emanation & reunion

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Please forgive me if my attempt is incorrect to what you expected.

I send you some related topic to what you asked.

I hope to satisfy you a bit.

 

ys

 

>I must first admit my inept position of having NOT read the GBC position

>book 'Our Original Position'. However, I do wish to understand this

>siddhanta succinctly. In a nutshell, O venerable vaisnavas, is the

>following correct?:

>

> 1. Living entities in Vaikuntha DO NOT fall down, ever.

>

> 2. The brahmajyoti emanating from Sri Krsna contains unlimited conscious

> rays.

>

> 3. As a cloud sometimes covers a portion of Vaikuntha, so some portion of

> Krsna's brahmajyoti sometimes comes in contact with that cloud.

>

> 4. The conscious rays (or jivas) in that covered portion of brahmajyoti

> are 'marginal', having the free will to stay in sat-cit-ananda or exploit

> the 'cloud' (material nature, prakrti).

>

> 5. Having chosen to exploit, lost taste for exploitation and desiring

> reunion, jivas engage in bhakti-yoga to purify themselves.

>

> 6. Bhakti-yoga elevates the jiva ultimately to Vaikuntha.

>

> 7. Once 'back' in Vaikuntha, the jiva NEVER returns to the 'cloud' again.

>

> 8. Due to lack of time in Vaikuntha, the whole of (3 - 6) above, which

> may be 'countless lifetimes' in a material sense, is in fact no more than

> the blink of an eye.

>

> If this is indeed correct, then our original position would be being

> 'merged' in the brahmajyoti, evaluated as 'impersonal (brahman)

> liberation', attainable by Jnana-yogis.

 

 

 

Suhotra Swami

01-Nov-94 11:25

(Have) Danda (Will Travel) [86]

Discussions [620]

Cc: Kundali (das) ACBSP [599] (received: 02-Nov-94 14:15) (sender:

Dhyanakunda (dd) KKD (NE-BBT Polish))

Comment: Text ö:62429 by LINK: Prabhupadacarya (Dasa) VBD (ISKCON Campus

Jiva strategy

---------------------------

Did Srila Prabhupada Have a

Provisional Preaching Strategy

Regarding the Origin of the Jiva?

 

On the COM terminal in Sofia, Bulgaria, I happened to find

some saved downloads from the Philosophical Exchange

Conference. I am not a member of the PEC, nor do I intend to

become one. But I read with interest some exchanges made in

September on the jiva falldown question.

 

There is one point I wish to address. May the Vaisnavas

be pleased with me while I do so. I do not intend to

stir up again the kind of "flaming" responses and counter-

responses that were evident in the downloads I perused.

 

The one point I wish to address is this: the notion that

Srila Prabhupada's statements affirming Vaikuntha as the origin

of the jiva constitute a provisional, desa-kala-patra (place-time-

circumstances), preaching strategy. They are not meant to convey

the ultimate truth.

 

Recollections of ISKCON, 1971-77

 

I joined ISKCON in late 1971. Before Srila Prabhupada

departed from our sight, I travelled widely, visiting almost

all ISKCON temples in the USA and 4 in Europe. Twice I went

to India. During those 6 years I met and discussed

philosophical topics with many devotees. I saw no evidence

at that time of a provisional strategy that Srila Prabhupada

had to resort to, i.e. by telling his disciples that the jiva fell

from Vaikuntha even though it wasn't really true. While I

remember many ISKCON controversies from November '71 to

November '77, I do not remember any vexation over the origin

of the jiva question. It was a complete non-issue in those

days. I recently asked my Godbrother Aja Prabhu if he'd ever

heard any debate on this subject while Prabhupada was on

the planet, and he confirmed the same -- no. The origin

question became a snarl only after 1977, when some ISKCON

members began to take spiritual instructions from HH BR

Sridhara Maharaja of Navadwipa. That is when I first

remember speaking with devotees who were doubtful about

this aspect of the philosophy.

 

It is true that in Srila Prabhupada's time, a controversy

about the origin of the jiva did come up in Australia. That

is when His Divine Grace made his "kaka-tal-nyaya" remarks to

Madhuvisa Swami, who was GBC there. But I do not recall it

becoming a big deal in the US temples. We had other things

on our mind -- mainly, distributing Srila Prabhupada's books.

Prabhupada answered a few letters on the subject from

Jagadish and others. I did not become aware of these answers

until much later. They were simply not in circulation. Hardly

the makings of a much-needed provisional strategy.

