >> No, this is not exactly correct. There are actually several different versions of the no-fall point of view, of which #2 is only one (and not even a very mainstream one at that). << Well I did say that my understanding of this subject is minimal. However I am enjoying these discussions and have read up on all the relevant literature that is available to me, on and offline. So I think my understanding can be slightly better at this point. Also, most of what I stated in the original mail was not really my words, but was passed on from the EXCELLENT papers that have been published by the Vaishnava Foundation. These papers establish that Srila Prabhupada preached the fall position, and also offers explanations for the no-fall position. I must also admit that I do have an special interest here as I am wanting to discuss another topic that is related to this. Perhaps it is Krishna's doing that perhaps we can first establish the origin of jivas before I can discuss the nature of of the five rasas in relation to Krishna. >> The main no-fall vaadi's position is that the jiivas did not "fall" from the spiritual world, period. This is, I believe, the position of the authors of _In Vaikuntha, Not Even the Leaves Fall_ (I don't know personally, since I never read it, but have only heard second hand). << Neither have I. All I know of it is from selected quotes contained in the OOP book (GBC-endorsed book, Our Original Position). As far as I can glean, the no-fall vaadis make this statement based on pramanas from the previous Acharyas such as Srila Jiva Goswami and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana. There is nothing inherently wrong with that as such conflicts in Sanskrit terminology may ultimately be resolved, but the greater concern that affected ISKCON, BECAUSE of the publication of IVNETLF, is because the authors suggested that the previous Acharya's opinion was correct and we did NOT fall, but Srila Prabhupada ALWAYS stated that we DID fall because this was just a "preaching ploy." I will elaborate more on this elsewhere. >> 2.1.35 is the clincher. It asserts unequivocally that the karma of the jiivas is beginningless, thus rendering the objection of God's partiality useless. Since living entities only have karma in the material world, the implication seems to be that the living entities have been in material world without beginning. << Well I suggest that you purchase OOP quickly, as it is extensively proved within the text that "anadi" may have different meanings when used in different contexts. Apart from that, we have to remember that the whole *basis* of Vedanta-Sutra is in it's comprehensive statements that establish various facts about siddhanta. Of course the interpretations are different in each school of philosophy such as Advaita, Dvaita, etc, and that the *meaning* of each sutra has to be unpacked with the realization of the Acharya. In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, we have been taught that Srimad Bhagavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedanta-Sutra, having been written by the same author and is thus to be read as the natural commentary. Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu established this fact within Caitanya Caritamrta. Considering this, shouldn't it be better to discuss this matter of explaining the Vedanta Sutra through the means of Srimad Bhagavatam? >> ... as well as confusion as to what "originated" means in this context, since jiivas are eternally existing (see BG 2.12). << Exactly. We can know that the Jivas did not "originate" per se, but only seem to when we consider that those who did NOT get moksha (or whatever) merge into the body of Maha-Vishnu to "sleep" and are then cast forth again when the creation begins again. Perhaps this is the meaning of "originated." >> Almost all non-ISKCON Vaishnavas with whom I have corresponded have indicated that they do *not* accept a *fall* theory of any kind, based on their perception that such a theory would contradict vedaanta-suutra 2.1.35 above. In that sense, their position is more literal. << As discussed elsewhere, the meaning of "anadi" may differ according to the context in which is being used. There is no indication of "anaditvaat" is an absolute statement or a relative position, especially in regards to the Maha-Vishnu origination theory. >> The Gaudiiya Math would therefore seem to be in agreement with at least the Sri Vaishnava and Maadhva schools, whose positions I have at least a passing familiarity with. << It would be highly interesting to see what other Vaishnava sampradayas say on this point, and how they differ/relate to the Gaudiya Siddhanta. >> Now stop here for a moment. I have a problem with this sort of logic: "Srila Prabhupada preached fall theory and anyone who is not accepting fall theory is not following Srila Prabhupada. And wherever Srila Prabhupada preached no-fall theory, we can somehow assume that really fall-vaada is his actual position." It is not right, in my mind, to arbitrarily assume that