Fall, No-Fall, Doubts, etc.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

On 22 Mar 1999, Payonidhi Dasa wrote:

 

> I have presented you with 2 very clear statements one from Srila Prabhupada

> and one from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada that the soul was

with

> Krsna in His lilas prior to falling,one is the letter to Madhuvisa that you

> seem to interpret where there can be no question of interpretation.

 

I don't believe I ever addressed any letter to Madhuvisa, so I fail to see how

I could be accused of interpreting it.

 

The quote

> from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada is from SB 11.2.38 purport.

 

... which I subsequently read. A very interesting passage, especially given

that it does not explicitly speak of fall from Vaikuntha. The verse itself

speaks of the tendency of conditioned souls to see the material universe as

separate from Krishna.

 

The quote which I believe you are referring to comes from the last paragraph

of this purport. I quote it here:

 

***begin quote***

Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii Thaakura has made the following comments

on this verse. "Control of the mind is a result of living a life of devotional

service to the Lord. By the influence of fixed devotional service, the

accepting and rejecting mind can stop its thirst for sensory enjoyment apart

from Krishna. In transcendental Krishna consciousness there is no

contradiction, pettiness or lack of ecstasy. In other words, it is not like a

material object, which always proves temporary and constantly miserable.

Having forgotten Krishna, the conditioned living entity is suffering the

misdirection and perversion of his so-called intelligence. The living entities

are fragmental parts of the supreme shelter, Krishna, but have fallen from

Krishna's kingdom of spiritual pastimes. Because of forgetting the Supreme

Lord, they become prone to sinful life and turn their attention to dangerous

material objects, which fill them with constant fear. If one desires to subdue

the mind, which is constantly engaged in the duality of mental concoction, one

must take to the devotional service of Lord Krishna."

***end quote***

 

So according to the author of this purport, Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta holds

that the living entities "have fallen from Krishna's kingdom of spiritual

pastimes." Unfortunately, we do not have the original Bengali (or Sanskrit?)

written by Bhaktisiddhaanta to ensure that this is a literal translation of

what he said. Given that in ISKCON, it is considered acceptable to translate

Sanskrit words like "Bhagavaan" as "Krishna, the Supreme Personality of

Godhead," and "buddhi-yoga" as "Krishna-consciousness," I think it reasonable

to want to know what the original words were that Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta

used. You will recall that I was skeptical of the evidence presented from the

Gaudiya Math edition of Jaiva Dharma for largely the same reason.

 

Furthermore, this still does not explain how this view is in harmony with

Baladeva's (and Vyaasa's!) "anaadi karma" argument given in Vedaanta-suutra.

Merely proving that some of our aachaaryas have spoken of a fall is

insufficient; someone needs to address how this is consistent with "anaadi

karma." Recall that Vyaasa and Baladeva require for the karma of the jiivas to

be literally beginningless in order to defeat the objection that God is

partial and cruel. If one cannot reconcile these two apparent contradictions,

then all he can do is assert that the aachaaryas have been inconsistent and

contradictory, a viewpoint which I find distasteful and am unwilling to

entertain.

 

> The GBC in 1996 and 1995 made very clear that the souls do fall down from

> Vaikuntha,

 

But the 1995 GBC resolution clearly states, "79) THAT: 1. Vaikuntha is that

place from which no one ever falls down." Well, that seems pretty clear to me.

Perhaps you would care to comment on this.

 

and they strongly condemned the idea that some preach Srila

> Prabhupada did not mean what he said in his letter to Madhuvisa:that priviou

> to falling we were with Krsna in His pastimes.

 

I did not see this letter. I was merely referred to it, but I do not have

Vedabase so I cannot read the full text even if I wanted to. To be frank, I

attach less importance to what he said in room conversations and letters to

disciples than what he wrote in purports and what he translated. The bottom

line is, we do not know the context in which those letters or room

conversations took place.

 

> I will happily provide you with the place in the Paramatma Sandarbha

> where it is stated Anuccheda 47 verses 1 to 7.

 

For the sake of brevity, I will deal with this "evidence" in another, separate

posting. This one may already be getting too long to read easily.

 

The vers SB 11.2.37 is quoted

> :Bhaya dvitiyabhinivesatah syat

> "Whenthe living entity is attracted by the material energy ,which is

seperate

> from Krsna ,he is overpowered by fear.Because he is seperated from the

Supreme

> Personality of Godhead by the material energy,his misconception of life is

> reversed.Instead of being the eternal servant of Krsna ,he becomes Krsna's

> competitor.This is called viparyayo smrtih".