 

I think many Prabhupada disciples who are still with ISKCON

will agree that in some respects, the mood of the Society was

much more innocent then than now. Any word emanating from Srila

Prabhupada was nectar, pure and simple. We were all falling

all over ourselves to lap that nectar up without questioning it.

Here's where the provisional strategy theory just doesn't add up.

If Prabhupada had declared once and for all that the jivas

originated in the brahmajyoti, I would have accepted it

without thinking twice. Even if he had declared that the

jivas originated off of Mother Yasoda's kitchen stove, I would

have accepted that without thinking twice also. No problem.

Likewise if Prabhupada had said once and for all that the

jivas were never in Vaikuntha. Again, no problem.

 

Now, what I actually learned about the origin of the jiva in

those years was, while mainly Srila Prabhupada said the jivas

were once in Vaikuntha, sometimes he said they came from

Brahman. At least once he indicated they were never

personally with Krsna before. (I'm referring to the following

quote. "The mature devotees, who have completely executed

Krsna consciousness, are immediately transferred to the

universe where Krsna is appearing. In that universe the

devotees get their first opportunity to associate with Krsna

personally and directly." -- from Krsna Book Ch. 28). But

anyway, NO PROBLEM. PRABHUPADA SAID IT. NECTAR, PRABHU.

 

I recall a different attitude among devotees then, than that

reflected in the PEC discussion of the origin of the jiva

now. Then, Srila Prabhupada's statements were simply not

subject to our tarka (logical argumentation). We were afraid

to speculate. In those days there was always an older

devotee nearby to tell you were in maya, Prabhu. So what was

the need of an emergency strategy to ward off doubts about where

we came from? In any ISKCON temple of that time you could hear

the phrase "Srila Prabhupada says . . ." 50 times a day if you

heard it once. Nobody cared too much if one "Prabhupada says"

seemed to contradict another. It was all nectar.

 

Insubstantial logic (tarko apratistha)

 

I'm not putting my hand on my heart for blind faith here. We

all want to understand Srila Prabhupada's instructions on a

deeper level, both for our individual spiritual progress and

for progress in our preaching. But, tarko apratistha --

logical argument is not the basis of that understanding. One

must follow the mahajana Srila Prabhupada. Thus the truth

hidden in his heart will become revealed to us by the grace

of guru and Krsna. Yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deva tatha

gurau.

 

I've failed to devise a logical framework into which every

one of Srila Prabhupada's statements on the origin of the

jiva fits, seamlessly resolving all apparent contradictions.

I admire the devotees who continue to put forward some such

frameworks. They seek the truth. But the logic of, "whenever

Srila Prabhupada said the jiva originates in Vaikuntha, it

was part of strategy to get Western people to have faith in his

overall message," is flawed. This claim is tarka of the most

insubstantial kind. Here's some reasons why.

 

1) Srila Prabhupada himself never suggested that he used such

a strategy. I think he would have said something about it to

at least 1 or 2 most trusted disciples. Prabhupada's vision

for his movement extended thousands of years into the future.

If it was a strategy, surely he'd reveal it as such to

someone for posterity's sake. He did not want the movement

he sacrificed so much for to go off the philosophical track

after he left this world. As explained before, the jiva

question was not a very contentious issue during Prabhupada's

time on this planet. It was not that he was being badgered

by this question day after day. It was not that ISKCON would

be ruptured if the truth came out. Most of us were ready to

accept anything Srila Prabhupada told us at any time. So why,

if some of his statements on this question were just provisional,

did he keep mum about that fact until the end?

 

2) We have no sastric information of a Vaisnava acarya

resorting to a compromise on the origin of the jiva in the

past, although Vaisnavas preached to Muslims. A book

entitled "Tatastha-sakti-tattva" by a follower of HH BR

Sridhara Swami argued that Srila Prabhupada had to preach

that the jiva fell from Vaikuntha because Western minds would

have had great difficulty in understanding the actual

explanation. If you know Western history, you know that

Europeans rediscovered their own Greek philosophical heritage

in the writings of medieval Muslim scholars. As a Semitic

faith, Islam shares many theological concepts with Judeo-

Christianity. Why did Prabhupada have to do for the Europeans

what earlier acaryas did not have to do for the Muslims? The

intellectual orientation of both groups is very similar

(nirvisesa-vada).