either one or the other is Srila Prabhupada's position, and then proceed to ignore the evidence which substantiates the opposite viewpoint. << Well Srila Prabhupada DID say that his books would be the lawbooks for the next ten thousand years, but I think it's a little too finicky and fussy to suggest that ONLY his books contain "spiritual illumination". Although it is true that letters were written according to the recipient's spiritual advancement and even perhaps contained allowances to open leather businesses and divorce, this does not mean that the *spiritual advice* given in *other* letters is invalid. Are we to assume that because Srila Prabhupada wrote a letter that allowed someone to divorce, which is against spiritual advancement and varnashrama, then the spiritual advice that he gave in other letters are also to be disregarded as an "exceptional circumstance" that disregards spiritual advancement and varnashrama? This is *exactly* what the authors of IVNETLF are saying, that the previous Acharyas actually spoke the real truth that jivas do not fall, but Srila Prabhupada said that jivas do fall because it was a preaching strategy to attract followers with sentimental philosophy. Perhaps we can listen to what Suhotra Swami says in his introduction to OOP: "We pray that he [srila Prabhupada] mercifully bless all the members of his great movement, ISKCON, with the living knowledge of pure spiritual realization, Krsna consciousness. May his followers be unshakeable in the conviction that he has received the rarest and most profound power of transcendental illumination from his spiritual master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, and that this illumination pervades his books, lectures, conversastions, and LETTERS." [Emphasis mine.] Also, here is what the late Sulochana das had to say about the letters of Srila Prabhupada: "As I began my search through the letters, I discovered something higher than my personal marital problems that I knew I should share that with everyone. I discovered that Srila Prabhupada is no ordinary man. Of course, I had read all of Prabhupada's books several times over, the same as most of the devotees and I had even indexed a half a dozen of them. I knew without a doubt that Prabhupada had introduced us to a very pure spiritual culture in its entirety, and I appreciated that very much. Yet, during that time, I never fully appreciated Prabhupada the person. After all, I had never been able to exchange more than a few words with him while he was physically present. "So, when I started to read Srila Prabhupada's words in a form which I could relate to practically, I found myself moving closer to his life in a personal way. For the first time, I realized that Srila Prabhupada's vast intelligence was not like that of an ordinary genius. He certainly had a perfect answer for everything put before him, but, at the same time, he manifested a personality so magnanimous and forgiving that I had no choice but to utterly devote myself to him. Who else but a true saint could be so compassionate? His direct association through these letters rekindled in me the hope that I could also become pure one day. This was all very encouraging and allowed me to take up a desire far beyond revenge. I could see in Prabhupada's letters how a real saint deals with people on a personal day-today level. Anyone can write a book about God and attract a following, but to actually realize God and live like a true saint, twenty-four hours a day, in a predominantly irreligious society like ours-now I could understand just how very special Srila Prabhupada was." [The Guru Business, Preface] So it seems that even senior devotees such as Suhotra Swami, Hridayananda das Goswami and others, treat all of Srila Prabhupada's *spiritual* writings on practically the same level. Tamal Krishna Goswami even goes further to say: "We will concern ourselves here [in the article] less with Prabhupada's five volumes of letters, thirty-seven volumes of conversations, and more than sixty volumes of lectures - all of which have been published posthumously and are accepted as canonical by ISKCON's faithful." [A Hare Krishna at Southern Methodist University, p269] The reason why TKG seems to downplay the above-mentioned sources in the above quote is because the article in which he is writing concentrates more on Srila Prabhupada's books, and that is his business. I quote him like this because I find it significant that he writes how Srila Prabhupada's letters, conversations and lectures are also accepted as canonical by ISKCON devotees. So I think it is accepted by ISKCON as a whole to use evidence from Srila Prabhupada's letters and so on as a means of clarification while also considering the context in which it was written, and many GBC position papers and articles by senior devotees use evidence from letters. >> Why not develop an understanding that synthesizes both teachings? << Because that may be tantamount to spiritual prostitution. As I mentioned in my previous