 

Where in this verse is "fall from Vaikuntha" even mentioned?

 

> There is various translations to this vers,but here it is clear he also

> formaly is Krsna's eternal servant,

 

That is by no means clear. The verse, along with the BBT translation, reads as

follows:

 

bhaya.m dvitiiyaabhiniveshataH syaadiishaadapetasya viparyayo'smR^itiH |

 

tanmaayayaato budha aabhajetta.m bhaktyaikayesha.m gurudevataatmaa || bhaa

11.2.37 ||

 

bhayam - fear; dvitiiya - in something seeming to be other than the Lord;

abhiniveshataH - because of absorption; syaat - it will arise; iishaat - from

the Supreme Lord; apetasya - for one who has turned away; viparyayaH -

misidentification; asmR^itiH - forgetfulness; tat - of the Lord; maayayaa - by

the illusory energy; ataH - therefore; budhaH - an intelligent person;

aabhajet - should worship fully; tam - Him; bhaktyaa - with devotion; ekayaa -

unalloyed; iisham - the Lord; guru-devataa-aatmaa - one who sees his own

spiritual master as his lord and very soul.

 

Fear arises when a living entity misidentifies himself as the material body

because of absorption in the external, illusory energy of the Lord. When the

living entity thus turns away from the Supreme Lord, he also forgets his own

constiutional position as a servant of the Lord. This bewildering, fearful

condition is effected by the potency for illusion, called maayaa. Therefore,

an intelligent person whould engage unflinchingly in the unalloyed devotional

service of the Lord, under the guidance of a bona fide spiritual master, whom

he should accept as his worshipable deity and as his very life and soul

(bhaagavata puraaNa 11.2.37).

 

Now, where is it stated in the verse that the living entity is "formerly

Krishna's servant?" What is stated in the verse is that the living entity

"forgets his own constitutional position as a servant of the Lord" (even other

Vaishnavas who believe in no-fall use such language). Even if one uses

anumaana to deduce from this that the living entities were formerly servants

of the Lord in Vaikuntha (which would be a stretch, because it is not

explicitly stated that they were formerly IN Vaikuntha), then how does one

explain the discrepancy between the translation and the word-for-word? Please

look at the word-for-word translation and tell me where you see anything that

directly translates into "... his own constitutional postion as a servant of

the Lord." The closest thing I can see is "iishaat apetasya," and "asmR^itiH

tat" but according to the translator, these simply mean "for one who has

turned away from the Supreme Lord" and "forgetfulness of the Lord." So to

summarize my doubts on this: (1) it is not explicitly stated in the verse that

the living entity forgets "his own constitutional position as..." - the

translator appears to have taken liberty with the translation to include that,

and (2) even if we grant for the sake of argument that "forgets his own

constitutional position" can be inferred from "asmR^itiH tat," it is a stretch

to go from here to the idea that the living entities were formerly in

Vaikuntha. One can "formerly serve" Krishna but still not be in Vaikuntha -

there are any number of devotees who practice saadhana bhakti who illustrate

this point by their example.

 

which is confirmed Jivera svarupa hoya

> Krsnera nitya dasa.

 

It would sure be nice to see the context of this verse, as well as an

explanation of how it is reconciled with the "anaadi karma" point brought up

Vyaasa.

 

If we where not Krsna's eternal servants it would be wrong

> to describe the soul as such.And why would Krsna create some jivas as

already

> fallen into maya?It makes no sense and borders to mayavadi ideas.

 

Would it be too much to ask that you make some effort into learning what

maayaavaadam is before proceeding to label anything you don't like as it?

Maayaavaadis do not speak of creation, period. To them, the whole appearance

of the world and the individual living entities is illusion. I think they

refer to it as vivarta-vaada, while our concept of creation is known as

shakti-parinaama-vaada. So the idea of the Lord creating living entities does

not border on maayaavaadam at all. It's not even a Vedic concept, given "nityo

nityaanaam chetanash chetanaanaam." The living entities are eternal; the idea

of their being created by God is a Christian concept. We say only that they

are emanations of His tatastha shakti. It is not exactly correct to say that

He *created* them, for that implies a finite beginning to their existence.

 

Which brings me to my next point -- no-fall vaadis do not say that the Lord

created some living entities in maayaa. They say only that those living

entities have been in maayaa without beginning. They can not be accused of

claiming that the Lord created some living entities in samsaara while others

He created in the Vaikuntha; in fact this is precisely the argument Vyaasa

rejects in His Vedaanta-suutra (which I previously quoted, twice).

 

> What would the soul be forgetfull of if he had never been KC??

