Fall, No-Fall, Doubts, etc.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

As much as I'm enjoying this, ummm, enlightening 'discussion,' I am planning a

trip to India and cannot keep up with multiple threads, especially when the

responses are sometimes full of completely irrelevant digressions. It does

amaze me that one can ask a simple question, and get almost anything as a

response except for an answer to the original question. For the sake of

brevity, I will simply summarize the points I have been trying to make all

along with these threads. The paranoid members of this forum are free to think

I am participating in some sort of anti-GBC conspiracy or whatever. I just

want to clarify what I have been saying, and what I seek answers for.

 

1) It is completely uncalled for to label "no-fall" vaada as maayaavaada,

speculation, etc. Maadhvas and Shri Vaishnavas do not accept the idea of fall

from Vaikuntha. If one wants to opine that no-fall is tantamount to mayavada,

then he is calling the followers of Madhvaachaarya and Raamaanujaachaarya

maayaavaadiis.

 

2) It is a double standard to preach fall-vaada while at the same time saying

that we should not discuss this subject. The pattern I notice from these

discussions goes as follows. Some ISKCON devotee preaches that we fell from

Vaikuntha. Then someone objects. This is then followed by the devotee

insisting that the subject is difficult to understand, and therefore it should

not be discussed (then why did he bring it up in the first place?). If it

should not be discussed, then one should not preach the idea of falling from

Vaikuntha, either.

 

3) The anaadi karma argument is given by Vyaasa in His Vedaanta-suutra. Once

again:

 

na karmaavibhaagaaditi chennaanaaditvaat || 2.1.35 ||

 

(The theory of karma) cannot (explain the inequalities 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).

 

 

Baladeva in his commentary refutes the notion that God could be partial and

cruel because of the living entities' different sufferings and enjoyment by

basing his argument on the idea that their karma has no beginning. If anaadi

simply means that it happened a long time ago, and not literally

beginningless, then that means the jiivas' karma did have a beginning, which

then contradicts Baladeva who is our own sampradaaya aachaarya! Merely

restating over and over again one's own views (or what one perceives to be

Srila Prabhupada's views) that the living entities fell, does not explain this

discrepancy.

 

The persons who have opined that I have misunderstood Vyaasa (because I am

allegedly "trying to understand Vyaasa without the medium of a bona fide

guru") have not themselves provided a compelling explanation that reconciles

this important piece of evidence with fall-vaada (which you would think they

would be able to do, assuming they had accepted a bona fide guru). Of course,

they have generously condemned me as being "anti-ISKCON,anti-Prabhupada,"

and so on and so forth. Evasive maneuvers such as these do not convince anyone

with even a meager amount of intelligence. They are merely the actions of

those who cannot resolve the contradiction (which is fine). But since these

persons can not resolve the contradiction, they have no business labelling one

set of views in a negative way while insisting on the correctness of the other

set of views.

 

4) (once again, for the THIRD time). It has been asserted here by Payonidhi

dasa that Jiva Gosvami discusses falldown from Vaikuntha theory in his

Paramaatmaa Sandarbha. I have the Paramaatmaa Sandarbha translation by

Kushakratha dasa (whom Payonidhi considers to be "in ISKCON" and therefore

"bona fide"). So I ask again, for the THIRD time, where exactly in the

Paramaatmaa Sandarbha is this mentioned? There are only two reasons I can

think for someone to constantly ignore this request for information - either

the evidence does not exist, and the assertion that it did was nothing more

than a fib, or the person making the assertion does not really know for sure,

because he never read Paramaatmaa Sandarbha himself. I would like to see one

of two answers to this question: either the verse numbers in PS where this is

mentioned, or a retraction of the original claim that this subject matter was

covered in PS.

 

5) The GBC has clearly stated in their 1995 resolutions (as posted by Vijay

Pai) "79) THAT: 1. Vaikuntha is that place from which no one ever falls down."

How does one resolve the idea that no one falls from Vaikuntha with the idea

that the jiivas can fall from Vaikuntha? Those strike me as mutually

contradictory statements.

 

6) I am not interested in convincing anyone of the correctness of no-fall vs

fall, or of disproving the GBC, or any such thing. I am interested in

stimulating deep discussion on the subject. To me, "discussion" means getting

everyone to *think* about the issue, not merely to fling accusations against

those who ask questions they are unable to answer. It doesn't matter to me

that someone is unable to offer the "right" answer immediately. I respect a

person more who can admit to being unsure, and is willing to consider the

various pieces of evidence.

 

I will not respond further to replies that are solely along the lines of "you

anti-ISKCON/anti-GBC mayavadi/rascal/atheist" etc. I will continue to insist

that the information I requested re: Paramaatmaa Sandarbha be posted here

(don't email it to me because I changed my email address to prevent spamming

from ritviks).

 

regards,

 

-- K