mail, I am not too keen on reading the writings and opinions of other Gaudiya Matha leaders. Why? Why well, because each acharya, every living entity in fact, has their own personal and unique spiritual relationship with Krishna. In the original Krishna-lila, everyone has their part to play to satisfy Krishna's senses. One may play with Krishna as a friend, another as a parent, another as a conjugal lover, and so on. Therefore each ACHARYA who is sent by Krishna to the material world to canvass to the fallen souls on his behalf, they too have their own personal and unique relationship with Krishna. And since they teach us vaidhi-bhakti (and possibly raga-bhakti) they will do so according to THEIR realization while at the same time not straying from the guidelines set by Srila Rupa Goswami. In any case, the point is that each Acharya teaches differently. That is why some teachings of the Acharyas may differ slightly. I remember reading a statement somewhere by Srila Prabhupada which was to the effect of: "If they [Gaudiya Matha swamis] say even one word different from what I am saying, you will be confused." I am assured that this statement does exist somewhere, and it is proof of the fact that Srila Prabhupada expected total faith and loyalty from his disciples. Also, there is also a statement by an unknown devotee that testifies: "Srila Prabhupada personally told us, in India, not to purchase any books from the Gaudiya Matha. Practically, he was almost crying. He said, 'You do not know the proper etiquette to your guru maharaja, but you should not seek out any other authorities. This is an offense.' He added, 'This is spiritual prostitution.'" That is why I say that it is "spiritual prostitution" to try and work out some way in which an understanding can be developed that "synthesizes both teachings." >> Otherwise, how is it any different from the no-fall vaadi claiming that the no-fall references are literal, and that the fall references are just quaint mythology for our temporary understanding? << Because no matter how you look at it, in any angle of vision, you can see that whenever Srila Prabhupada was directly asked about the issue, he conclusively stated that we have fallen from the spiritual world in no uncertain terms. This is a much more commonsense answer that is faithful to Srila Prabhupada instead of dispersed theories that it was just a "preaching ploy" that was employed by Srila Prabhupada. >> But ultimately, logic is not the standard by which we measure truth - it is the testimony of shaastra. << That's an interesting answer, Prabhu. Actually I did not mean to say "logic" in terms of referring to anumaana, but I was referring to logic in the sense of "common sense." It is "common sense" that Krishna is a personal individual. It is also "common sense" that we jivas are also personal individuals. Thus it is "common sense" that the theory of impersonalism cannot hold, no? >> I have a problem with abstracting quotes from them, almost invariably out of context, and presenting them as if they are shruti. For example, using the same kinds of material (letters and room conversations), I can easily show that Srila Prabhupada allowed his disciples to divorce, and to open leather businesses. That would not, however, be a true representation of Srila Prabhupada's views on these issues. << That's true. We've discussed it above. >> It would be far more revealing, I think, to see what Srila Prabhupada has written in his Bhaktivedanta purports. For example, what does he say in the Bhaagavatam verses describing the fall of Jaya and Vijaya? << That's true. I've noticed an abundance of "fall" quotes mainly by myself also, but I haven't seen any sort of evidence so far about the "no fall" position from Srila Prabhupada's books? It would be interesting to see what Srila Prabhupada says on that point. >> Sorry, no. The no-fall philosophers actually have it right in this case. They are interpreting "anaadi" in the context of VS 2.1.34-35 (I don't personally see how anaadi can be interpreted differently there). << Well that was a comment from an author of a paper by the Vaishnava foundation so I suggest you speak to him to get his take on it. Also, I also mentioned earlier how several evidences of the different usages of the word "anaadi" are provided in the OOP book, so I suggest one gets that book. >> That is not a problem with the no-fall theory, because the mainstream no-fall proponents make no such contention. Their position, as best as I have understood it, is that there is no fall, period....This is also the understanding of most Vedaantist schools, or at least of the Maadhva and Raamaanuja Sampradaayas. There is nothing "maayaavaada" about it. << That's true, but no one can deny that there is a party that states that the soul may have originated in the brahmajyoti, and this is in complete odds with Srila Prabhupada's teachings as they refer to an impersonal origin of the soul. Granted, in a previous existence we may have been monists and may have merged into the