what about it? & Fallible

[Guest guest]

Dear Sergei Prabhu,

 

Please accept my obeisances.

All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

> 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)!

 

Sridhara Svami writes in his subodhini commentary:

 

---

16. There are two beings (Purushas) in this world - perishable and

imperishable; the perishable one is all these creatures, and the immutable

(kutashah) is called the imperishable.

 

Now, what has been referred to in the text, "That is My supreme state"

(verse 6), that supreme nature of His is being shown in the three verses

beginning with: There are etc. There are two beings, perishable and

imperishable (which are well known) in this world. They are being stated: Of

these, the being called perishable is all these creatures (consists of

bodies beginning with that of Brahma down to immovable things, for the

ignorant commonly use the word 'person' with respect to bodies only). The

immutable, that which stands firm like a rock without any change when the

bodies perish, i.e., the conscious principle [soul] that is the experience;

he is said to be the imperishable being by the discriminative.

---

 

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

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

 

I simply said his soul is aksara, or imperishable, and that our soul is

aksara, or eternal, as well. What's wrong with that?

 

> 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.

 

He is an imperishable soul, we are imperishable souls. Thus, in that sense,

we are of the same category. As far as our spiritual perfection is

concerned, yes, we are not in the same category: he is a nitya-siddha and we

are nitya-baddhas.

 

Actually, today I read on the Krsna Katha conference that: "It is

interesting to note in this regard that both Srila Visvanath Cakravarti

Thakur and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana in their commentaries on this verse

(BG 15.16) describe ksara-jiva (or fallible jiva) as svarupa-vicyutir, i.e.

having fallen down (vicyutir) from his original position (svarupa) Source:

HG Gopiparanadhana Prabhu, who read the original texts of their

commentaries."

 

So although Sridhara Svami takes the ksara-purusas to mean the perishable

material bodies, these acaryas take the ksara-purusas to mean the

nitya-baddhas. In that sense we were both correct. Isn't that nice?

 

Your servant,

bhakta Ivar.