 

3) The plain fact is that apparent contradictions between

different explanations of the origin of the jiva just

didn't matter to most of Srila Prabhupada's Western disciples

before 1978. I think most were not even aware that there

were any such apparent contradictions. So why did Srila

Prabhupada need to adopt a strategy of compromise on a

philosophical point that we weren't thinking about anyway?

Of all the things that Prabhupada might want to compromise in

preaching to Western people, the origin of the jiva question

belongs at the bottom of the list. The four rules would come

first, so troublesome were they for his disciples to keep.

Why didn't he hedge on the moon landing? I remember more

controversy about that in the '70s than the origin of the

jiva.

 

4) What strategic purpose could Srila Prabhupada have had in

deliberately contradicting himself, saying one thing in one

place and (apparently) the opposite thing in another place?

That's not indicative of a strategy. The provisional strategy

argument just doesn't make sense.

 

I think the real answer is simply that the origin of the jiva

question is a fish too big for our nets, like the Matsya-

avatara.

 

Prabhupada on the origin of the jiva

before ISKCON

 

The BBT publication entitled Renunciation Through Wisdom

further invalidates the compromise-for-Westerners strategy

argument. This is a translated collection of Srila

Prabhupada's Bengali essays written before he came to the

West. Clearly, when Srila Prabhupada wrote these essays, he

did not have to resort to a preaching strategy aimed at

Westerners. He was preaching to Bengalis, many of whom were

well-versed in Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy.

 

>From Renunciation Through Wisdom we learn that the jiva did

indeed fall down from an original position in transcendence,

on page 37. "The Supreme Lord is absolutely independent and

can exercise free will over all; because the spirit soul is

qualitatively the same as the Supreme Lord, the Lord does not

annul his minute free will. The spirit soul unfortunately

misuses this God-given minute free will and falls into

the dark well of nescience and illusion. Once the spirit

soul takes shelter of maya, the illusory material energy, he

develops the material qualities of goodness, passion and

ignorance. The spirit soul loses his original

characteristics and develops a new nature, which is

controlled by the three modes of material nature, and this

continues until such time as he transcends them."

 

One might propose that Srila Prabhupada's above reference to

an original state, before the jiva's fall, means the

impersonal Brahman. But I do not find such an idea supported

anywhere in Renunciation Through Wisdom. In this book Srila

Prabhupada does not accept nondevotional inactivity in the

impersonal brahmajyoti as the original state of the living

entity. So how could the jiva "fall" from it? "Lord

Caitanya discusses in detail the jiva's eternal

constitutional position as Lord Krsna's servant and how the

jiva is put into illusion, or maya, when he tries to be the

supreme enjoyer" (Page 146). On page 147 he writes, "The

last word in knowledge is not self-realization or Brahman

realization. There is more to realize--namely, that the jiva

is the eternal servant of Lord Krsna. This realization is

the awakening of supramental consciousness, and the

activities a jiva performs in such consciousness are the

BEGINNING of his eternal life" (emphasis mine). I emphasized

the word "beginning" because devotional service is

simultaneously the living entity's beginning of eternal life

after untold births and deaths, and his beginning in the

sense of "his original state" before he fell into birth and

death. Devotional service as the original state of the jiva

finds support in other quotes from Renunciation Through

Knowledge. "Persons who act in this way become progressively

detached from matter and attached to Lord Krsna's devotional

service. Thus they are able to purify the mirror of their

hearts, extinguish the forest fire of material existence, and

become situated in their ORIGINAL, spiritual position." (Page

36) "Similarly, the soul infected with the material disease

should want to return to his pure, ORIGINAL state without

annihilating his individual identity." (Page 124)

 

Therefore, the jiva's beginning in eternal life cannot be the

state of inactive impersonalism. Inactive impersonalism is

simply a function of materialism that prevents one from

attaining transcendence: "The Mayavadi's unnatural desire to

deny the inherent characteristics of his conscious self is

the very same desire that keeps him from attaining

liberation" (page 147). On page 161, the same point is made:

"A few among them [impersonalists] may have a moment's

glimpse of transcendence, but end up concluding everything

backwards. They fall prey to the erroneous impersonal

principle." As Srila Prabhupada confirmed many years later

in a letter to his Western disciple Revatinandana Swami, the

impersonal state is already a fallen condition. What's good

for the Bengalis is good for the Westerners.

 

On page 149 of Renunciation Through Wisdom, Srila Prabhupada

writes about the real transcendental state in the following

terms. "In that state, one perceives Brahman, the Supersoul,

and the Supreme Lord as one. Such higher perceptions are

possible only when one's mind and senses are

transcendental . . . " In referring to "transcendental"

mind and senses, Srila Prabhupada surely indicates the

spiritual body. Similarly, on page 141, Srila Prabhupada

explains the meaning of sarvam khalv idam brahma as follows.