Brahmajyothi, fell down from there when creation began, so in effect it may be partly right that we "originated" from the Brahmajyoti, but Srila Prabhupada solves this matter by saying: "Because he falls down from brahma-sayujya, he thinks that may be his origin, but he does not remember that before that even he was with Krsna." So in effect we establish that there was "once a time" when we were engaged in a loving and unique personal relationship with Krishna, and we fell from that position due to misusing our tiny independence with a view to enjoy in quite the same way as Krishna does. Also, please note that my exact term was "covert mayavada," emphasis on the *covert*. Where did we come from? Did we come from the undifferentiated plane of impersonal luminescence? Sounds good, doesn’t it? It has a kind of intoxicating allurement in that you had no responsibility whatsoever for your current entanglement in matter. "Somehow or other". Somehow or other, you fell into this material world. Nice. And now you are told that you can go back (go *back*?) to the spiritual world, and you can never and will never fall from there. Not only you cannot fall, but even the leaves on the trees of the spiritual world never fall down. The purpose of bring all this to the fore is to ELIMINATE the various sides of the argument. As you so succintly put it at the beginning, there are various versions of this "fall" issue. Some say we fell, some say we didn't fall, and others divergently say that we came from the Brahmajyothi. "Unless one develops full devotional service to Krsna, he goes up only to brahma-sayujya but falls down. After millions and millions of years of keeping oneself away from the lila of the Lord, when one comes to Krsna consciousness, this period becomes insignificant, just like dreaming. Because he falls down from brahma-sayujya, he thinks that may be his origin, but he does not remember that before that even he was with Krsna." If you're in the brahmajyoti, you're not with Krsna in His sporting pastimes. The brahmajyoti may be a secondary origination for many or even most of us, on the presumption (verified in this statement) that many of us have attained that stage of liberation at some time during our conditional sojourn. So, on that basis, we may be inclined to that as our origination. However, our ultimate origination "before that even" was in a personal relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This above quote really covers the essence of the whole controversy and settles it conclusively--for those who actually have faith in the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, i.e., the philosophy of the Absolute Truth. In service of Gaura-Nitai, Sanjay ===== "Radha-Krishna prana mora jugala-kisora, jivane marane gati aro nahi mora." "The divine couple, Sri Radha and Krsna, are my life and soul. In life or death I have no other refuge but Them." -- Srila Narottama Dasa Thakura GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities./ps/info1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2001 Report Share Posted November 30, 2001 Hare Krishna! Jaya Prabhupada! achintya, Sanjay Dadlani <dark_knight_9> wrote: > Also, most of what I stated in the original mail was > not really my words, but was passed on from the > EXCELLENT papers that have been published by the > Vaishnava Foundation. These papers establish that > Srila Prabhupada preached the fall position, and also > offers explanations for the no-fall position. I must As I am not familiar with the "Vaishnava Foundation," I suspect that many others here are not, either. That being the case, it would be appropriate for you to discuss their arguments and evidence here, since the correctness thereof has not been established a priori. > the greater concern that affected ISKCON, BECAUSE of > the publication of IVNETLF, is because the authors > suggested that the previous Acharya's opinion was > correct and we did NOT fall, but Srila Prabhupada > ALWAYS stated that we DID fall because this was just a > "preaching ploy." I will elaborate more on this > elsewhere. I am well aware of this "preaching ploy" theory, and I would like to state unequivocally that I do not find it convincing. Rest assured that we are not arguing over this point. As far as I'm concerned, Srila Prabhupada discussed the concept of falling from the spiritual world, so it is true. My responsibility as a devotee (or aspiring devotee) is to learn the scriptural basis of such comments, so I can present them properly to those outside our sampradaaya who might question. I might remind you of Srila Prabhupada's own comments in the last letter which you posted, and which I might add, are spoken in precisely this context: "You should all read very carefully Srimad-Bhagavatam and Bhagavad-gita, and you should be able to answer all questions like this, and only in rare cases approach me. But it is important that our students must be able to answer all questions for becoming preachers." That says it all - we need to know the