what about it? & Fallible

[Guest guest]

Dear Ivar Prabhu,

please accept my respectful obeisances unto Your lotus feet.

All glories to Sr…la Prabhup€da and all other VaiŠavas!

All glories to Sr… Sr… Gaura-Nitai and Sr… Sr… R€dh€-Govinda!

 

> > As far as the jiva-tattva concerned, we know that there are two kinds of

> > puruas (souls): fallible (kara) and infallible (akara)

>

> Fallible here means perishable, or temporary, and infallible means

> imperishable, or eternal.

With due respect, I have to say that You are wrong. Let me explain,

please.

That verse from Bhagavad Gita speaks about puruas. In Sa‰khya, or

in philosophy in general, the living entity is refered to by that term, as

well as by the word dra˜ (a seer), and the matter, the material energy, is

called prakti or dya (to be seen). And it becomes still more clear that

the topic is a living entity in that verse, if one goes on reading, and

comes across the verse, where Lord KŠa explains Him to be the uttama

purua (the Supreme Soul).

Then, why the words akara and kara are used there? Because You

correctly say that kara means perishable, and akara means eternal. But be

careful with Sanskt. These two meanings are wordly meanings. From the

second chapter we know how the living entities are eternally alive. And the

perishment (kara), which is mentioned here, is the destruction of one's

spiritual intelligence. Please, compare with 'praŠayati' in BG 2.63. Wordly

it means 'he dies', nothing else. But it is funny, if Lord KŠa first would

have said it is eternal, and then says it may die. It is the lost of our

spiritual consciousness (which is life, indeed), what is meant here.

In this way, those who have recovered their KŠa consciousness,

they are infallible, and those who have not yet, they are still fallible or

may fall down.

 

> > Let us start with akara-puruas. They are of three kinds:

>

> The aksara-purusas are the spirit souls, which are imperishable. They may

> be nitya-baddha, nitya-siddha, sadhana-siddha, krpa-siddha or whatever.

> Within this category not only Bhaktivinoda Thakura's soul falls, but our

> souls as well.

Thus, according to the explanation above, Sr…la Bhaktivinoda

Th€kura's soul is not akara-purua, never!

 

> > Now, kara-puruas, who are a considerable majority of us.

>

> Ksara-purusas are the material bodies, which are perishable. Within this

> category not only our physical bodies fall, but Bhaktivinoda Thakura's

> physical body as well. Ksara and aksara have nothing to do with spiritual

> advancement. They are simply descriptions of the body and the soul.

Have You any €stric pram€Ša (argument), which would have proved

these words of Yours. How purua can refer to matter??? Impossible (a word

from a fool's vocabulary, but I am a one)!

 

> However, in your analysis you placed nitya-siddha Bhaktivinoda Thakura in

> one category and us nitya-baddhas in another. But factually our "fallen"

> souls are just as aksara, i.e. as imperishable, as his soul.

Don't speak (write) so fast, please. There is a Russian saying: "A

word is like a sparrow: once spoken, and you'll never get it back." I will

never feel myself being in the same category with Sr…la Bhaktivinoda

Th€kura, in no sense.

 

> Similarly not all present grhasthas married because of kama. Even we,

> conditioned souls, may want to marry for reasons OTHER than lust.

I had a disire only, to express how dangerous it may become for

someone, who is not strong enough. And (starting) reasons can naturally be

different, why not.

 

Please, accept my respectful obeisances unto Your lotus feet.

Your insignificant servant, Sergei.

Hare KŠa.