 

I have already pointed out that one can be on the saadhana-bhakti level of

Krishna-consciousness and still satisfy both the conditions of formerly being

Krishna's servant and having anaadi-karma.

 

Or do you also

> think Vyasadeva made a mistake??

 

It is YOU, sir, who should be asked that question. So far, I'm the only one

here who even bothered to quote from Vyaasa. I have seen no attempt on your

part to directly address what He has written in Vedaanta Suutra 2.1.34-35, or

to address Baladeva's comments on those suutras. By repeatedly asserting that

the living entities fell from Vaikuntha (which is also in contradiction to the

1995 GBC resolutions, which you hold to be so dear), it is you who have

indirectly maintained that Vyaasa and Baladeva were wrong when they both said

that the living entities were in samsaara since beginningless time.

 

This is the idea or the mayavadis?

> The soul is seperated from Krsna due to his minute desire for

independence,and

> if you have a folio please look it up and there is many quotes in Srila

> Prabhupadas teaching to this fact.

 

I don't have folio.

 

Going back to Godhead also indicates we came

> from there ,otherwise we should be talking about

> Going to Godhead.

 

An unacceptable argument in any bona fide Vedaantic, Vaishnava school. Only

shaastric pramaanams can decide the matter with certainty.

 

Even Jesus Christ taught about the lost son,if this

> sounds familiar to you.

 

And the relevance of Jesus Christ to Vedaanta is?

 

Also the BTG in January of 1996 had some powerfull

> articel refuting this nonfalling idea.

 

If you were actually convinced that the article did what you claim it did,

then you should be able to explain the arguments yourself in your own words.

But we both know that, once again, you are merely relying on the fact that it

was published by the BBT as evidence that it says what you think it says. I

wonder if you even read it.

 

But since I'm feeling generous, I went ahead and glanced at the article, a

lecture by Srila Prabhupada entitled, "The Soul's Fall." What I found there

was VERY interesting:

 

***begin quote***

Many people inquire, "How did the living entity, who was with Krishna, fall

into the material world?" That question is answered here. The living entity's

condition is simply the influence of the material energy; actually he has not

fallen. An example is given: The moon appears to be moving when clouds pass in

front of it. Actually, the moon is not moving. Similarly, the living entity,

because he is a spiritual spark of the Supreme, has not fallen. But he is

thinking, "I am fallen. I am material. I am this body."

***end quote***

 

Now, please read the above paragraph very closely. It is not my wish to

embarass you or defeat you, but the fact is simply that the rest of this

article (if it follows the ideas mentioned in this paragraph) does NOT support

what you are saying at all. Srila Prabhupada here likens the idea of being

fallen to misidentification of the living entity with the material body. He

clearly says, "the living entity, because he is a spiritual spark of the

Supreme, has not fallen." In other words, he is not addressing the idea of

falling from Vaikuntha at all, but simply the idea that one has left Krishna

simply because he is under the influence of maayaa!

 

But please be a gentelman

> and stop making up some veird speculation that GBC supports the no falling

> idea,

 

All I said is that their resolution indicated that no on falls from Vaikuntha.

If the printed GBC resolutions are not enough to demonstrate what the GBC said

or did not say, that what is?

 

several members where banned due to spreading this mayavadi ideas.And

 

Is that supposed to impress me? As an outsider looking in, that sort of

statement is far from encouraging. What need would there be for banning if

those who relied on banning had the ability to prove their points with

shaastra?

 

> please get hold of a GBC resolution from 1996 then it should be no doubt

that

> you are mistaken about the GBC's resolution.

 

What about the 1995 resolutions? Or is it that those just don't count? Are you

of the opinion that they were misguided in 1995, and only figured out things

by 1996? I a more than a little curious as to how you can advocate obedience

to the GBC position when you yourself seem to selectively filter what they

say.

 

> Well try to give a lecture in any ISKCON temple that the jiva never fell

down

> and see how quick you will be asked to stop your socalled lecture.

 

Might does not make right. The mere fact that someone asks me to stop

lecturing on something does not mean that their position is the correct one.

 

Anyway, I never said that the jiiva "never fell down." I question the

assertion that the jiiva fell from Vaikuntha, when this contradicts both the

GBC and the Vedaanta-suutra.

 

> YS

> Payonidhi das

> I am sorry but you are very wrong on this issue,and this is to put it very

> polite.

 

Well, that is by no means proven. And merely saying that I'm wrong over and

over again does not make your cause a convincing one. If you were that certain

that you were right, it shouldn't be a difficult issue for you to provide the

relevant shaastric evidence to back up your case.

 

regards,

 

-- K