scriptural basis of what we teach, and not just repeat our beliefs on the basis that "Srila Prabhupada taught us this." That is Vaishnava epistemology. > >> 2.1.35 is the clincher. It asserts unequivocally > that the karma of the jiivas is beginningless, thus << > Well I suggest that you purchase OOP quickly, as it is > extensively proved within the text that "anadi" may > have different meanings when used in different > contexts. I *have* OOP, and I have read the relevant sections. Yes, OOP does demonstrate that "anaadi" can have different meanings in different contexts (like many Sanskrit words). But it does *not* demonstrate that "anaadi" in VS 2.1.35 has any meaning other than the literal one attributed to it by Srila Baladeva, Sri Ramanuja, et. al. > Apart from that, we have to remember that the whole > *basis* of Vedanta-Sutra is in it's comprehensive > statements that establish various facts about > siddhanta. .... which is precisely why it needs to be considered at the forefront of the evidence brought to bear. We can't ignore it on the premise that selective pieces of correspondence have explained the matter fully. If we really are bona fide Vaishnavas, then we must see something inherently wrong with the idea of using Srila Prabhupada's correspondence to take issue with the Vedaanta-suutra, or any other shaastra. If Srila Prabhupada really is bona fide, which is what I believe, then nothing he has taught contradicts the shaastras. Thus, if we find that a contradiction appears, the responsible approach is to address it directly, rather than evading one entire body of evidence. Of course the interpretations are different > in each school of philosophy such as Advaita, Dvaita, > etc, and that the *meaning* of each sutra has to be > unpacked with the realization of the Acharya. The meaning of Vedaanta-suutra 2.1.35, which asserts that we have beginningless karma, has already been explained for the Gaudiiya Vaishnavas by Srila Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana. It's called the Govinda- bhaashya. I think it not likely that any true Gaudiiya Vaishnava will take issue with Srila Baladeva's commentary. In > Gaudiya Vaishnavism, we have been taught that Srimad > Bhagavatam is the natural commentary on the > Vedanta-Sutra, having been written by the same author > and is thus to be read as the natural commentary. Sri > Chaitanya Mahaprabhu established this fact within > Caitanya Caritamrta. Considering this, shouldn't it be > better to discuss this matter of explaining the > Vedanta Sutra through the means of Srimad Bhagavatam? Great idea! So why are we instead quoting from personal conversations and correspondence that do not *specifically* discuss the problem verses? We need to discuss the relevant shlokas of the Bhaagavatam and relate them to what was brought up in Vedaanta-suutra. I already brought up Srila Prabhupada's Bhaktivedanta purport to the same, but so far no one has given me a very convincing explanation of its significance. This is what I mean when i say that we have to discuss *specifics,* rather than just trying to win the discussion by posting volumes of evidence. > Exactly. We can know that the Jivas did not > "originate" per se, but only seem to when we consider > that those who did NOT get moksha (or whatever) merge > into the body of Maha-Vishnu to "sleep" and are then > cast forth again when the creation begins again. > Perhaps this is the meaning of "originated." It is not clear to me if Brahma-samhitaa is speaking of a "relative" origin of the jiivas after pralaya, or if the "origin" spoken of therein is a sort of "creation" that takes place outside of material time. Comments anyone? > As discussed elsewhere, the meaning of "anadi" may > differ according to the context in which is being > used. There is no indication of "anaditvaat" is an > absolute statement or a relative position, especially > in regards to the Maha-Vishnu origination theory. There is every indication. Please reread the relevant Vedaanta-suutra and its commentary: na karmaavibhaagaaditi chennaanaaditvaat || 2.1.35 || na - not; karma - actions, acts of the jiivas; avibhaagaat - because of non-distinction; iti - thus; chet - if; na - not; anaaditvaat - because of beginninglessness. (The theory of karma) cannot (explain the inequality and cruelty seen in this universe, because when the creation first started) there was no distinction (of souls and consequently) of karmas. This (objection however) is not valid, because there is no beginning of creation. (vedaanta-suutra 2.1.35) This statement is pretty clear. I'm happy to post the commentary if you wish. Creation has to be beginningless in order for the objection above (the first sentence) to be refuted. I'm not interested in discussing the validity of the objection itself, since Vyaasa obviously thought it serious enough to reply to it. There is no way I can see that "anaaditvaat" can be only relatively beginningless. If it were not literally beginningless, then the karmas would have beginning, and the