"Although He is the source of unlimited potencies, He

eternally exists in His transcendental, personal form. This

form manifests in three aspects, namely, as He sees Himself,

as a loving devotee sees Him, and as He is seen by His

competitors and enemies." I would rather let Srila

Prabhupada's words speak for themselves, but in case it

slipped by, that was a very clear indication that competition

and enmity toward the Lord begins on the eternal platform

in relationship with His "transcendental, personal

form."

 

On page 95, Srila Prabhupada states in clear language that

the jiva originates in Vaikuntha. "The Vaikuntha planets are

a product of the spiritual energy of the Lord. The living

entities belong to this spiritual energy, but because they

can reside in either the spiritual world or the material

world, even though they are originally spiritual they are

designated as tatastha-sakti, or marginal potency." Note

Srila Prabhupada's emphasis. "Even though they are

originally spiritual" precedes and modifies his definition of

"marginal." That cannot mean anything else than that the

jivas originally belong to Vaikuntha, which is "a product of

the spiritual energy of the Lord." Only because they can

make a choice between spirit and matter are the jivas called

marginal. As Drutakarma Prabhu puts it, it's not that

"marginal" means the jivas "popped out of the tata."

 

Back to impersonalism being the fallen state, and how one may

enter that fallen condition from the position of devotional

service: "A person who cannot grasp this subtle principle of

simultaneous, inconceivable oneness and difference of the

Lord and His energies will sure degenerate into an

impersonalist, or Mayavadi. He will be forced

from the path of devotion and become silent." (Page 79)

 

Another refutation of the notion that the jiva originates

from anywhere else than his rightful position as a servant of

Krsna is found on page 39. "Forgetful of this relationship

with Lord Krsna, the living entity falls into the clutches of

maya, or illusion."

 

Please note again that I am not so much making an argument

here that the jiva fell from Vaikuntha. I am arguing that

the claim that Srila Prabhupada said the jiva fell from

Vaikuntha just as a preaching strategy for his young Western

disciples is pretty flimsy. I base my rebuttal of this claim

both on my own experience as a disciple of Srila Prabhupada,

and on the above quotes from Renunciation Through

Wisdom, a book not written for Westerners.

 

Someone may entertain doubts about the veracity of the

translation from the Bengali into English. Let me just

mention that I spoke with the translator of Renunciation

Through Wisdom, Sarvabhavana das, in 1990 about the origin of

the jiva question. His opinion was that the conditioned

souls could never have been part of the internal potency.

Despite his bias, a very different explanation of the origin

of the jiva is discernable in the English translation. Safe

to say that this explanation is not the translator's own.

 

Quotes from Renunciation Through Wisdom can also be used to

support the other side of the argument. From page 36: "They

exist at a level of realization far above the impersonal

realization of the Absolute, for they are free from the

contamination of vainly trying to merge into the Supreme and

usurping His Absolute position. They never fall down from

this stage of consciousness." But it is not the purpose

of this text to go into that. I admit that Srila Prabhupada

explained the origin of the jiva from different points of

view. But I do not believe we can dismiss any of these

explanations as desa-kala-patra strategies. Some things are

just beyond our present comprehension.

 

Acintya means we must accept

 

"Acintya refers to that which we cannot understand but have

to accept. Srila Jiva Gosvami has said that unless we accept

acintya in the Supreme, we cannot accommodate the conception

of God. This must be understood. Therefore we say that the

words of sastra should be taken as they are, without change,

since they are beyond our arguments. Acintyah khalu ye bhava

na tams tarkena yojayet: 'That which is acintya cannot be

ascertained by argument.' People generally argue, but our

process is not to argue but to accept the Vedic knowledge as

it is. When Krsna says, 'This is superior, and this is

inferior,' we accept what he says. It is not that we argue,

'Why is this superior and that inferior?' If one argues, for

him the knowledge is lost." (SB 10.13.57, Purport). When

Srila Prabhupada writes "this is superior, and this is

inferior," the question of the difference between the nitya-

mukta and nitya-baddha jivas arises in my mind. Perhaps we

cannot understand all of Srila Prabhupada's pronouncements on

this matter. But we must learn to accept them without trying

to grade them according to our own weak suppositions.

 

copyright 1994

(Have) Danda (Will Travel)