objection of God's partiality would again be raised. Also, I wrote the following: > >> It is not right, in my mind, to arbitrarily assume > that either one or the other is Srila Prabhupada's > position, and then proceed to ignore the evidence > which substantiates the opposite viewpoint. << .... to which you replied about Srila Prabhupada's books vs his letters. I think that you missed the point that I was trying to bring up *here*. My point is that one shouldn't ignore some of Srila Prabhupada's comments (like his statements about no-fall) in favor of other comments (such as those regarding fall). Nor should one arbitrarily assume some to be literal while others are figurative. These are the same "sins" committed by the no-fall parties who argue the reverse. > Well Srila Prabhupada DID say that his books would be > the lawbooks for the next ten thousand years, but I > think it's a little too finicky and fussy to suggest > that ONLY his books contain "spiritual illumination". > Although it is true that letters were written > according to the recipient's spiritual advancement and > even perhaps contained allowances to open leather > businesses and divorce, this does not mean that the > *spiritual advice* given in *other* letters is > invalid. .... which has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. My point is that those letters, each and every one, are valid instructions - within their respective contexts. To take them out of their respective contexts and generalize those instructions is extrapolation - they could be generally applicable, but the point is you are on shaky ground if you don't know the context. For example, what was the context of each of those personal instructions emphasizing fall-vaada? Was Srila Prabhupada writing to fanatical young neophytes who were committing Vaishnava aparaadha against Vaishnavas who taught "no-fall?" I think you get the idea. I'm not saying that fall-vaada is a "preaching ploy," or that it is not correct. I'm saying that it isn't the whole story. In this specific case, what I object to is selectively quoting Srila Prabhupada's letters which speak only of fall, and then parroting these letters as the complete siddhaanta, all the while ignoring his own comments in other places, such as the Bhaktivedanta purports, or the Vedaanta-suutra itself. > This is *exactly* what the authors of IVNETLF are > saying, that the previous Acharyas actually spoke the > real truth that jivas do not fall, but Srila > Prabhupada said that jivas do fall because it was a > preaching strategy to attract followers with > sentimental philosophy. As I mentioned previously, I do not to the "preaching ploy" theory. I also want to point out that "no-fall" vaada is much older than IVNETLF. The opinions of IVNETLF's authors are their own, only. Don't assume that because someone believes in "no-fall" vaada, that they therefore accept IVNETLF's presentation. I also want to mention that Achintya's rules specifically forbid ascribing opinions to other acharyas and books without quoting them specifically. This is meant to help us avoid the trap of misrepresenting other ideas. I personally have been trying not to speak on the basis of IVNETLF itself. Let's therefore not allude to what IVNETLF allegedly says unless we can quote its specific arguments. > Also, here is what the late Sulochana das had to say > about the letters of Srila Prabhupada: [snip] OK, now here we are really diverging. I have no doubt that Srila Prabhupada is not an ordinary man. What exactly does this have to do with the fall/no-fall discussion on Achintya? Already it has been brought up that VS 2.1.35 and SB 7.2.35 purport seem to disagree with "fall" vaada. So how does glorifying Srila Prabhupada address that? Don't get me wrong - Achintya is the right place to glorify the character of any exalted Vaishnava, especially Srila Prabhupada. But this should not be done as a crutch to bolster one's argument. Stick with the shaastric evidence itself, please. > >> Why not develop an understanding that synthesizes > both teachings? << > > Because that may be tantamount to spiritual > prostitution. As I mentioned in my previous mail, I am You misunderstand me. What I am trying to say is that our understanding should reconcile both Srila Prabhupada's comments on fall as well as no-fall. That isn't "spiritual prostitution;" it's proper, Vaishnava scholarship. Also, I am not too happy with the multiple references creeping into member postings about the perceived unsuitability of going for instruction to non-Prabhupada and/or non-ISKCON sources. We need to remember that while Achintya was inspired by His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada and managed by followers of followers in his line, it is not, I repeat, NOT an ISKCON forum. Achintya is for all Gaudiiya Vaishnavas. Period. That being the case, it is not acceptable to offer Srila Prabhupada's testimony as stand- alone proof of siddhaanta; we have to be familiar with the shaastric basis of his teachings. Srila Prabhupada himself asked us to follow this standard, because it is the standard that all bona fide Vaishnavas follow. I again quote from the letter which you posted: "You should all read very carefully Srimad-Bhagavatam and Bhagavad-gita, and you should be able to answer all questions like this, and only in rare cases approach me. But it is important that our students must be able to answer all questions for becoming preachers." > Because no matter how you look at it, in any angle of > vision, you can see that whenever Srila Prabhupada was > directly asked about the issue, he conclusively stated > that we have fallen from the spiritual world in no > uncertain terms. ....except, of course, in SB 7.2.35 purport in which he writes: "Therefore it is to be understood that when Jaya and Vijaya descended to this material world, they came because there was something to be done for the Supreme Personality of Godhead. OTHERWISE IT IS A FACT THAT NO ONE FALLS FROM VAIKUNTHA." [emphasis mine] > referring to anumaana, but I was referring to logic in > the sense of "common sense." It is "common sense" that > Krishna is a personal individual. It is also "common > sense" that we jivas are also personal individuals. > Thus it is "common sense" that the theory of > impersonalism cannot hold, no? But the point is still that shaastra is the highest authority. Logic, or "common sense" can help establish the truth, but its validity is not independent of shaastra. > >> Sorry, no. The no-fall philosophers actually have > it right in this case. They are interpreting "anaadi" > in the context of VS 2.1.34-35 (I don't personally see > how anaadi can be interpreted differently there). << > > Well that was a comment from an author of a paper by > the Vaishnava foundation so I suggest you speak to him > to get his take on it. As I mentioned before, I'm not familiar with that institution or those who write for it. In addition to quoting their writings, you could also try inviting their members to participate here. > Also, I also mentioned earlier how several evidences > of the different usages of the word "anaadi" are > provided in the OOP book, so I suggest one gets that > book. But that still does not prove that "anaadi" in VS 2.1.35 means anything other than beginningless. > That's true, but no one can deny that there is a party > that states that the soul may have originated in the > brahmajyoti, and this is in complete odds with Srila > Prabhupada's teachings as they refer to an impersonal > origin of the soul. Later you yourself quoted Srila Prabhupada as saying that we fell from Vaikuntha into brahmajyoti, and then from brahmajyoti into material universe. If so, is there really a conflict here between this and that of the "brahmajyoti-fall-vaadis?" We need to know what specifically that party says. Do they say that brahmajyoti is the primary origin or the relative origin? Otherwise, we don't know for sure if the conflict is real or imagined. > Also, please note that my exact term was "covert > mayavada," emphasis on the *covert*. Where did we come > from? Did we come from the undifferentiated plane of > impersonal luminescence? Sounds good, doesn't My point is that what you described - brahmajyoti-fall-vaada, is not maayaavaada, period. Maayaavaada refers to the doctrine that the world is illusion, and that an undifferentiated Brahman is the only reality. If you want to be literal, then it really means the philosophy that the world is maayaa. However, most of us understand that to be a tongue-in-cheek reference to Advaita. Now how is falling from Brahmajyoti in any way related to Advaita? It isn't. The very phrase "jiivas fell from Brahmajyoti" presupposes the duality between jiivas and brahmajyoti which is not accepted by Advaita. For that matter, Advaita does not distinguish between Brahman and the brahmajyoti. Finally, we know from Srila Prabhupada's writings that jiivas dwelling in brahmajyoti have only a sense of oneness, not an actual disolution of their identity. The fact that they retain their individuality is also not accepted by Advaita. We need to use our terms like "maayaavaada" properly. Why am I stressing this point so much? Because: > It would be highly interesting to see what other > Vaishnava sampradayas say on this point, and how they > differ/relate to the Gaudiya Siddhanta. .... we aren't going to make Achintya inviting to other Vaishnavas if we label their beliefs, however nicely, with unflattering epithets. > Godhead. This above quote really covers the essence of > the whole controversy and settles it conclusively--for > those who actually have faith in the teachings of > Srila Prabhupada, i.e., the philosophy of the Absolute > Truth. I have faith in the teachings of Srila Prabhupada. But that faith will not mature into firm conviction (or "firm faith" as Srila Prabhupada calls it) if I simply repeat his teachings, parrot-like, without knowing their scriptural basis. That's why he translated all of those books. ys, HKS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts